Recreation Access: Research to Practice. Presenters: Ray Bloomer and Jennifer Skulski. >> TAJAUNA: Good afternoon, everybody. And welcome to the webcast on Recreation Access: Research to Practice. My name is Tajauna Dunning and I'm with the Disability Law Resource Project at ILRU, your sponsor for today's event. I will be moderating today's webcast and voicing your questions to the presenters. Before we get started, wanted to remind you about sending questions. We encourage any and all questions from listeners. In order to submit a question, you can click the submit question button at the bottom of your RealOne Player screen or simply address it to webcast@ilru.org. Send those now or at any point during the presentation. I will pose your questions to the presenters as they pause for questions. If for some reason time does not allow the presenters to answer all the questions asked, they will be posted on the message board after the webcast. Additionally, if anyone has technical difficulties today, please call us at (713)520-0232 and dial 0 for the operator. This number is both voice and TTY capable. Today's topic is on providing accessibility to recreation venues. Our presenters are Jennifer Skulski, director of Marketing and Special Projects; and Ray Bloomer, director of Education and Technical Assistance. Both are with the National Center on Accessibility located at Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana. Jennifer who is a graduate of the University of Indiana, previously served as the Director of Education for the National Center on Accessibility and Associate Director for the Great Lakes Disability and Business Technical Assistance Center. She also served as ADA coordinator of the Rockford Illinois Park District. There, she trained park district staff on accessibility issues, assisted the municipality with prioritizing accessibility improvements, and facilitated the district's Barrier Removal Citizens Advisory Committee. Jennifer has developed staff training materials including an Accessibility Handbook Inclusion Manual and Resource Guide for park and recreation professionals, and she is a certified playground safety inspector and a member of the ASTM FO.8 Committee on Playground Surfaces. Ray has served as Park Ranger/Interpreter at Independence National Historic Park in Philadelphia. He has also served as the accessibility coordinator at Boston National Historic Park, the regional access coordinator for the NPS North Atlantic regional office and chief of visitor services and interpretation at Sagamore Hill National Historic Site. While working as a regional accessibility specialist, Ray was actively involved from 1983 to 1992 with the Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island Restoration Project. Following the project, he was presented with a special Achievement Award from the Disabled American Veterans for the successful accessibility efforts at the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island. Ray has received numerous awards from the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service, including the Secretary of the Department of Interior's Equal Opportunity Award for continued efforts towards increasing opportunities for employees and visitors in the National Park Service. Most recently, Ray served on the U.S. Access Board's Regulatory Negotiation Committee for Developed Outdoor Areas. And with that, I am pleased to turn the mic over to Ray and to Jennifer. >> JENNIFER: Thank you, Tajauna, and thank you for the invitation to speak to all corners of the worldwide web today. This is very exciting. This is -- interestingly enough, this is a very exciting time to be at the National Center on Accessibility. Just to give you a little bit of context where we are, NCA is a center at Indiana University within the Department of Recreation and Park Administration in the School of Health, Physical Education and Research. We relocated last summer to the Indiana University research park which is an exciting facility to be in, and right now Ray and I are nestled in the two corners of our center as we have graduate students running up and down the halls to work on the various projects that we have in the works. So this is a really exciting time to be at NCA and before we actually go into some of the research projects and some of the findings that we have come across over the years, I thought we would give you a little bit of background on NCA and some of the services that we provide and then we're going to get more specifically into talking about some of our research projects on trails and beaches and swimming pools, golf and campgrounds. We'll break halfway through so that people can ask some questions and then we'll start up and tell you for the second part about some of our upcoming research and we hope this will be educational and informative for all of you and, you know, please even though this is a 90 minute session, I'm sure you're going to find that Ray and I are very passionate about our jobs and when it comes to inclusion of people with disabilities and Parks & Recreation, so I'm sure you're going to find that we can talk well over 90 minutes, but if you have any questions after the session, please feel free to contact us at the National Center on Accessibility. NCA interestingly enough -- most people know us through our collaboration with the National Park Service, which dates back to 1991 when the park service and Indiana University entered into a cooperative agreement to establish the center. To date, tens of thousands of park and recreation practitioners, advocates and consumers with disabilities have benefited from NCA training, technical assistance and research. In terms of training, we conducted a national training program that includes educational programs that are open registration, meaning that anybody can register for the various topics. In just two weeks, we will be down in Gatlinburg at the Great Smoky Mountains for our retrofitting for accessibility course. In addition to our open registration courses, we also conduct contracted courses which are tailored to the specific needs of the agency. We've done trainings all over the country for the National Park Service, USDA Forest Service. Ray is just returning from being out in New Mexico for the two day training for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and we also train at the state and local level. We've conducted training for the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Indiana DNR and so on. So we have great contacts and people that are really working very hard at the federal, state and local level at various park and recreation agencies to ensure that their facilities and programs are accessible to people with disabilities. So in addition to our training program, we provide technical assistance. We have two accessibility specialists on staff in addition to the three directors that we have here. I hate to put an age on how old we are, but we have about 100 plus years of experience in our office when it comes to accessing Parks & Recreation. So we try to provide technical assistance to people regarding parks, recreation, tourism, accessibility standards, upcoming standards related to recreation, everything from products to universal design going above and beyond what the minimum accessibility guidelines are. In terms of our website, ncaonline.org, we tried to make that website a portal for people to come to for everything that is Parks & Recreation accessibility related, and at least make that a starting place that gives updates on the status of rule-making, products, we have a ton of monographs and technical assistance articles that have been written on everything from golf and swimming pools to beaches and even funding. Part of that website, we have a couple of really neat projects. We are a partner with the University of Illinois at Chicago on their project called the National Center on Physical Activity and Disability, or NCPAD for short, where we have written several monographs and have a couple of really neat projects. One is on Discover Camp, which is both a published guide and an online guide for parents of children with disabilities that are seeking camp opportunity for their children for the first time. We also just went online this spring with a really neat project which is about making challenge courses accessible to people with disabilities, and within the next year, we are working on another project with NCPAD which will be on leisure education and getting people with disabilities and parents of children with disabilities interested in seeking leisure activities for their