      The Americans with Disabilities Act:  An Examination
            of Compliance by State, Territorial, and 
                  Local Governments in the USA




                         David Pfeiffer
                  Hawaii University Affiliated
                     Program on Disabilities
                 University of Hawai`i at Manoa
                   1776 University Ave UA 4-6
                     Honolulu, HI 96822  USA
                               and
                 The Sawyer School of Management
                 Suffolk University, Boston, USA

                            Joan Finn
                           AIDS Bureau
            Massachusetts Department of Public Health
                        Boston, MA 02111
                               USA







                            Abstract

     Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
prohibits public entities in the US from discriminating against
people on the basis of a disability.  The term "public entity"
includes all state, territorial, and local governments and their
instrumentalities.  A survey was conducted to determine the
extent of compliance by public entities in the US.  Based on the
survey the conclusion is that the ADA is being implemented on the
state, territorial, and local levels in the US to a satisfactory
extent.







      The Americans with Disabilities Act:  An Examination
            of Compliance by State, Territorial, and 
                  Local Governments in the USA




     On July 26, 1990, the most comprehensive civil rights
legislation for persons with disabilities ever enacted in the US
was signed into law by the president. (Tysse, 1991)  The
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) extends protection from
discrimination in employment from the public to the private
sector in Title I, covers all state, territorial, and local
government policies, practices, and services in Title II, covers
public accommodations in Title III, and requires a relay system
in each state for persons who can not use the existing telephone
system in Title IV.  There are miscellaneous provisions found in
Title V.
     The ADA builds upon the previously existing mandates of the
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, the Urban Mass Transportation
Act amendment of 1970, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and later
amendments, the Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of
Rights Act of 1975, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons
Act of 1980, the Voting Accessibility for the Elderly and
Handicapped Act of 1984, the Air Carriers Access Act of 1986, the
Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act of 1990 which was originally enacted
in 1975 under the name of the Education of All Handicapped
Children Act, and other federal statutes.  (Advisory Commission
on Intergovernmental Relations, 1989; Bowe, 1990; West, 1991;
Tucker & Goldstein, 1992)  It is described as the most
significant civil rights statute for any group since the 1964
Civil Rights Act.  Judged by the amount of attention it receives
in the media and from employer organizations, it very well may
be, in the long range, the most significant piece of legislation
passed during the Bush Administration.
     Title II of the ADA prohibits public entities from
discriminating against people on the basis of a disability.  The
term "public entity" includes all state, territorial, and local
governments in the US including special districts, other
instrumentalities, commuter authorities, and AMTRAK.  Besides the
fifty state governments there are six territorial governments
consisting of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American
Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the North Mariana Islands. 
In addition there are 38,978 local governments in the US
including 3,043 counties, 19,279 municipalities, and 16,656 towns
or townships.  (Bureau of the Census, 1994: Table 3)  There are
also approximately 42,000 school and special districts which are
coterminous with the other local governments.  However, most of
the population lives in about 600 local governmental areas and a
dozen metropolitan areas contain about half of the people in the
country.  The responding local governments in the present study
have a total population of 46 million which is 18% of the
country's population.  The 47 states and territories have a total
population of 234 million which is 90% of the country's
population.
     All aspects of a public entity are covered by Title II: 
their policies, practices, and services including transportation. 
Public school transportation is excluded from the ADA because it
is covered by another federal statute.  Employment by public
entities is covered by Title I and by implication in Title II. 
Programs must be accessible under Title II although not all
existing facilities must be.  Public accommodations, including
the ones owned or operated by public entities, are covered in
Title III and must be accessible.  Title IV requires that in each
state and territory relay services for hearing impaired and
speech impaired individuals be provided.  And the ADA provides
legal defenses against the charge of discrimination including
undue hardship and feasibility.
     The ADA requires that all public entities with 50 or more
employees designate an ADA coordinator and establish an internal
grievance procedure to resolve complaints.  All state,
territorial, and local governments were required to conduct a
self-evaluation of their policies, practices, and services to
identify any policy or practice which is discriminatory.  An
opportunity for persons with disabilities to comment on the self-
evaluation was required.  Necessary architectural modifications
to come into compliance had to be contained in a transition plan
along with a schedule of when they are to be done.  
     Some persons met the passage of the ADA with optimism
(Macurdy, 1991); others viewed it as a challenge (Hunsicker,
1990; Kerner, 1991); still others pointed out its limitations,
such as exemptions of the federal judiciary (Tucker, 1991); and
it was called a full employment act for lawyers (Barnard, 1990). 
Some persons opposed the ADA as an intrusive and costly mandate
imposed upon state and local government (Percy, 1993), while
others viewed it as a necessary piece of legislation protecting
the civil rights of persons with disabilities (Pfeiffer, 1994,
1996b).  One of the most persistent questions heard today is
whether the ADA is being implemented and whether this process is
occurring in a satisfactory manner.  The present study intends to
examine these two questions.
                        Literature Study 
     The overwhelming number of studies of the ADA discuss its 
potential impact and key concepts without using empirical data. 
For example, West (1991) has chapters on various aspects of the
ADA and what could be expected in the future.  Other publications
discuss the definition of a qualified person with a disability,
questions that can be asked in employment interviews, existing
standards, accommodations, and other things.  Two studies,
Galanos & Price (1992) and Levitan & Pfeiffer (1992), discuss the
future of the ADA and its impact on state and local governments,
but they do not use empirical data.
     Pfeiffer (1996a) critically reviews 35 studies which use
empirical data.  They break down into studies which focused upon
people with disabilities, studies which focused upon employers
(primarily private sector), studies of activities by trade
associations, studies of governments, and a few other studies. 
Some of the studies present significant findings, but many of
them do not.
     Of these 35 studies there are six which examined the
