NTFTD 2004 REPORT Within Our Reach Findings and Recommendations of the National Task Force on Technology and Disability. www.NTFTD.org ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: The Members of the National Task Force on Technology and Disability want to recognize the many people who graciously contributed their expertise, time and resources to further the work of the Task Force. Their commitment to this effort demonstrates their strong support for fully engaging the talents and participation of all Americans through technological innovation to strengthen our workforce and our society as a whole. FUNDING: The C.S. Mott Foundation. A grant from The C.S. Mott Foundation was critical to convening the Task Force and supporting its mission to identify opportunities and make recommendations for improving access to assistive technology (AT) for people with disabilities. The Mott Foundation, established in 1926 in Flint, Michigan, by an automotive pioneer, is a private philanthropy committed to supporting projects that promote a just, equitable and sustainable society. The grant also covered the cost of AT needed to fully engage all Task Force members and other contributors in meetings, teleconferences and Internet-based communications, as well as printing and posting the findings on the NTFTD Web site. While the work of the Task Force would not have been possible without The Mott Foundation, the deliberative process and the resulting findings and recommendations are solely that of the Task Force and independent of The Mott Foundation. NEC Foundation of America. A grant from the NEC Foundation of America is supporting efforts to encourage national recognition for innovation of AT for people with disabilities. In that spirit, funding will support a follow-up round table discussion with AT innovators, business leaders, advocates and government to explore advancing innovation, accessibility and successful commercialization of AT in the marketplace. Invitations to participate in the round table, interaction with government agencies, and discussion outcomes are independent of the NEC Foundation of America. Within Our Reach Findings and Recommendations of the National Task Force on Technology & Disability www.NTFTD.org A special thank you to the following individuals who graciously contributed their time and input as the Task Force prepared its findings and recommendations: Former Congressman James Barcia, Michigan State Senator. Leslee Beck, Congressman Dale Kildee’s staff. Betty Jo Berland, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Chris Button, President’s Task Force on Employment of Adults with Disabilities, U.S. Dept. of Labor. Carol Cohen, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. Sylvia Clark, Executive Director NEC Foundation of American. Jodi De Witte, Congressman Vern Ehlers’ staff. Lex Freiden, Chair, National Council on Disability. Roy Grizzard, Assistant Secretary for Disability Employment Policy, U.S. Dept. of Labor. Senator Tom Harkin. Phil Hatlen, Superintendent, Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired. Joanna Herman, Congressman Dave Camp’s staff. Jason Hill, Senator Levin’s staff Congressman Pete Hoekstra and staff. Charles Hokanson, Congressional Committee on Education and the Workforce staff. Andrew Kaiser, Congressman Mike Roger’s staff. Congressman Dale Kildee. Brenda Oas, Senator Tom Harkin’s staff. Whitney Rhoades, Congressional Committee on Education and the Workforce staff. Dok Satcher, Senator Debbie Stabenow’s staff. Jennifer Sheehy, formerly with the White House Domestic Policy Council. Steve Tingus, Director, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research. George Trone, Grant Administrator C.S. Mott Foundation. John Von Fossen, Chief of Staff for Congressman Pete Hoekstra. William S. White, President C.S. Mott Foundation. About the National Task Force on Technology and Disability. The National Task Force on Technology and Disability (NTFTD or Task Force) is a blue ribbon panel comprised of nationally recognized leaders from industry, academia, government, and the advocacy community of people with disabilities.1 Unique to this Task Force is its unprecedented endeavor to bring together a group of national experts from different disciplines to work toward a common goal. The Task Force’s goal is to develop an agenda that will foster long-lasting partnerships that support effective public policy, are good for business, and most importantly, advance the use of universal design (UD) and assistive technology (AT). The Task Force encourages the design and manufacture of products to be usable by people with the widest range of abilities possible, in a manner that is both technically possible and economically feasible. These products hold the greatest promise to more fully engage all citizens in the workforce, educational institutions, marketplace and society. The practice or process of trying to design products in this fashion is known as “universal design,” “UD” or “design for all.” The Work of the Task Force. The Task Force envisions a nation that provides opportunities in which all of its citizens can participate. In the face of the compelling economic benefits of UD and next generation AT, the NTFTD was formed to examine why these practices are not more widespread and what can be done to facilitate their advancement. To realize our vision, we propose a series of steps that could collectively be taken by government, industry, non-government agencies and academia. We are well aware that we must use the most suitable tools to ensure the most appropriate changes. In our recommendations, we have attempted to identify the kind of intervention that will be most effective for each problem: industry initiatives, academic initiatives, tax policy, new federal programs, or a combination of strategies. We strongly believe that the accessible nation we envision is “within our each.” Being able to achieve what we have set out to do rests on the shoulders of champions and others who are willing to reach out and embrace the possibilities and opportunities presented in this report. By working together, we can assure that individuals with disabilities will fully achieve success in today’s highly competitive and complex world. TASK FORCE FACILITATION AND ADMINISTRATION. The Disability Network Mike Zelley, President/CEO of The Disability Network Vicki Sacharski, Executive Assistant, The Disability Network Luke Zelley, Marketing and Mentor Project Coordinator Michelle Walker, HAB Coordinator The Disability Network provided invaluable administrative, planning and coordination support to the Task Force as well as meeting facilitation. Ongoing in-kind professional staffing and infrastructural support was vital to continuing the Task Force’s work over a two-year process. PUBLIC POLICY & TECHNOLOGY CONSULTANTS. Frank G. Bowe, Ph.D., LL.D. While Frank Bowe was an active member of the Task Force, he also boldly took on additional responsibility for synthesizing the rich and bountiful findings that resulted from Task Force meetings and deliberations over a two-year period. With his scholarship on the subject matter, diplomacy and perseverance, he artfully overcame the challenge of bringing so many voices together in unison. Katie Wolf, President/CEO, Wolf Communications, Inc. Providing strategic leadership, public policy and communications expertise, and insight for guiding the deliberations and documenting the findings, Katie Wolf and her staff at Wolf Communications, Inc. were highly committed to advancing the Task Force’s mission and attaining its goals. Kelly Carnes, President/CEO, TechVision21. Drawing upon her legal, government and technology policy expertise, Kelly Carnes was key to guiding the Task Force’s interactions in Washington, DC and providing research, analysis and input on the findings and recommendations. Ed Hoort, Attorney. Provided legal review of the report and ongoing guidance throughout the documentation process. Karen Peltz Strauss, Attorney. Generously provided insights on TTY services and relays. Joshua P. Liebman assisted Frank Bowe in developing the Web page and navigation features for the Task Force to review and comment on early drafts of the report. Members of the National Task Force on Technology & Disability. J. Michael Zelley (Co-Chair) Director and Founder The Disability Network. Eric J. Jolly, Ph.D. (Co-Chair) Vice President and Senior Scientist Education Development Center. K. Joel Berry, Ph.D., P.E. Professor and Chair Department of Mechanical Engineering Kettering University. Frank G. Bowe, Ph.D., LL.D. Dr. Mervin Livingston Schloss Distinguished Professor Department of Counseling, Research, Special Education and Rehabilitation Hofstra University. Jacquelyn Brand Executive Director Center for Accessible Technology and The Alliance for Technology Access. Judy Brewer Director, Web Accessibility Initiative World Wide Web Consortium. Beatriz Chu Clewell Principal Research Associate and Director Evaluation Studies and Equity Research Program Education Policy Center of the Urban Institute. Denice D. Denton, Ph.D. Dean of Engineering and Professor Department of Electrical Engineering University of Washington. Larry Goldberg Director, Media Access Group at WGBH Educational Foundation. Steve Jacobs President, IDEAL Group, Inc. Deborah Kaplan Executive Director World Institute on Disability. Joy Kniskern Principal Investigator Georgia Assistive Technology Project Georgia Department of Labor Vocational Rehabilitation Program. Lawrence Scadden, Ph.D. Retired Senior Program Director National Science Foundation Program for Persons with Disabilities. M. Richard Shaink, Ph.D. President Mott Community College. Susan Sygall Co-founder and Executive Director Mobility International USA. Jim Tobias President Inclusive Technologies. Gregg C. Vanderheiden, Ph.D. Professor, Industrial Engineering and Biomedical Engineering Departments Trace Research & Development Center University of Wisconsin-Madison. Cynthia D. Waddell Executive Director International Center for Disability Resources on the Internet; Lecturer, Santa Clara University School of Law. Table of Contents. Acknowledgments. About the Task Force. Task Force Members. Executive Summary. A. Awareness 13 B. Education and Training in UD 13 C. Affordability of AT 14 D. AT Research & Development 14 1. The Vision of an Accessible Nation. 2. The Economics of the Vision. A. Market Segment of Americans with Disabilities 22 B. Looking to the Future: An Aging Population 23 C. Potential Benefits to Businesses 25 D. Cost Savings to Taxpayers 27 E. Cost Savings to People with Disabilities 28 3. The Nation Today: Falling Short of the Vision. A. A Brief Overview of Legislation that Influences Funding for AT 32 B. Funding Streams 35 C. Tax Laws 37 4. Recommendations. A. Awareness 42 B. Education and Training in UD 52 C. Affordability of AT 55 D. AT Research & Development 69 5. Conclusion. Appendixes. A. Biographies of Task Force Member 80 B. How Programs Can Work Together: The Federal CAP Model 87 C. Missouri Offers Model TAP Programs 89 D. Acronyms 91 E. Glossary 94 Endnotes & References. Disability Information on the Web. A comprehensive Federal Web site of disability-related government resources can be found at www.DisabilityInfo.gov The Task Force believes that a number of the recommendations in this report could be incorporated into the Presidential New Freedom Initiative. For example, a fresh approach to creating a universally accessible system for timely procurement, distribution and cost savings is needed. Executive Summary. The Vision of the Task Force. The Task Force envisions a nation in which all technology, products, services, systems and physical environments are accessible to, usable by and actually used by people with the widest range of abilities. The actual usage point is essential. It means that we must go beyond technical accessibility. We must ensure that the necessary information, local services, training and funding assistance are available to people with disabilities and the people who provide support and assistance to them. Without these supports, even the most highly accessible products will not reach their intended users. In this accessible nation, there will be the realization that making products more accessible to people with disabilities also makes them easier for others to use. Accelerating the development, deployment and use of universal design products, services and systems will produce economic benefits for the nation. The Economics of the Vision. The market segment of Americans with disabilities is large and diverse. More than 50 million Americans — one in five people — have a disability.2 Socioeconomic trends such as aging have contributed to the growth of the population with disabilities. This group represents the largest minority subgroup in the U.S. It is estimated that 61 percent of people with disabilities are working-age adults, between 16 and 64 years old.3 Adults with disabilities — particularly those who work year-round, full-time — represent a sizable block of discretionary income. Indeed, one estimate is that the aggregate income for adults with disabilities is in excess of $1 trillion,4 of which more than $175 billion is discretionary.5 Creating an accessible nation will provide significant, measurable economic benefits to businesses and American citizens. Businesses stand to benefit with access to larger markets and diverse talent. Both businesses and taxpayers will benefit because it is less costly for the nation to enable people with disabilities to live independently. Potential economic benefits also include cost savings to people with disabilities. Side Bar: “Disability is not the experience of a minority of Americans. Rather, it is an experience that will touch most Americans at some point during their lives.” — President George W. Bush Announcement of New Freedom Initiative February 1, 2001 Looking toward the future, America’s population is aging and disability tends to increase with advancing age. In light of these trends, this market segment will expand and the costs of disability to individuals, businesses and taxpayers can be expected to rise dramatically as the U.S. population ages. Defining the Problem. The Task Force sees four paradoxical problems, which need to be addressed: 1. Technology continues to advance, offering more and more productivity, comfort, empowerment and enjoyment to users. But the majority of people with disabilities and elders do not reap these benefits and are falling behind. 2. The overall social costs of unintentional exclusion are higher than the costs of intentional inclusion. 3. Multiple public and private programs seek to alleviate the problem, but often do so without coordination. 4. Although the problem is often portrayed in purely technological terms, overcoming barriers does not always require technological breakthroughs. In examining the barriers that prevent AT and Accessible Mainstream Technology (AMT) from being developed, deployed and used, the Task Force has identified the following four major areas where it feels action is presently needed: awareness, education and training, affordability, and research and development (R&D). Side Bar: The Law of Unanticipated Benefits In general, designing accessible products yields better products overall. For example: Curb cut: Created for people using wheelchairs. Elevator chime: Developed to give people with disabilities extra time to reach the door. Closed-caption TV: Initially for the benefit of TV viewers who are deaf. Scanner: Created as part of the Kurzweil Reading Machine for blind people. Carbon paper: Developed for blind and partially sighted clerks who could not tell when their quill pens ran out of ink. Typewriter: Invented for a countess who was blind to help her write legibly. Voice recognition software: Began as a way to make computers accessible for people who did not have use of their hands. For more examples, see www.idealgroup.org/ecc.htm A. Awareness. Consumers and businesses are unfamiliar with assistive technologies of all types. Consumers need to know more about their options with respect to assistive products, AT devices, services, funding and resources. Businesses also need more information and a better understanding of the business benefits of UD and cost-effective ways to make their products more accessible. A multi-faceted awareness campaign is needed to communicate the existence and benefits of AT and AMT, provide mechanisms for consumers to find accessibility features in products, and showcase best practices in UD. Industry also will benefit from a UD awareness campaign that communicates the market opportunities and showcases best practices in UD. The goal of this multi-faceted campaign will be to build a true, sizable marketplace where the rules of economies of scale begin to operate. B. Education and Training in UD. Currently, there is an absence of UD education as a formal component of most engineering, design, public administration, business administration and marketing programs. Accreditation bodies such as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) and the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) should include UD in their curriculum requirements. Improvements should not be limited solely to postsecondary degree programs. Business and professional associations should support professional in-service training in UD and accessibility. Educating these groups about the benefits of and techniques for UD will involve incorporating UD concepts and principles in academic curriculum and industry training, and adding UD requirements to the professional accreditation systems. Including UD curriculum in post-secondary education will have a long lasting and systemic effect on the availability of assistive technologies to all American citizens. Side Bar: Assistive Technology (AT) is defined as “any piece of equipment, product or system, whether commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities.” (29 U.S.C. Sec 2202 (2) AT products are specifically marketed to people with disabilities, or to clinicians and others for the benefit of people with disabilities. A computer screen-reading program is an example. Accessible Mainstream Technology (AMT) refers to mainstream technologies that are inherently (off the shelf) accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. A screen enlarger software feature is an example of AMT. Universal Design (UD), or “Design for All,” is the process of designing products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. UD will generate more AMT. C. Affordability of AT. For several reasons, AT products cost more than many people can afford. Public and private systems frequently do not create an efficient, market-driven approach to AT purchasing. A fresh approach is needed for creating a universally accessible system for timely procurement, distribution and cost savings. One element of the federal effort to advance the use of AT is the Assistive Technology Act (AT Act). The AT Act offers state-level support and advocacy for people with disabilities, provides information about AT, training for professionals, AT equipment distribution/loan programs, public awareness, and assistance with securing funding. These are important initiatives that could be strengthened, incorporating close cooperation with industry and expansion and replication of successful equipment distribution programs. In the accessible nation envisioned by the Task Force, people with disabilities will purchase technology in an expanded, reorganized and consumer-driven process that takes advantage of scale. Some of the challenges inherent in this vision include increasing the coordination of services at the federal and state levels, facilitating consumer informed choice, reducing the cost of AT, and ensuring affordable access to emerging technologies. The overriding challenge is to make AT more affordable and available to those who need it, and reduce costs to consumers, government and private insurers. D. AT Research & Development. Successful commercialization of AT is partly dependent upon the availability of good data for understanding the needs of existing and potential users. There are major gaps in AT research due to the lack of data on the population of individuals with disabilities. While data is collected by the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics, and the World Health Organization at an international level, it is too broad to accurately analyze the market demand for AT devices and services, to understand the need for accessibility improvements, and the purchasing patterns of people who use or could benefit from AT. The lack of more specific data contributes to higher AT costs. The Task Force recommends that a national survey be conducted to better analyze the needs of the consumer population at large for AT, as well as the need for accessibility features in mainstream products and services. Market research needs to be conducted and made readily available that addresses purchasing patterns characteristic of AT consumers and effective tactics for targeting this growing market. Additionally, R&D funding needs to be increased and directed toward accessibility features and services that could be built into mass market products. R&D funding also needs to be targeted for developing next generation AT and UD, and technology transfer to encourage faster integration of innovations in other fields that could benefit people with disabilities. Compared to other R&D investments in technology by the federal government, funding to support R&D to increase the independence of people with disabilities, including aging, is a small fraction of one percent of the total U.S. R&D budget. Leadership in the federal government is needed to create incentives for companies, universities and nonprofit organizations to perform high-risk R&D for AT and AMT that improves the quality of life for individuals with disabilities, enables independence, and provides substantial economic benefits to the U.S. economy. Side Bar: Excerpt from Wireless for the Disabled ‘‘The wireless explosion has made cell phones, personal digital assistants, and other devices ubiquitous and has changed the way people communicate and work. It also offers the possibility of changing the lives of disabled people, by helping them overcome or cope with their impairments. The 25 researchers at the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Center on Mobile Wireless Technologies for Persons with Disabilities at the Georgia Institute for Technology have made it their mission to realize that possibility. The center is designing wireless aids that target a variety of disabilities, including mobility, vision, and hearing impairments. The researchers use off-the-shelf components to build these systems ‘so that they’re affordable and available,’ says John Peifer, the center’s codirector. The center is also trying to influence wireless device manufacturers to make their existing products more accessible to people with disabilities and to adopt new applications with the needs of the disabled in mind. ‘Mobile wireless is going to be a big part of the future. There’s a concern that people with disabilities would be left out,’ says Peifer.’’ MIT’s Magazine of Innovation TECHNOLOGY REVIEW December 2003/January 2004 www.technologyreview.com Picture of Craig Alston at computer. Picture of Craig Alston typing. Picture of Craig Alston. Craig Alston District Court Judge. Since an early age, Craig Alston dreamed of becoming an astronomist or astrophysicist. By the age of 13, however, a doctor told Craig he was going blind from a degenerative genetic disease, Retinitis Pigmentosa, and would not be able to use the tools of that profession. Alston says, “Between the ages of 6 and 13, I didn’t know I couldn’t see — that was a real problem. When a baseball rolled by me in the outfield, because of my tunnel vision, I couldn’t see it. My teammates got mad at me and I eventually withdrew. I didn’t know I had a problem then. Later, when I found out what I had, I focused on my career.” “The doctor told me to reconsider my career options and go into something I could do, like law. One door closes and another one opens,” Alston reflects. “From that moment on, I made up my mind to become a lawyer. In high school I had the good fortune to befriend my economics teacher. He became my mentor and encouraged me to go to law school. The state rehabilitation program helped pay for my college education.” Unable to find work after graduating from law school, Alston returned to his hometown, opened up his own law practice, ran for judge and continues to serve his community. He recalls, “I was 0 years old when I took the bench — just one year after going totally blind. It took many years to mature into this spot and because of my age, it was harder to gain credibility. I had to learn how to earn the respect of other lawyers and judges, who often tested me and questioned whether I could do the job.” He attributes his success on the bench to assistive technology and his wife, Kiyoko. She studied microcomputers and secondary education and encouraged him to work with a professor who developed the first screen reading program using the CPM operating system (used before DOS). Alston bought an early Votrax SpeechSynthesizer for $300.00 when it first came out and grasped firsthand the potential for assistive technology. He also took two basic programming classes and bought a computer with a screenreader. In the fall of 1987, he began using assistive technologies on the bench. “I also created a program, which a couple of local attorneys still use to this day or accounting purposes,” says Alston. Alston uses a voice synthesizer, which can attain a speed of up to 650 words per minute and understands what is being said up to 550 words per minute. Lightheartedly, he says, “I’ve developed another disability in the courtroom. The velocity of courtroom speech, which lags between 150-200 words per minute, can easily bore me. It would be comparable to you traveling in a car through a speed zone of 70 mph at 20 mph.” “As strange as it may sound, this is a better time in history to be blind. Today, we have the convenience of technology. The Internet provides us with talking books that can be downloaded and screen-read. Daisy also puts talking books on CD-ROM,” says Alston. “I am grateful for all of the pioneers that came before me, like Helen Keller, technology and the Civil Rights Movement. We have been cruising on their coattails and need to advance their efforts.’’ 