children and seeking physical activity. An offshoot of our technical assistance, we provide more in-depth consultation. Currently we have a project in the works with the U.S. Access Board and another with the U.S. Department of Justice. We've done onsite evaluations and accessibility assessments for several of the federal agencies and state and local governments. Ray is just returning from a project out in Yosemite where they looked at all of the interpreter programs out there and how to make those interpretive opportunities accessible for people with disabilities. Right now, we're actually working on two really neat projects up in the Chicago area with two park districts where we are conducting accessibility assessments of more than 80 parks in that area and providing them with recommendations to improved accessibility to those parks. Part of that, we're going to be doing some pilot testing using GPS or the global positioning system in outdoor areas to conduct those assessments. So that's kind of a really neat project that we're working on and we'll have more information coming about that in the next few months. And one of the reasons that we like to tell you about our training and technical assistance because those are two of the three services that feed off of one another and they really contribute to what we call a continuum of services here and what we find in our training and our technical assistance directly contributes to our research agenda. All of the research that we do at NCA is very practitioner-based. Whatever we're looking at in terms of research questions, it's with the idea that the end result has to be a product that can park and recreation professional or the advocate can take and they can instantly apply in the field to create better access for people with disabilities. And so a lot of our research questions actually come from questions that we have come across either through technical assistance and training. Then when we go out and do the research, the research findings actually feedback to technical assistance and training. What we find out in our research, we are able to provide practitioners and advocates and consumers with that information instantly so that they can go out and do what they do best, even better. So that kind of gives you an idea about the various projects that we're involved with in our three core services, but at this point I'm going to turn it over to Ray. I'll let Ray talk a little bit more about some of our outdoor studies. >> RAY: Thank you, Jennifer. Hello, everyone. I'd like to begin by talking about a trail surface study that we did. Several years ago we were based out of Bradford Woods which is the 2500-acre outdoor environmental education center operated by Indiana University, and we were able to utilize that particular property for some of the -- some of the different types of outdoor studies that we were able to conduct. We did a two-year study on surface materials and this gave us the opportunity to actually take an area where an actual trail was intended to be installed and before they went with a final installation, we were able to do a little bit of experimenting with several different types of materials. We wanted to find out what the degree of effectiveness was of the materials over a couple of years. We were able to use a combination of natural soils. We used just the plain soil that existed there as baseline information. In addition to that, we added soil stabilizers and they varied in types from polymers such as a company called Mountain Grout which has a product that is a polymer. It soaks into the ground. It has to be installed into a depth of two -- one inch, penetrated all the way through. We tried that mixed with aggregate. We tried it mixed with just plain soil. We also used Road Oyl, which is O-Y-L, not a petroleum product. It's actually a natural product made from a pine resin. We mixed that in with soil and also with aggregate, and we also used compacted native soils which is a quarter minus limestone compaction. Trying all those different products and after having them down for a period of about two years, it gave us an opportunity to find out what worked the most, what wore the least, what people were able to find most effective using a variety of different types of assistive devices. And we were able to not necessarily come up with specific recommendations, which is not something that we typically do. We don't -- we have a policy here that we don't provide recommendations, but based on findings of studies and a lot of different types of information, we try to provide guidance so that people can make a good decision on the products that they buy. But what the end result of this particular study helped us to determine is what worked under certain types of circumstances, what things were installed better than others or easier to put down. So that was one study that we did. Another one is a beach study. And this was one where we studied a variety of different types of surface materials and it was a one month study and this was down in a county in Florida. We were able to have the willingness of 72 different subjects, individuals with disabilities, that participated in this study. We used a variety of different types of materials, and I'll go through those in just a moment, but I do want to indicate that 62 percent of all the individuals that were our subjects were either users of wheelchairs or scooters. The balance of the groups used other types of mobility devices, whether it was crutches, walkers, prosthesis or possibly not having any type of mobility device although there was the existence of a mobility impairment. We used seven different types of beach materials, some type of a temporary material that we put -- material that we put down on to the beach. They ranged from Eco Track, Path was another one that we had -- that we used. We used lattice work which was something that we purchased at a local home improvement center, one of the national centers. We used Safety Deck. We used Super Deck. We also used Diamond Rubber Mat and this gave us the opportunity for us to try a variety of different types of surfaces and look at them in a variety of different ways. We tried -- first of all, we wanted to make sure that we had careful records as to how everything was installed so we could find out what things -- a what materials took a lot of trouble to put down, how much time it took for each of the different kinds of materials to go down, and then after they were down, we also kept careful maintenance records so that people can get an idea of what did it take to maintain that. Did it have to go back and replace any sections of it? Were sections staying together? All these things really made a huge difference in being able to provide people with some purchasing guidance. And then the other thing that was most important, and that is once everything is down, how easy was it for individuals with disabilities to use the variety of different types of materials that were down and also one other thing I forgot to mention, and that is a cost factor. That's something that -- with almost any type of study like this, everyone always wants to know how much does it cost. Well, part of the cost factor -- and this goes with almost any type of product that you're considering -- and that is not just the cost to put the material in place, but then what also has to be evaluated are the other factors such as was it a material that went down easy? Did it take a long time? Did it take a couple of hours versus a couple of days? Did you have to have someone go out daily or weekly to maintain that particular product, whatever it was? So all those cost factors, besides the scuse of the material itself, will help someone determine whether it's the right one for the job. Interestingly enough, I just went through all the same information on a technical assistance call earlier today, and the individual wanted us to provide recommendations for them. And what it really comes down to with all these types of issues is helping them to make that kind of a decision. Do you have a maintenance staff that has the ability to go in and replace where necessary or maintain it? You might be better off getting something that might be a little bit more expensive up front because you don't have the maintenance staff to be able to go in and keep something that might be a little less expensive, but a little bit higher on the maintenance end. So they become part of the factors that one must consider, and this is the type of guidance we try to provide to people. We cannot provide a particular name under the circumstances