implementation of the ADA on the state and local government
levels as well as in the private sector, on the grass roots
level, and looked at activities of federal officials.  There are
seven other studies which looked only at implementation on the
local government level.  No single study exclusively examined
implementation at the state and territorial government level as
does the present study.
Broader Studies
     One of the first studies of the implementation of the ADA
was carried out by the National Council on Disability (1993). 
They gathered data from a number of sources including
organizations from the disability community, nonprofit
organizations, covered entities, federal agencies with ADA
responsibility, the media, calls on a toll free telephone line,
and correspondence from persons with disabilities.  Hearings were
also conducted in Washington, D.C., and in San Francisco.
     The National Council's positive conclusions are that federal
officials are performing their responsibilities well, that people
with disabilities are following the educate, negotiate, and only
then litigate strategy, and that trade associations are trying to
help members to comply.  On the negative side the National
Council found that barriers still exist, that there is still a
need for information and technical assistance, that minorities
with disabilities are not being adequately served, and that
persons with certain disabilities are not being helped by the
current levels of ADA implementation.  However, overall they
conclude that the implementation of the ADA is a success, so far.
     The National Council on Disability again held hearings in
1995. (National Council on Disability, 1995)  This time they
covered all fifty states, the District of Columbia, and the
Virgin Islands.  Drawing upon this testimony the National Council
concluded that the ADA has had a beneficial impact:  greater
access, increased employment opportunities, more communication,
and more mobility.  They found that the cost of changes was 
moderate and that there was mainly voluntary compliance.  The
conclusion of the National Council was that the ADA has enhanced
the self-image of people with disabilities, that there were
positive changes in US society, and that there is beneficial
implementation occurring.
     The U.S. General Accounting Office (1993) conducted a study
of the implementation of the ADA in which teams visited 231
randomly chosen businesses and government offices in January
1992.  Each site was judged on over 400 features and 67% of the
features conformed to the ADA Advisory Guidelines.  In addition,
the General Accounting Office conducted a mail survey of persons
with disabilities.  Their sample size was 1,193 with a 64% return
rate.  Generally the survey results were in agreement with the
findings from the site observations.
     In another study by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(1994b) a comparison was made of their January 1992 with findings
during August 1992 (322 different sites) and April 1993 (276
different sites).  The mail survey was repeated in August 1992 (n
= 854) and in April 1993 (n = 726) and compared with their
results of January 1992.  Again, the mail survey results
supported their site observations.
     In this study (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1994b) the
percentage of features consistent with the ADA Advisory
Guidelines increased to 74%.  In 1992 29% of the sites had
removed a barrier and this figure increased to 55% in April 1993. 
However, half of the facilities planned no further removal of
barriers.  The report concluded that businesses appear to be
responding to the requirements of the ADA.
     West (1994) interviewed federal officials and observers of
the federal ADA implementation effort.  She found that effective
procedures were developed by the federal agencies except in the
area of enforcement which needed improvement.  She also found in
the federal government a number of appointees and employees with
disabilities and advocates in a network concerned with the
implementation the ADA.  Implementation activities by the federal
agencies is ongoing according to West.
     A part of the evaluation of the implementation of a statute
involves the persons affected by it.  In an attempt to gain
insight into this aspect interviews were conducted with 67
persons with disabilities nation wide.  (Pfeiffer, 1996b)  People
with disabilities on the grass roots level have a strong feeling
of empowerment from the ADA.  They see that it is being
implemented.  They are determined that no weakening of the ADA
will occur.  A small minority, on the other hand, feel that the
ADA is only a impotent symbol which in some cases made things
worse.  Generally, however, the grass roots community of persons
with disabilities views the ADA and its implementation as a step
forward which aids them in fighting discrimination.
Local Level Studies
     Of the seven studies of local government implementation, two
of them focused only on transportation.  The U.S. General
Accounting Office (1994a) studied 12 local transit agencies and
they reviewed 474 paratransit plans.  They documented problems
and uncertainties in the paratransit requirements.  Further, 
they found that the cost estimates for compliance were still
educated guesses, at best.  However, they wrote that ADA was
being implemented.
     The other study which exclusively focused on transportation
was Project ACTION (1994).  With a sample of 410 transit
employees (customer service representatives and coach operators)
and a sample of 194 selected riders (72% of whom reported a
disability) from seven transit systems they studied attitudes
toward public transportation access.  Transit employees were more
likely than the riders to say cost is a barrier to accessibility. 
The customer service representatives had a more positive attitude
toward persons with disabilities than the coach operators.  The
coach operators were concerned with the time it took to board the
wheelchairs.  It was concluded that implementation in public
transit authorities is happening.
     Isemann (1995) interviewed ADA coordinators in six cities in
southwest Ohio.  Implementation was rated on a scale using the
organizational location of the coordinator, the coordinator's 
commitment, the self-evaluation process, whether any advisory
committee existed, how the essential functions of jobs were
established, if these job descriptions were published, what
accommodations were made, plans for making accommodations, and if
the city claimed an undue hardship to avoid making an
accommodation.  None had claimed an undue hardship so the last
factor was dropped.  Middle sized cities (in terms of population)
she found to be more successful in ADA implementation than larger
and smaller ones.  She gave a possible explanation that small
cities did not have the resources and that large cities had too
many other problems to be as successful as the middle sized
cities.
     She then determined if the ADA coordinator was located in
the planning department, if earlier the city was in compliance
with Section 504, if people with disabilities were among city
employees, if the coordinators were sensitive in terms of
disability rights, and if the advisory committee contained any
people with disabilities.  A yes on these questions meant better
performance in terms of ADA implementation.  Middle sized cities
again performed better.  She concluded that large cities have too
many responsibilities to score well on ADA implementation.  Small
cities, she concluded, do not have the resources for successful
implementation.  
     Wilson (1994) conducted a survey of 91 managers of community
recreation departments in Michigan.  The department's mission