1. The Vision of an Accessible Nation. “The Internet brings a world of information into a computer screen, which has enriched the lives of many with disabilities. Yet, technology creates challenges of its own.’’ — President George W. Bush CAPTEC AT Center June 19, 2001 “For most people, technology makes life easier, broadens horizons, or for the young, provides an earlier start to learning. However, for people with disabilities, technology changes the most ordinary of daily activities from impossible to possible.’’ The National Council on Disability May 2000 6 “The more I see computer technology evolving, the more I need specialized technology so I can use it. I used to think that with all the new technology there would be solutions, but now it’s causing more barriers than solutions.’’ — Larry Scadden Retired Senior Program Director National Science Foundation’s Program for Persons with Disabilities, August 2002 Technology is playing an ever-increasing role in our lives, transforming the way we live, work, learn and play. A myriad of activities once performed without information technology can now be performed online. New uses of technology such as the ability to find directions over a handheld global positioning device empower us and enrich our lives. For those with functional limitations, technology can make the difference between living independently, working competitively and fully contributing to society, or becoming more dependent and less able — or unable — to participate. The Task Force envisions a future in which all technology, products, services, systems and physical environments are designed to be usable by people with the widest range of abilities in a manner that is both technically and commercially feasible. These products hold the greatest promise for more fully engaging all citizens in the workforce, educational institutions, the marketplace and society. The practice or process of trying to design products in this fashion is known as universal design (UD) or “design for all.” Side Bar: “Technology changes, but civil rights do not.” — Cynthia D. Waddell International Center for Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI) Many Uses for Reader’s Digest Large Edition Many products geared toward the disability market are now finding wider and more imaginative applications. The Reader’s Digest Large Edition for Easier Reading is useful not only to people with vision impairments, says spokesperson Lesta Cordil, but also to a much larger market – it helps millions of people learning English as a second language, millions of children learning to read, and millions of adults with literacy problems. — Patricia Digh America’s Largest Untapped Market: Who They Are, The Potential They Represent. FORTUNE MAGAZINE March 2, 1998. http://www.cabln.org/ consumer.htm AT came into existence when humans first used a cane. Today, AT provides alternate ways of providing transportation for those who cannot walk, communicating for those who cannot speak, reading for those who cannot see or read print, using the telephone for those who cannot hear and remembering for those who forget. We have seen a dramatic increase in the sophistication and availability of AT and its use by people with functional limitations. Moreover, making products more accessible to people with disabilities also makes products easier for others to use. Originally conceived to allow people using wheelchairs to cross streets safely and quickly, curb cuts have become features valued by delivery people, parents pushing baby strollers, bicycle riders, skateboarders and many others. Voice recognition software allows the operation of a keyboard for people with disabilities, for doctors to record notes and for people in general to conveniently and more safely use voice commands over the telephone. Using voice recognition technology, drivers can have their hands free while using the mobile cellular phone. Similarly, a federal law requiring most TV sets to be equipped to receive and display closed-captions was enacted initially for the benefit of TV viewers who are deaf. As a result, unanticipated benefits for captions emerged. In noisy environments such as airports, train stations, restaurants and bars, captions were turned on so people could see what was being said. Even on Capitol Hill and in Executive Branch offices, staff members use captions to follow House and Senate activities while handling other business. Captions also offer a tremendous benefit for individuals who are learning the English language, including children and foreigners. Consequently, in the future envisioned by the Task Force, careful monitoring of technology trends, coupled with strong policy tools, will improve accessibility such that new technologies do not challenge an accessible nation. People will realize that making products more accessible to those with disabilities also makes them easier for others to use. Today, technological changes are occurring so rapidly that we need to simultaneously remove barriers to technology and continually adapt the currently available technology. Sometimes new technologies are automatically more accessible than the old ones, although in too many cases technological engineers and designers do not take accessibility for the disabled into consideration. In an accessible nation, industry, government and academia will recognize the value of UD and the benefits of AT will become commonplace. Side Bar: New Technologies May Cause New Access Issues. Older technologies that are usable by people with functional limitations are sometimes replaced by new technologies, which are not. Digital cellular telephones when they were first introduced interfered with hearing aides and did not work well with text telephones (TTYs), thus creating a challenge for many people who were hard of hearing or deaf. Automated customer call centers challenge those who cannot speak quickly or clearly, or enter long number strings before automatic systems “time out.” ATMs challenge people who cannot see information displays. As LCD displays and push buttons replace dials on stoves and other devices, they create a new barrier for those who are blind. Devices that rely on a mouse or keyboard challenge people with limited mobility. Picture of Mark Peck at Computer. Picture of Mark Peck's Hand Control. Picture of Mark Peck's foot pedals. Mark Peck Financial Analyst. Soaring is one of Mark Peck’s favored activities, whether at work or play. Peck’s recent love is piloting a sail plane (glider). An avid enthusiast, gliding offers a freedom unknown to him in previous years. He admits he is keen on creating new images for people with disabilities, especially since there tend to be few examples of successful people with disabilities in the media. As a financial advisor, Peck takes immense pleasure in assisting his multi-generational clients to meet and surpass their financial milestones. “My business is real rewarding to me, both personally and financially,” says Peck. Born with osteogenesis imperfecta (brittle bone disease), a connective tissue disorder, Peck’s father was instrumental in teaching his son to accept his disability and get on with living. “As a kid, I was real fortunate because my father was on the cutting edge of technology,” says Peck. “He made a walker for me out of metal and basic welding techniques based on a very rough sketch drafted by our family doctor.” Using his ingenuity, Mark’s father also installed an electric elevator inside his family home. Likewise, Mark is an inventor. He crafted a floating device so his daughter, because she shares the same medical condition as Mark and cannot swim, can enjoy the family pool. “I rigged PVC together and attached sponge noodle floaters on each end so she’s able to be up to her armpits in the swimming pool. People with our condition have to be creative,” relates Mark. “At home we have macramé door pulls looped around the door handles so we can conveniently pull the doors closed.” As a law student and young entrepreneur, Mark used public transportation to attend classes and later to visit clients to develop his financial services business. “Driving eventually became a must in terms of flexibility and for meeting clients living long distances away. Getting my driver’s license required me to go through the state rehabilitation services, which directed me to a center that handles driving education for people with disabilities. Later I bought a van equipped with a lift.” Peck would like to see public air transportation made more accessible. “Currently, I have to be carried onto the plane and into my seat. My wheelchair is usually thrown when someone puts it into storage. Wheelchairs aren’t cheap. Vehicles for people with disabilities are also more expensive.” Slashing the cost of technology is extremely important to Peck. He says, “Foot pedals with push rods on the brakes and gas pedal, and the wheelchair lift, can all be done a lot cheaper. The real significant piece [of legislation] is tort reform to allow the technology to come to market without the fear of law suits,” concludes Peck. 2. The Economics of the Vision. The benefits of AT for individuals with disabilities include greater independence, an improved quality of life and the ability to participate competitively and effectively in the workplace. However, the benefits of accessibility go well beyond these important outcomes. Accelerating the development, deployment and use of UD products, services and systems, as well as the next generation of AT, will produce significant, measurable economic benefits. These efforts will benefit businesses and all citizens, including individuals with disabilities, their families and caretakers. In short, turning our vision of an accessible nation into reality is not only a matter of equity, civil rights and good citizenship; it makes good business and financial sense. As Steve Jacobs, President of IDEAL Group, Inc., says in a white paper on the business benefits of accessible electronic and information technology (E&IT) design, “Designing for access has the potential to provide your company with a competitive advantage that transcends geographic, cultural, technical and demographic differences.” A. Market Segment of Americans with Disabilities Socioeconomic trends such as aging and other factors have contributed to the growth of the disabled population. As Figure 1 shows, the impairments that cause limitations in activities may include physical and developmental disabilities, speech, hearing and visual impairments, or the natural effects of the aging process. Figure 1: Categories of Disability: Speech and Language 2 million, Vision 6.5 million, Hearing 7.36 million, Cognitive 9 million, Limited Hand Use 13.6 million, Mobility 16.3 million. Source: Telecommunications Industry Association Today people with disabilities make up a large and diverse group. Consider the following facts regarding this market segment: • More than 50 million Americans — one in five people — have a disability.7 • The group is comprised of people of all ethnic backgrounds, cultures and ages and represents the largest minority subgroup — 20 percent of all Americans — in the U.S.8 • According to the U.S. Census Bureau, between 1990 and 2000, the number of Americans with disabilities increased 25 percent, outpacing any other subgroup of the U.S. population.9 • Of the nearly 70 million families in the U.S., more than 20 million families have at least one member with a disability.10 • The market segment of Americans with disabilities maintains an aggregate income that now exceeds $1 trillion, of which more than $175 billion is discretionary.11 • 700,000 people are newly disabled each year.12 • 61 percent of people with disabilities are of working age, between 16 and 64 years old.13 • According to figures from the 2000 Census, one in 12 U.S. children and teenagers — 5.2 million, has a physical or mental disability. This reflects a sharp growth in the population of young Americans with disabilities over the past decade.14 B. Looking to the Future: An Aging Population The U.S. population is aging and the number of people reporting each type of disability rises dramatically with age (Figure 2). In the next 10 years, the number of Americans over 50 will increase by 40 percent.15 With age also comes the highest income, greatest wealth and most free time. AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS reports that the one-quarter of Americans who are 50 or older, control one-half of the nation’s buying power and three-fourths of its assets, representing $150 billion in annual discretionary income, and billions more for necessities like housing and food.16 Side Bar: World Wide Issue. The European Union, during the 2003 International Year of the Disabled, is focusing on UD and the accessibility of products, services and the environment. In addition, Member States of the United Nations are drafting a treaty on the rights of people with disabilities; participants on behalf of 600 million people with disabilities are calling for a global threshold for accessible information communications technology (ICT) with reasonable accommodation. See the documents at: Accessibility for All Conference for EU Standardization Bodies in Nice France, March 2003 http://www.etsi.org/cce/ Manila Declaration on Accessible ICT Regional Meeting in the Philippines, March 2003 http://www.worldenable.net/manila2003/ Declaration of Quito Regional Meeting of the Americas in Ecuador, April 2003 http://www.worldenable.net/quito2003/declaration.htm Figure 2: Disability Prevalence by Age: 1997 Age: Under 15 years: Serious disability 3.8%, Any disability 7.8%. 15 to 24: Serious disability 5.3%, Any disability 10.7%. 25 to 44: Serious disability 8.1%, Any disability 13.4%. 45 to 54: Serious disability 13.9%, Any disability 22.6%. 55 to 64: Serious disability 24.2%, Any disability 35.7%. 65 to 69: Serious disability 30.7%, Any disability 44.9%. 70 to 74: Serious disability 28.3%, Any disability 46%. 75 to 79: Serious disability 38%, Any disability 57.6%. 80 years and over: Serious disability 57.7%, Any disability 73.6%. As Figure 3 illustrates, between 2000 and 2030, the number of Americans over age 65 will more than double, from 34.8 million to more than 70.3 million, while their share of the population will grow from 12.7 percent to 20 percent. During this period, the number of Americans over age 85 will also double, from 4.3 million to 8.9 million. In addition, the number of Americans aged 65 and older is projected to increase 135 percent between 1995 and 2050, according to the Census Bureau.17 The Social Security Administration reports that about 30 percent of all Americans become disabled prior to retirement age.18 In fact, more than 70 percent of us will acquire a disability of some kind by the time we reach the age of 75, making technology a crucial factor in maintaining our quality of life as we grow older.19 Side Bar: Auto Manufacturers Recognize the Market “This is a huge market and one with disposable income amounting into the trillions. Automakers recognize it is in their best interest to design vehicles with features that meet all customer needs so they will continue to buy cars.” — Gary Talbot General Motors Mobility Engineering Unit “Ford, in the meantime, wants its designers, engineers and executives, virtually all of them able-bodied and many of them young, to better understand the challenges facing older drivers and drivers with disabilities.” — Jeffrey Pike Ford Motor Company Figure 3: The Graying of the United States C. Potential Benefits to Businesses Given the large and growing segment of people with disabilities, businesses stand to benefit with increased opportunities through new global markets and an expanded, highly qualified talent pool. Access to Larger Markets Designing with access in mind has the potential to significantly increase the size of markets and revenues for American companies. This consumer segment is already large and will grow at an expanding rate. Worldwide, there are an estimated 500 to 700 million people with disabilities.20 Offering UD products, services and systems will give American firms a competitive advantage in tapping large global markets. Consumer products designed to assist the world’s 500 to 700 million people with disabilities can also greatly benefit other even larger groups of consumers. For example, over 1.6 billion people around the world cannot read, but most of them can hear and speak, thereby Side Bar: New Freedom Initiative. On February 1, 2001, President Bush announced his New Freedom Initiative to promote the full participation of people with disabilities in all areas of society by increasing access to assistive and universally designed technologies, expanding educational and employment opportunities and promoting full access to community life. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/freedominitiative/freedominitiative.html creating a very large market for technologies that enable communication through text-to-speech synthesis. In fact, if only 10 percent of the market were tapped, it would amount to 160 million people. Consumer products that permit voice input and simultaneously produce voice output are equally valuable to people who have difficulty typing, people who cannot see a digital display and people who can both type and see, but cannot read or write. This example demonstrates the potential for a broader, larger market. Commercial product designs that incorporate the principles of UD will increase the number of potential customers who can use a product. Diversity and Access to Talent Deploying AT in the workplace will improve national productivity by enabling a company to increase the pool of candidates, thereby ensuring recruitment of the most talented minds. Today, great numbers of people with disabilities are earning college degrees. A new study by the American Council on Education reports a significant increase in the number of college students with disabilities over the last 10 years. Among the 1.6 million full-time freshmen enrolled at 3,100 institutions of higher education in the United States in 1998 — the most recent figures available — some 154,520, or 9.4 percent, had some kind of disability.21 In 1978, by contrast, less than three percent of freshmen reported having a disability. We should also point out the likelihood of under reporting of disabilities for various reasons. Companies will benefit from tapping into the talent pool of people with disabilities and need to do so to bring greater numbers of qualified people into the workplace. Growing numbers of American companies are forming public private partnerships to encourage the hiring of disabled workers and to ensure that employees with disabilities get the technology they need to be productive. AT breaks down the barriers that prevent people with disabilities from finding productive and fulfilling employment. Side Bar: Employers Must Prepare for the Baby-Boom Generation. The Institute of Workplace Studies notes that as the baby-boom generation ages, the need for assistive workplace tools and products will grow. Over the next decade, the workplace participation rate of 55 to 64-year-olds will increase by 41 percent, while participation of 45 to 54-year-old workers will increase 20 percent. New Tools Boost Number Of Disabled In IT Ranks. INFORMATION WEEK May 14, 2001 D. Cost Savings to Taxpayers Businesses and other taxpayers stand to gain from an initiative that promotes accessibility. Lower Taxes Businesses and citizens pay taxes to support local, state and federal programs and to provide support for people with disabilities who are unable to work, those not working and for the care of dependent seniors. The costs of these programs are high and rising rapidly. Businesses would save hundreds of millions of dollars if better AT or more accessible standard technologies were developed which would reduce program costs by just one percent. Likewise, all taxpayers will also benefit from lower taxes. In federal fiscal year 2003, the government’s disability-related expenditures under the Supplemental Security Disability Income (SSDI) program will top $63 billion, with an additional $28.4 billion spent on Supplemental Security Income (SSI) matching funds. The federal government also spent $32.5 billion and $39.9 billion on Medicaid and Medicare costs, respectively. Total federal disability-related expenditures are equal to $164 billion annually. 22 Additional state programs cost taxpayers billions of dollars as well. Some states add services above and beyond those mandated by the federal government, so the typical 50 percent match is a minimum figure. There are also a myriad of state programs designed to help people with disabilities access and use AT and related services. Reducing disability-related expenditures benefits everyone and every business that pays taxes. Reduced Costs of Disability Companies in the U.S. incur significant costs due to employee disabilities when such disabilities are inadequately accommodated by accessible technologies. Direct costs to the employer include worker’s compensation payments, sick pay and costs for short and long-term disability.23 Employers also encounter significant indirect turnover costs such as the cost of employee overtime, replacing employees, training and increased supervisory time. Side Bar: AOL by Phone An example of how universally designed products can reach multiple markets is America On-Line’s services can service which offers customers the ability to listen to e-mails from any voice phone and to respond by voice. While this provides email access for blind people, its application goes well beyond that population. A Growth Opportunity for Business Steve Ballmer of Microsoft reports that “…as the Baby-Boom generation ages, more and more people will face the challenges of reduced dexterity, vision and hearing. So enabling accessible technology is a growth opportunity, it meets customer needs and it’s the right thing to do.” — John Williams A Chat with Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer BUSINESS WEEK ONLINE June 13, 2001 http://www.businessweekcom/bwdaily/dnflashjun2001/nf20010613 081.htm. On average, most organizations experience a nine percent decrease in productivity due to employee disabilities. An accessible workplace can enable a company to retain valued employees who acquire disabilities and who might otherwise go on disability leave, thereby reducing hiring and training costs. Surveys conducted by large insurers and the Washington Business Group on Health place the cost to business of employee disabilities at six to 10 percent of payroll, for a total annual cost in excess of $200 billion annually.24 A similar 1997 study by UNUM Provident Corporate concluded that disability costs the average business 8.6 percent of payroll, an average of $2,860 per employee per year, or more than $340 billion annually.25 E. Cost Savings to People with Disabilities An accessible nation will have significant economic and social benefits for individuals with disabilities, their families and caretakers. Expenditures for AT For individuals with disabilities, the economic costs of an inaccessible world are extraordinary. Often, Americans with disabilities and their families incur significant out-of-pocket costs to obtain needed AT products and services, including modifying home and work environments. Of those for whom devices or technologies are paid for in some way, nearly half (48 percent) report paying for them personally or with familial support. More than 75 percent of those with specialized accessibility features in their homes report self or family financing. Third party sources offer complete or partial payment for 52 percent of users’ AT devices and for 23 percent of users’ home adaptations.26 Side Bar: A Leader in Hiring People with Disabilities. “Cisco has been a leader in recruiting and employing people with disabilities. Cisco’s logic is simple. Employees with disabilities are good for business. They add diversity to the workforce, a factor that improves productivity and creativity. Furthermore, some of the company’s customers have employees with disabilities, so it has the added benefit of enabling Cisco’s workers to work productively with Cisco clients.” — John Williams Cisco Beats a Path to Disabled Workers BUSINESS WEEK ONLINE January 18, 2001 http://www.businessweek.combwdaily/dnflash/jan2001/nf20010118_432.htm. Reduced Income Due to Unemployment and Underemployment. The Census Bureau estimates that two-thirds of Americans with disabilities ages 21 to 64 are not in the workforce.27 Far too many educated and talented people with disabilities, who want to work, are not participating in the workforce. According to a National Organization on Disability (NOD)/Harris Poll, two out of three people with disabilities want to work. Of the college-educated people participating in the poll, only 14 percent without disabilities reported not working, while 55 percent with disabilities said they did not work.28 Only 15 percent of people with disabilities are born with a disability.29 The majority of people with disabilities acquire them after they gain work experience and skills, and are valued for their contributions as employees in the workforce. In conclusion, there is a tremendous economic and labor opportunity for private industry to reach the growing market of individuals with disabilities and the senior population with functional limitations, by making their products and services more accessible. UD, available AT and inclusion are some of the tools needed to reach this global market. Everyone benefits, including business, government, taxpayers and citizens with disabilities, in the accessible nation envisioned by the Task Force. Picture of Shirley Johnson. Picture of Shirley Johnson at computer. Picture of Shirley Johnson's keyboard. Shirley Johnson Volunteer Coordinator “Assistive Technology has made all the difference in my life,” says Johnson. “I was born with cerebral palsy and have a speech problem.” A non-profit agency hired her as their volunteer coordinator and she has served in this capacity for almost a year. Johnson is thrilled to have landed her first job at the age of 52. She had been looking for work since graduating with an Associates degree in General Business and Applied Science from a community college in 1994. She loves her new position and its varied tasks. Johnson oversees 12 volunteers, each of whom has various assigned responsibilities, such as answering phones, assisting people who come in to use the Center’s computer facilities and doing research. To get around, Johnson drives a scooter. “It allows me to do things more easily,” she says. To better perform her job, Johnson taught herself to use an Orbit keyboard (keyless keyboard). With this device, she can effectively use the computer by rotating a hand-size trackball to produce text. Before using the Orbit keyboard, she used a mouse with a ball. “The mouse and keyboard didn’t work too well for me,” says Shirley. “I experienced a tremendous difference using the Orbit keyboard. Now I don’t have to use my fingers. Instead, I use the palm of my hand to move the Orbit.” She says, “Once you get the hang of it, the trackballs are pretty easy to control but you have to know how far to rotate them.” If she had one piece of advice to give to employers she would tell them, “Don’t judge people by the way they look or talk!” She also advises others with disabilities, “Don’t give up, keep fighting!” 