because we don't always know what individual circumstances may be. Another one that we did was one -- and we do a variety of different types of research, whether it's research that we conduct. Sometimes we end up contracting to qualified individuals to conduct research for us and we did a picnic study -- picnic area study that was done through -- contracted with the University of Minnesota. And this was completed in January of 19 -- '01. Essentially what we wanted to find out in this particular study was the information that was gathered through the federal regulatory negotiating committee on outdoor developed areas, the specific criteria on the use of the components in a picnic area. We wanted to find out did it work? Were these the kinds of things -- the kinds of specifications that were recommended and the issues that were considered -- were these the types of things that people with disabilities could utilize once these picnic areas, picnic tables and the amenities -- once they were put in place, did they actually work for the user? And that's the reason why this particular study was done. It was done in three different areas within the Minneapolis area, county area, federal area, and a local area. There were over 30 different people with and 30 different people without disabilities that were involved in the study with seven different types of picnic tables. We had a variety of other amenities such as there were two different types of picnic grills that were used. We had accessible -- two different types of accessible fire rings, all these things were either in place or donated for purposes of the study. Each one of these issues -- or each one of these components were put in using all of the specifications that were identified in the report of the regulatory negotiating committee on outdoor areas. There were 36 questions asked of all the different participants to get an idea of what their preferences were. Things such as the effectiveness of the knee clearance, of clear space, the location of the accessible spaces. Some of the conclusions that were drawn from this particular study were things such as the location of accessible picnic areas and the degree of usability by people with disabilities relative to the specific location of parking lots. Another issue -- and this was one that really came out -- and that was the importance of providing information. You can meet all the specifications in the world that are going to be ideal for a person with a disability, but if they have to take their -- all their picnic paraphernalia and run all through the park until they found the accessible picnic tables and the accessible area, then it loses all its effectiveness and it really diminishes the degree of enjoyment that people with disabilities will have once they get there. We also wanted to get an idea as to the design. And one of the issues that many people with disabilities spoke of, and that was the lack of good design criteria, location of things such as the picnic grill to the picnic table. Also maintenance was a real big issue. People found that they often go to picnic areas that were initially designed to be accessible, but due to erosion and other issues are not maintained in that way. Portability of picnic tables is also a major problem. You can have an accessible picnic table, but if it's moved away from the accessible -- the accessible area where you've got an accessible surface and a route to it, if all three of those components don't match up, you don't have an accessible picnic area. So that was one of the major issues that people with disabilities had identified as a problem when they happen to be in an accessible area or at least one that was identified as such. Okay, let me turn it back to Jennifer. >> JENNIFER: Thanks, Ray. One of the other studies that we contracted -- Ray mentioned working with the University of Minnesota on the research for picnic elements. We also have worked with the University of Tennessee back in 2000. We worked together to conduct a study of visitor expectations and perceptions of program and physical access in the National Park Service. And this is an interesting study because it actually is a follow-up to an earlier study that we conducted with the National Park Service in 1999. And that 1999 study, it looked at surveying both accessibility coordinators and superintendents at the managerial level and looking at what their perceptions of accessibility were in their parks. So this kind of took it to the next level and actually looking at what the visitors' perceptions and expectations were. It looked at five different parks in the National Park Service around the Tennessee area, including the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, the Blueridge Parkway, Hot Springs, Mammoth Cave and Shenandoah, and it looked -- they surveyed people by mail and at attendance at those parks to get their perceptions and expectations for accessing outdoor recreation areas. I'm probably the research finding that is most notable is looking at the issue when it comes to visitor use and what their expectations are for the different levels of information that visitors are looking for when it comes to actually planning their trip to the park in advance and then coming to the park and participating in the various activities. So it kind of looks at the need for the information to be provided by the park so people can plan, then once they get there, their initial entrance into the park, whether or not it's accessing the visitor's center or park maps or brochures or even talking specifically with the park staff to find out where the accessible features are located. From the study, this was conducted as a pilot study and so the instrument has been developed in such a way that it could be used in the future by other parks that would have interest in using it. So that kind of gives you a brief run down on some of our outdoor research projects. Tajauna, if you want to, we can take some questions and then after these initial questions, we'll talk more about golf and swimming pools and playgrounds. >> TAJAUNA: Okay, one of the questions that I have in regards to the studies that you've been doing, you are mentioning that you are using -- utilizing individuals with disabilities as well as able bodied individuals. So how do you recruit the individuals with disabilities to participate in these studies? >> JENNIFER: Great. Thanks for asking that question, Tajauna. That is something that we have worked on a continuous basis back to 1992, working directly with the local centers for independent living and different disability organizations. Fortunately, with technology and the growth of the web, we have been able to link up the miles much easier through the super highway of the web. So one of the things that we're doing right now is we're actually looking for volunteers, both people with and without disabilities, to sign up -- actually just to be part of an NCA database of people that would be interested in participating in future research studies. People can sign up and they would actually indicate what their recreation interests are, whether or not it's golf or boating or fishing and then when we have the types of reach projects that come up in their area, we would go back and ask them if they were -- would be willing to participate. >> TAJAUNA: Okay. Out of all the studies that both you and Ray have talked about, what do you guys find as the most significant or your most significant finding out of all the studies? >> RAY: I don't know that there is anyone particular finding out of all of the studies. One thing that we do know -- and this goes back to the ones that Jennifer referenced relative to our work with the studies within national parks. One of the really significant findings that we have found is the -- at the management level, the lack of understanding of what accessibility really is, in particular in the area of program access. I think people have got a better idea right now -- or an understanding of what physical accessibility is. It's a little bit more objective. You can go to standard -- you can go to ADAAG, U. fast and whatever the current standard is and identify the specific standards and technical provisions but that's lacking a little bit more in the area of program access. Because of that, I think it also diminishes the degree of understanding that park managers have. It also means that because that understanding may not be there, those issues are not funded. Those issues are not supported at the managerial level when people like accessibility coordinators make the suggestions that we need to have