statement reflected a commitment to serve people with
disabilities in 66% cases.  However, a person with a disability
served on only 20% of the boards or commissions.  In-service
trainings on the ADA were held in 58% of the departments.  She
tested the association between saying that they were in
compliance and a number of factors and found low or no
relationship.  Her conclusion is that implementation is
proceeding in this part of Michigan's local government with most
of the managers saying that they were in compliance with the ADA.
     An extensive survey was carried out by Condrey & Brudney
(1995) of municipal government personnel administrators in all US
cities with a population of 50,000 or more.  Their sample size
was 334 and their response rate was 63%.  Over 90% of the
respondents obtained literature on the ADA, participated in an
ADA seminar, and appointed an ADA coordinator.  Over 80% of their
respondents had studied the ADA regulations, conferred with the
city attorney, carried out the self-evaluation, and evaluated
their job descriptions.  Discussions with a labor lawyer were
held by 42.5% of the respondents and discussions with an ADA
consultant were held by 35.9%.  The Job Accommodation Network was
consulted for assistance by 21.6%.  In over 80% facilities were
made accessible and in over 70% of the local governments there
had been ADA workshops.  Many of the respondents reported other
actions to accommodate workers with disabilities.  They found a
significant amount of activity by local government officials
indicating that the implementation of the ADA is proceeding.
     The Massachusetts Office on Disability (1995) conducted a
survey of municipalities in the state.  Their sample size was 231
of the 351 cities and towns for a 66% rate of return.  They were
able to compare some of the 1995 responses with answers to a 1988
survey for a pre and post ADA contrast.  For example, in 1988
sign language interpreters were provided by 13% of the
municipalities upon request while in 1995 the percentage had
grown to 57%.  In 1988 TTYs were located in 30% of the police
stations and 23% of the fire stations while 60% and 50%
respectively had them in 1995.  The percentage of municipalities
having a commission on disability in 1988 was 32% and 47% in
1995.  On the other hand, holding public meetings in accessible
sites declined from 86% in 1988 to 82% in 1995.  Yet accessible
town halls grew from 44% in 1988 to 57% in 1995.  Other findings
in the 1995 survey:  77% had an ADA coordinator, 67% completed
the self-evaluation plan, another 22% were in the process of
finishing it, and a grievance procedure was in place in 52% of
the municipalities.  There is evidence that ADA implementation is
occurring in Massachusetts.
     Procter (1995) is the only study of Title III exclusively. 
She interviewed small, rural business owners about access in the
three rural Montana communities with a population under 2,500. 
With a sample of ten, she found that small, rural business owners
in Montana agree with the principle of equal access, but they
also agree that society, not the individual business owners,
should pay for the changes.
     These thirteen studies indicate that ADA implementation
activity is happening on the local level with support from
government officials.  There is virtually no evidence available
from the empirical studies on the state and territorial level. 
The present study will present additional data on local level
efforts and evidence about the state and territorial level.
                      Implementation Models
     Before turning to the methods and results of the present
study, some discussion of implementation models needs to be
presented.  These models are often put forth by various scholars
as the way in which an evaluation of the implementation of the
ADA can be made.  However, one characteristic is shared by all of
them:  they use past data gathered after the implementation is
complete and reflect, after the fact, what is necessary for
successful implementation. (Watson, 1994)  The studies using
these models avoid making the contemporary judgment of whether
the policy is being implemented and whether the implementation is
sufficient.  These two questions the present study seeks to
answer so these implementation models are not too valuable except
as general guides.
     There are various models to be found.  Mazmanian & Sabatier
(1983) present the classic overview of them.  Three factors are
usually cited as the backbone of implementation analyses: 
respect for legal intent, public administrators views of rational
behavior, and the development of consensus within implementing
agencies and the external political system.  Other models include
an examination of both the macro and the micro-level
implementation efforts. (Van Meter and Van Horn, 1975; Weatherly
& Lipsky, 1977; Mazmanian & Sabatier, 1983; Percy, 1989)  
     In the long run, however, changing socio-economic conditions
and the ability of constituency groups to intervene effectively
in the implementation process may be the most important factors. 
It is clear that the implementation process is complex and
involves multiple steps.  Each implementation is characterized by
a distinct set of problems, opportunities, and constraints. 
Moreover, the process revolves around a complicated cast of
actors who also have individual perspectives and interests. 
     These actors, as Altman & Barnartt (1993) point out, are
moral entrepreneurs (persons who seek the establishment of policy
for moral, non-personal reasons) and "constituents" or stake
holders (persons with a stake in the policy).  Although they do
not say so, it is possible for a person to be both a moral
entrepreneur and a stake holder.  Together these two types of
actors, according to Altman & Barnartt (1993), were responsible
for the passage of the ADA.  Now, they say, the focus is on the
implementation with similar actors.  
     All of these models of the implementation process (except
for Altman & Barnartt, 1993) have major problems.  Many of the
important factors set forth are difficult to operationalize and
they do not specify which variables are controlled by various
actors as well as the relationship between the variables.  While
retrospectively they can point to factors which probably
influenced the process, they can not provide answers to the
questions being asked now about the ADA.
     Following Altman & Barnartt (1993) this study asks two
questions.  The first question to be asked concerns access.  By
limiting the effect of discrimination the ADA and other statutes
intend to create equal access to employment, housing,
transportation, education, public facilities, and public
services.  Consequently the first question asks:  is there access
in these areas where public entities are concerned?  The second
question concerns the reaction by the moral entrepreneurs and the
stake holders to what has happened in ADA implementation.  The
second question is whether the implementation by public entities
is sufficient.  To analyze the implementation of the ADA these
questions have to be asked of the moral entrepreneurs and of the
stake holders inside and outside of the state, territorial, and
local governments.
     Based upon the previously discussed empirical studies it is
clear that ADA implementation activities are occurring on the
local government level.  Further support of this statement will
be presented in this study.  The question of state and
territorial level activities remains to be answered, but it will
be by this study.  The second question of sufficiency of activity
will also be examined.
                        The Present Study
     In order to obtain data with which to evaluate the
implementation of the ADA a mail survey was conducted of chief
