Unfunded Mandates
How are schools on strictly limited budgets suppose to implement accomodations that can be costly and threaten the solvency of the school?
Deborah,
I have a colleague who says, "we should not be shy about admitting that there are costs involved in implementing the ADA. Our willingness to assume those costs bespeaks our commitment to the higher ideal than the bottom line." There is no question that some accommodations can be terribly expensive (such as sign language interpreters or braille. HOWEVER, the vast majority of accommodations cost little or nothing to implement. The Feds have simply chosen to believe that it all equals out in the end, and that providing equal access for students with disabilities is "part of the cost of doing business" for institutions of higher education.
Dr. Jane Jarrow
I believe that the concept of including the costs of accomodations in the overhead budgets of publicly funded institutions may be reasonable given that they receive the majority of their financial support from government sources. In the for-profit world however it seems to me to be unreasonable to have to build the costs of unforseeable accomodations into the budget. Likewise, I see it as unreasonable in this situation to charge all students a higher rate than what their tuition would otherwise be, just to cover the costs of offering accomodations. The concept of reasonable vs unreasonable relative to financial considerations seems important in that evaluation. For example, if I have a deaf student who is enrolled in a $15,000 program and they request a sign interpreter for the program that will cost the institution $25,000, that would seem to be an unreasonable request.
Joseph,
Like it or not, the Feds don't agree with you -- and the cost of accommodations is NEVER part of the consideration of whether an accommodation is reasonable. If the for-profit institution was not accepting tuition money from students using Federal financial assistance, I might be more sympathetic to the issue. But providing educational opportunities to all qualified students seems too important a concept to be derailed by cost concerns.
Dr. Jane Jarrow
I respectfully disagree. There have been numerous cases where the cost of the accomodation, if considered unreasonable, is in fact a consideration. If you were to carry the logic of your statement to an extreme example, you could conclude that a private business should provide the necassary accomodations at any cost even to the point of putting itself out of business. I do believe in an earlier post somewhere you also said "never say never".
As for the students using financial assistance, the STUDENT receives the financial assistance, not the school directly. The student then uses those funds to pay their tuition. This type of institution does not receive any direct federal or state subsidies. If I understand your statement about being "more sympathetic to the issue", it seems that the source of funds is a determining factor as to whether reasonableness applies to the accomodation? The reality is unfortunately that we all live in a world where costs are a major consideration for almost anything we do or provide. While I agree that it is critically important to provide educational opportunities to all qualified students, I think it is idealistic to expect that there won't be limitations on meeting that goal due to cost issues. We simply have to do the best possible job given the funding we have.
Joseph,
It may, in fact, be idealistic -- but it is also Federal law. TO DATE, there has *never* been an occasion when the cost of accommodation was recognized as a viable reason to refuse auxiliary aids or services to a student with disabilities under Section 504 or under Titles II or III of the ADA. While cost may play a part in such determination under Title I (Employment) it is not part of the consideration under Title III (which is the ruling statute for for-profit institutions). My reference to being more sympathetic if the institution was not accepting federal funds not only stands, but is the essence of our disagreement. While the financial aid goes directly to the student, when that money winds up in the coffers of the institution as payment of the student's tuition, it carries with it obligations. You may want to review the Grove City v. Bell case (mid-80's) which clearly established this legal precedent. It is important to note that the Grove City case revolved around non-discrimination on the basis of gender (rather than on the basis of disability). It is pertinent to this discussion because all of the Federal civil rights statutes, including 504 and the ADA, carry the same language about equal opportunity for the protected class. To suggest that the institution should only be required to provide equal opportunity (civil rights) to students with disabilities if it is deemed a necessary line-item expense is no different than suggesting that it is too costly to maintain two sets of bathrooms; since there are many more men than women at your school, and in order to save space and cut down on janitor salaries, all the Women's restrooms will now be padlocked. The women can either use the available (Men's) restroom like the rest of the students or they can transfer to some school that coddles them.
Dr. Jane Jarrow
Thank you for your perspective and insight. I don't view the decision (or obligation) to provide accomodations that allow for equal opportunity to be a line-item expense. I view it as a responsibility and a moral obligation. While it may also be a legal requirement, that shouldn't drive the decision. I am sure we agree on that point. As an aside, we agreed last night to provide over $20,000 of interpreter services to a deaf student who is paying less than $6,000 in tuition. Not what would be viewed as a financial decision, but one that is a moral decision.
Joseph,
You are right -- we agree wholeheartedly on the fact that the decision to accommodate is the right thing to do. Your organization should be proud of holding up to both the letter and the spirit of the law. Well done!
Dr. Jane Jarrow
Hi Dr. Jarrow,
I work in Corporate Administration and not Campus Operations. I'm taking this course because while I work for a post-secondary school, I'm not as familiar with student ADA issues (vs. employee ADA issues) and want to be able to correctly guide my faculty and Dean should they have questions for me.
I found it very curious that "TO DATE, there has *never* been an occasion when the cost of accommodation was recognized as a viable reason to refuse auxiliary aids or services to a student with disabilities under Section 504 or under Titles II or III of the ADA."
It seems outside of the post-secondary world, prohibitve cost is a common reason an accomodation is not granted.
What is different about the post secondary world then say a warehouse or manufacturing environment?