things like alternative formats, captioning, things like that. They may not have that full understanding as to the true requirement for program access. >> TAJAUNA: Okay, a long those lines, we're getting some questions in regards to the new ADAAG that has come out and the recreational facility -- the recommendations for the recreational facilities that are within the new ADAAG. Do you guys have any idea or are you going to talk about this later when we can expect the DOJ, the U.S. Department of Justice plans to adopt and make those enforceable? >> JENNIFER: Well, I think we're like flipping a coin who is going to answer that question. Ray, do you want to talk about how GSA is going to adopt it a little bit differently than for under their Architectural Barriers Act? >> RAY: Sure, Jennifer. There is going to be two different phases of compliance with the new guidelines. As the history behind it that many people may already know, and that's the fact that there is a huge, huge effort by the U.S. Access Board in the development of these guidelines to incorporate in one document the architectural barriers act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, and in addition to that, they've also included the national building cons in the discussion a long with an is I to the highest degree that's possible so that basically everybody can work out of the same book. If you can get the private sector, the federal sector and the building community all in agreement, it makes it a little bit easier for those people that are at the implementation stage to understand and deal with the new guidelines. Essentially what's happening though is the federal sector, under the auspices of the four standard setting agencies, that being GSA, Department of Defense, housing and urban development, and the U.S. post office, they are all putting out the guidelines -- the section of the guidelines, and that will be known as ABA S, the Architectural Barriers Act standards and that will be that section of the new guidelines. That should be out only for the federal sector. That should be out somewhere between November and early 2006. Somewhere in the area of January or February is the estimated time right now, and that's according to the accessibility coordinator for GSA, general services administration. And then the second part is after the Department of Justice goes through their notice of proposed rule-making or I'm sorry their rule-making process, then the second part will be in effect for state and local government and the private sector, and Jennifer will talk a little bit more about that in the next section. >> JENNIFER: Since we're just to this part I can try to address that since we're talking about it. Interestingly enough, over the winter and early spring months, the Department of Justice had issued an advanced notice of proposed rule-making to adopt the Access Board's ADA accessibility guidelines. And what we have done actually in the last couple of months, because now all of those comments that were submitted by the public are available for viewing on the Department of Justice website, that's ada.gov. We went through there and we're doing a preliminary analysis of all the comments that were submitted that were related to recreation. And specifically what we're finding right now in the preliminary analysis is there is a significant number that are dealing with golf and access to golf courses. And, you know, some of them are submitted by manufacturers of single rider golf courses that are asking DOJ to adopt a standard that would require single rider golf cars at golf courses. There is also a large volume of comments from the golf industry itself asking that the requirements to make golf courses accessible be actually less stringent than they are currently proposed. So I think that what DOJ will be doing is they still have to issue a notice of proposed rule-making for additional public comment on the accessibility guidelines as they are proposed. So why that is important for the people that are listening in on this webcast right now is that typically and traditionally people with disabilities have had a low turn out in terms of public comment on the rule-making, especially when it comes to recreation-related issues and so this is an opportunity that the people with disabilities and different advocacy organizations feel important one way or another that a particular standard should be as it's proposed should be more stringent, then there is truly the time to comment. Because what we're finding is where the industry actually rallyes and can actually pull together a pretty good argument that what will come out of it could end up being a less stringent standard, which would provide less access than more access. So Tajauna, do you have any other questions or do you want to go on to the second part here? >> RAY: Jennifer, if I could, I'd like to just add one more thing to the very last part of what you said. I can't agree with you any more as far as the importance of individuals with disabilities supporting this. And we've got evidence of this based on the notice of proposed rule and final rule process that the Access Board went through because in the actual documentation, once they published the comments that people had, it truly did indicate that sometimes as many as two individuals with disabilities commenting on one topic made the difference of whether something was weakened or strength end or remained the same. So, again, I just want to emphasize what Jennifer already stated and that is the extreme importance of people with disabilities taking a moment -- and it doesn't have to be anything lengthy, but if you have the opportunity to comment through the process that GO J, the Department of Justice is going through, it is really important to be a part of that process and that you truly can make a difference. >> JENNIFER: Well, and just to piggy back off of that is that the most effective comments are those that don't just stop at saying we don't agree with this proposed requirement, but actually go further and make the suggestion of what would actually work better. >> TAJAUNA: and with that, up with of the questions that has come in is about the Access Board addressing issues created by patrons who have multiple chemical sensitivity in relation to swimming pools and the solvents and chemicals used when cleaning pools and so on and so forth. Are we saying that may be these individuals as well should, you know -- >> JENNIFER: Right. I think is a perfect example that there are several issues in the proposed guidelines from the Access Board do not deal with policy and procedure issues. You know, if you know -- if you look at what the auspices under the Access Board are, you know, they basically take the approach that you take a building, you turn it upside-down, you know, you dump it out and everything that still remains in there, that that's what they are responsible for. So that they don't address program or policy issues at all. And they are specific to recreation, just like the chemical sensitivity issues with swimming pools, there are a lot of program and procedure issues. It's not clear at all whether or not a single rider golf cart is considered a piece of -- or an auxiliary aid, and whether or not those should be required at golf courses. The interpretation on that is all across the board. The same instance with swimming pool lifts, is that the Access Board requirement is that you have a swimming pool lift as one of the primary means of entry into a pool, either a swimming pool lift or a zero depth entry, but what it doesn't say is whether or not that lift should be installed temporary or permanently. You know, the issues come up with it being installed temporary and now I just realized that I'm probably stealing Ray's thunder here because he's going to be talking about our pool research, but one of the issues with it being installed temporary is it puts the own us on the person with the disability that needs it to ask for it and what do you do in the event that you're the pool operator and you don't have staff to install it when it's requested? You know, so those are some of the important policies and procedure issues that will be very important for people with disabilities to comment on. >> TAJAUNA: Okay, with that, why don't we move on to the second half where you guys are going to talk about pools, golf, so on and so forth. >> JENNIFER: Okay. Well, back to golf obviously is one of the hot button issues in terms of recreation access and people definitely have their opinions on, you know, what it means to provide access to people with disabilities