College and Research Libraries The Americans with Disabilities Act: Accommodation in Ohio Scott A. Carpenter The Americans with Disabilities Act (Public Law 1 01-366) was signed into law on July 26, 1990, and took effect on January 26, 1992. This law, the most sweeping civil rights legislation since the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, has far-reaching ramifications for libraries. This study took a census of Ohio's 134 college and university libraries. A survey instrument obtained data on the types of accommo- dations that have been made in Title II (public), Title Ill (private), and Title IV (communication services and auxiliary aids) with respect to: access; auxiliary aids and services; rest room facilities; signage; and staff and policymaking. Hypotheses regarding the effects of library char- acteristics such as type of institution, new/old building, single/multistoried building, and physically disabled staff were tested. n July 26, 1990, President George Bush enacted the . Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as Public Law 101- 336. The act was designed to provide comprehensive civil rights protection to individuals with disabilities in the areas of: employment, public accommoda~ tions, state and local government ser- vices, and telecommunications. The ADA gives civil rights protection to the estimated 20 percent of the popu- lation with disabilities with respect to dis- crimination that is analogous to those protections provided individuals on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, and religion. In doing so, it combines el- ements drawn principally from two key civil rights statutes: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title V of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 1 On July 26, 1991, the De- partment of Justice (DOJ), the imple- menting agency for both Title II and Title III of ADA, issued regulations and inter- pretive guidelines. The ADA is divided into four parts: Title I; Title II; Title III; and Title IV. Title I is a federal antidiscrimination statute designed to remove barriers that prevent qualified individuals with disabilities from enjoying the same employment op- portunities that are available to persons without disabilities. 2 Title II prohibits public entities from discriminating on the basis of disability in services, programs, or activities. This prohibition applies to all state and local governments. It extends the prohibition of discrimination in fed- erally assisted programs established by section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to all activities of state and local gov- ernments, including those that do not re- ceive federal financial assistance.3 Title III prohibits discrimination on the basis of Scott A. Carpenter is in the LRMD Product Implementation Department of the OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.; e-mail: carpents@oclc.org. 555 556 College & Research Libraries disability by private entities in places of public accommodation. It requires that all new places of public accommodation and commercial facilities be designed and constructed so as to be readily ac- cessible to, and usable by, persons with disabilities. Also, courses for examina- tions related to licensing or certification for professional and trade purposes are required to be accessible to persons with disabilities.4 Title IV addresses the area of providing communication services and auxiliary aids. Passage of the ADA has resulted in changes that affect all places of public accommodation, including libraries. Al- though the ADA does not set rules for compliance, it does provide guidelines for organizations and institutions to fol- low. These guidelines state that Title II service providers (e.g., public colleges or universities) and Title III service provid- ers (private colleges or universities) make "reasonable accommodations" for per- sons with disabilities and make "readily achievable modifications" to accommo- date persons with disabilities. Since the ADA took effect on January 26, 1992, libraries, as public entities, have been required to take action on these guidelines. However, what is meant by "reasonable accommodations" and "readily achievable accommodations" is a point of controversy and confusion. The purpose of this research study is to de- termine the types of reasonable and readily achievable accommodations li- braries have made in the areas of: access, auxiliary aids and services, rest room fa- cilities, signage, and staff and policy- making by conducting a survey of the 134 college and university libraries in Ohio. For this study, "ADA Guidelines" for Title II (public entities), Title III (private entities) and Title IV (communication ser- vices and auxiliary aids) were used. Title . I (employment) was not included as a part of this study. The data gathered in this study were then analyzed to gain a better understanding of the extent to November 1996 which libraries have made accommoda- tions for persons with disabilities; and to the degree that they have not been met, to offer preliminary observations as to potential correlates of this nonaccom- modation. Literature Review A great deal of writing has focused on helping libraries and other entities un- derstand the ADA and helping develop prescriptions for compliance with it. Some of these previous efforts have con- sisted of question-and-answer forums to help librarians focus on the various as- pects of their facilities that require atten- tion.5 Other works have described the ADA, detailing its different facets and their applicability to public and private academic libraries. 6 In addition, the ex- pertise of lawyers also has been utilized to understand more completely the rami- fications of the ADA and to offer sug- gestions of ways to comply. 