3. The Nation Today: Falling Short of the Vision Although there have been extraordinary advances in the areas of legislation, funding streams and tax law, there is still much work to do to break down barriers and fulfill the vision of an accessible nation. A. A Brief Overview of Legislation that Influences Funding for AT Disability-related legislation has influenced the expectations of people with disabilities and others regarding inclusion, equal opportunity and more recently, AT. Regulations today range from physical facility and deaf telephone relay services to regulations that govern access to information and the accessible design of electronic and information technology. For example, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in federal programs and employment. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits discrimination in employment but also sets architectural standards and effective communication requirements. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) serves children in special education. The AT Act seeks to serve the full spectrum of people of all ages and all disabilities. Medicare and Medicaid address the durable medical equipment needs of their beneficiaries. We also have the strengthening of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act with the requirement that members of the public and federal employees with disabilities have equal access to information. Legislative Summary: Falling Short of the Vision Despite positive legislative efforts to change systems and programs, a myriad of problems persist. There are many obstacles for consumers. There has yet to be a seamless system that consumers can enter at various points for varied reasons. A consistent network of access does not exist that includes all ages, disabilities, all purposes — such as education, employment and civic participation — without running into conflicting or redundant rules and processes. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), signed by President George H.W. Bush, sought to bring more disabled people into society, community and the workforce. The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability. In the area of employment, the law requires that employers make “reasonable accommodations” in the workplace to allow a qualified person with a disability to be gainfully employed.30 Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992 and 1998 Similarly, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended in 1998, strengthens the Rehabilitation Act by requiring the federal government to provide vocational rehabilitation (VR) services to adults with disabilities who want to work and must consider the AT that their clientele need to achieve employment. Telecommunications Act of 1996 The Telecommunications Act of 1996 overhauled the regulation of the telecommunications industry and recognized the importance of access to telecommunications for people with disabilities in the Information Age. Section 255 of the Act requires that telecommunications products and services be accessible to people with disabilities.31 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997 The federal requirements of IDEA ensure that students with disabilities have equal access to a free and appropriate public education and to the assistive, information and communication technology students need to achieve this mandate.32 IDEA provides K-12 students with recommended AT for educational purposes during their school years. The Technology-Related Assistance Act for Individuals with Disabilities of 1988 (The Tech Act) Passed by Congress to harness emerging technologies for people with disabilities, the “Tech Act” provided small grants to states, phased in over five years, to increase statewide and timely access to technologies. The Tech Act set forth sweeping changes affecting national disability legislation. It was the first piece of legislation that defined “AT devices” and “AT services,” terms that were later integrated into IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act and many state laws. Second, it has been the only piece of legislation intended to cut across all agencies, all ages, all disabilities, and all environments — an agent of change envisioned to unify public agencies around the common goal of increasing access to AT. In spite of its promise, the original law was crafted with simplistic sunset provisions (Senate Report 2432, 1998). Side Bar: The Growing Digital Divide “The Growing Digital Divide in Access for People with Disabilities: Overcoming Barriers to Participation” is a paper commissioned by The National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Commerce. This paper was cited by the World Economic Development Congress at the IMF/World Bank Summit in September 1999 and as part of the official business briefings of the United Nations Economic Forum in Geneva the following year. It has been translated into many languages and cited around the world because it has struck a chord. http://www.icdri.org/the_digital_divide.htm The AT Act of 1998 Congress found that states and territories made substantial progress in programs established by the Tech Act and that additional work was needed to continue this progress. The new law required each state to address four priority areas of need: • Public awareness; • AT Training and Technical Assistance; • Coordination of activities to bring together agencies to focus on the needs of consumers for AT across all environments, agencies, and their life span; and, • Outreach to assist underserved people with disabilities in obtaining AT. Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 In 1998, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) was passed to create another unifying force among many public agencies serving adults and youth with disabilities. WIA aims to streamline public employment and training services by reducing inefficiencies and redundancies. WIA put forth the concept that consumers need “one stop shopping” for public services. As part of serving a universal population, these “One-Stop Career Centers” were created to include AT access through WIA partners. However, other than through its vocational rehabilitation partner, WIA does not provide individuals with AT or information technology (IT). Today, these “One-Stop Career Centers” are transitioning to “self-service” operations, without critically essential AT expertise, training and support services to ensure that people with disabilities can benefit equally from WIA services. Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998 Section 508 The U.S. Access Board published Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards that became effective in June 2001. In general, Section 508 (first passed in 1986, then amended Side Bar: Service Systems Meet Some Needs “Our nation never has had a policy regarding who should receive AT. What we do have is a number of service systems — vocational rehabilitation, special education, and public health insurance (Medicaid and Medicare) — that have, in various ways, acknowledged and met some of the AT needs of the specialized populations they serve.’’ — BLUEPRINT FOR THE MILLENNIUM: An Analysis of Regional Hearings on Assistive Technology for People with Disabilities. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) Washington, DC, 1998 in 1992 and 1998) requires that federal agencies procure electronic and information technology that meets these design standards so that: 1) federal employees with disabilities can have access to information and data; and 2) members of the public with disabilities can have access to information and services. These standards specify user interfaces and functionality requirements rather than require specific technologies that would stifle business creativity and innovation. B. Funding Streams Lack of funding is one of the major barriers to the acquisition of AT. Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Rehabilitation Act, policy interpretations of Medicaid/Medicare laws and regulations, Title III of the AT Act of 1998, and legal precedents established under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) have all partially contributed to the framework of financial support for technology assistance in the home, classroom and workplace. However, public institutions, employers and individuals remain burdened with expensive AT costs. Public Institutions Public agencies serving people with disabilities provide an array of services designed to address the needs of the agencies’ federal mandates. Public institutions purchase AT devices to meet their respective responsibilities. Access to appropriate and effective technology-related assistance is most often dependent upon third party funding and is subject to evaluations, agency requirements, patronizing attitudes and conflicting definitions of disability. Public School Districts Public school districts purchase AT devices and services recommended in Individualized Family Services Plans (IFSPs) and Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) of, respectively, infants and toddlers with disabilities and children and youth with disabilities. Special education is financed primarily by local and state governments, and only secondarily by federal funds. Side Bar: Barriers to Coordination. “Even when a person is eligible for services from more than one of these systems, the criteria used by these systems for identifying and meeting technology needs are not the same. This is frequently confusing, but it can be far more serious than that when their criteria conflict, or when the acquisition of AT from one source risks the loss of services from another.” “The coordination barrier also results in people having to begin the eligibility determination and service planning processes from scratch each time they enter a new service system.” — BLUEPRINT FOR THE MILLENNIUM: An Analysis of Regional Hearings on Assistive Technology for People with Disabilities. National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR) Washington, DC, 1998 State VR Programs. State vocational rehabilitation (VR) programs purchase AT devices that aid in hiring people with disabilities, who are clients of VR agencies. Principally, the federal government finances 78 percent of matching funds for VR; states pay 22 percent. SSDI and SSI Supplemental Security Disability Income (SSDI) is a federal program, whereas, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) is a federal-state program. Both of these benefit programs augment the cost of AT for people with disabilities, yet are relatively limited. Medicare Created by Title XVIII of the Social Security Act of 1965, Medicare is a federal health insurance program for people over 65. Individuals who have been disabled for 24 months also are eligible for Medicare. This program pays most costs for “durable medical equipment,” but rarely for AT products. Medicaid State governments administer the Medicaid program for those in financial need and receive matching funds from the federal government. This federal-state medical insurance program pays for some AT devices that reduce dependency. Although described as “entitlement programs,” they offer no guarantee that AT will be provided as an entitlement. Funding Streams Summary: Falling Short of the Vision Medicaid and Medicare are limited in scope to provide durable medical equipment like wheelchairs, prosthetic and orthotics and augmentative communication technologies when medically necessary, or to restore functional independence. Most of these public funding systems are “medicalized,” meaning that the person with disabilities is assessed and then the AT is recommended or prescribed by a “professional.” Recommendations are typically limited by how much the agency can pay for particular items, or by categories of AT the agency covers that relate to agency mandates. In many cases after the professional makes a recommendation, there are often additional steps in the review and approval process that can negatively impact timely provision of the AT and information and communication technology. Despite the positive efforts to change systems at local, state and national levels during the past 10 years, public funding of AT devices and services is not self-enforcing. Additionally, as the number of individuals with disabilities and their need for AT increases, the current strain on available public and private third-party funding sources is likely to worsen. C. Tax Laws Existing tax laws currently address AT, AMT and UD. Notably there are tax benefits to encourage hiring of disabled workers and tax code provisions to defray costs of AT purchases. Employers who seek to accommodate workers with disabilities through the use of UD or AT qualify for several potential tax benefits. Employers Employers purchase AT devices and services as “reasonable accommodations” for workers with disabilities. The tax code in Section 190 permits large businesses to deduct some of these costs as necessary business expenses. Under Section 44, small companies are allowed to take tax credits for such costs, which reduce the cost for these employers. Individuals Individuals purchase AT devices and services on their own. In fact, individuals with disabilities themselves and without third-party support assume a sizable share of AT purchases and upkeep costs. The current tax code permits individuals who secure these products and services to claim a tax deduction against earnings, to the extent that the AT makes employment possible and to the extent that an employer does not reimburse the costs. No similar tax advantages accrue to persons who get such services or products, but do not work. Individuals who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits and secure Social Security Administration approval for a Plan for Achieving Self Support (PASS) may deduct approved AT expenses against income in excess of the SSI limits. Barrier Removal Deduction All businesses, regardless of size, are permitted to claim a deduction of up to $15,000 per year for the removal of architectural and transportation barriers to the elderly and disabled. Disabled Access Credit Small businesses (defined as those with 30 or fewer full-time employees or those with preceding year gross receipts under $1 million) can claim a tax credit for 50 percent of up to $10,000 per year (over a $250 cost threshold) in costs incurred to comply with the ADA. Work Opportunity Tax Credit This credit amounts to a maximum of $1,500 against the first year wages of qualifying employees. A number of groups qualify, ranging from ex-felons to summer youth and welfare recipients. Two narrowly defined groups of persons with disabilities are included among the covered classes: • Persons who received Supplemental Security Income SSI) payments within 60 days prior to being hired; and, • Persons referred by state vocational rehabilitation agencies after completion of a VR program. To the extent that a sizable share of AT purchases and upkeep costs are assumed by individuals with disabilities themselves without third-party support, the tax code provisions serving to defray these expenses are also vitally important. Two major provisions are at issue here: 1. The Impairment-Related Work Expenses Deduction This deduction allows an individual to claim an itemized deduction for “attendant care services” or “other” expenses incurred “at” or “in connection with” their “place of employment.” In the absence of any legal authorities holding otherwise, this has been widely interpreted by the disability community to include the costs of AT purchased to facilitate employment. 2. Medical Care Expense Deduction Outside the employment context, individuals with disabilities seeking AT for education, for community participation, in retirement, or for a higher quality of life, have only one limited option. They can deduct some AT under the medical care expense deduction. However, as with this type of deduction, the expenses are only deductible if they exceed a certain percent of adjusted gross income in any given year. Side Bar: Inclusion and Technology “As the information age moves us forward with technological innovations in our schools, homes and workplaces, and we connect to the ‘National Information Infrastructure,’ it is imperative that all citizens, including those who are elderly and those with disabilities, be included in every way.” — Paul Rasinski Maryland Technology Assistance Program Baltimore, Maryland speaking before the House Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness Tax Laws Summary: Falling Short of the Vision Presently, most tax provisions are of extremely limited benefit and contain within their provisions significant restrictions which minimize their effectiveness. The barrier removal deduction for businesses is limited to the removal of physical barriers and is not available to promote overall accessibility where non-physical barriers exist. In addition, the definition of what barriers qualify is narrowly limited by IRS regulations. Efforts to provide AT for effective communication or to enhance access to information would not qualify. In terms of the disabled access credit, UD products would not be considered eligible, even where the purchasing business can prove that its intention was to increase accessibility for employees or customers with disabilities. With regard to the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, it is doubtful whether members of the two specific groups represent more than a small fraction of individuals with disabilities who could be enabled to work through the application of UD or AT. It is up to the employer to decide to use the savings resulting from the credit for such technology. Tax code provisions used to defray costs of AT purchases are severely limited. A minority of Americans itemize on their tax returns. Among low-income individuals and families, the proportion is smaller still. No means for obtaining the benefits of the deduction exist for those who cannot itemize. The medical care expense deduction, apart from being available only to those persons who are in a position to itemize, requires that medical expenses are deductible only to the extent that they exceed 7.5 percent of adjusted gross income. Even when this cost threshold is reached, deductibility is difficult. It requires that the nature and purpose of the AT devices or services in question meet the statutory standard of “mitigating” an illness or “defect,” or restoring the function of a body part. Even if all these barriers can be surmounted, use of any individual itemized deduction presents one additional, critical problem. These deductions are available only to the extent of taxable income in the year the deductible expense is incurred. Therefore, unless the individual with a disability has taxable income equal to or greater than the amount spent on AT, the full value of the deduction will be lost. The Task Force has identified the following four major areas where it believes action is needed at this time: awareness; education and training; affordability of AT and AMT; and research and development. Picture of John Burt. Picture of John Burt. Picture of John Burt at computer. John Burt Program Developer John Burt loves the outdoors. He played football, lifted weights and wrestled in high school even though he contracted polio at the age of three from his vaccination. Not until his early 20s was he diagnosed with Post-Polio Syndrome, which gradually weakened his body. Previous to his diagnosis, Burt was also a director of a moving service. Before the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) passed, Burt was laid off due to his increasing physical limitations. He decided to return to school to work on a Bachelors degree in Accounting and Business Administration in the late 1980s. He learned how to use his wheelchair while in school. “The wheelchair wasn’t difficult to learn to use,” he states. “The only thing I don’t do now, that I used to do, is walk. That is how simple it is; I don’t walk. Many people say a person is confined to a wheelchair. I am not confined to a wheelchair. I am liberated by my wheelchair!” “My direct-drive motorized, 260 pound wheelchair makes all the difference in my mobility. I can go almost everywhere on a variety of surfaces.” He adds, “It is expensive technology — costing about $12,000.” Burt regularly camps, hunts, fishes and hikes. His lift-equipped van gets him farther into the woods for recreation, as well as around town. It is equipped with a power wheelchair lift and reinforced with special features. He drives from the driver’s seat — not his wheelchair — and has even hunted from it (permitted by a special hunting license). As a professional, Burt has spent the past nine years developing a non-profit agency’s program development and technology center, where he depends entirely on his wheelchair for mobility. “Out of necessity I have become an inventor of things,” Burt says. “I made all of my own hand controls for my farm tractors. And I really became an inventor of not only products but also techniques. I discovered how to do a transfer; I pick all my weight up on my right arm and throw my body where I want it to go. It’s the quickest transfer that works for me.” This creative edge allows Burt a great deal of flexibility in adapting to different situations and in finding information. With his diverse skills and knowledge, Burt is often in demand as a guest lecturer in local colleges and schools, especially in physical and occupational therapy programs. He advocates for awareness about assistive technologies, noting that most students and people in general lack this knowledge. “Invariably students and people who have acquired disabilities have no idea where to go for information about assistive technology, or have the opportunity to try out and use AT before making purchases. There is a strong need to draw more awareness to people with disabilities, awareness to what is available, and what is possible.” Burt hopes that by running for the local school board and being actively involved in his community, he can foster further awareness. 