to the golf course, the tee, the greens and so forth. A couple of years ago, actually our Executive Director, Gary Robb, he has been instrumental working with various golf organizations in the industry to look at the issue of access for people with disabilities to access golf. He actually spearheaded a survey and interviews of golf course operators and policies, procedures and attitudes towards accommodating golfers with disabilities. And, you know, part of those findings are that there are a lot of misperceptions about how easy or how difficult it is to accommodate people with disabilities. And so out of that study, two publications came out of that study. The first one is called From The Backdrop to the 19th Hole, Tips for Making Individuals with Disabilities Feel Welcome At Your Golf Course. And that has been picked up by the USGA and is part of their online resource center and you can also get to that from the NCA website if you go to ncaonline.org and select the tab that says technical assistance and listed on the left are recreation topics and you can go right to golf. The second publication that came out of that was For the Good of the Game, and that publication looks at what is needed to attract people with disabilities to golf and to make accommodations for them. Part of this research has been really important because what has come out of the research is then better communication between groups of golfers with disabilities and the golf industry itself. And so what NCA, through the leadership under Gary Robb, has been able to do in the last couple of years is establish a separate nonfor profit entity called the national alliance for accessible golf. And that entity is managed by a voluntary group of Board of Directors and they are working very hard to develop other technical assistance publications for both golfers with disabilities and golf course owners. Some of their work is online through their website, that's accessgolf.org which is all one word. Its and one of the projects that we're working on for the upcoming year, you know, again, is that hot button topic of single rider golf cars and whether or not those are required for golf courses. One of the issues when its comes to single rider golf cars is there are several different varieties of them, and each has their own unique features about them. And so what we're looking at doing is kind of a comparison study of the various models and testing them with golfers with disabilities and finding out which ones -- which features are -- you know, work to the golfer's advantage and are easy to use on the golf course. Because the madge offer question that we get from golf course owners is which single rider car should we buy? Because this is a big investment and they are all very different, and so basically what we're looking at doing with that is kind of a comparison study. The next study that we were going to talk about is related to ticket policies at performing arts convenient use and sports arenas. And this study was really unique as it came out of a result of a discussion n at a conference for accessibility coordinators and the performing arts that has been hosted over the last several years by Betty seeing al at the Kennedy Center for performing arts. And about three or four years ago, through that discussion, through one of our presentations at the conference, there was a lot of dialogue between the accessibility coordinators on what should the best practices be in terms of providing accommodations for patrons with disabilities that are interested in attending the theatre, attending a performance or going to a sporting event at a major arena? And so what NCA did as a result of that conversation and discussion was we conducted an online survey of accessibility coordinators from performing arts convenient use and sports arenas, and basically asked them questions about what their policies and procedures were and everything from hold and relieve policies for their wheelchair accessible seating to accommodating patrons with service animals. Accommodations with people who might be requesting performances that are audio described or have sign language interpreters or that need realtime captioning, and kind of looking at what are these convenient use doing currently and what are the issues that are not clear on what the expectations from the Department of Justice are. Specifically one of the very unclear issues right now is whether or not a performing arts venue should specifically schedule events where a sign language or realtime captioning is provided, say, for example you're running a play for a week long run, do you only schedule one of those performances with a sign language interpreter? Maybe that's the Wednesday night performance. Well, what if you have somebody that wants to attend the Friday night per fume answer and needs a sign language, but there isn't one available because they've already been scheduled for Wednesday? You know, is this something, you know, that can be done? Basically what we did through the analysis of the procedures was submit those questions directly to the Department of Justice and indicated that both more research on this topic needed to be conducted and that DOJ really needed to provide more guidance, specifically on these types of issues. Ray, did you want to talk a little bit about our pool study? >> RAY: Sure. That was a study that was conducted in 1996. And this was one that was contracted by the U.S. Access Board. Essentially when they were looking at all of the different recreational issues. There were some areas that they felt they could handle totally by the knowledge that their staff had, and then there were a few other areas that they felt they really did not have the staff expertise and wanted to go outside. Two of those areas, one happened to have been playgrounds and the other was in the outdoor developed areas. They went through the process of using the federal regulatory negotiating committee process. However, in the area of some of the recreation areas that are in the current proposed guidelines, one area that they just really felt they wanted to contract to get a little bit more research on so they could make a decision was in the area of pool and spa accessibility. And they contracted to us to conduct that study. Essentially they wanted to find out a couple of different things: Number one, user preference; number two, some owner and operator issues. This was the first accessibility study relating to pools that had been done in over 35 years. So we really had to more or less start from scratch. There wasn't a lot of research that we could get through any type of searches that we were able to come up with. One thing that we did do, we looked at all of the different existing standards throughout all of the different states that related to pools so that we can evaluate those standards and determine what worked, what didn't, what were the issues in common, what were safety issues versus accessibility issues so we could make sure that any recommendations and issues that we were talking about were going to be consistent with what was being -- had already been adopted throughout the country. There were seven different methods of pool accessibility that were identified that seemed practical and usable by people with disabilities. Ramps was one, lifts another, stairs another, transfer steps was a fourth, zero depth entry, movable floors which we identified in a couple of different areas that existed, and also transfer walls. We provided a variety of recommendations to the U.S. Access Board after we were able to have people with disabilities and the owner/operators provide their input. We spoke with 150 owner/operators who had experience with one of these seven different means of pool access. We also tested over 300 individuals with disabilities utilizing many of these different means of pool access. We wanted to find out what were the types of things that they found that worked. What are the types of things that didn't work. Where did they feel safe? Where did they feel confident using the different types of devices? And then we -- based on all this, we provided recommendations to the Access Board. The Access Board was very specific, when we provided any type of a recommendation, they wanted some type of documented rational for that. One example -- and this was one that kind of remained a little controversial, right down to the end. As a matter of fact, it was one of the issues that was in the advanced notice of proposed rule for the Department of Justice, and that was the issue of whether you should have more than one primary means