7 Other work has focused on highlighting the work of a given institution in accommodating persons with disabilities.8 Most of the literature pertaining di- rectly to the responsibility of libraries in complying with the ADA has focused on explaining the law and providing pre- scriptions for more complete compliance. Another example of this prescription is the work of Melanie J. Norton, who ex- amined adapting bibliographic instruc- tion (BI) for deaf or hearing-impaired patrons.9 Norton outlines the adaptations that are necessary (e.g., special BI classes, increased use of written as opposed to orally presented materials) to adapt to the needs of deaf and hearing-impaired pa- trons. Despite these studies, recent bibli- ographies indicate that the majority of work in library science on ADA compli- ance remains in a formative stage, and has not progressed to evaluating ADA compliance and influence. 10 The author's research will help ad- dress these deficits in the study of the ef- fect of the ADA on libraries. However, there has been work in other areas of ADA compliance apart from that directly affecting libraries. In the author's study of the degree of accommodation with the ADA by college and university libraries in Ohio, as well as the factors that may be associated with this compliance, he can draw on some of the aspects of these research studies. These aspects of previ- ous work include: methodology, inter- vening factors affecting compliance, and statistical analysis. The dominant methodology for as- sessing the degree of compliance or of accommodation is survey methodology. This study, rather than measuring com- pliance (which involves a strict legalistic interpretation of the ADA), focuses on ac- commodation. That is, the author is in- vestigating the more minimal steps li- braries have taken toward full compliance with the ADA. Surveys have been used to measure the extent to which primary and secondary schools are complying, as well as to measure compliance from uni- versities in general-beyond the role of the library. 11 In keeping with this prior research, the author utilized a survey to collect data on accommodation with the ADA by college and university libraries in Ohio. Other studies have used different populations for their respondent groups. In his study, William Mark Fornadel sur- veys the ADA compliance officer at each public college or university throughout the United States. 12 As explained below, surveying the compliance officer was considered for this project However, this survey population was ruled out, in part because available resources limit the research to Ohio and in part because it is not known which colleges and universities in Ohio have compli- ance officers. Not only has previous work illustrated that survey methodology is appropriate for the author's research, but it also pro- vides insights into some of the factors that may affect the libraries' degree of accom- Americans with Disabilities Act 557 modation. In general, the two most-cited barriers to full compliance are the costs involved and the size of the institution. In examining the extent to which school systems (primary and secondary) in Ne- braska are complying with the ADA, Jo- seph Vincent Reinert found that the size of the school affects the degree of compli- ance present.B Scott Jaschik indicates, in exploring college and university admin- istrators' attitudes toward the ADA and its effect on their institutions, that cost is a the two most-cited barriers to full compliance are the costs involved and the size of the institution. key factor in compliance.14 These admin- istrators see the cost of removing the bar- riers to compliance as an important ele- ment in the decision-making process as they deliberate on their reactions to the ADA. Finally, research to date sheds light on appropriate statistics to utilize in analyz- ing the data. In general, when assessing the extent to which entities have com- plied with the ADA, descriptive statis- tics (e.g., mean, median) are most often used. However, in exploring the various factors that may co-vary with compli- ance, inferential statistics measuring as- sociation are used (e.g., Chi-square and difference of means). These statistics helped the researchers assess whether factors such as size of institution and/ or cost of barrier removal are associated with compliance in a statistically signifi- cant manner. In summary, this review of the litera- ture has shown that research on the im- pact of the ADA on libraries is limited to writings explaining the law and the re- sponsibilities of libraries in complying. The relatively scarce work describing compliance does not go far beyond case studies of a single school's compliance in a few areas of the library. There has been more work done in areas beyond 558 College & Research Libraries library sciencein measuring compliance and enumerating the factors that may affect it. This work points to: the appli- cability of survey methodology; the pos- sibility of costs and size of institution acting on the degree of compliance; and the use of several statistics in disentan- gling the effects. Research Objectives The purpose of this research study is to compare the ways the 134 college and university libraries in Ohio have made accommodations to persons with dis- abilities. Several different categories of li- braries' accommodations were examined to determine the types of reasonable and readily achievable accommodations that have been made, including access, aux- iliary aids and services, rest room facili- ties, signage, and staff and policy-mak- ing. This research study describes the ex- tent to which the 134 college and univer- sity libraries in Ohio are meeting the Most likely, buildings constructed after the ADA was enacted have made accommodations to persons with disabilities. minimum standards of compliance with the ADA and to examine characteristics of the libraries that might cause differ- ences in accommodation. First, in mea- suring the minimum standards of com- pliance, this study measures the extent to which libraries have achieved the "easiest" accommodations. The survey