executives and officials responsible for the ADA on the state,
territorial, and local government levels.  In a mail survey it is
troublesome to ask questions such as whether facilities are fully
accessible.  The respondents will naturally tend to answer in the
affirmative, but only on-site inspection can determine the
accuracy of such a response.  Surrogate questions must be used in
order to indicate trends as was done in this study.  By asking if
an access survey had been carried out it will give the respondent
the opportunity to answer a truthful negative without feeling
uneasy.
Local Governments
     In January 1994 2500 questionnaires were sent out to local
governments.  One thousand address labels were used from the
National League of Cities, 1000 labels were used from the
National Association of Towns and Townships, and 500 labels were
used from the International City Management Association.  In
addition, the District of Columbia was included in the local
government survey since it functions more like a local government
than the other territories.  By June 1994 there were 841 (34%)
returns.  This sample size gives a sampling error of +/- 3.5%
which means the actual percentage might be 3.5% higher or lower
or anywhere in between.   Earlier versions of the findings were
reported in Pfeiffer & Finn (1995) and Finn & Pfeiffer
(forthcoming).  
     One of the criticisms of research on local governments is
that the very small ones are left out of the sample.  The present
study's sample contains a number of them.  The smallest local
government had a population of 30 and eleven more had populations
under 100.  There were 37 with populations less than 500.  A
third of the sample had populations of 5000 or less.  The largest
local government had a population of 2,000,000.  The mean
population of the local governments responding was 48,976 with a
standard deviation of 145,882.  
     The questionnaire asked if the local government currently
had a 504 compliance officer and/or an ADA coordinator and 65.2%
of the sample answered in the affirmative.  It then asked if the
local government had a committee or commission on disability and
42.3% answered yes.  Of the local governments which did not have
a committee or commission 15.2% said that they had plans for
establishing one.
                     [Table One about here]
     Some questions were asked to determine knowledge and
awareness.  First, it was asked if they worked with a state
agency in order to provide technical assistance on the ADA and
39.5% said yes.  Next it was asked if their state had an office
on disabilities which assisted local governments and 38.4%
answered yes.  This figure is low because every state has at
least one office which offers ADA assistance, but 51.6% said they
did not know or did not answer.  Of the respondents who answered
yes, 77.1% gave a name, address, or phone number.  Although less
than 40% of the local officials reported that they worked with a
state office, over three quarters of the officials who reported
that they did gave a name, address, or phone number.
     As Table One shows a self-evaluation plan, which is required
of all local governments and which must involve persons with
disabilities, was completed by 69.5% of the sample with persons
with disabilities involved in the process in 62.3% of the local
governments.  And 65.7% of the local governments had completed a
transition plan or it was in process, but it was not required of
all of them.  One local official said that they had not yet
completed their self-evaluation plan because they had not yet
received it.
     The next set of questions concerned the accessibility of
local government buildings or facilities.  Again it was felt that
a yes/no question about accessible facilities would produce
automatic affirmative responses.  Therefore, the respondent was
asked if the facility had been surveyed for accessibility.  While
not a perfect surrogate question, it tends to avoid automatic yes
answers.  Recognizing that some of the facilities did not exist
in some local government jurisdictions or if they existed they
were under another government, the respondents had the chance to
answer "not applicable."
                     [Table Two about here]
     As Table Two indicates, 90% or more (with one exception) of
the public facilities had undergone an access survey.  The one
exception is the schools and that was 88.1%.  There is no
guarantee that the buildings were brought into compliance after
the survey, but there is a clear trend that access is of concern
to public officials.
     Table Two also contains information about the location of a 
TTY in public facilities.  Except for police stations (and that
figure is low compared to other forms of access in the previous
question) the percentages are very low.  The Deaf Community in
the US targeted police stations in the late 1980s as a place
which had to have a TTY for safety purposes.  This higher figure
for them shows some success.
     The next question was designed to separate the really
concerned and knowledgeable local governments from the rest. 
They were asked if the local government provided sign language
interpreters for public meetings upon request and 64.9% answered
yes.  Again it reflects some successes for the Deaf Community.
     In order to determine how active the local governments were
it was asked if the personnel department had taken any of a
number of steps to comply with the ADA.  As Table Three shows
almost two-thirds of the local governments had carried out
changes in their job applications as required by the ADA.  It
could be that the other lower percentages are due to not being
confronted with the request.
                    [Table Three about here]
     Questions were then asked about ADA complaints and it was
found that 13.6% of the local governments had faced an ADA
complaint.  The number of complaints per locality ranged from
zero to sixty with most being less than four.  About half of the
local governments which had faced a complaint reported only one. 
By far the largest single category of complaints concerned
employment (6.5%) as Table Four indicates although the total for
various types of lack of physical accessibility adds up to 10.7%.
                     [Table Four about here]
     In response to the question whether the local government had
taken steps to solve problems associated with the complaints,
only seven of the local governments answered in the negative. 
Generally the respondents indicated that they did a number of
things to resolve the complaint as Table Five indicates.  The
most frequent activity was a physical modification.
                     [Table Five about here]
     There are resources available to the local governments from
the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the US
Department of Justice (DOJ), the Regional Disability and Business
Technical Assistance Centers (DBTAC), and the President's
Committee on the Employment of People with Disabilities which
funds the Job Accommodation Network (JAN).  As Table Six shows,
57.2% of them had used the technical assistance manual developed
by the EEOC to give assistance with the employment provisions of
the ADA; 49.9% had used the Title II Technical Assistance Manual
developed by the DOJ.  A Regional DBTAC was consulted for
assistance in complying with the ADA by 15.4%.  (One respondent
stated that he/she did not believe such an entity existed.)  And
10.4% had contacted JAN to develop programs or to resolve current
or potential problems.  
                     [Table Six about here]
     One of the questions to be resolved is what might encourage
the implementation of the ADA by local governments.  It seems
reasonable that having an ADA coordinator made things happen so a