of accessibility for people with disabilities in pools that were larger than 300 linear feet. The rational that we had for recommending two means of access was the fact that if you had a pool of over 300 linear feet, there was a requirement in the majority of states in their pool standards that you had at least one ladder every 75 feet. Well, we felt if it was that important for people without disabilities to be able to get in and out of the pool, then there should be at least two means of entry and exit for individuals with disabilities. And this was one of the issues that DOJ is asking as a question. Should this remain in the new recommendations or the new guidelines in their notice of proposed rule? But I was very proud of the fact that we kind of estimated that when you look at what is in the Access Board's guidelines on the pools and spas, probably somewhere in the area of about 80 percent of what is in there came directly from our pool study. I'd also like to comment on another study that we're currently working on, and that is one on our campground survey. We've actually had very good success in the one that Jennifer -- this is basically an online survey, the one that Jennifer just spoke about with the ticketing policies. And it was utilizing that same concept both in terms of the methodology, the online survey, along with some similar issues. And we found out that there are many policies that exist right now in campgrounds that relate to some of the same issues that you'll find in theatres and stadium and areas of sports and performing arts convenient use. That's the idea of when do you hold certain areas that are accessible to people with disabilities and when do you let them go? Those same issues come up in campgrounds. There is reservation policies that are national. Many campgrounds throughout the United States right now will go through some of the major ticketing/reservation systems, like Ticketmaster and so on. And they need to ensure that the -- that information relating to the accessible camp sites are consistent with the reservation policies that people with disabilities need in terms of having an accessible space, but in addition to that, it's when do you let them go? When do you hold on to policies so that if, for example, a family that did not have a person with a disability that was planning ongoing to camping at a particular site and suddenly another family member said that they would join them or a friend that has a disability, does a camp facility have the flexibility to be able to respond to a last minute decision like that? Most important of all, was the issue of what happens if people who do not have a disability end up getting an accessible camp spot -- camp site because there was no request for -- by a person with a disability to use that site at the time of the release? Then the campground on Sunday morning or Monday morning empties out, however, the accessible campground may still be occupied. Can you ask that individual that's in the accessible camp site that does not have a disability -- can you ask them to move? And it has been determined, utilizing the precedence that the Department of Justice has already used in holding back hotels. They've already determined that people without disabilities can be asked to move to an inaccessible room and the same thing can happen at a campground. We want to find out basically what are the policies that campground operators are currently using so that we can help to provide some guidelines for camp sites to have so they can post them and if everybody is aware of what their responsibilities are up front, along with what the policies are up front, it's going to make it a lot easier for people with disabilities and also a lot easier for those people that are managing the campgrounds. So far we have made contact with over 3,000 campground operators and we have heard back so far from 194 people that have responded and filled out the survey. We still have a little bit less than a month for people to respond. We will be closing the data collection part down on the 26th of the month and then we will begin to gather the information and hopefully be able to produce some guidelines that will be effective for people that are operating campgrounds to have -- to make more effective decisions for individuals with disabilities who participate in camping at their facilities. >> JENNIFER:Thanks, Ray. I'll just give that another plug. So if you are a recreation provider or land management agency or if you have an agency in your area that provides camping opportunities either in the form of R. V. or tent camping, the information and link to the survey is on the NCA website. Again that's ncaonline.org. The last day for participating in that survey will be about the 26th of September. So we are hoping to get some more comments from people. Two other studies that we have upcoming right now are in regards to trail and playground surfaces. Probably the most frequently asked question that we get here at NCA between the technical assistance that we provide and our onsite training is in regards to trail and playground surfaces. And people are asking us what are the most accessible surfaces? What are the most cost effective? And which ones will last the longest over a period of years? So we have been working on initiating two national studies that will be conducted in various climates throughout the United States. So if you have a new trail that is about to be installed or a new playground that is about to be installed, and are interested in participating in the study, you can send me an E-mail or contact NCA and that's all listed on our website. Our E-mail is nca@indiana.edu. So basically what we're looking at in terms of the trail study is looking at a variety of soil stabilization products that Ray had mentioned earlier from the Bradford woods study left off and looking at a significant portion of the trail where there would be multiple applications of various soil stabilization products and looking at how long those different products held up in various regions through a period of five to ten years. So that's something that we are collecting. We have a database of trail coordinators and agencies that have indicated that they are interested in the study and participating in the study and so we're looking at different -- is bringing on those initial sites this spring, but over the winter, working with them on the protocol that they will need to follow in terms of building the trail and applying the soil stabilization products. The second study in terms of surfacing that we're looking at is playground surfaces and those continue to be a very controversial topic in terms of the uses and application of unitary playground surfaces like rubber that either rubber mats are powered in place rubber surfacing vs the use of loose fill products like engineered wood fiber products. Typically, what the trend has been over the last several years is for park and recreation agencies that have playgrounds is to install an engineered wood fiber product because it's cheaper. You know, when you look at the cost between the two for engineered wood fiber, you're looking at a cost that's less than two to three dollars per square foot; whereas when you're looking at a poured in place rubber, you're looking at anything from 18 to $15 on up per square foot. So that the cost is a considerable factor when playground owners make that initial decision on which playground surface to install. Obviously, you're all very well versed in accessibility issues, is that the unitary surface over time, we believe, requires less maintenance where an engineered or a loose product requires ongoing maintenance to make sure that it maintains a level surface. And so part of this research question is how much does it cost to maintain that loose fill surface and if you're looking at a period of anywhere of five to seven years, could the cost to maintenance actually equal or surpass the cost for the initial installation of the unitary surface? So what we're looking at doing right now is bringing on playground sites throughout the country where we would be able to collect data about the initial installation of the playground surface and then over a period of five years, continue to monitor it and look at and compare what the cost to maintain it to an accessible level that not only meets accessibility requirements, but also meets the safety requirements for impact continuation in a play area. So if you have interest in either one of those two projects, you can visit the NCA website, ncaonline.org. We also have a list serve that you can subscribe