4. Recommendations A. Awareness In general, consumers and businesses alike are unfamiliar with assistive technology (AT) or with accessible mainstream technology (AMT) resulting from the practice of universal design (UD). Awareness of UD and AT principles has a significant impact on the availability, affordability and use of UD, AT and AMT products, services and systems. There are, in fact, both consumer and business-related awareness issues. Many businesses need more information and a better understanding of assistive products and cost-effective ways to make their products more accessible. Consumers need to know more about their options with respect to accessible products, AT devices, services, funding and resources. Consumers and those who provide care, rehabilitation and ongoing technical assistance to people with disabilities would benefit from an awareness campaign that communicates the existence and benefits of AT and AMT and provides mechanisms for consumers to find accessibility features in products. Industry could benefit from a UD awareness campaign that communicates the market opportunities within the industry and showcases industrial best practices in UD. The goal of this multi-faceted campaign would be to build a true, sizable marketplace where the rules of economies of scale begin to operate. AT Campaign Targeted at the Public and Consumers PROBLEM: There is generally a lack of awareness of AT and AMT, resulting from UD. Many people who can benefit from AT, could greatly enhance their independence if they had a better understanding of their options with respect to technology and disability. Side Bar: Awareness & Acceptance It is important not merely to make the American public more aware of AT but also to become more accepting of it. For example, anecdotal evidence suggests that the proliferation of headsets worn for audio entertainment and wireless phones has reduced the stigma associated with assistive learning devices and certain other hearing technologies. Likewise, manufacturers of assistive technology are rolling out products that combine accessibility with style. That helps de-stigmatize disabilities, making kids more receptive and willing to stick with hip, assistive technology. — Suzanne Robitaille Way Cool Text Pager, Dude. BUSINESS WEEK ONLINE April 18, 2001 http://www.businessweek.combwdaily/dnflash/apr2001nf20010418_637.htm The lack of consumer awareness takes many forms: • Unaware of Limitations. Many people, particularly the elderly, gradually lose their abilities and may not realize that they have lost significant ability. These individuals are simply unaware of their functional limitation and do not seek help. • Unaware of Solutions. Others are unaware that technologies are available that can improve their capabilities. They do not think to look or ask for a solution because they do not realize that such solutions exist. • Lack of Product Information. People may lack information about where to find AMT and AT, and lack the information and ability to evaluate alternative products and devices. Compounding the problem is a lack of well-qualified service providers with expertise in evaluating, selecting and fitting AT and providing places for people to “try-out” technology. • Lack of Financial Assistance Information. People may not be aware of or have easy access to possible financial help in getting products or services. • Denial. Some people refuse to admit they have a functional limitation and thus refuse to use AT. In fact, 75–90 percent of the people who are losing their vision or hearing do not consider themselves part of the disability community. A-1. RECOMMENDATION: Create a general awareness campaign. There is a need for public and private efforts to develop and implement a large-scale awareness campaign intended to communicate the existence and benefits of AMT and AT to the public and consumers. Following are a few campaign ideas to assist in strengthening the awareness: • This effort should be done in consultation with AT companies, their trade associations, media organizations, disability consumer groups and state AT programs dedicated to public interest; Side Bar: Information is Power. U.S. Sen. James Jeffords (I-VT), then former chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources, said, “There is no doubt that we live in an information age. Information is power; it frees us. With information, each of us has the power to learn and to understand, to choose and to act. For all individuals, but especially for those with disabilities, technology is the bridge to information, top choices, and freedom.” Prepared statement of James M. Jeffords (VT), then chairman, before the Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources April 29, 1998 http://www.wata.org/dyk/dc/jeffords.htm • The campaign should inform consumers about availability and features; • The campaign should work to increase the value of diversity, counter any stigma associated with AT and AMT and aim at the broadest possible audience; and, • The campaign should encourage the development of technology that can enable people with disabilities to be more independent. Potential mechanisms for distributing information and conducting the campaign include mainstream businesses, media and special events: • A high-tech, hands-on demonstration-based mobile road show would familiarize the public with “cutting-edge” AT equipment; • High-impact presence at industry trade shows; • Articles in popular magazines, like READER’S DIGEST, discussing “simple” or “easier” ways to do things; • Media approaches that reach the schools, e.g., WEEKLY READERS, CHANNEL ONE, etc.; • Media spots that feature aging movie stars using AT and AMT devices; • TV spots, including support for disability-oriented cable shows and Internet video; • Displays and accessible kiosks in high traffic locations such as malls, banks, grocery stores and information technology retail outlets; • A poster campaign; • Engage libraries; • Sponsor benefit programs; • Tap into targeted senior citizen benefit providers such as AARP. Mechanisms to Empower Consumers with Information PROBLEM: Consumers encountering disability for the first time, or those who may have a pre-existing disability and are initially trying a new technology, often do not know what types of features to look for in products. To make matters worse, even if they do know something about accessibility features, consumers may have to consult many resources to investigate product features. There is not a single location for information on AT and AMT. In addition, often people do not know how to obtain needed services from the current systems. When things go wrong, the current system lacks widely publicized information regarding product support. For example, some consumers may have tried existing solutions, but they may be difficult, unreliable, cumbersome, or the equipment does not work as intended. This might be partially due to the fact that some of the specialization needed in selecting and customizing equipment is not available or completely ignored. In those cases, consumers need to know where to turn for help. Ongoing and expanded activities to provide information about AT devices, services, funding and resources are needed and are sought by individuals of all ages in the community, workplace, school and home. A-2. RECOMMENDATION: Develop mechanisms to empower consumers with information. Tools or resources for consumers to find products that have the accessibility features they need should use clear, agreed-upon terminology, contain information about compatibility with AT and be available to people with different levels of technological capability. These mechanisms should provide: • A framework for shared terminology from an industry and consumer standpoint; • A format or platform to help people get accurate information; and • Product support and advocacy. The outcome of this effort should be a reliable, self-reinforcing system for industry to share its information, emphasizing marketing and compatibility, rather than regulations. Such a method would assists companies in marketing to customers who are either sensitized to usability and accessibility, or who themselves have disabilities. This system should meet the levels of need of potential consumers and should address the following topics: What to look for? Where to find it? And, what to do if you can’t find it? This conceptual arrangement might resemble a “consumer guide” in nature. Side Bar: Companies Must Be Aware of What Their Products Can Do. Sometimes companies develop products that have accessible features but are completely unaware of these features because they have not included people with disabilities in their design process. This seems to have happened with some cell phones. Samsung did not publicize at all the accessibility of some of its phones to hearing aid users. Similarly, Audiovox representatives seemed very unaware of many of the accessible features on its cell phones for blind users. — National Task Force on Technology and Disability What To Look For The system should provide a framework for shared terminology. Ways that this might be achieved include the following: • Define common accessibility features. Interested stakeholders need to identify accessibility and to develop common terminology that they agree to use. The focus should be on pinpointing useful benefits and sharing common ground so that comparisons can be made between products and manufacturers. • Make a template available to industry that uses a standard format and makes use of the terms. Industry should choose to use this to maintain the quality of information that it publishes regarding individual product models. This critical piece could empower consumers so that they will create the demand for product features. This approach puts the onus for the individual product model information on the manufacturer, thereby, allowing participation at whatever level it decides. Such an approach may offer greater staying power than others such as maintaining a central database that catalogs individual products and their features. The number of products with their quickly outmoded features make central databases of AT difficult to keep current. A database of regular products and all their features seems impractical. This proposed information system would probably only attract those products with good descriptions, which would be very useful in itself. Where To Find Resources The newly created mechanisms should provide a platform to help people get accurate information. These mechanisms might address the following issues: • Awareness of existing systems and a consumer-oriented explanation of how the existing systems are supposed to work. • An easy-to-navigate interface linking the consumer to several types of resources and systems; it would serve as a “portal” to multiple resources. Side Bar: Making Lotus Notes More Accessible to Blind Users “My assumption is that most of the programmers and development managers at Lotus (like many other places) were not aware of accessibility, of accessible software or of screen readers. They needed to understand exactly what was wrong and what was needed to correct it.” — Dr. James Thatcher IBM/Lotus Development Corporation These mechanisms need to have a long-term funding model, include all stakeholders and empower both people and business. What To Do When You Need Help In terms of advocacy, consumers need to know the manufacturers’ obligations, where they are stated and to whom they can go for assistance when needed. Presently, individuals with disabilities and their family members lack information on state lemon laws that cover malfunctioning or misprescribed AT and other laws or services related to their acquisition of technology. Additionally, all states have a Protection and Advocacy agency that retains a federal grant under the AT Act to address AT-related legal barriers. Likewise, disability advocates often do not understand the warranty obligations of various AT products because the majority of AT advocates are not AT service providers who understand technical product issues. Consequently, disability advocates may not make the best recommendations about manufacturers’ obligations or know whom to refer people with disabilities regarding AT issues. UD Campaign Targeted at Industry The Task Force believes that increasing consumer awareness and creating empowered and better-informed consumers will likely lead to an improved business market. To respond to and capitalize on this market need, companies should put efforts into improving product design and projecting the accessibility of their products. Companies may have never encountered the need to re-assess their products and services from the perspective of accessibility. Designing accessibility requires a fundamental shift away from the notion of a product as a collection of powerful functions and towards a view that emphasizes the user’s experiences. Once the focus is on the user, accessibility as an improvement to usability becomes an obvious goal. Although user-centered design has made considerable progress, it by no means dominates current product design. Designing a product from the feature “out” is much easier than designing a product from the user “in.” So many of today’s products are rich in features, but poor in usability. To make their products more accessible, businesses need more information and a better understanding of cost effectiveness. Promoting product awareness, supporting corporate decision-makers and rewarding innovative industry practices can accomplish changes in the business world. Side Bar: In March 2003, the International Center for Disability Resources on the Internet (ICDRI), The Internet Society Disability and Special Needs Chapter, and HiSoftware launched a costfree educational portal for web site accessibility testing. Like other similar tools, CynthiaSaysTM offers a free accessibility validation tester. It enables users to test a web page and teaches and promotes accessible web design. http://www.cynthiasays.com Product Awareness PROBLEM: In many cases, products, services and systems could be designed and manufactured for use by people with a broader range of abilities, but due to awareness issues they are not. First, there is a general lack of awareness on the part of industry about business benefits, the size of the market and consumer demand. Secondly, there is a lack of knowledge about how to incorporate accessibility. Engineers and designers are often unaware that commercially practical techniques are available to make their products, services and systems usable by people with a broader range of abilities or functional limitations. Therefore, UD is not routinely considered during product design and development — at a time when it is least costly and most effective to incorporate such features. Typically UD is considered as an afterthought, if at all. A-3. RECOMMENDATION: Create a universal design (UD) campaign targeted at industry to increase awareness, aid corporate decision-makers, promote the mainstream business benefits of UD [Example: http://easi.cc/workshops/bbaitsyl.htm] and reward industry innovation. Awareness of Features in Product Design PROBLEM: Manufacturers of mainstream products need to learn about UD principles to reduce the need for specialized AT products. Engineers, marketers and others cannot be expected to design and sell products for accessibility and widespread usability unless they are trained in the principles of UD. A-3.1. SUBRECOMMENDATION Develop resources to help industry professionals build mainstream business cases for accessible design in a global marketplace. A-3.2. SUBRECOMMENDATION: Develop resources with input from potential customers in support of helping manufacturers successfully plan and design products and promote features that will better serve all customers. • These materials should reference UD features and analyze product feature combinations that are obvious advantages in some products such as on-screen keyboard equivalents in a software package. • These materials should help companies be better able to explain accessibility features in their product material. • Industry should include people with disabilities, who use AT, on consumer panels and product design teams. In this manner the expertise and experiences of the disability community can be united with the resources of industry and mainstream commerce, thus empowering consumers with functional limitations to ensure that manufacturers hear their voices. Awareness of Business Practices for Corporate Decision-Makers PROBLEM: UD practice is typically not a corporate priority. This may be due to the fact that corporate decision-makers — CEOs, business managers, marketing professionals, engineers and product designers — need to be better informed about the value and techniques of UD. CEOs In today’s highly competitive global marketplace, companies must allocate R&D dollars first to those projects deemed to offer the greatest benefit to the company’s bottom line. Merely showing a feature that would be useful to people with functional limitations, or that a feature will make “some profit” may not be sufficient to move that feature onto a company’s R&D product feature priority list. To make the investment, CEOs must be convinced that the investment in accessible features will generate a greater financial return than could be achieved by investing in other competing projects. These “return on investment” calculations, while they may seem harsh to people outside the business community, are a necessary and appropriate response to global competition. Still, given the hundreds of millions of people with disabilities in the global marketplace, UD and AT products and services may become among the most competitive on the market. Decisionmakers today need to consult appropriate information to properly assess the value of including access and extended usability features in products for a growing international market or miss an important opportunity (See Section II, “The Economics of the Vision,” page 22.) Business Managers While design and manufacturing techniques exist for making some products, services and systems usable by a wider range of functional limitations, it maybe too expensive currently to incorporate certain accessible features into mass marketed products. For example, speech technologies have gradually become integrated into mainstream computers, although there are still some Side Bar: NEC Foundation of America has provided a grant to the National Task Force on Technology and Disability to explore opportunities for recognizing and inspiring technological innovations that benefit people with disabilities. The goal is to honor American innovators who have made significant contributions in the area of AT, and inspire future innovators to pursue R&D opportunities that improve the quality of life for people with disabilities. The U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Medal of Technology program, the nation’s highest honor for recognizing technological innovation, is an outstanding program that has furthered this goal. Recognized in recent years, several Medal laureates, including Raymond Kurzweil and Dean Kamen, have developed and successfully commercialized AT products that were originally created for people with disabilities, but have gone on to open up completely new mass market opportunities. features that elude feasibility in mainstream production such as a Braille display on every device. Many corporate decisionmakers, including business managers, may be unaware of the changing possibilities of UD, unconvinced that accessible features or capabilities are practical, profitable or a worthy subject for commercial research and development, or that they can positively impact all of their users. Marketing Professionals There is a pervasive belief that there is neither a disability market nor a UD market. On the contrary, these markets do indeed exist. Yet, there is a lack of understanding of the requirements for marketing and selling to people with disabilities, or to the growing portion of the masses who have disabilities and/or functional limitations. It takes an effort to sell in this unique market, requiring targeted marketing and selling strategies that are often unfamiliar to marketing decisionmakers. Within this realm, there is also an inability to measure outcomes. For example, how can you tell if more people with disabilities would buy your software at Best Buy if you add on-screen keyboard access? This lack of reporting further complicates the issue, making it difficult for marketing professionals to know how to proceed. Engineers and Product Designers In some cases, engineers and designers incorporate accessibility features into the products, services and systems they design, though are often not the people within the company who make the final decisions as to which features will be included. A-3.3. SUBRECOMMENDATION: Develop resources with input from potential customers in support of helping aid companies to adopt business practices that will improve their ability to serve people with disabilities. • These materials should be highly customized for different industries and different job responsibilities, e.g., executives, designers, engineers, sales agents, marketing specialists, etc. They should include up-to-date information so companies know about promising practices; • Companies, trade associations and people with disabilities should be involved in developing these materials. Side Bar: Access to Information In the currency of daily life, what is more important, yet, more taken for granted than access to information? But for many people with disabilities, the information access and exchange that most of us take for granted is difficult or impossible. The explanation increasingly lies not in disability itself, but in the design of the technology that mediates our access to and use of all types of information. — EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: THE ACCESSIBLE FUTURE The National Council on Disability Washington, DC May 2000 http://www.ncd.gov/newsroom/publications/accessiblefuture.html These materials should include specific steps describing how to improve business practices around accessibility or UD. For example: • How to design a product manual that is more accessible (and usable to everyone); • How to train your customer service representatives to communicate with people with disabilities; • How to design your Web site for accessibility; • How to effectively highlight accessibility features without stigmatizing your products; and, • How to get accessibility know-how into your product design processes. These materials should be disseminated through multiple channels or “points of entry” for multiple internal audiences. For example, they could be distributed through professional associations, peer networks and consultants. In fact, consultants on accessibility could adopt a generic product and then adapt it for multiple audiences to further accelerate the distribution of materials. Awareness of Industry Innovations PROBLEM: At present, business, industry and government lack incentives for UD and AT-related innovation. There are few mechanisms that inspire promising innovators to pursue breakthrough research and development in the area of UD and AT. A-4. RECOMMENDATION: Additional fiscal incentives should be created to reward industrial innovation. This could be done through either preferential buying, similar to Section 508, and or tax incentives (see Affordability of AT section, page 55). A-4.1. SUBRECOMMENDATION: Encourage the development and extension of national award programs to highlight industry and individual innovations in accessibility. An example would be to expand the President’s National Medal of Technology Award to include a specific award or category for AT innovation. This initiative would bring awareness to the important work and opportunities for AT innovation, as well as to inspire future innovation and secure funding from private companies. Side Bar: Curriculum Development Projects Promote the Value of Universal Design. The Universal Design. Education Project (UDEP) is a national effort organized by Adaptive Environments Center in Boston, MA to challenge existing values in design education by supporting curriculum development and teaching interventions that incorporate the principles and values of universal design. Design schools across the U.S. have been funded to undertake innovative teaching in the areas of architecture, landscape architecture, interior design and industrial design. Awareness by Private Foundations PROBLEM: Private foundations do not generally incorporate UD or AT as a mandatory component in their technology-related grant goals and applications. Private foundations could have a significant impact on the availability and awareness of UD and AT if they considered UD and AT in their grant-making process and considered accessibility in all forms of their foundation and grant communications. Foundations could also impact the availability of UD and AT by championing the issues raised in this report and making funds available to implement the recommendations of this report. A-5. RECOMMENDATION: Encourage private foundations to incorporate the inclusion of UD and AT in all technical grants and focus on AT in their grant-making process. B. Education and Training in UD Currently, there is an absence of UD education as a formal component of most engineering, design, public administration, business administration and marketing programs. Accreditation bodies such as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET), the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) and the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA) should work toward including UD in their curriculum requirements. Improvements should not be limited to post-secondary degree programs. Business and professional associations should support professional in service training in UD and accessibility. Educating these groups about the benefits of and techniques for UD will involve incorporating UD concepts and principles in academic curriculum and industry training, adding UD requirements to the professional accreditation systems, and