series of hypothesis were tested by constructing cross tabulation
tables using a chi square statistical significance level of 0.05
and the gamma statistic.  In almost all cases there was a
statistically significant relationship between having an ADA
coordinator and carrying out the activity.  There was also a
moderate to strong association (as measured by the gamma) between
having an ADA coordinator and almost all of the activities. 
Obviously, as one would expect, an ADA coordinator does
facilitate the carrying out of ADA implementation activities.  
     In order to study the overall amount of activity an
implementation index score was calculated for each local
government using the activities they said they had done.  The
score could range from zero (which 15 local governments scored
having done nothing in terms of implementation) to 27 (which no
local governments scored).  Four local governments scored 24.  
The mean score for the implementation index was 11.25 (standard
deviation of 6.55) and the median was 12.00.      
     A number of correlations were calculated between different
variables and the index.  Most of them were not statistically
significant at the 0.05 level and almost all that were had very
small levels of association.  However, there is often a
multivariate relationship in complex cases such as
implementation.  The ordinary least squares regression procedure
is a convenient and easily understood way to express multivariate
relationships.  Several models were tested using regression
through the origin and using pairwise deletion of missing values. 
The best model found was:
     Y = 0.24POP + 0.21STPOP + 0.54COORD
     R Square = 0.63   SE = 7.95   F = 136.88  Signif F < 0.00005
In other words, the larger the municipality (POP) in terms of
population and the larger the state (STPOP) in terms of
population the higher the implementation index score which means
more implementation activities occurred.  Regression controls for
the influence of one variable upon another so these two variables
have independent contributions to the number of implementation
activities.  In fact, using Pearson's r the correlation between
the two variables was not statistically significant (p = 0.09)
and had a low association (r = 0.09).
     As expected, however, the existence of an ADA coordinator
(COORD) has the greatest influence.  The variable COORD is a
dummy variable coded one for the existence of an ADA coordinator
and zero for the lack of one.  In large local governments, in
large states, and where an ADA coordinator is to be found, the
ADA is being implemented on the local level.  The model explains
63% of the variance in the implementation activity index.
     This finding is significant in a theoretical sense for
future research and is significant for the moral entrepreneurs
and stake holders who are active in the implementation of the
ADA.  Contrary to Iseman (1995), who had a very small sample, the
larger the public entity the more implementation activities are
happening.  Probably the larger municipalities and the larger
states have more resources to devote to them.  Most important,
however, is the existence of an ADA coordinator.  It is suggested
in conversations with moral entrepreneurs and stake holders that
many ADA coordinators are appointed as a sop to the disability
community and that their main job is to keep people with
disabilities quiet.  This research demonstrates the opposite is
true.  An ADA coordinator on the local level means that
implementation is proceeding.
     On the other hand, it was very disconcerting to discover -
from their comments on the questionnaires - that many chief
elected officials were appallingly ignorant of the ADA.  Of
course they are not the only persons in the US ignorant about
important civil rights statutes.  In addition many small town
officials say that they have no people with disabilities in their
municipality and therefore the ADA does not apply.  Again, this
response is typical in the US.
State and Territorial Governments
     In order to study the implementation of the ADA by state and
territorial governments 55 questionnaires were sent out in
January 1994 to previously identified officials concerned with
the ADA.  (The District of Columbia was treated as a local
government.)  There were 47 returned by June 1994 for a 86%
return rate.  With such a high return rate the sampling error is
low, but with such a small population it is difficult to estimate
what it is.  The 44 states and three territories are shown in
Table Seven.
                    [Table Seven about here]
     Slightly over half (56.5%) of the respondents held the title
of ADA coordinator or compliance officer for their state or
territory and 6.5% were the directors of the office on
disabilities which meant that they should play a large role in
the ADA implementation.  Twenty eight (59.6%) said that their
state or territory had an office on disabilities which assisted
municipalities with the ADA, but 29 (61.7%) gave a name, address,
or phone number of such an office when requested to do so.  One
respondent answered in the affirmative, but did not give a name
and address when requested.  Two respondents answered in the
negative, but provided a name and address.
                    [Table Eight about here]
     Since all states and territories had over 50 employees, they
all were required to complete a self evaluation, but not all of
them were required to have a transition plan.  As Table Eight 
shows 57.8% had completed their self evaluations and 20.0% were
in the process of completing them.  All of the ones which had
completed their self evaluation and all of the ones which still
had it in process had included people with disabilities in the
procedure.  A transition plan was completed by 75.6% of the
respondents and 8.9% had it in process. 
     Similar to local governments the state and territorial
respondents were asked about accessibility surveys and location
of TTYs.  As Table Nine shows a high percentage of state and
territorial governments had conducted an access survey in their
buildings.  Again, this question indicates a trend of activity.
The same can be said for the placement of TTYs in offices with
the state police stations having the highest percentage with
state houses coming in second.  These two figures represent the
Deaf Community targeting public safety offices and the state
house which is the way in which they obtained the placement of
TTYs in public safety and other offices.  When asked if the state
or territorial government provided sign language interpreters for
public meetings upon request, 97.8% said yes.  Another tribute to
the Deaf Community, but also an ADA related activity.
                     [Table Nine about here]
     In order to determine further the ADA activity of state and
territorial governments they were asked if the personnel
department had taken any of a number of steps to comply with the
ADA.  As Table Ten shows a much larger percentage of the state
and territorial governments had taken actions required by the ADA
than local governments.  This result could be a statistical
artifact of the sample sizes or it could indicate that the states
and territories are more aware of the ADA requirements.
                     [Table Ten about here]
     Questions were asked about ADA complaints and it was found
that 72.3% of the state and territorial governments had faced an
ADA complaint compared to 13.6% of the local governments.  The
number of complaints ranged from zero to 37 with most being less
than three.  By far the largest single category of complaints
concerned employment (62.9%) as Table Eleven indicates although
the total for various types of lack of physical accessibility