Thank you,
Jennette
Jennette,
Fair question, Jennette, but I am not sure your assumption is true -- that is, I am not sure that cost is a common reason for not granting accommodations in the workplace, either, since MOST job accommodations are not expensive (I think the estimate is that 90% of the necessary accommodations cost less than $500). Regardless, the difference between the employment sector and the postsecondary world is the difference between Title I and Titles II and III. That is, there were different rules put in place for employers than were allowed for public services (Title II) and places of public accommodation (Title III). Note, too, that it says they have never been allowed to refuse auxiliary aids or services on the basis of cost -- changes to architecture, which is the thing that may easily cost big bucks, is something else again. Does that help?
Dr. Jane Jarrow
That makes sense! One of the items I was thinking of that was refused due to cost was putting elevators in the parking structure.
Yes, structural changes can sometimes fall under the category of undue financial burden because capital improvement budgets are done years in advance and it is important to consider providing for the largest number with those dollars. The law has always acknowledged that and said, "it's OK. If you cannot resolve the problem through architecture, then you must resolve it programatically." Instead of building an elevator in the parking structure, you can designate MORE spaces on the first level as "handicapped parking" than would otherwise be necessary! The law also makes a distinction between the requirements for existing structures and the requirements for new buildings or significant renovation. You may not be required to put an elevator in an existing parking structure, but you probably would be required to have an elevator in a NEW parking facility.
Dr. Jane Jarrow
I totally agree with the “concept and spirit of the law†but in the real world we deal with ideology and pragmatics on a daily basis. No one should be denied access because of a disability, but I wonder whether we like it or not who is going to pay for the difference in tuition versus the accommodations?? Should the government cover the cost to reimburse the institutions?? If the answer is yes, the monies will come from the private sector furthering the tax burden that is already being felt by a society where the government can’t control its spending. We can argue about what we have defined as “obscene corporate profits,†but is really the rewards given to the private sector for operating a business or business as defined in the capitalistic system. If we use the idealistic idea that business should pay, we forget it takes money to make money. As I stated at the beginning, I agree with the “concept and spirit of the law,†but as an educator I understand there needs to be a balance between ideology and pragmatics in a capitalistic system.
Gary,
The argument you put forward is not a new one, Gary. It is the one that business offered when they fought the passage of the ADA more than 20 years ago. But there are two more "realities" that you should consider. First, the cost of the vast majority (90%+) of accommodations needed on the job is less than $150. In higher education, the cost is much less for most of the students who need accommodation -- they need changes in policy and procedures. Second, when section 504 was enacted 35 years ago, Secretary Joseph Califano (HEW) was asked, "Isn't it going to be expensive to do all the things this law requires?" His response was, "we have never before put a price tag on the cost of civil rights. We do not intend to start now." And, just for the record, the government does NOT cover the cost for the institutions. It is part of the cost of doing business. You say "it takes money to make money". Yep. And if the student wasn't already paying tuition to the college, there wouldn't be a need to make an accommodation for the student!
Dr. Jane Jarrow
I had an unfortunate learning experience when I taught in the public school K-12 system. I found that although mandates were in place, the money simply was not allocated. Therefore, the board of education, administrators, and special education teachers were falsifying documents! For example, if a mandate said that a classroom with X number of special education students HAD to have a special education teacher present in the classroom at least 45 minutes, then it was "documented" on paper. However, without funding, there were not enough special education teachers in the system to even make such a mandate possible!
Adrianna,
Over the years that has, unfortunately, been a great deal of abuse of IDEA - the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act -- that mandates services for the K-12 system. That is part of why many believe that Section 504 and the ADA are stronger statutes in protecting people with disabilities. They do not mandate the provision of services. Rather than are civil rights statutes that require full access to the same services and opportunities presented to others. That isn't to say there are not costs involved, but those costs are (hopefully) recognized as necessary in fulfilling the larger goals of the institution. A colleague once stated it this way: "We should not be shy about admitting that there are costs involved in fulfilling our obligations under the ADA. Our willingness to assume those costs bespeaks our commitment to a higher ideal than the bottom line."
Dr. Jane Jarrow
I would agree with the above. Our college is facing substantial costs to transcribe all audio lectures into text. Here is my question...are the costs of accommodation tax deductible? Of course, our college has a non-profit status so this probably won't even apply to us. It just seems like that would be fair since the federal government is requiring businesses to pick up these costs.
Marsha,
No -- for better or worse, the costs are NOT tax deductible. The federal government sees the issues of access as being "part of the cost of doing business." Perhaps the better quote is one that was given at the issuance of the 504 regulations. When asked about the high cost of some accommodations, the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare (what is now the Dept of Ed) said, "We have never before put a price tag on the cost of civil rights in this country. We do not intend to start now!"
Dr. Jane Jarrow
Very good question, Deborah! I obviously don't have the answer to this but I'm sure this is a major concern to many institutions. I feel like there should ALWAYS be opportunities for federal funding especially with when these type of mandates are established.
Car'Lika,
Keep in mind that the ADA and Section 504 are civil rights statutes. The Feds do not provide funding to support entities in assuring civil rights to any other population (based on race, ethnicity, gender, age, and so on). There ARE Federal funds available to support K-12 schools in their implementation of special ed programs, but those programs provide something MORE for kids with disabilities. 504/ADA provide only the same access that everyone else gets.
Dr. Jane Jarrow