providing in-service professional training. Side Bar: Library of Case Studies for Engineering Education In an encouraging step, the National Science Foundation (NSF) recently funded a project that was conducted by the Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology (RHIT), the Education Development Center (EDC), and the National Center for Accessible Media at the WGBH Educational Foundation. This project developed a case study on one effective application of universal design “talking ATMs”) that could be used in undergraduate engineering courses. While this is one of many efforts being undertaken, it is a small first step toward solving this problem. http://www.wgbh.org/ncam UD as a Collaborative Effort PROBLEM: Thus far, accrediting bodies, government and academia have not regularly collaborated with regard to UD priorities. All professional groups with a vested interest in products that foster accessibility and widespread usability must be willing to work together to achieve the greatest possible outcomes. B-1. RECOMMENDATION: Industry professional organizations, accrediting bodies, government and academia should work collaboratively to ensure that UD is an accepted industry practice and an expected engineering skill. UD in the Curriculum PROBLEM: Currently there is an absence of UD education as a formal component of most engineering disciplines, or other relevant programs such as public administration, business administration and marketing. (These programs prepare professionals who supervise the work of designers and engineers and make major decisions about product development, marketing, physical infrastructure and other physical amenities.) UD curricula can significantly influence innovative technology solutions for accessibility. UD in the curriculum would complement and support current training requirements for businesses and their designers who must understand the new Federal Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards. Business leadership is essential to achieving the goal of infusing UD into university curricula. As “purchasers” of the universities’ “product” — a.k.a. qualified engineers — industry has significant influence over both universities and private accrediting organizations. If businesses were to inform universities that they would prioritize the recruitment and retention of engineers proficient in UD, curriculum changes would quickly follow to accommodate such a need. B-2. RECOMMENDATION: Colleges and universities should infuse UD concepts and principles into the curricula of their programs, including engineering, public administration, business administration, marketing and design. • This initiative should encompass all engineering programs, including industrial designers, landscape architects, electrical/computer engineers, mechanical engineers, packaging and other kinds of engineers; • This initiative should also include business schools, law schools and schools of public policy; • Companies with an interest in engineering personnel preparation should communicate to colleges, universities, and accrediting agencies consensus recommendations regarding skill sets for UD of consumer products, and, • Universities in partnership with associations and others should have the lead in developing curricula. Government should consider a grant program to encourage curriculum development. Updating the curriculum will have several consequences. Incorporating UD into the curriculum will require curricula and textbook development, as well as training of faculty on principles of UD. To train engineering faculty, colleges and universities could make available in-service training and provide travel funds and registration-fee reimbursement for faculty members so that they may learn about UD. UD in the Accreditation System Colleges and universities offering degrees in various disciplines seek accreditation by accrediting bodies. In general, the accreditation systems do not currently require standards for UD. Schools of engineering seek accreditation by such bodies as the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology (ABET). Since industry is a primary customer for academia and has yet to articulate educational expectations relative to UD, ABET does not now require the inclusion of UD principles in their curriculum recommendations. Therefore, colleges and universities have little incentive to do so. ABET has incorporated into its accreditation assessment metrics an evaluation of student exposure to such items as “ethics,’’ “social impact of design,’’ “design and product realization,’’ “engineering and basic science,’’ and many others, although, not yet, UD. Similar to engineering schools, colleges and universities offering degrees in public administration, public policy and public affairs seek accreditation by such bodies as the National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration (NASPAA). Because NASPAA (like ABET) does not now require the inclusion of assistive design principles in their accredited programs, colleges and universities have little incentive to do so. NASPAA is especially well-suited to spearhead this effort because it sponsors an annual conference, offers doctoral program directors’ workshops and supports a national honor society in public affairs and administration. Public administrators should play a greater role in positively influencing UD policy. Side Bar: Educating a New Generation of Designers The Lemelson Assistive Technology Development Center (LATDC) at Hampshire College in Amherst, MA, gives students an experimental education in applied design, invention and entrepreneurship through the lens of assistive technology and universal design. LATDC achieves its mission through a combination of courses, activities, and internships. Through collaborations with business and non-profit organizations, teams of students design, develop and make equipment available for people with disabilities. The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB) is the accreditation organization for business schools. Although currently no requirements for courses related to accessibility are incorporated into business school programs, some business specializations could benefit from an accessibility perspective such as marketing, management information systems, product development, human resources, etc. B-3. RECOMMENDATION: UD requirements should be added to the accreditation systems of all professions that affect the design, marketing and support of technology-based products. Working collaboratively with industry and professional societies, accreditation societies such as ABET, NASPAA, and AACSB should develop educational requirements in UD for their disciplines and incorporate those requirements into the curricular recommendations of college and university programs. UD in Professional Training PROBLEM: Business and professional associations can also influence the training of engineers and other professionals working in industry and academia, as well as communicate to colleges and universities the importance of incorporating UD into curricula. So far, business and professional organizations have not made such demands on colleges and universities and the current work force. B-4. RECOMMENDATION: UD requirements should be integrated into professional in-service training. Starting with private and corporate foundations, funds should be devoted to support professional in-service training in UD as a fundamental component of design and business practices. Private industry should incorporate UD principles into their in-house training programs. C. Affordability of AT Many people with functional limitations cannot afford the AT they need. Public and private systems frequently do not create an efficient, market-driven approach to AT purchasing. A more extensive and coordinated approach to creating a universally accessible system for timely procurement, distribution and cost savings is needed. One Side Bar: Design Defects “An accessible environment is one that a user may enter, navigate in and use efficiently. Going even further, we must also look at what it means to be labeled disabled. At ATA, we define disability not as a flaw in an individual, but as a design defect in the environment.’’ — Russ Holland Alliance for Technology Access (ATA) Missouri Model for Equipment Distribution Equipment-distribution programs could be modeled after the very successful one in Missouri. It is the only equipment distribution program in the country that provides accessibility adaptations to the personal computer. http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills00/bills00/sb721.htm element of the federal effort to advance the use of AT is the AT Act. The AT Act offers state-level support and advocacy for people with disabilities, provides information about AT, training for professionals, public awareness and assistance with securing funding. It addresses some of the most critical service delivery gaps identified in our research. The Task Force supports the provisions of the AT Act. The goals of the AT Act can be substantially strengthened, including close cooperation with industry and the expansion of existing equipment distribution programs. In cases where none now exist, new ones that can be created are modeled after the very successful program in Missouri, which is funded by a nine cent surcharge on each phone call (see sidebar on page 55). In the accessible nation envisioned by the Task Force, people with disabilities will purchase technology in an expanded, reorganized and consumer-driven process that takes advantage of scale. Some of the challenges inherent in this vision include, continuing the interagency coordination effort for greater compatibility among them, facilitating consumer informed choice, reducing the cost of AT and ensuring affordable access to emerging technologies. The overriding challenge is to make AT more affordable to those who need it and reduce costs to consumers, government, private insurers and taxpayers. The High Cost of AT Although not all AT is expensive, costs rise dramatically with the degree of sophistication and customization. A Plexiglas key guard, which covers a keyboard and permits people to type more accurately, costs approximately $100. At the higher end of the spectrum, augmentative communication devices that enable non-vocal students to express themselves range from $6,400 to $7,500. Local school districts often purchase this equipment. Additional costs are incurred to program some units so users may say what they wish to communicate in different settings such as a classroom, lunch room, restroom and at home. Side Bar: Explanation of AT Act & U.S. Senate Committee View The committee believes that the present and future federal role in promoting access to technology for individuals with disabilities through legislation must allow support for current initiatives and incentives to undertake new initiatives, and for tools that equip governments, organizations, and individuals to respond to emerging and unanticipated technology needs of individuals with disabilities. The AT Act increases the availability of, funding for, access to, and provision of, assistive technology devices and assistive technology services by promoting: (continued on next page) Affordability includes not only the initial cost of the product, but operating expenses as well. Support services such as medical evaluations, fitting, training and post-sale support are also expensive and not generally available or affordable. The “total cost of ownership” (TCO) includes maintenance, which may be 15 percent of the purchase price per year of ownership, including repairs and training. Overtime TCO runs several times its initial purchase price. For devices that are highly specialized or unusual, costs may be even higher. Factors That Contribute to High AT Costs Small Market Size: Most AT products sell too few units each year to allow for the economies of scale needed for manufacturing competitively priced products. The AT industry is forced to follow a “NASA” model in which a relatively low volume of products are manufactured each year and result in a high per unit price. Market Fragmentation: It is difficult for AT manufacturers to find and market to all prospective customers because they are geographically dispersed, and in many cases, require different market strategies for different segments of the disabled population. This means that the cost of reaching each potential consumer is higher than for mainstream products. Product Development and Update Costs: These initial costs can be high and must be amortized across few units. Often, inventors and manufacturers are short of capital for innovation. Additional costs are incurred, as AT manufacturers must frequently update their products to remain compatible with the latest versions of mainstream products. Lack of Standard Interfaces, e.g., absence-to-date is a standard application programming interface for AT and mainstream computer applications. Side Bar: Explanation of AT Act and U.S. Senate Committee View (continued) …Increased coordination among state agencies, between state and local public agencies, among local public agencies, and among state and local public agencies and private entities (e.g., managed care providers), that are or could be involved in carrying out activities under this act; …In addition, the Alliance for AT Act promotes greater interagency coordination at the federal level to facilitate a more dynamic and focused federal investment in actions that will result in increased access to technology by individuals with disabilities and increased involvement of the private sector, including small businesses, to enhance such access. 59010, Calendar No. 577, 105TH CONGRESS REPORT, Senate, 2nd Session, 105 334, Assistive Technology Act of 1998; September 15, 1998 http://www.resna.org/taproject/library/laws/sr334.txt Overarching Effort. PROBLEM: One of the most significant barriers to the use and affordability of AT results from fragmentation of public agency service for people with disabilities. Consumers must navigate through a morass of different eligibility or entitlement policies, practices and procedures of state programs that provide AT. The end results are a frustrated agency staff and consumers who cannot get the AT and information and communication technology needed across all ages, environments and life tasks — in communities, schools, work and transportation. For many consumers, AT is a life span need that affects every area of their lives, everyday. The need for it does not just happen at school or at work; it cuts across every major life activity and often requires a range of solutions that may change with the progression of life and the disabling condition. Today, people with disabilities face many barriers when they attempt to secure AT devices and services from public agencies: • Public agencies and schools provide AT that directly relates to agency mandates, not the primary needs of the consumer; • AT does not follow the consumer from one agency to the next; and, • AT often cannot be taken from one environment to the next (school use/ home use). There are major gaps among agencies providing AT, creating what some people refer to as “black holes” in services. For example, students with disabilities who are graduating or dropping out of secondary school are later dropped from VR services with no clear employment path and have no way to obtain the AT they need across all life settings. This applies in particular to information technologies such as adapted computers and certain communication technologies. Side Bar: Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Most states sponsor telecommunications equipment distribution programs to comply with Title IV of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Title IV requires all telecommunications companies to provide telecommunications relay services (TRS) that connect TTY users and non-users. All 50 states have TRS services in place. Most states use some surcharge funds for equipment distribution programs. These programs vary greatly in scope and depth of coverage. Most provide TTY’s, ring signalers, large-button phone dialers and similar equipment linked to traditional analog voice telephones. Some states such as New York test the program by limiting eligibility to persons who are poor, in addition to having certified disabilities. C-1. RECOMMENDATION: Provisions of the AT Act should be substantially strengthened with formula-based, multi-year state grants, improved coordination with the private sector and consumer oversight and consideration for the removal of sunset provisions. Interagency coordination with consumer influence is needed to create an overarching effort that will examine how programs work together, eliminate conflicting, redundant rules and processes, and make it possible for consumers to enter a seamless system at various points for varied reasons. AT Act grants should include core services in multi-year state plans such as: • AT device demonstrations; • AT equipment loans; • Toll-free telephone and Web site to provide AT information and referral; • AT awareness to public and private sectors; and, • Collaboration with all interested stakeholders. Boost Consumer Autonomy PROBLEM: Although the right of choice is an American value, too often customers who need an AT product do not have a “choice” in its purchase. There is a need to reorganize and expand the existing purchasing systems to restore consumer autonomy for the purchase of AT and AMT. The right of choice in making decisions about AT devices and services is crucial to promote self-reliance and ownership, rather than dependency. C-2. RECOMMENDATION: Similar to the Social Security Ticket to Work Program, efforts should be made to boost consumer autonomy and the right of choice through an AT ticket initiative. As it now stands, consumers usually do not have the ability to choose the product they need. In addition, because the consumer is not involved in the decision-making process, they do not have a sense of ownership of the technology. Individuals could use tickets to purchase AT devices and services that are currently supported. Advantages to using tickets include: • Restore Ownership. Tickets for AT and AMT would restore ownership of the technology to the consumer. With ownership comes accountability for making effective decisions and in caring, maintaining and replacing technology. Side Bar: Social Security Ticket to Work Program The notion of using tickets as a means of restoring control to the end-user is gaining widespread acceptance in public programs, as witnessed by the rolling out of the Social Security Ticket to Work program. Beneficiaries of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits will receive “tickets” to purchase services they need to go to work. Once assigned to an Employment Network, these tickets could be used to purchase assistive technology if needed to get a job, although the primary intent is to use tickets for services like training programs. http://www.ssa.gov/work/Ticket/ticket_info.html • Better Decisions. Accountability for decisions suggests the need to consider various alternatives carefully to increase the likelihood of better decisions. Self-determination does acknowledge the rights of consumers to make mistakes in their decisions; however, consumer choice does not mean unfettered choice, and all public programs are expected to be good guardians of public tax dollars. The availability of technical support, training and try-out programs will reduce the potential for poor consumer decisions that could lead to abandoning technology when using a ticket. • Increased Market. The use of tickets for AT allows for natural market demand, without interfering with normal business practices or marketing. The end result is to increase the market for AT. Improving State Equipment Distribution and Loan Initiatives that are Coordinated with State AT Act Programs PROBLEM: In most states, mechanisms are in place to distribute or loan free or low-cost AT. However, a narrow range of devices are offered due to limited funds and often available only to some people with disabilities. These programs include the Telecommunication Equipment Distribution Program as well as others operated by state AT Act Projects and non-profit organizations. Meanwhile, the range and number of AT devices require more consumer participation and ownership in decisions than ever before. The potential for error is higher, because the variety and complexity of technologies from which to choose is much greater. Individuals with disabilities need more opportunities to “test drive” such devices through state equipment/loan programs. C-2.1. SUBRECOMMENDATION: State AT Act programs could pilot the use of a “ticket” on a sliding scale so that consumers could purchase AT and possibly AMT. The provision of such tickets should ensure that consumers have the opportunity to secure credentials expertise in determining the appropriateness of the device along with opportunities for trial use. Pilot programs should possess the following attributes: • Address a broad range of technologies; • Include assessment services or links to professionals who can provide assessments and assist in making responsible decisions; • Develop program eligibility procedures that are easy to follow for both consumers and administration; • Enable the “try-out” of AT; • Foster free or low-cost lending services when there are no clear funding options; • Include training services; • Facilitate opportunities to meet with peer users of AT/AMT to understand the full potential of AT that may initially seem overwhelmingly complex; • Include consumer participation in developing, implementing and evaluating the program; • Ensure sufficient levels of funding each year; • Include a reliable process for reclaiming and recycling inventory; and, • Have a strong outreach program to market the services. Missouri Model TAP Programs Missouri is pioneering a promising approach to a distribution program. Created by a state law, the Telecommunications Access Program (TAP) for Internet supplements the more traditional Telecommunications Access Program (TAP) for Telephone. (For more information, see Appendix C on page 89.) Strengthening “Try-Out” Programs To Increase The Likelihood of Appropriate Choices PROBLEM: Consumers of mainstream technology have readily available, informal opportunities to examine and compare devices and systems, whereas, individuals deciding which AT device to buy, have less opportunity to examine and compare models and products. AT devices and software programs that help people use PCs, surf the Internet, work, pursue an education and obtain information should be available for potential purchasers to “try-out.” There are excellent programs within many states that provide people with disabilities opportunities to try out many types of AT and IT. These public and private centers are operated by Centers for Independent Living, AT Act Projects, schools, some libraries, universities and vendor groups. In addition, many AT resource centers offer people the opportunity to “test drive” AT devices and secure Side Bar: Programs At Work The Georgia AT Act Project,Tools for Life, operates AT Resource Centers that loaned 12,002 AT devices to Georgians with disabilities between 1983 and 2002. Last year alone, 2,125 devices were loaned at an estimated cost-savings to agencies and consumers of $226,700. “My two-year-old son, Drew, with Down’s syndrome needed a touch screen when I discovered Tech-Able, a Tools for Life AT Resource Center. I found various websites promising assistance and sent many e-mails. Tech-Able was the ONLY organization that wrote back with the assistance I requested. They loaned us a touch screen computer, and Drew took to it marvelously. We now know it would be a good investment. Tech-Able loaned us wonderful software to go with it, ALL AT NO COST!” — A Parent from AT Center assessment services. These resources typically carry small inventories of equipment for trial use due to limited budgets. However, the staff can usually link to many other sources of information and assessment services to find the best solution. As welcome as these programs are, more needs to be done. C-2.2. SUBRECOMMENDATION: Existing public libraries, post-secondary schools and Community Technology Centers throughout the nation should have accessible IT tools for people with a variety of disabilities. The AT in these places should be accessible to the public and ought to be planned and budgeted in up front costs, rather than retrofitted afterwards. • The AT should be prominently displayed. • Grants should be made available to Community Technology Centers that demonstrate an ability to keep their staff well-trained and house the latest AT options for a variety of disabilities. Public libraries can make information technology more accessible. They are physically accessible, typically within a short commuting distance of community residents and situated near public transportation. Some Community Technology Centers offer an additional set of advantages. They are staffed with technologically trained persons. Such places could serve as AT “come and try” centers once they are trained on AT and are ready, willing, and able to provide service to individuals with disabilities. Encourage Greater Employment of People With Disabilities to Restore Purchasing Power PROBLEM: Employment is crucial to independence, empowerment and improved quality of life. Employment opportunities for people with disabilities are a cornerstone of the President’s New