adds up to 90.2%.
                    [Table Eleven about here]
     When asked if the state or territorial government had taken
steps to resolve the complaint, none answered no, but 17.0%
replied that they did not know.  As Table Twelve indicates a
large percentage (66.0%) took steps to solve problems associated
with the complaints.  Outside assistance was sought by 57.5% and
77.5% provided a reasonable accommodation.  Relocation of future
meetings to accessible locations was done by 57.5% and 70.0%
began to provide programmatic accessibility while 75.0% said that
they now provided ADA and awareness training and had made a
modification to a building.  Other modification were undertaken
by 28.2% of the states and territories.
                    [Table Twelve about here]
     There are resources available to the state and territorial
governments from the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC), the US Department of Justice (DOJ), the Regional
Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers (DBTAC), and
the President's Committee on the Employment of People with
Disabilities which funds the Job Accommodation Network (JAN).  As
Table Thirteen shows, 95.7% of them had used the technical
assistance manual developed by the EEOC; the same percentage,
95.7%, had used the Title II Technical Assistance Manual
developed by the DOJ.  A Regional DBTAC was consulted for
assistance in complying with the ADA by 75.6%.  (Two respondents
stated that they were partners of the regional DBTAC.)  And 62.2%
had contacted JAN to develop programs or to resolve current or
potential problems.  
                   [Table Thirteen about here]
     In order to study the overall amount of activity an
implementation index score was calculated for each state and
territorial government using the activities they said they had
done.  The score could range from zero (which one state
government scored having done nothing in terms of implementation)
to 30 (which no state or territorial governments scored).  Two
state governments scored 28.  The mean score for the
implementation index was 20.8 (standard deviation of 5.6) and the
median score was 22.0. 
     Again ordinary least squares regression was used to explore
the relationship between the index of implementation activities
and the other variables.  Several models were tested using
regression through the origin and using pairwise deletion of
missing values.  The best model found was:
     Y = 0.25STPOP + 0.75COMPLAINT
     R Square = 0.81   SE = 9.55   F = 90.73   Signif F < 0.00005
Like the local government model the larger the state population
(STPOP) the higher the score on the implementation index which
means the greater number of implementation activities happening. 
The variable COMPLAINT is a dummy variable coded one for an
negative answer (there had been no complaints) and zero for an
affirmative answer.  It seems logical that the lack of complaints
could result from more implementation activities.  The two
variables explain 81% of the variance in the implementation
activity index.  
     The variable indicating the existence of an ADA coordinator
was not used on the state and territorial level since the mailing
list was supposed to be the ADA coordinator in each state and
territory.  In other words, they all have an ADA coordinator.
                           Conclusion
     Is the ADA being implemented on the state, territorial, and
local governmental levels?  The empirically based implementation
studies indicate that there is considerable activity aimed toward
implementing the ADA.  West (1994) found that federal officials
had generally developed effective procedures to carry out their
duties in regard to ADA implementation.  She also documented
that, using the terms of Altman & Barnartt (1993), moral
entrepreneurs and stake holders within the federal government had
formed a network to support its successful implementation.  The
studies done by the Governmental Accounting Office (1993, 1994b)
indicate numerous activities on the state and local levels as
well as in the private sector.  Condrey & Brudney (1995) find
abundant activities on the local level with over 80% of their
respondents completing their self evaluation and having
accessible facilities, figures which are comparable to the
findings of the present study.  They also found that over 70% of
their respondents had provided ADA training to their employees on
the local government level.  This figure is considerably higher
than the findings of the present study, but perhaps it is because
Condrey & Brudney (1995) surveyed personnel managers in large
municipalities.
     Iseman (1995) found ADA implementation activities in six
municipalities in southwest Ohio although her results in terms of
size of local governments runs counter to the findings of the
present study.  Wilson (1994) and the Massachusetts Office on
Disability (1995) also found local ADA implementation activities. 
So too did the National Council on Disability (1993, 1995), the
US General Accounting Office (1994a), and Project ACTION (1994). 
The findings of this study strongly support such a conclusion.
There is no question that the ADA is being implemented on the
local governmental level.  
     The most important finding of the present study is that the
existence of an ADA coordinator on the local government level has
a considerable impact.  A person to oversee the necessary
activities and to deal with complaints (in various ways)
increases the implementation activities on the local level. 
Contrary to anecdotal stories, ADA coordinators do appear to be
furthering the implementation of the ADA in a positive manner.
     On the state and territorial level the ADA is also being
implemented.  The findings of this study give firm backing to
such a conclusion.  Over three quarters of the state and
territorial governments have completed their self evaluations and
almost 85% say that their agencies have transition plans. 
Attention is being paid to the requirements of the ADA.  Sign
language interpreters are provided by 97.8% of the states and
territories upon request.  Over 90% had changed questions on
their employment applications, provided material in alternative
format, and changed locations for interviews.  A reasonable
accommodation had been provided by 87.0% of the states and
territories.  There is considerable ADA implementation activity
on the state and territorial level. 
     Since the state and territorial respondents were supposed to
be ADA coordinators (whatever their title) there was no
statistical method to compare states and territories with and
without ADA coordinators.  However, the considerable activity
which is occurring gives support again to the effectiveness of
ADA coordinators.
     Is there sufficient implementation of the ADA?  For persons
with disabilities there can never be enough in terms of barrier
removal and the opening of society.  Pfeiffer (1996b), McGaughey,
Foley, & Ard (1994), and the National Council on Disability
(1995) found, however, that the stake holders (grass roots people
with disabilities) felt empowered by the passage of the ADA. 
They and the moral entrepreneurs wanted the implementation to go
faster, but most of them felt it was progressing at a
sufficiently rapid rate.  They would not tolerate any attempt to
weaken or repeal the ADA.
     From the empirical studies including the present one it is
clear that the ADA is being implemented at the state,
territorial, and local government levels.  The disability
community (moral entrepreneurs and stake holders) is keeping
watch on the process.  If it falters, they are ready to act.  At
the same time they are realistic and know that complete barrier
removal and integration into society lies in the future.