to and get updated information on the various projects that we're working on here at NCA. So that kind of gives you an idea of the different types of projects that we have been working on, and they really go to all of the recreation spectrum. And obviously for me and both for Ray, this is an area that we truly believe in terms of recreation access that this is what contributes to people being able to live healthy, active lifestyles. And, you know, it starts with recreation where people can participate in recreation and access physical activity that is accessible. They are able to lead a more balanced and healthy lifestyle that contributes to the community and community enrichment. So with that I'll just get off my soap box and Tajauna, if you have more questions for us, we'd be happy to answer those. >> TAJAUNA: Okay, great. Actually, I do have some questions and the first one goes back to talking about the policy and guidelines and the question says: I have a copy of the assessment of benefits and cost of final accessibility guidelines for recreation facilities. September 2002. Can you tell me are there any other guidelines required? This document covers amusement rides, boating facilities, golf courses, mini golf, exercise equipment, bowling lanes, shooting facilities, swimming pools, Wading pools and spas. And includes miscellaneous amendments. What I am hearing from you is there are not specific guidelines or rules? >> RAY: for many of the issues that are -- that were identified in that question, for example, the shooting ranges would probably be a really, really good example. With that one in particular, because there are so many different types of recreational opportunities out there that it would almost be impossible in terms of the role of the Access Board to come up with specific standards for every single venue. However, you're going to find with many of these venues existing standards that can be applied. For example, if you are at a shooting range, you have to get to the range. So obviously route of travel would be one area of accessibility that would have to be looked at in some fashion. Well, that already exists in ADAAG. Then you would look at other components of it such as work surface, looking at all of the different ways that a person would participate in that particular activity. Now, some of the issues that have been identified in there will have an architectural component to it, which will fall in under the standards; and others will have a programmatic component to it. And that will come in under DOJ guidelines whether they come through the guidelines that will come through their notice of proposed rule or they may be things that will come out in technical pieces afterwards relative to the regulatory process rather than the building standards process. But there are many, many areas out there where you have to apply different aspects of the guidelines as they are being developed, some of which are going to come from the outdoor developed areas that are not part of the guidelines right now. >> TAJAUNA: Okay, our next question comes from Alaska, and it's actually two parts. The first part of it says our state fair has a lot of the same vendors year after year. Are they subject to readily achievable barrier removals? Do these vendors always get temporary status due to only two weeks every year even though it's the same year after year? If they do get temporary status, what does this require for accessibility in this situation? >> JENNIFER: Well, Ray, I'll take that one and you can just jump in. Actually the DOJ very early on in the enforcement of the ADA has a case that specifically looks at these types of temporary exhibits which is actually out of Minnesota I believe. It was the renaissance festival where they have vendors come in and temporary exhibits and what DOJ looked at was that those are still -- even though they are temporary, they are still programs that are open to the public to participate in and so they still require access. If you go to the DOJ website, under ada.gov, and you can go under settlement agreements and specifically look at that settlement agreement with renaissance festival. If you can't find it, you are welcome to send us an E-mail. If not, I can send you the link for that. >> TAJAUNA: and the second part of the question is how strict should the organizers be in requiring accessibility to vendors booths? >> JENNIFER: Ray, I'll let you answer that one. >> RAY: Well, I think that they should be strict. Individuals with disabilities should have equal rights to those types of recreational opportunities that are provided at state fairs and I think that there should be strict applications under those circumstances. That's an event that is annual and it's representative of the entire state. >> JENNIFER:Well, and I think the next point of that is because it is a state fair and it is being conducted by the state, is that -- whether or not it's the vendor that's not accessible or an element of the state fairgrounds itself, both can be -- can have a complaint or a lawsuit filed against them. >> TAJAUNA: Okay. So the next question is regarding ticket sales, and it says I have seen the theatre industry is responding to the ADAAG regarding a 34 to 36-inch high counter, but less response for contractors/architects to design the building with lower counters. What has been introduced to these sectors and where? Are universities offering credit for expertise in ADA design? How about the national construction -- how about national construction? How are building inspectors, plumbers, general contractors made aware and given tests to increase their understanding of the standards and guidelines? >> RAY: Boy, that's an excellent question. Unfortunately. It has many, many answers. There have been -- and I've been involved in this field for 30 years. And when I first began, there were very, very few schools. As a matter of fact, in 1981 there were only six schools in the United States that had a course in accessibility as a part of its curriculum. Obviously that's changed a lot over the years, and we're finding more and more universities that are incorporating accessibility as a part of their architectural schools in terms of curriculum. You're also finding many, many more places that have adopted ADAAG as a part of the state standards or even down to the local level, which means you're finding more building inspectors that are being trained and are not finding accessibility something that gets left off their inspection checklist. But it's not consistent nationally. It's not consistent educationally, and it's not consistent in terms of building inspection. The other thing that also makes a huge difference, and this is something that we at the National Center on Accessibility and I know the U.S. Access Board, their staff, encourages people to design beyond the minimum. The guidelines that are out there, the standard that are out there tell you only what is the minimum that is required. If you design to the minimum, you have no room to make an error. So we constantly try to encourage people to go beyond minimum design, go as far as adopting the principles of universal design for design practice, and I think in the long run, more people will benefit by better facilities. But it's going to take a long time. Unfortunate, it puts the responsibility back on individuals with disabilities to ensure through the complaint process that things are being done correctly, and I think that more building inspectors and people that are responsible for the enforcement, the more they are made aware of the mistakes that are made through the complaint process, the less people want -- the less people are likely to go back and repeat those same mistakes. >> JENNIFER: Well, that's a great example on how the advocacy on a local level can do so much benefit. You know, whether or not you have a community college or a state school or a private institution in your backyard, that's a great place where the local advocates can work to ensure that somehow or another that gets implemented into the curriculum. You know, here at Indiana University, we are a part of the department of recreation of park administration and way back while NCA was still in the development stages, Gary Robb, our Executive Director and Ed Hamilton, our former director of research were both faculty here at I. U. and they had actually developed a course which is now required for all undergraduate recreation majors, and that is on inclusive recreation. So, you know, every semester there is about 200 recreation majors that are required to take this course and it goes over