Freedom Initiative. Technology plays a clear and critical role in accomplishing this goal. Having AT in the workplace allows people with disabilities to work. A Harris Poll shows Side Bar: This recommendation is based upon Section 4, Grants to States for Public Libraries, in the bill introduced by Senator Tom Harkin in the 106th Congress, S. 3211, Technology for All Americans Act. As currently written, the bill does not provide for placement of assistive technology devices in CTCs. These centers are authorized under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), most recently amended and extended by the Leave No Child Behind Act of 2001 (PL 107-110). that today — 13 years after passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act — more than 65 percent of working age adults with disabilities are unemployed. More proactive measures are needed to increase employment of people with disabilities, or else many will continue to live at poverty level — unable to afford many types of AT and IT. C-2.3. SUBRECOMMENDATION: The federal government should establish a rebate initiative to fund state government agencies and non-profit organizations for 50 percent of the cost of AT-related, reasonable accommodations. This could serve as an incentive to hire and accommodate employees with disabilities. The rebate initiative provides incentives to state governments and non-profit organizations that are similar to the tax incentives available to private sector employers to hire and accommodate employees with disabilities. This initiative could involve state AT Act projects for technical assistance and “try-outs” of equipment before purchase. This recommendation is designed to stimulate state and non-profit organizational hiring of people with disabilities. Additional employment of people with disabilities within state government and non-profits will result in several additional benefits: • Strengthen their “buying power” as users of AT; • Strengthen or expand the market demand for AT; • Funnel more dollars into strengthening state public and private AT assessment and training services; and, • Save taxpayer dollars, since employed people with disabilities will become taxpayers rather than tax-users. Stimulating Cooperative Buying Programs PROBLEM: The majority of public agencies purchase AT on a case-by-case basis, which reduces the potential for group or bulk discounts. These programs are unable to stretch public dollars because they have no mechanism for pooling resources to take advantage of much larger economies of scale. Side Bar: AT Works Best When There is Opportunity to “Try-Out” While little research is available that substantiates abandonment of AT resulting from lack of choice and “try-out,” the fact is most everyone working in the disability community, and many advocates readily and frequently share stories of how AT did not work properly for them because they had no opportunity to try it out first. Funding of AT on a fragmented basis, is very inefficient, administratively. Without a mechanism in place to increase economies of scale, agencies will continue to make most AT and IT purchases, one at a time. C-2.4. SUBRECOMMENDATION: Efforts should be made to stretch public and private dollars by pooling purchases. Public and private agencies purchasing AT should consider and/or strengthen online group purchasing arrangements with negotiated discounts and pooling resources among many agencies. This may be achieved through voluntary participation in state programs, the Federal Computer Electronic Accommodation Program (see Appendix B for further information), or as a program of national significance under a membership organization such as the American Association of Persons with Disabilities, which recently announced the availability of its Digital Virtual Credit Union. The pairing of national financial services available to all Americans with disabilities along with the potential for pooling purchases would lower the retail costs of AT and increase the buying power for many more consumers. The availability of this service could be folded into a program of national significance. • These cost-efficiencies cannot be done in a manner that increases delays for consumers in getting the AT; • These cost-efficiencies cannot be done in a manner that fails to respond to needs for unique and customized products; and, • Government agencies as major purchasers of AT have the largest pool of consumer opinions about AT products. A mechanism for potentially conducting consumer opinion surveys to gather recommendations about certain classes of products may be an area of public/private collaboration to consider. Tax Programs PROBLEM: Inclusion of people with disabilities into the mainstream of society through full access to employment, education, health care and independent living represents a key goal of public policy and constitutes an enormous benefit to the American economy. Intelligently crafted and carefully targeted tax law changes could contribute significantly to the affordability of AT by increasing dollars available for AT purchases and incorporating strategies to reduce the retail cost of AT. Side Bar: Using Technology to Level the Playing Field Dr. James Caldwell, the Chair of the Texas Governor’s Committee on People with Disabilities notes, “The current potential for providing access to professional education and employment opportunities to people with disabilities is unprecedented. The current potential for using technology to level the playing field for people with disabilities is unprecedented. We must create systematic ways for communities to realize that potential.” — Dr. Steven Lucas Privaseek, Inc. Before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on the Constitution February 9, 2000 C-3. RECOMMENDATION: Serious consideration should be given to the role tax policy could play in encouraging universal design and assistive technology. For example, tax policy could encourage business to develop and incorporate universal design features into commercial products and services, increase R&D funds dedicated to AMT and AT, and reduce the cost of AMT and AT purchases by individual end-users and the families that support these individuals. AT and UD each have separate challenges. The following discussion about tax credits and benefits of new and emerging technologies are ideas that merit discussion. UD Tax Credit PROBLEM: Under current law, designers, developers and producers of UD and AT, who are mainstream, receive no particular benefits and no specific incentives for this work. Private entities attempting to incorporate UD principles, accessible interfaces or other specialized AT features into their products and designs receive no incentive for doing so through the tax system. C-3.1. SUBRECOMMENDATION: Explore ways within the tax system to encourage mainstream manufacturers to practice UD and make their products more accessible. Technology Business Tax Credit PROBLEM: Under current law, there is no provision for the business community that designs technology specifically for people with disabilities to do the research and development that is necessary to innovate new products and to upgrade existing technologies. C-3.2. SUBRECOMMENDATION: A mechanism could be explored within the tax system to help people who design technology specifically for people with disabilities to facilitate their capability to develop new, more effective technologies, and upgrade existing technologies. Side Bar: Maryland: AT Last, Inc. Offers Promise Innovative programs are looking at ways to reduce costs through online group purchasing agreements or other innovative arrangements. For example, the Maryland AT Act project helped launch a non-profit organization, AT Last, Inc., which has agreements with 24 manufacturers for group discounts, and 33 participating agencies and even individual consumers, more recently. From program inception in March 1999, this tiny non-profit program has saved participating public and private agencies approximately $800,000 dollars by negotiating discounts with manufacturers, and electronic purchasing. AT Last also backs all of its purchases with training to end-users. Side Bar: New Jersey Group Purchasing Program The New Jersey Community Association (NJCA) provides the opportunity for Community Action Agencies (CAAs) to speak with one voice on issues of mutual concern and to initiate and develop programs to benefit all CAAs. By combining purchased expense into one group program, significant savings are expected by exercising the economic principle of economies of scale. http://www.njcaanet.org/ Click on Updates and Bulletins. Accessibility to Emerging Technologies PROBLEM: Emerging technology that enhances communication holds tremendous promise for all Americans. These same technologies are particularly promising for Americans with disabilities. However, accessibility laws are often tied to particular technologies. As technologies change, the benefits of these laws can be left behind. Currently, the accelerating rate of technological change outpaces the statutory and regulatory protections accorded to Americans with disabilities. Emerging technologies not covered by a new law or Amendment to the Telecommunications Act of 1996 include interactive and enhanced television and broadband. Many technologies on the horizon — any one could emerge as the “next promising invention” — must be anticipated along with its impact on people with disabilities. C-4. RECOMMENDATION: Help to ensure the accessible design of all information and communication products and services. New and Emerging Technologies PROBLEMS: Current laws require accessibility in telecommunications products and services and in broadcast, cable-cast and satellite television programming. This means that TV programs need to be captioned if they are broadcast or cable-cast. But what happens if the programs are transmitted over the Internet? Are they still considered as airing on “television” in the sense of the 1990 law? And, what if television combines several different kinds of media so that it is made interactive and enhanced — must that be accessible by law? Should programming on the Web by a broadcaster be accessible? Similarly, Section 255 covers “telecommunications products” and “telecommunications services” — called “narrowband” products and services. What about broadband? Currently, only voice-grade and traditional communications are covered; it is not clear whether Section 255 extends to broadband-compatible and required technologies. In fact much of this territory remains unclear and the FCC has not used all of its authority with respect to requiring these public interest obligations. Assurances are necessary to provide accessibility in new and emerging technologies. EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND THEIR BENEFITS Interactive and Enhanced Television Interactive and enhanced television incorporates elements of broadcast/cable-cast television with aspects of telecommunications. Since virtually every American home has at least one TV set, there is the potential for a very high penetration rate. This means that widely anticipated interactive services provided through a “magic box” could bring the Information Age to most Americans with disabilities at a reasonable cost. Yet, this will occur only if the interactive services are accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. Broadband Broadband is an emerging technology that holds great potential for improving the lives of Americans with disabilities. Traditional telephony is “narrowband” meaning that it is designed to carry analog (voice) communications. It can also carry text such as e-mails and faxes and with difficulty a small amount of video. In contrast, broadband is designed to carry digital signals and is expressly fitted to carry voice, data and video, concurrently. Next Generation Internet The next-generation Internet could include services for people with disabilities such as auditory descriptions of visual images for people who are blind or have low vision. Real-time speech-to-text translation services enable people who are deaf or hard of hearing to participate in meetings or presentations. High-speed digital communications also facilitate sign-to-sign communication between remotely located individuals who are deaf. C-4.1. SUBRECOMMENDATION: Develop and administer courses designed to help industry build mainstream business cases around assistive design. These methodologies focused on maximizing the accessibility and usability of Electronic and Information Technology (E&IT) are required to accommodate the following mainstream consumer groups. Similarities Side Bar: Stimulating UD and AT through Tax Policy Tax policy alone cannot move Americans with disabilities into the economic mainstream. But just as it has been applied as a significant element of our policy in other areas, so can it help here. Few exercises of tax policy could hold higher leverage value from the standpoint of the values for which our society stands and for the creation of a world that will work for our aging society, without imposing costs of dependency that are unendurable or that generate inter-generational conflict. Only if UD and AT are stimulated in a variety of ways can the technology revolution meet its potential. Failure to act will have far higher costs. — Steve Mendelsohn Attorney, author and advocate who specializes in disability and civil rights issues. between these consumer groups (see chart, column 1) and consumers with disabilities (see chart, column 3) are listed below. Demographic data, of the categories below, can be found at http://www.ideal-group.org/ ideas_2003/ideas_2003_final.ppt. (You will need to be online to view this PowerPoint presentation [2.0 MB]. You will need to use PowerPoint 97 or greater to access the links contained in the presentation. Please be patient, this may take several minutes to download to your computer.) Mainstream market forces creating demand for more accessibility designed E&IT Number of consumers impacted on a global scale Disability categories that can be accommodated using technologies similarly to column 1 Aging populations 440 million Cognition, hearing, mobility and vision Populations of people who never learned to read 1.5 billion Cognition, hearing, mobility and vision Business populations using English as a second language 300 million Cognition, hearing, mobility and vision High-density populations 5+ billion Cognition, hearing, mobility and vision Populations living within low-bandwidth infrastructures 5+ billion Cognition, hearing, mobility and vision The need to translate content from one language to another Critical business requirement affecting billions of consumers Cognition, hearing, mobility and vision Accessibility in All Products PROBLEM: Information and communication technology that emerges is not always reviewed from the earliest stages with regard to what the impact will be on people with disabilities. Within the industry and its regulatory bodies there is a lack of empowerment to report on a “horizon scan” of accessibility issues. “Keeping up” is not enough. We must anticipate changes in the industry so that appropriate regulations can arrive simultaneously with the product. Research should consider and report what the upcoming barriers are so that potential solutions can be proposed in advance. C-4.2. SUBRECOMMENDATION: Encourage requiring accessibility in information and communication products and services sold in the United States. Accessibility of mainstream products should be considered before compatibility with AT; the business practices used to design, market and support products and services must be accessible as well. However, unlike the current Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act, broadband communications and other advanced technologies should also be covered. D. AT Research & Development Currently, there are major gaps in AT research. We lack data on people with disabilities who have specific needs for accessible information and communication products and services. We also need more information about current consumer behavior of people with disabilities and affordability issues associated with AT devices and services. Advancing technologies are giving us the ability to address disability and to create independence in new and more effective ways. In the accessible nation, more people with disabilities will be living and working independently as a result of new AT that allows them to function productively and competitively in the workplace and to live independently longer as a result of advanced AT research and development. Side Bar: Current Laws Require Accessibility of Existing Technologies • Section 255 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, PL 104-104 requires accessibility in telecommunications products and services. Telecommunications equipment must be accessible to and usable by Americans with disabilities, if readily achievable. If accessibility cannot be provided, the equipment must be compatible with adaptive devices such as TTY’s, if readily achievable. However, it covers only voicegrade, traditional, and largely analog communications. • Section 713 of PL 104-104 requires captioning of virtually all new broadcast, cable-cast and satellite television programming no later than 2006. • P.L. 101-431, the Television Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990, requires that virtually all TV sets contain built-in caption decoder chips. • P.L. 100-394, the Hearing Aid Compatibility Act of 1988, requires all wireline telephones to be hearing aid compatible and, as implemented, to have volume control. Research Data on Technology and Disability PROBLEM: While information regarding Americans with disabilities has greatly improved since the U.S. Bureau of the Census first began collecting them in 1970, these data fall well short of the need. For example, the most recent Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) report counts the number of people who report difficulty in speaking, hearing and grasping small objects, or who cannot do these activities at all. That is useful information, however, but because of the nature of the questions, data are only available about people who are “unable” to do something, or “have difficulty” doing those things. This is not specific enough to be useful to product developers. In addition, most product manufacturers now market globally. Consequently, efforts to collect data on health and disability by the World Health Organization (WHO), the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics and others need to be improved. D-1. RECOMMENDATION: Efforts should be made to improve research data on technology and disability. Need for a National Survey PROBLEM: Manufacturers need more precise data on the size of the population of Americans with disabilities, the geographical distribution of that population and perhaps, most importantly, the specific needs of the population for consumer devices. For example, how many people would benefit from talking ATM machines, video description on TV, captions on TV and on Internet video? How many people cannot, quickly and accurately, manually enter information on ATM machines, cell phones, personal computers, and so on? How many people encounter difficulties with public accommodations? We have a tremendous need to pinpoint the areas in our country where people are deprived of opportunities based on accessibility. We need high quality survey instruments that will produce accurate counts of the population of people who need AT and in what context their needs are greatest. Side Bar: Revising the Telecommunications Act The Telecommunications Act of 1996 is a series of amendments to the Communications Act of 1934. Additional changes to the Telecommunications Act would require an amendment to the Communications Act of 1934. Retrofitting Products vs. Mainstream Products The computer industry has not perceived the disabled community as a market significant enough for serious investment. So the responsibility thus far has fallen on small, third-party assistive technology companies. “These companies must retrofit mainstream products to make them accessible. This is expensive due to the high cost of R&D, compared with the volume it generates. It also means that individuals with disabilities are always at least one step behind the mainstream in acquiring and employing new tools. It gets even worse as product cycles become ever shorter.” — Russ Holland Alliance for Technology Access D-1.1. SUBRECOMMENDATION: Government and industry should collaboratively conduct a national survey regarding the need for and use of accessibility features in mainstream products and services and AT. In conjunction with this effort, disability statisticians should consult with consumers and industry representatives — notably designers and ergonomists — to identify the range of functions to be studied, bearing in mind that the performance demands imposed by technological products keep changing. Questions should also include studies of the entire population and not only those of persons with disabilities. In addition, government statistical gathering programs should be consulted to determine the best way of capturing the most important information about consumers with disabilities for the benefit of public policies. There is need for a study of marketing, purchasing patterns and dissemination issues. PROBLEM: For markets to function efficiently they need specific, reliable and timely information. In general, companies involved in specialized AT do not know the size of the market and how to reach their market. There is a lack of information available to these manufacturers that address the questions of how many people are in their target audience, who is going to pay for AT, and what is the best way to get information in their hands. Marketing: Manufacturers of AT devices are not well informed about the target market. Is there a national or state database that defines their audience? What would be the best way to mass market products? In this realm, many questions are begging to be expediently answered. Purchasing Patterns: Research needs to be done that focuses on consumer behavior. The lack of specific data contributes to higher AT costs. There is a lack of research that points to ways to increase efficiencies through better business management. There are many questions related to purchasing patterns: Would special offers work? Do pre/post-sale costs such as evaluations and training affect the sale? Do demand and supply issues influence AT purchases? Could a company use AT orders from last year as a forecast? How does customization for unique needs such as custom designed and/or custom-fitted products affect a purchase? Side Bar: Some Progress with Disability Statistics Progress has been made in collecting more relevant disability statistics, as contained in the latest NTIA report, A NATION ONLINE. To view the report: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/dn/index.html Dissemination Issues: AT distribution is very inefficient and does not generally reflect basic business management skills. In virtually every instance, AT devices and services are purchased one at a time. This contributes to keeping prices higher than would be the case with purchases of a larger volume. Any of the following questions are legitimate, because the ground work has yet to be laid in this area of research: Would third-party purchase work? How can you decrease inefficiencies at the regional and state levels? And, are there ways to increase competition and innovation? D 1.2. SUBRECOMMENDATION: A study investigating the marketing, purchasing patterns, and dissemination issues regarding UD and AT technology should be initiated. Developing the Next Generation AT PROBLEM: Even if all mainstream technology were usable by people with the widest array of abilities, AT would still be necessary for some people with specific types of functional limitations. R&D in AT is urgently needed to develop better techniques for designing interfaces that can be built into mass market products, and for developing next generation AT that will be easier to use and support a wider array of functional abilities. Next generation AT could enable people who are blind to access any kind of written material, anytime, anywhere and to navigate effectively in physical and virtual environments. These technologies could empower deaf individuals to communicate freely and independently with anyone and participate fully and competitively in any environment. Innovative technologies could give people with severe physical disabilities the ability to control any device and interact effectively with any product, service, system or environment. America has a long tradition of making public and private investments in science and technology to support vitally important national goals in areas such as defense, space, energy, health, the environment and information technology. These investments have paid for themselves many times over and made the United States the world leader in science, technology and innovation. If the same dedication and ingenuity is applied to the field of AT research, extraordinary advances are indeed possible. Our goal should be technology transfer from the latest technological innovations in National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), DoD and other federal R&D investments to the commercial application of UD and AT. Advances in UD products, services, systems, environments and AT will have a direct, measurable benefit to all Americans, as has occurred with defense, space and medical research. For example, Optical Character Recognition (OCR) was originally developed to assist blind and deaf people, converting text and images into bitmap patterns so the computer could easily read these. Thousands of pages of government or academic documents could be swiftly scanned into a computer that would have required vast numbers of human labor hours to physically type them. Today, this scanner technology is mainstream and readily found in a majority of offices throughout the nation. Similarly, the Internet — a system of computers talking with a community of computers — was originally developed through academic and DoD research. It grew in its capacity within the academic and defense communities until it has become commonplace in households throughout the world. Today, e-commerce — a formidable business frontier — provides a shining example of a creative offspring of the Internet. Products, services, systems and environments would be easier for everyone to use even under stress and during an emergency. They would reduce language barriers and result in fewer injuries. Yet, despite the enormous promise of UD products, systems and services and next generation AT, our nation has under invested in these technologies in comparison to other areas of R&D investment. The 2003 budget requests record levels for federal R&D — the amount of $111.8 billion. In 1999, the most recent year for which full information is available, total spending by industry, government, universities and nonprofit organizations was $244 billion. R&D funding for disabilities (not health) technology to help increase the independence of people with disabilities, including those who are aging, is a small fraction of one percent of the total U.S. R&D budget. This is an amazingly small number given the significance and cost both socially and financially to our country when these individuals are not able to live and work independently. Leadership by the federal government is needed to create incentives for companies, universities and non-profit organizations to perform high risk R&D in AT and AMT. Our nation’s objective should be to stimulate the development and deployment of breakthrough technologies with significant potential to improve the quality of life for individuals with disabilities, while simultaneously providing substantial economic benefits to the U.S. economy. Furthermore, if the federal government invests in AT R&D, it will help drive additional private R&D. For example, company R&D is frequently organized to leverage federal R&D. Figure 4: Federal Budget, Outlays Fiscal Year 2003: $2.1 Trillion National Defense: 17%, Other Mandatory: 8%, Debt Service: 9%, Medicaid: 7%, Medicare: 11%, Non-Defense Discretionary: 20%, Other Income-Tested Entitlements: 6%, Social Security: 22%. Source: Office of Management and Budget, “Fiscal Year 2003: A Citizen’s Guide to the Federal Budget.’’ D-2. RECOMMENDATION: A greater level of public and private funding for research should be targeted toward technologies and people with disabilities. This funding should take advantage of the technical advances that are now possible so that individuals who have disabilities can be more independent, productive and interactive in today’s world. Balance needs to be restored such that R&D programs are created or a fraction of other R&D programs are devoted to this area. Ideally, funding should be prioritized as in other areas such as medicine, space and military research. D-2.1. SUBRECOMMENDATION: Existing R&D in the federal departments of NASA and the DoD should be reviewed to determine where new technological innovations can be transferred to other federal R&D programs that deal with disability research, as well as the commercial application of AT and UD. D-2.2. SUBRECOMMENDATION: Dramatically increase the percentage of funding for R&D related to disability technology in the federal government. This will enable the research and development of new and improved assistive and accessible technologies that will significantly affect the independence of people experiencing disabilities including those who are older. Herein lies a huge opportunity to create new and improved AT that can provide much greater independence and enable people to be able to interact with the innovative technologies of today. There is much that can be done if the funding is appropriate and programs are generated. As a result, we will realize the vision of an accessible nation that is within our reach. Picture of Ana Vasquez. Picture of Ana Vasque. Picture of Ana Vasquez at computer. Ana Vasquez Transition Assistant “While attending college I worked with the Board of Education in a part-time work-study position,” says Vasquez. “Immediately after getting my Bachelors degree in Spanish and Computer Science, I began looking for a job and my own place to live. One of my classmates who knew my situation called me about an opening for a bookkeeper at a non-profit agency. I immediately applied for it and worked in that position for three years until another position opened up for a Transition Assistant,” Recalls Vasquez. She delights in her new position in which she presently visits 14 different high schools and talks with Special Education students. Vasquez, 29-years-old, collaborates with her co-worker on four different programs and talks with students with disabilities about thriving in the real world. “People with disabilities are often told, ‘No, no, no,’ without explanation,” relays Vasquez. “As a result, people see disabilities as a problem that needs to be solved. Many challenges often come with disabilities, making many kids want to quit. I am young. When I tell students my story, they open up to me. They feel more empowered. I really enjoy seeing them open up. I also love meeting and talking with their parents in order to give them a different outlook. I can’t change everyone, but I can change a parent’s point of view — one at a time.” Vasquez needs reliable transportation for her job. Initially she had to depend on her family for rides and public transportation. For the past two years, she has driven a scooter, allowing her more mobility, although she didn’t have a vehicle. Now, with a new SUV she is able to easily get around. “I am able to do a lot more now, as it allows me to be more flexible and reliable on the job,” Ana says. “There were several drawbacks to having only a scooter without a way to haul it,” says Vasquez. “Buses can’t hook onto the body of a scooter, like they can bicycles. They aren’t compact or collapsible like wheelchairs so it’s almost impossible to ride on public transportation.” And if the seat gets wet, she can’t lift it off the body’s frame to bring it in the house to dry because it is too heavy. With a glint in her eye, Vasquez says, “I now have people’s respect. I believe it is important to focus on what you can do, not what you can’t. Opportunities in life make a person stronger in who they are!” She continues, “If I could talk with employers, I would tell them that their best employees would be people with disabilities. Why is that? Because people with disabilities want to work, we want to keep our jobs, we want to be part of a community and we want to do our best on the job. For so long we have been told, “No, you can’t! We say, YES, WE CAN!” 5. CONCLUSION Bridging Barriers through Technology Envisioned in an accessible nation is a time when technology will become highly developed and adjust to the needs of an individual rather than needing people to adjust to the functionality of today’s technology. Such technological flexibility and sophistication will assist in bringing social equity into realization. As Steve Ballmer, CEO, Microsoft Corporation aptly states, “Over the next 10 to 15 years, technology has the capacity to virtually eliminate barriers [faced by people with disabilities] in the workplace.” Parity in the workplace would promote an unstoppable, productive force of imaginative, dedicated, motivated, talented and highly skilled people. The Vision of Leadership and Importance of Knowledge Combining strength of leadership with the steady advancement in technology and knowledge is crucial to create an accessible nation. The integration of imagination with UD and AT will make this vision possible. In order to create solutions for people with disabilities, a cadre of experienced and talented people are conducting and advancing their new research, however, much remains to be done. Champions from industry, government, academia and non-governmental agencies must form partnerships, in addition to their own work, in order to orchestrate this vision and assist people in understanding its importance. Existing and newly designed academic, social, political and economic mechanisms can embrace, further promote and foster the creative ideas and technologies presented herein, and aid in creating new markets for transferring products, systems and support services into mainstream society. Creating National and International Collaborations and Markets Our recommendations are intended to produce new research and improve upon existing knowledge. To this end, furthering and creating new collaborations between government, non-government agencies, universities and industry is essential and should be encouraged to cross boundaries nationally and internationally. Disability is a growing issue in America, especially given the increasing aging population. The isolation experienced from not being able to fully engage in life due to a variety of barriers can only improve with emerging technologies and markets that see the benefit in an improved, accessible society that promotes a robust economy. We have not yet begun to realize the advantages that a true market economy can provide for the vision of an accessible nation. The Task Force has repeatedly demonstrated in this report that assistive technologies, which are originally created for a portion of the population with disabilities, become equally valuable when applied in different situations for all citizens — a win-win vision. Such a vision encourages and supports all people to function to their fullest potential in the accessible nation envisioned by the Task Force. APPENDIX A A. Biographies of Task Force Members K. Joel Berry, Ph.D., P.E., Professor and Head of the Department of Mechanical Engineering at Kettering University, formerly GMI Engineering & Management Institute, is currently spearheading the creation of the Center for Fuel Cell Systems and Powertrain Integration and is assembling an interdepartmental and multi-university faculty team. Dr. Berry was appointed to the Eugene W. Kettering Chair of Power Engineering in 2002 for his leadership in developing state-of-the-art engineering laboratories, and for developing one of the nation’s largest and strongest undergraduate mechanical engineering programs. Dr. Berry received his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering in 1986 from Carnegie Mellon University, his M.S. in Engineering Mechanics from Michigan State University in 1981, and his B.S. in Mechanical Engineering from General Motors Institute in 1979. Frank G. Bowe, Ph.D., is the Dr. Mervin Livingston Schloss Distinguished Professor in the Department of Counseling, Research, Special Education, and Rehabilitation, at Hofstra University, on Long Island, NY. He is also governmental affairs consultant for the National Association of the Deaf. Dr. Bowe’s work on technology and disability dates back to 1976, when he was tapped by the House Science and Technology Committee chairman Olin E. “Tiger” Teague to serve on a national panel reviewing the entire federal government to identify disability-related work. That work led to the creation, as part of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1978, of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR). His recent writings include Broadband and Americans with Disabilities. Jacquelyn Brand was the founder and first Executive Director of the Center for Accessible Technology in Berkeley, California, and the Alliance for Technology Access in San Rafael, California. Her work grew out of a personal challenge to find appropriate technology for her daughter, Shoshanna. Jackie coordinates the work of the Universal Service Alliance (USA), a project of ATA, which is focused on achieving access to telecommunications technologies for all unserved communities. She also serves as the Chair of the Board of Directors of the Community Technology Foundation of California. Jackie is the Founder and President of Independent Living Network, a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing options for independent living to individuals with disabilities. She works as an independent consultant to many organizations, particularly in the areas of assistive technology, education, disability programs and policy, and accessibility. Judy Brewer is Director of the Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) at the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). Judy is W3C’s chief liaison on accessibility policy and standardization internationally, promoting awareness and implementation of Web accessibility, and ensuring effective dialog among industry, the disability community, accessibility researchers, and government on the development of consensus-based accessibility solutions. She holds a research appointment at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. Prior to joining W3C, Judy worked on several U.S.-based initiatives to increase access to mainstream technology for people with disabilities and to improve dialogue between industry and the disability community. These initiatives included work on Sections 508 of the Workforce Investment Act, Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act, accessibility of the Windows 95 Operating System and access to durable medical equipment for people with disabilities. Judy serves on several advisory committees and boards, including the American Association of People with Disabilities and the U.S. National Council on Disability’s International Watch Task Force. She has also received many awards for her contributions. Beatriz Chu Clewell, Ph.D., is a Principal Research Associate and Director of the Evaluation Studies and Equity Research Program in the Education Policy Center of the Urban Institute in Washington, D.C. She is an education policy researcher whose main focus is factors that influence the educational attainment of underrepresented groups. Clewell wrote a book, BREAKING THE BARRIERS, describing effective intervention practices to increase the success of girls and minority students in science and mathematics. She is also the former Executive Director of a bipartisan congressional commission based at the National Science Foundation to study the status of women, minorities, and persons with disabilities, in science, engineering and technology fields. In that capacity, she directed the work of the commission and was responsible for producing the Commission report. A Phi Beta Kappa, magna cum laude graduate of Florida State University, she obtained her Ph.D. from that institution in 1980 in Educational Policy, Planning and Analysis. Denice D. Denton, Ph.D., is the Dean of Engineering and a Professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering at the University of Washington. She was a professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison from 1987 to 1996. She received her B.S., M.S. (1982), and Ph.D. (1987) in Electrical Engineering from M.I.T. Denton works extensively on engineering education reform. She chaired the National Research Council (NRC) Board on Engineering Education (1996-1999), was a member of the National Academy of Science/NRC Committee on Undergraduate Science Education (1993-1997), and served on the National Academy of Engineering (NAE) Committee on Engineering Education (1999-2001). Professor Denton was co-director of the National Institute for Science Education in 1995-1996. She currently directs the University of Washington’s NSF ADVANCE program. She has received numerous awards for her distinguished teaching abilities. Professor Denton has developed a Microfabrication Demonstration Kit, which is being used in K-12 classrooms in more than 30 states to introduce students to microelectronics. She also works actively to encourage women and underrepresented minorities to consider careers in science and engineering. Larry Goldberg is Director of the Media Access Group at WGBH and oversees the National Center for Accessible Media (NCAM) (the research and development arm) and the two access production/service departments — The Caption Center and Descriptive Video Services. He regularly publishes on media access issues, presents WGBH research at conferences and consults for government, media and technology companies on access issues. Mr. Goldberg was a pioneer in the development of the emerging captioning system for digital television in the U.S. and is a member of numerous advisory boards at the FCC and across the country. Mr. Goldberg was awarded a patent in 1996 for “Rear Window,” the first closed captioning system for movie theaters and theme parks. Mr. Goldberg has a B.A. in Broadcast Journalism from the University of Southern California. Steve Jacobs is President of IDEAL Group, Inc., (http://www.ideal-group.org) a service organization dedicated to maximizing the accessibility and usability of Electronic and Information Technology. IDEAL Group is a spin-off from IDEAL at NCR. Mr. Jacobs founded IDEAL at NCR in 1994. Jacobs served as President of IDEAL at NCR until his retirement from NCR Corporation at the end of 2002 after 20 years of service. Mr. Jacobs served on the Federal Communications Commission’s Consumer/Disability Telecommunications Advisory Committee, the Access Board’s Electronic and Information Technology Access Advisory Committee (EITAAC) and the Access Board’s Telecommunications Access Advisory Committee (TAAC). He was a contributing author of the EITAAC final report and the TAAC final report. Eric J. Jolly, Ph.D., is a Vice President and Senior Scientist at Education Development Center, a not-for-profit research and development organization conducting projects in more than 40 countries and 500 communities within the U.S. He has served in leadership capacities at universities around the country, including the posts of department chair, acting dean for education, associate dean of arts and sciences and, most recently, former assistant to the chancellor at the University of Nebraska. He has published many scholarly articles and lectured throughout the world; he is especially known for his contributions to mathematics and science education. Dr. Jolly was a founding partner to the national “Collaboration for Equity” project, and co-director of “Access by Design” — a technology project of the National Science Foundation. He founded the National Institute for Affirmative Action and serves on numerous national and community advisory boards including the Committee On Opportunities in Science (as chair), Mathematical Sciences Education Board of the National Academy of Sciences, Putumayo Foundation and The Innovation Center (as chair). Other recent projects include service to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Learning Without Frontiers program and to the Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering (CEOSE) — a congressionally chartered equity oversight committee of the National Science Foundation. Deborah Kaplan is Executive Director of the World Institute on Disability (WID), a research and public policy organization operated by persons with disabilities in Oakland, CA. She is a past member of the National Information Infrastructure Advisory Committee, commissioned by the Clinton Administration to make policy recommendations at a period of public adoption for the Internet. Her work as the head of WID’s Technology Policy Division in the 1980s and 1990s was instrumental to the inclusion of Section 255 in the Telecommunications Act of 1996. She is currently involved in writing and implementing consumer-training curriculum on access to information and electronic technology. Joy Kniskern is Principal Investigator for the Georgia Assistive Technology Project “Tools for Life,” funded under the National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research, and Assistive Technology Manager for Assistive Work Technology Services of the Georgia Department of Labor, Vocational Rehabilitation Program. She provides technical assistance and training support to a team of 35 rehabilitation technologists, rehabilitation engineers, occupational therapists and rehabilitation technicians. She has over 25 years of experience in establishing innovative vocational rehabilitation, assistive technology and employment training services. Her programs are identified as exemplary models of assistive technology service delivery in government in ACCESSIBLE TECHNOLOGY IN TODAY’S BUSINESS, CASE STUDIES FOR SUCCESS, published by Microsoft Publications. She is involved in a number of advisory boards for projects of national and state interests in the rehabilitation field. Lawrence Scadden, Ph.D., spent over 30 years working to improve the lives of people with disabilities through the use of appropriate technology. He held lead scientist positions at the Smith-Kettlewell Institute in San Francisco and the Electronic Industries Foundation in Washington, D.C. He also served in executive positions in the U.S. Department of Education and the National Science Foundation. He published over 100 professional and scientific articles and is regularly invited to write and speak internationally on technology, disability and user-centered product design. Scadden has received numerous honors and awards. He received a B.A. degree in government from the University of Redlands, an M.A. in Psychology from the University of the Pacific and a Ph.D. in Visual Sciences from the University of the Pacific’s Graduate School of Medical Sciences. M. Richard (Dick) Shaink, Ph.D., has served as President of Mott Community College in Flint, MI since March 2000. He possesses a blend of business and educational work experience as a former college campus president, multi-campus vice president, instructional dean, college business/industry director, shopping center general manager, industrial sales representative, production line supervisor, full-time high school vocational teacher and an adjunct instructor at Michigan State University (MSU) and Lansing Community College. Dr. Shaink received his Ph.D. in Educational Administration from MSU. He is the former President of the National Council for Workforce Education and serves as Secretary of the Board and Chairman of the Human Resources and Education Committee of the Hurley Medical Center Board of Managers. He is also a member of the Mayors’ Commission on Disabilities. Susan Sygall is an internationally recognized expert in the area of international educational exchange and leadership programs of persons with disabilities. She is also recognized internationally for her work on issues related to women with disabilities. She is currently co-founder and Executive Director of Mobility International USA, which develops and implements cross-cultural leadership training for persons with disabilities from throughout the world. Additionally, she serves as the Project Director of the National Clearinghouse on Disability and Exchange. Ms. Sygall has developed internal programs with the U.S. Information Agency and has worked with members of Congress to increase the number of participants with disabilities in international educational programs. At present, Ms. Sygall is heading a U.S. AID-funded project entitled “Building an Inclusive Development Community: Gender Appropriate Technical Assistance to Interaction Member Agencies on Inclusion of People with Disabilities.” Sygall has served on several national and international boards including the Executive Board of Interaction and the Advisory Board of the Global Fund for Women. Sygall holds a B.S. degree from the University of California at Berkeley and an M.S. degree from the University of Oregon. Jim Tobias is the President of Inclusive Technologies and has worked in the field of technology and disability for 25 years. Beginning at Berkeley’s Center for Independent Living, he has worked as a rehabilitation engineer with schools, hospitals, private organizations, companies and state and federal agencies. He worked for 10 years at Bell Labs and Bellcore, providing telecommunications and disability consulting for Bell companies and other telecommunications and information industry clients. His technical background supports Inclusive Technologies’ hardware and software services. In addition, he specializes in accessible business practices, primary and secondary market research and accessible business practices, customer surveys, focus groups, product trials, product management, strategic partnership development, staff training, internal team-building and consumer and other stakeholder liaison. Gregg C. Vanderheiden, Ph.D., is a Professor in the Industrial Engineering (Human Factors Program) and Biomedical Engineering Departments, and director of the Trace Research & Development Center at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Dr. Vanderheiden has been working in the area of access to technology for over 30 years and has written extensively on access and assistive technologies, coining many of the terms used today, such as “Augmentative Communication,” “Computer Curbcuts,” “Keyboard Emulation,” “Universal Remote Consoles,” and “Companion