                           References


     ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS. (1989) 
Disability Rights Mandates:  Federal and State Compliance with
Employment Protections and Architectural Barrier Removal. Report
A-111.
     ALTMAN, B.; BARNARTT, S. (1993) Moral entrepreneurship and
the promise of the ADA, Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 4,
pp. 21-40.
     BARNARD, T. (1990) The Americans with Disabilities Act: 
nightmare for employers and dream for lawyers? St. John's Law
Review, 64, pp. 229-52.
     BOWE, F. (1990) Into the private sector:  rights and people
with disabilities, Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 11, pp.
89-101.  
     BUREAU OF THE CENSUS. (1994) 1992 Census of Governments 
(Washington, D.C.:  U.S. Department of Commerce).
     CONDREY, S.; BRUDNEY, J. (1995) The Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990:  Assessing a Model of Its
Implementation Success.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Political Science Association.
     FINN, J.; PFEIFFER, D. (forthcoming) The Americans with
Disabilities Act:  an evaluation of compliance by local
governments in the U.S. Forthcoming in the Proceedings of the
1994 meeting of the Society for Disability Studies.
     GALANOS, J.; PRICE, S. (1992) Title I of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990:  concepts & considerations for state &
local government employers, Stetson Law Review, 21, pp. 931-48. 
     HUNSICKER, J. (1990) Ready or not:  The ADA, Personnel
Journal, August, pp. 80-86.  
     ISEMANN, E. (1995) Implementing the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Society for Public Administration.
     KERNER, B. (1991) The Americans with Disabilities Act of
1990:  new challenges for labor and management, Detroit College
of Law Review, 1991, pp. 891-900.
     LEVITAN, D.; PFEIFFER, D. (1992) The Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990:  a compliance review, National Civic
Review, 81, pp. 143-54.
     MACURDY, A. (1991) The Americans with Disabilities Act: 
time for celebration, or time for caution? Boston University
Public Interest Law Journal, 11, pp. 21-35.
     MASSACHUSETTS OFFICE ON DISABILITY. (1995) Municipal Access
Survey (Boston:  Massachusetts Office on Disability).
     MAZMANIAN, D.; SABATIER, P. (1983) Implementation and Public
Policy (Glenview:  Scott, Foresman and Company).
     MCGAUGHEY, M.; FOLEY, S.; ARD, C. (1994) Implementation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act:  National Survey of
Individuals with Disabilities.  Paper presented to the annual
meeting of the Society for Disabilities Studies.
     NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY. (1993) ADA Watch - Year One:
A Report to the President and the Congress on Progress in
Implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act.
     NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY. (1995) Voices of Freedom: 
America Speaks Out on the ADA. 
     PERCY, S. (1989) Disability, Civil Rights, and Public Policy
(Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press).
     PERCY, S. (1993) ADA, disability rights, and evolving
regulatory federalism, Publius, 23, pp. 23-44.  
     PFEIFFER, D. (1994a) The Americans with Disabilities Act: 
costly mandates or civil rights? Disability & Society, 9, pp.
535-44.
     PFEIFFER, D. (1996a) A critical review of ADA implementation
studies which use empirical data, Disability Studies Quarterly,
16, pp. 26-43.
     PFEIFFER, D. (1996b) "We won't go back":  the ADA on the
grass roots level, Forthcoming, Disability & Society.
     PFEIFFER, D.; FINN, J. (1995) Survey shows state,
territorial, local public officials implementing ADA, Mental and
Physical Disability Law Reporter, 19, pp. 537-40.
     PROCTER, N. (1995) Attitude, access and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA):  the rural business owners' perspective
in Montana, Technology and Disability, 4, pp. 11-27.
     PROJECT ACTION. (1994) Attitudes of Transit Personnel and
Public Transit Consumers Towards Public Transportation
Accessibility (Washington, D.C.:  National Institute for
Accessible Transportation).
     TUCKER, B. (1991) The federal courts: exempt from
legislation, National Disability Law Reporter, September 18, 1,
p. 23.  
     TUCKER, B.; GOLDSTEIN, B.  (1992) Legal Rights of Persons
with Disabilities:  An Analysis of Federal Law (Two volumes;
Horsham, PA:  LRP Publications).
     TYSSE, G. (editor). (1991) The Legislative History of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (Horsham, PA:  LRP Publications).
     U.S., GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE. (1993) Americans with
Disabilities Act:  Initial Accessibility Good But Important
Barriers Remain.
     U.S., GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE. (1994a) Americans with
Disabilities Act:  Challenges Faced by Transit Agencies in
Complying with the Act's Requirements.
     U.S., GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE. (1994b) Americans with
Disabilities Act:  Effects of the Law on Access to Goods and
Services.
     VAN METER, D.; VAN HORN, C. (1975) The policy implementation
process:  a conceptual framework, Administration and Society, 6,
pp. 445-88.
     WATSON, S. (1994) Applying theory to practice:  a
prospective and prescriptive analysis of the implementation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act, Journal of Disability Policy
Studies, 5, pp. 1-24. 
     WEST, J. (editor) (1991) The Americans with Disabilities
Act:  From Policy to Practice (New York:  Milbank Memorial Fund).
     WEST, J. (1994) Federal Implementation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 1991-94. New York:  Milbank Memorial Fund.
     WILSON, S. (1994) An Examination of the Americans with
Disabilities Act in Community Parks and Recreation Agencies in
the State of Michigan.  Masters thesis, Central Michigan
University.