everything from programmatic access to physical access to universal design. So that's one of the areas that advocacy can really get that implemented. One other project that you might be interested in in terms of going above and beyond the minimum requirements is -- a knew project called universal design education online, and that is for students that might be interested in learning about universal design and another one is specifically developed for instructors and includes teaching modules on how they can teach universal design. That website is udeducation.org and that's a really neat project that you might be interested in. >> RAY: I'd like to add one other comment regarding the issue of design. You can design things to make them accessible and you can design them in terms of incorporating universal design. Quite often the mistakes are made at the construction level. You really need to make sure that it is the -- not only the building inspectors that are also aware of what accessibility is about, what it means and what the standards and guidelines mean, but education also has to take place with those people that are accepting the construction contracts so that they knee if they have to make a change onsite, how that change is going to affect the standards and, therefore, also affecting the usability of that facility. Quite often that's where the majority -- more mistakes are probably made in that area than at the design stage. >> TAJAUNA: Okay. The next question that we have is on swimming pools and it says zero depth entry, please comment on lack of shower chairs, lack of uni sex/family restrooms and water seem tour as barriers people with disabilities face when trying to use public swimming pools. >> RAY: Another good question and another issue that relates to what Jennifer was talking about earlier, and that is dividing up the area of responsibility between which components are structural versus which are policy. The issue of the number -- there is not a requirement right now for the unisex restrooms or changing facilities. That is in addition to. We highly encourage people to provide that type of a facility because more than just individuals with disabilities, it's beneficial to everyone. The family changing rooms are very, very beneficial to parents of the opposite sex of the child, along with individuals with disabilities that may need assistance or in addition to that just the privacy issue. But again, that's a decision that people have to be educated on in order to be able to begin to put that into the design phase. The area of shower chairs, the area of aqua chairs to be used in the pools, the issue relative to temperature, they are the types of things that can be sent in to the Department of Justice right now so that they can continue to add to their base of knowledge and their concern by individuals with disabilities. So, again, I highly encourage people to take the time, and it doesn't have to be lengthy. It can be something as a couple of sentences in a paragraph that identifies what the issue is and why that issue is important so that when DOJ is incorporating that in the policy parts of their rule-making process, those issues will be considered. >> TAJAUNA: Okay, and we just have about five or ten minutes left. So I'm going to ask one more question and then I'm going to give it back to both of you for any closing comments. The last question is in regards to water slides, and it says why were water slides exempted from compliance with the ADA accessible guidelines? And will they need to comply with the new ADA accessible guidelines? Can you guys comment on that? >> RAY: I believe that the reason why they were not considered is because when they went through the economic evaluations, I really felt that the information that came back from the industry was that it was not considered practical to be able to make water slides accessible in terms of the cost. There was also safety elements that went along with that that was a major concern within the industry, and if my memory serves me right, I believe that was the reason why that was out and I don't see any reason why -- or any indication right now why that will be put back in in any future development of standards or guidelines. >> TAJAUNA: Okay, thank you so much. All right, Jennifer and Ray, do you guys want to give any closing comments? >> RAY: What I'd like to do is just very quickly mention a couple of the things that we have coming up that might be beneficial to people that are interested in advancing accessibility. We have a few different training courses that we are -- we will be conducting. One we have coming up in just a couple of weeks and it's our course on retrofitting for accessibility. And that will be in Gatlinburg, Tennessee September 19th through the 22nd. We still have some room in that for anybody who wants to register for that training course. Then we have another course that we have conducted over the years, and that one is specifically designed for people to have the responsibility as accessibility coordinators. That course is going to be held in Bloomington, and that will be at the first week of November, October 31st flew November 3rd, and that will be -- as a matter of fact, we conducted that course this past spring for the first time right on the campus of Indiana University and people found it exciting, kind of fun to go back to college, so to speak. So that's where we're going to hold this one. We also have a course called 21st Century Trails, and we've conducted it twice in the past and will be conducting it three times this upcoming year and that is one that focuses only on trail accessibility, and that will be held at Bradford Woods, the outdoor environmental education center I had mentioned a little bit earlier that's just outside of Indianapolis, between Indianapolis and Bloomington. That will be conducted on the -- it's a two day workshop and that will be conducted November 8th and 9th. There is also something we found pretty exciting, and that is some new technology or actually older technology that is being applied in a very new way. And that's utilizing GPS technology to conduct accessibility assessments, both indoors and outdoors. And we have had some access to that technology and this coming spring -- we don't have the date yet, but we highly recommend that you keep an eye on our website. This coming spring we hope to be able to conduct some training to demonstrate how that technology can be used very efficiently in the accessibility assessment process. Jennifer, any final comments? >> TAJAUNA: You have about one or two minutes, Jennifer. >> JENNIFER: I just wanted to thank everyone and thank the ILRU for their invitation. Again, if you have any questions as you can see, Ray and I can talk on and on about access to recreation, but certainly if you have any questions after this session, we'd be happy to take those. You can call us at NCA or visit the information or the link through the ILRU website to ncaonline.org. I'm excited to see that there is somebody listening to us out there. I already have an E-mail message from Donna Snowland out in Nevada who is interested in participating in our future research. So thanks again Tajauna for the invitation. >> RAY: Thank you very much. >> TAJAUNA: Thank both of you. You have provided all of us with some terrific and important information and I thank both of you for taking time out of your busy schedules to fill us in with this information. I hope all of you listening have also learned from today's webcast and I would like to note that this webcast will be archived on ILRU's website, which you can find by visiting www.ilru.org and I believe if you go under training, you'll see webcasts. You can also check the ILRU website for upcoming webcasts. Next week, Wednesday, September 14th, at 2:00 p.m. central standard time, the webcast, Everything You Need to Know About Accessible Parking From Public to Private, will be presented by Aaron McCullough. Before closing, I would like to acknowledge the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, NIDRR, who funds your host for today's program, the Disability Law Resource Project. I encourage anyone with questions on compliance of the Americans with Disabilities Act to call the toll free number at 1-800-949-4232. I would also like to thank the in-house staff at ILRU who without their efforts this webcast would not be possible. They include: Marj Gordon, Sharon Finney, Dawn Heinsohn, Vinh Nguyen, as well as the technical expertise of Rob Dickehuth and our realtime captioner, Marie Bryant. We hope you'll join us next week. Until then, goodbye.