Technologies.” Dr. Vanderheiden has served on numerous professional, industry and government advisory and planning committees including those for the FCC, NSF, NIH, VA, DED, GSA, NCD, ATBCB and the White House. The results of the efforts of Dr. Vanderheiden and this team can be found in many special and mass market products and technologies including Web technologies, interconnection standards such as INCITS V2 AIAP, and voting systems that are usable by those with disabilities. The access features “StickyKeys,” “MouseKeys,” etc. that are found in most all computers today, including those with MacOS and MS Windows, were developed at Dr. Vanderheiden’s research center. Cynthia D. Waddell is the Executive Director of the International Center for Disability resources on the Internet (ICDRI) and Lecturer in Law at Santa Clara University School of Law. She is an internationally recognized expert in Disability Law, Policy and Technology and leads ICDRI’s Accessibility Oversight Consulting Services for government, university and private sector clients. She also serves as the United Nations expert on accessible technology transfer for developing countries and acted as Rapporteur for the 2003 Manila Declaration on Accessible Information Communications Technology (ITC) calling for progress on the treaty or convention of rights for people with disabilities. Waddell is an active participant in public policy strategic planning and implementation of accessible design of technologies for governments and the private sector both in the U.S. and abroad. Waddell has held local, state and federal appointments and is the co-founder and Vice-Chair of the Internet Society Disability and Special Needs Chapter, is a member of the National Committee for Information Technology Standards V2 IT Access Interfaces Technical Committee, and currently serves several State of California appointments addressing disability issues. She recently received the award for Leadership in Accessible Technology and for Pioneering Advocacy and Education by GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY magazine. J. Michael Zelley served as the Chairperson of the National Task Force on Technology and Disabilities. He is also the director and founder of The Disability Network in Flint, MI, a non-profit center providing independent living services for people with disabilities in Genesee County. Zelley is founder and former president of TravAbility, Inc., a management consulting firm. For 21 years, he served as Senior Vice President and Board Officer of Securedata Corporation. Zelley continues to provide national and statewide leadership on workforce and disability issues. He is a frequent national guest speaker on employment of individuals with disabilities and serves as the Chair for a Michigan Regional Workforce Development Board. APPENDIX B B. How Programs Can Work Together: The Federal CAP Model Federal CAP Program One of the most promising examples of a one-stop shop for AT is the federal government’s Computer/Electronic Accommodation Program (CAP) established under Executive Order 13163 to increase opportunities for people with disabilities to be employed in the federal government under the Department of Defense (DoD). The Executive Order required the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to develop a plan to hire 100,000 people with disabilities over a five-year period (2001 to 2005). Federal government agencies were required to focus on IT positions for these new employees and to develop a centrally funded accommodations program for them. CAP, operating out of DoD, also operated a centrally funded accommodations program for DoD employees with disabilities since the 1990s, so the proposed accommodation support system merely extended their services to benefit all federal agencies. Now CAP operates as a centrally operated and centrally funded program to provide accommodations to all federal government employees with disabilities. Since its inception, it has handled 28,000 requests for accommodations to ensure access to information and communications technologies. Its annual budget is $2 million and provides accommodations for federal non-DoD employees with disabilities and $2.6 million for DoD international employees with disabilities. NASA recently announced that it would also participate in the CAP program. CAP provides services in three stages: 1. Needs assessment: An on-site assessment of federal employees’ needs is done by using outside assessment resources. CAP uses many public and private AT evaluation/assessment resources such as: • State AT Act-funded Resource Centers; • Centers for Independent Living offering AT assessments; • Colleges and university-based assessment programs; • Alliance for Technology Access programs, and; • AT vendors and private non-profits. 2. Equipment procurement: CAP purchases equipment for globally based federal employees with a seven to 10 day turnaround time using only two VISA cards. Electronic purchases cut down ordering time from two months to between seven to 10 days. The cost of the AT/Info Tech is paid for from two annual budget set-asides to cover all program administration, assessment, training and AT/Info Tech purchases. 3. Customer care: Installation, integration of access devices and training are provided to each employee, and customers are surveyed to ensure continuous improvements. Since CAP provides services around the world, it develops creative approaches to providing training needs to support the customer and products. Vendors and other state or national resources skilled in training are paid directly by CAP. Follow-up customer services, completed by CAP staff, look at the outcomes of the services from the customers’ perspective. Surveys yield information about the need for additional services. As of March 19, 2002, the CAP program had 47 participating government partners. With all participating DoD and federal non-DoD agencies, only electronic, telecommunications (www.disabilitydirect.gov) and computer equipment can be purchased. However, CAP has recently negotiated a turn-key type arrangement with the Department of State, which has its own budget for purchasing AT Information and Communication technologies. The Department of State turned to CAP for technical assistance in handling needs assessments, procurement, installation and training and pays for the cost of all technology. The budget for DoD and federal non-DoD comes directly through DoD allocations, thus creating a more natural incentive for federal managers to hire more people with disabilities; it doesn’t cost them anything and the process is completed with a simple two-page request form without bureaucratic delays. CAP provides its total services for a per capita cost of $658 per service, which includes program administration and accommodations. The program provides tremendous cost-savings to participating federal partners because it is funded and centrally operated and can achieve more economies of scale by bulk purchasing when necessary. For example, when federal agencies around the world needed to order TTYs for employees with disabilities as well as their customers, CAP placed orders for 1,500 TTYs. CAP saved federal agencies $700,082 on this sole order. Had each order been placed separately, as is done with most state public programs, the cost per TTY would have been $750 per unit. CAP easily negotiated a unit cost of $558 per unit. Cost savings from bulk purchasing through a non-bureaucratic, centrally operated and centrally funded service could potentially underwrite all administrative costs of program operation on a national or statewide level. APPENDIX C C. Missouri Offers Model TAP Program Missouri is pioneering a promising approach to a distribution program. Created by a state law, the Telecommunications Access Program (TAP) supplements the more traditional Telecommunications Access Program for Telephone. • TAP for Internet provides adaptive equipment and software needed for access to the Internet from the home. Screen readers, enlarging software, adapted keyboards and voice recognition programs are offered. Training in use of hardware and software is offered free to consumers. • TAP for Telephone, which is similar to the equipment-distribution programs provided by other states, offers TTYs, amplified phones, amplified ringers and visual ringers, among other devices. Consumers purchase or lease their own phones and pay for their own basic telephone services. • TAP for Internet and TAP for Telephone are financed through a surcharge of nine cents per month per telephone line. TAP for telephone devices are offered free to all state residents who have disabilities and have difficulties using traditional voice telephones. TAP for Internet has some limitations. Consumers must have annual household incomes under $60,000 and must have an Internet-ready PC and an Internet provider. Accordingly, TAP for Internet treats an Internet-ready PC as today’s version of a telephone. Consumers are responsible for “the phone” (in this case, an Internet-ready PC) and for “phone service” (in this case, an Internet Service Provider, or ISP) while the state provides the adaptive equipment that individuals need due to disabilities. Missouri recognizes that telephone service is a public utility. People without disabilities buy telephones and pay monthly phone charges; they do not need to acquire additional products. However, because mainstream phones are not accessible or universally designed, people with disabilities often need peripheral devices in order to benefit from the phones and phone services. Today, internet-equipped PCs are used for telecommunications, so inclusion of digital as well as analog telecommunications in state equipment distribution programs is necessary. Since 1995 Internet-linked PCs have provided telecommunications services such as e-mail and the Web. Applying the Missouri model, the purchase of PCs and ISP service by individuals with disabilities is equivalent to buying a phone and subscribing to basic phone service (Plain Old Telephone Service, or POTS). Costs these individuals incur above and beyond these basic expenses would be covered under a government distribution program, just as additional costs are for POTS. APPENDIX D D. Acronyms AACSB: Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business AARP: American Association of Retired Persons ABET: Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology ADA: Americans with Disabilities Act AMT: Accessible Mainstream Technology AT: Assistive Technology ATA: Alliance for Technology Access AT Act: Assistive Technology Act ATAP: Association of Tech Act Projects AWT: Assistive Work Tools CAA: Community Action Agencies CAP: Computer/Electronic Accommodation Program CEOSE: Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science & Engineering CHEA: Council on Higher Education Accreditation COPRA: Commission on Peer Review and Accreditation DoD: Department of Defense EITAAC: Electronic and Information Technology Access Advisory Committee E & IT: Electronic and Information Technology ESEA: Elementary and Secondary Education Act EDC: Education Development Center FCC: Federal Communications Commission GPS: Global Positioning Device ICDRI: International Center for Disability Resources on the Internet ICT: Information Communications Technology IDEA: Individual with Disabilities Education Act IEP: Individualized Education Programs IFSP: Individualized Family Service Plans ISP: Internet Service Provider IT: Information Technology LATDC: Lemelson Assistive Technology Development Center (at Hashire College in Amherst, MA) NAE: National Academy of Engineering NAPAS: National Association of Protection and Advocacy Services NAS: National Academy of Sciences NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASPAA: National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration NCAM: National Center for Accessible Media NCD: National Council on Disability NCIL: National Council on Independent Living NIDRR: National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research NJCA: New Jersey Community Association NOD: National Organization on Disability NRC: National Research Council NSF: National Science Foundation NTFTD: National Task Force on Technology and Disability OCR: Optical Character Recognition OPM: Office of Personnel Management PASS: Plan for Achieving Self Support PC: Personal Computer POTS: Plain Old Telephone Service RESNA: Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America RHIT: Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology R&D: Research and Development SCI: Spinal Cord Injury SIPP: Survey of Income and Program Participation SSDI: Supplemental Security Disability Income SSI: Supplemental Security Income TAAC: Telecommunications Access Advisory Committee TAP: Telecommunications Access Program (for Internet and Telephone) TBI: Traumatic Brain Injury Tech Act: Technology-Related Assistance Act for Individuals with Disabilities TCO: Total Cost of Ownership TEDP: Telecommunication Equipment Distribution Program TRS: Telecommunications Relay Services TTY/TDD: Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (text telephone) UD: Universal Design UDEP: Universal Design Education Project UNESCO: United Nations Educational Scientific & Cultural Organization USA: Universal Service Alliance VR: Vocational Rehabilitation W3C: World Wide Web Consortium WAI: Web Accessibility Initiative WIA: Workforce Investment Act WHO: World Health Organization WID: World Institute on Disability WOTC: Work Opportunity Tax Credit E. Glossary Assistive Technology (AT) Any piece of equipment, product, or system, whether commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities. Accessible Mainstream Technology (AMT) Mainstream technologies that are made accessible to and usable by people with disabilities, such as a screen enlarger feature that is included in standard operating software. Accessible Nation The National Task Force on Technology and Disability’s vision for people with disabilities to fully participate in society with the assistance of assistive technologies that will permit inclusive access to productive and fulfilling employment, education, and other areas. The Task Force believes this kind of nation will provide significant economic and social benefits for individuals with disabilities, for their families and caretakers, and society as a whole. Broadband Communications A form of transmission that involves a wide band of frequencies allowing faster transport of information. The faster transport is often used to transfer audio, visual, and data simultaneously, though it can be used for fast transfer of a single information type as well. Closed Captioned Television or other form of media with captions that appear only when the viewer chooses to display them. This is inclusive of cable, satellite, broadband, etc. Global Positioning System Device GPS (Global Positioning System) is a worldwide system of 24 orbiting satellites launched by the Department of Defense. These satellites use signals sent to the earth to calculate an accurate position within 10 feet or less. The vehicle location device’s latitude and longitude data is forwarded to the GPS Solution’s Datacenter by the cellular modem where it can be queried and utilized for tracking purposes. Information Technology (IT) Any equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment, that is used in the creation, conversion, or duplication of data or information; these include: telecommunication products, such as telephones; information kiosks; transaction machines; World Wide Web sites; software and operating systems; computers; multimedia (including videotapes), and office equipment, such as copiers and fax machines. Interactive and Enhanced Television Broadband, or interactive television, which is also known as enhanced television, includes technologies and services such as video on demand, electronic programming guides, customized and localized information (such as news, weather and sports), Internet access, games, digital video recording, and T-commerce (TV-based shopping and banking), as well as viewer-to-viewer applications such as e-mail, chat and game networks. Internet An electronic communications network that connects computer networks and organizational computer facilities around the world. Internet 2/Grid The next generation of the Internet. Lemon Laws (State) Any law that allows recourse to users who purchase a product that needs to be repaired so much that it interferes with what would be considered normal or acceptable usage. Narrowband Communications Telecommunications products and services, which operate at, or are responsive to a slim range of frequencies. New Freedom Initiative President George W. Bush’s program to promote the full participation of individuals with disabilities in all areas of society by increasing access to assistive and universally designed technologies, expanding educational and employment opportunities, and promoting full access to community life. On-line Connected to, served by, or available through a system, especially a computer or telecommunications system. One-Stop Career Centers Innovative concept developed by the Workforce Investment Act that consumers need one-stop shopping for public services. Orthotics A branch of mechanical and medical science that deals with the support and bracing of weak or ineffective joints or muscles. Multiple Channels/“Points of Entry” Places where audiences can go to glean more information about assistive technology, and also, where professional organizations and professionals can quickly distribute materials. Prosthetics The surgical or dental specialty concerned with the design, construction and fitting artificial devices to replace a missing part of the body. Reasonable Accommodations Modifications or adjustments to the work environment, or to the manner or circumstances under which the position held or desired is customarily performed, that enables qualified individuals with disabilities to apply for and perform the essential functions of that position. Total Cost of Ownership The initial cost of any technology product, as well as the additional expenses of ownership, including maintenance, support services, fitting, training, etc. Universal Design (UD) “Design for All” is the process of designing products and environments to be usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or specialized design. Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) A federal/state program, which is designed to obtain, maintain, and improve employment for people with disabilities by working with consumers, employers, and other partners, specifically engaged in career rehabilitation. Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) The Work Opportunity Tax Credit is a federal income tax credit that encourages employers to hire eight targeted groups of job seekers who begin work before December 31, 2003. WOTC can reduce employer federal tax liability by as much as $2,400 per new hire; WOTC is one tool in a diverse toolbox of flexible strategies designed to help job seekers most in need of employment gain on-the-job experience and move towards economic self-sufficiency. Endnotes and References 1. The work of the Task Force has been supported in part by a grant from the C.S. Mott Foundation. 2. U.S. Census Bureau. Disabilities Affect One-Fifth of All Americans: Proportion Could Increase in Coming Decades. December 1997. http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cenbr975.pdf. 3. U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov. In the alphabetical index, select “Disability Data” or click Search and enter Disability in the Search text box. 4. U.S. Small Business Administration. SBA Outlines Initiative for People with Disabilities, Commits to Hiring 300. November 1, 2000. http://www.sba.gov/news/indexheadline.html. 5. Patricia Digh, America’s Largest Untapped Market: Who They Are, The Potential They Represent. FORTUNE MAGAZINE, March 2, 1998. http://www.cabln.org/consumer.htm. 6. The National Council on Disability. May 2000. The Accessible Future. Washington, D.C. http://www.ncd.govnewsroom/publications/accessiblefuture.html. 7. U.S. Census Bureau. Disabilities Affect One-Fifth of All Americans: Proportion Could Increase in Coming Decades. December 1997. http://www.census.gov/prod/3/97pubs/cenbr975.pdf. 8. Kipp Cheng. What Marketers Should Know About People With Disabilities. http://www.disability-marketing.com/news/diversityInc.php3 9. Kipp Cheng. What Marketers Should Know About People With Disabilities. http://www.disability-marketing.com/news/diversityInc.php3 10. Kipp Cheng. What Marketers Should Know About People With Disabilities. http://www.disability-marketing.com/news/diversityInc.php3 11. Patricia Digh. America’s Largest Untapped Market: Who They Are, The Potential They Represent. FORTUNE MAGAZINE. March 2, 1998. http://www.cabln.org/consumer.htm. 12. Equal Access to Software and Information. Computers and People With Disabilities. http://www.rit.edu/~easi/pubs/heath.htm. 13. U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Supplementary Survey (C2SS) Summary Tables. http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/c2ss.html. 14. D’Vera Cohen. U.S. Counts One in 12 Children As Disabled: Census Reflects Increase Of Handicapped Youth. WASHINGTON POST. July 5, 2002. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-adv/advertisers/popunders/carrot_ink_july02_v1.html. 15. U.S. Census Bureau. The 65 Years and Over Population: 2000. http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-10.pdf. 16. Patricia Digh. America’s Largest Untapped Market: Who They Are, The Potential They Represent. FORTUNE MAGAZINE. March 2. 1998. http://www.cabln.org/consumer.htm. 17. U.S. Census Bureau. The 65 Years and Over Population: 2000. http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-10.pdf. 18. U.S. Social Security Administration. The Work Site Online. http://www.ssa.gov/work. 19. U.S. Census Bureau. The 65 Years and Over Population: 2000. http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-10.pdf. 20. As cited in World Wide Web Consortium Press Release. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Launches International Web Accessibility Initiative. April 7, 1997. http://www.w3.org/Press/WAI-Launch.html. 21. Brigitte Greenberg. Learning Disabled Advance in School. WASHINGTON TIMES. February 9, 2000. 22. Budget of the United States Government, FY 2003. Prepared by the President of the United States. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, D.C. http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/ 23. PMA Insurance Group. DIRECTIONS. September 2000. 24. http://www.vpaweb.com/about/disability/disability.htm. 25. PMA Insurance Group. Lost Time: Exploring the Hidden Costs of Disability. DIRECTIONS. http:/www.pmagroup.com/directions_09_2000__hiddencostsofdisability.htm. 26. LaPlante, M.P., Hendershot, G.E. and Moss, A.J. 1997. The Prevalence of Need for Assistive Technology Devices and Home Accessibility Features. TECHNOLOGY AND DISABILITY. Chapter 6, 17-28. 27. U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Supplementary Survey (C2SS) Summary Tables. http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/c2ss.html. 28. National Organization on Disability. Harris 2000 Survey of Americans with Disabilities. http://www.nod.org. 29. U.S. Census Bureau. Census 2000 Supplementary Survey (C2SS) Summary Tables. http://factfinder.census.gov/home/en/c2ss.html. 30. Americans With Disabilities Act. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/adaadahom1.htm. 31. Telecommunications Act. http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html. 32. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. http://www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/Policy/IDEA/ 33. Workforce Investment Act. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/508law.html or http://www.doleta.gov/programs/factsht/wialaw.asp 34. Internal Revenue Code Sec. 190 35. The disability access credit, IRC Sec. 44 36. The work opportunity tax credit (IRC Sec. 51) is formerly known as the targeted jobs tax credit. 37. IRC Sec. 67(d) 38. IRC Sec. 212 39. Although interpretive authorities are sparse, two published private rulings issued by the IRS indicate this interpretation. 40. HEALTHY PEOPLE 2010. http://www.itic.org/policy/508Sec508.html. 41. Workforce Investment Act and the 1998 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act. Public Law 106-246, July 13, 2000; 29 U.S.C.794d. The technical standards issued by the U.S. Access Board are found at 36 CFR Part 1194 and became effective in June 2001. 42. Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology. http://www.abet.org 43. The Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business. http://www.aacsb.edu 44. U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p70-73.pdf 45. Deakin University. http://www.deakin.edu/au/ 46. National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics. http://www.ncvhs.hhs.gov 47. NSF FACT SHEET. http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind02/start.htm. REPORT DESIGN AND COORDINATION Wolf Communications Inc. 1350 East Main Street, Suite 203 Owosso, Michigan 48867 Ph: 989-729-7733 info@wolfbiz.com www.wolfbiz.com PHOTOGRAPHER David Trumpie Photography PRINTING Colonial Press, Jackson, MI For further information or to access the report online, visit: The National Task Force on Technology & Disability www.ntftd.org The Disability Network 3600 S. Dort Hwy, Suite 54 Flint, MI 48507 Ph: 810-742-1800 Fax: 810-742-2400 www.disnetwork.org