                         Acknowledgement

     This study was supported in part by Suffolk University and
in part by a grant from the National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research.  It is grant H133G20108, a Field-
Initiated Research Grant for the years 1993-95.  We express our
thanks to NIDRR and especially to our program officer, Dr.
Richard Johnson.  The opinions expressed in this paper are
exclusively those of the authors.



                            Table One
                 Responses by Local Governments


          Question                       Yes    

          ADA Coordinator                65.2%    
          Disabilities commission        42.3%
          Completed self evaluation      69.5%    
          Persons with disabilities
               involved                  62.3%    
          Transition plan completed
               or in process             65.7%    


                            Table Two
               Percentage of Affirmative Responses
                        Local Governments

          Facility           Access Survey       TTY  

          City hall                93.2%         41.5%
          Police station           94.6%         62.7%
          Library                  93.4%         37.6%
          Senior center            94.1%         16.5%
          Schools                  88.1%         14.9%
          Community center         94.0%         18.6%
          Parks                    92.5%          na
          Voting sites             91.0%          9.0%
          Court house              92.6%         32.5%


                           Table Three
               Percentage of Affirmative Responses
                        Local Governments

          Question                               Yes 

          Provided sign language interpreters    64.9%
          Changed applications to eliminate 
           questions about disability            64.4% 
          Provided alternative format            35.7%
          Provided alternative location for 
           interviews                            49.3%
          Assisted in providing a reasonable 
           accommodation                         39.0% 



                           Table Four
               Percentage of Affirmative Responses
                        Local Governments

          Question                           Yes 

          Complaints                         13.6%
          Employment                          6.5% 
          Education                           0.5% 
          Public meetings held in 
               inaccessible location          2.0% 
          Services or programs held 
               in inaccessible location       3.3%
          Did not provide programmatic 
               accessibility upon request     0.9%
          Other lack of accessibility         5.4% 


                           Table Five
               Percentage of Affirmative Responses
                        Local Governments

          Activity                                   Yes 

          Met with complaining party                11.9% 
          Brought concern to office on 
           disabilities for assistance               5.8%
          Provided a reasonable accommodation        8.1% 
          Relocated future public meetings, 
           programs or services to accessible 
           locations                                 7.1% 
          Now provide programmatic accessibility     7.3%
          Now provide ADA and awareness training     9.7% 
          Made modification to a building           11.8%
          Other, mainly physical modifications       4.9% 


                            Table Six
               Percentage of Affirmative Responses
                        Local Governments

          Question                           Yes 

          EEOC manual                        57.2%
          DOJ manual                         49.9%
          Regional DBTAC                     15.4%
          JAN                                10.4%



                           Table Seven
                States and Territories Responding

 
          Alabama       
          Alaska        
          Arizona       
          Arkansas      
          California    
                                             Colorado      
                                             Connecticut   
                                             Delaware      
                                             Florida       
                                             Georgia       
                                             Guam          
          Hawaii        
          Idaho         
          Illinois      
          Iowa          
          Kansas        
          Kentucky      
          Louisiana     
          Maine         
          Maryland      
          Massachusetts 
          Michigan      
          Minnesota     
          Mississippi   






                                             Missouri      
                                             Montana       
                                             Nebraska      
                                             Nevada        
                                             New Hampshire 
                                             New Jersey    
                                             New Mexico    
                                             New York      
                                             N. Mariana Islands
                                             Ohio          
                                             Oklahoma      
                                             Oregon        
                                             Pennsylvania  
                                             Puerto Rico
                                             Rhode Island  
                                             South Carolina
                                             South Dakota  
                                             Tennessee     
                                             Texas         
                                             Utah          
                                             Washington    
                                             West Virginia 
                                             Wyoming       
        

                           Table Eight
               Responses by States and Territories


     Question                       Yes      In Process

     ADA Coordinator/OD director    63.0%       na
     Completed self evaluation      57.8%      20.0%
     Persons with disabilities
          involved                 100.0%     100.0%
     Agencies have transition
          plan                      75.6%       8.9%



                           Table Nine
               Percentage of Affirmative Responses
                State and Territorial Governments

          Facility           Access Survey       TTY 

          State house             95.7%          82.1%
          Housing authority
            offices               75.7%          63.6%
          Universities            91.1%          79.5%
          Public assistance       
            offices               88.9%          74.4%
          Parks                   88.9%          55.9%
          State police stations   83.7%          84.2%
          Court houses            85.4%          64.7%


                            Table Ten
               Percentage of Affirmative Responses
                State and Territorial Governments

          Question                               Yes 

          Provided sign language interpreters    97.8%
          Changed applications to eliminate 
           questions about disability            91.9% 
          Provided alternative format            91.3%
          Provided alternative location for 
           interviews                            93.5%
          Provided a reasonable accommodation    87.0% 



                          Table Eleven
               Percentage of Affirmative Responses
                State and Territorial Governments

          Question                           Yes 

          Complaints                         72.3%
          Employment                         62.9% 
          Transportation                     23.5% 
          Public meetings held in 
               inaccessible location         31.4% 
          Services or programs held 
               in inaccessible location      44.1%
          Did not provide programmatic 
               accessibility upon request    28.6%
          Other lack of accessibility        14.7% 


                          Table Twelve
               Percentage of Affirmative Responses
                State and Territorial Governments

          Activity                                   Yes 

          Met with complaining party                66.0% 
          Brought concern to office  
           for assistance                           57.5%
          Provided a reasonable accommodation       77.5% 
          Relocated future public meetings, 
           programs or services to accessible 
           locations                                57.5% 
          Now provide programmatic accessibility    70.0%
          Now provide ADA and awareness training    75.0% 
          Made modification to a building           75.0%
          Other, mainly physical modifications      28.2% 


                         Table Thirteen
               Percentage of Affirmative Responses
                State and Territorial Governments

          Question                           Yes 

          EEOC manual                        95.7%
          DOJ manual                         95.7%
          Regional DBTAC                     75.6%
          JAN                                62.2%

----------
End of Document

.