instrument has measures of compliance adapted from The Americans with Disabili- ties Act: Title III Technical Assistance Manual .15 This publication indicates those steps toward full compliance with the ADA that should be readily achievable. The scope of this research study covers all these areas of accommodation. Second, beyond describing the reality of libraries' adaption to the needs of per- November 1996 sons with disabilities, the different char- acteristics of the libraries that might be associated with differences in accommo- dation were examined. Based on per- sonal experience, the author suspects that the degree to which all college and uni- versity libraries in Ohio provide accom- modation varies across libraries. This re- search study is an initial attempt to ex- amine different characteristics of the li- braries that might co-vary with accom- modation. There are several factors that could af- fect meeting the minimum standards of accommodation: public versus private institutions; whether the library was con- structed before or after the ADA was en- acted; the extent to which the physical facilities exacerbate accessibility issues; and whether there are any disabled li- brary staff. Based on personal experience, the author expects that private colleges and universities, which can control some- what the types of students they admit, will be less accommodating to persons with physical disabilities. Public institu- tions, whose funding is primarily out of public money, may well feel a greater need to be .more ADA compliant than do private institutions. Most likely, buildings constructed after the ADA was enacted have made accommodations to persons with disabilities. Also, where the physi- cal facilities augment accessibility prob- lems (e.g., where there are multiple sto- ries in buildings), there has been a greater likelihood of accommodation. Finally, it is likely that a library that has accommo- dated a staff person with a physical dis- ability also will accommodate a patron with a physical disability. This study at- tempted to confirm that these factors af- fect minimum standards of accommoda- tion across college and university librar- ies in Ohio by using the following hy- potheses: H 1 Public college and university librar- ies will be more likely to accommodate patrons with physical disabilities than pri- vate college and university libraries. H 2 Libraries built after the ADA was passed will be more likely to make accom- modations to persons with disabilities. H 3 Multistoried libraries will be more likely than single-storied libraries to make accommodations to persons with disabili- ties. H 4 College or university libraries that have physically disabled staff will be more likely to accommodate patrons with physical disabilities. Accommodation, institution type, age of building, number of stories, and ex- istence of physically disabled staff are measured with questions from the sur- vey instrument. To ensure that these mea- sures address accommodation, these questions were drawn from The Ameri- cans with Disabilities Act: Title III Techni- cal Assistance Manual. 16 Methodology The population for this study consists of the college and university library direc- tors from the state of Ohio as determined by the Directory of Ohio Libraries, 1995 edi- tion.17 A census of college and university library directors in the state of Ohio was conducted to determine the degree to which libraries accommodate persons with disabilities and how the character- istics of the libraries and their colleges or universities affect these accommoda- tions. When the Directory of Ohio Librar- ies listed head librarian instead of library director, the head librarians were sur- veyed. Library directors were selected be- cause they would be able to provide the most complete information on all aspects of their respective libraries under study. Originally, the author had wanted to se- lect the librarian in charge of ADA com- pliance, but not every library has a per- son specifically designated for this. For the sake of consistency, the director of each library was chosen. The ADA bill is complex, and even if different library in- dividuals or committees are in place to discuss aspects of library services (i.e., Americans with Disabilities Act 559 reference, circulation), these individuals or committees would likely convey their conclusions to the library director. The entire population of Ohio college and university library directors was used for this study. In this respect, this study takes a census of all134 college and uni- versity libraries in Ohio. Within the Di- rectory of Ohio Libraries, there are actu- ally 136libraries. However, Denison Uni- versity was omitted from this study, given its involvement in the circulation of the materials. Also, one respondent was director of two libraries, which were in a joint facility. Thus, the total number of libraries surveyed is 134. The response rate is quite respectable; ninety-seven li- braries (72.4%) completed the survey. Design and Procedures The survey instrument was printed on light grey paper in an effort to make it stand out from other documents received by the library directors. That color is pleasing to the eye and still allows the printed text to be read easily. The survey instrument also was reduced and made into a booklet, approximately 5.5 inches by 8.5 inches, or the size of a half sheet of paper. This gives the illusion of a much smaller survey. Finally, the survey was organized into different sections of ques- tions: access, auxiliary aids and services, rest room facilities, signage, and staff and policymaking. With the survey organized into sections, the respondent does not feel overwhelmed by answering the 91 ques- tions. Along with dividing the survey into sections, question branching also was used. This prevents the respondent from answering irrelevant questions. This also means that the respondent did not necessarily answer all the survey questions. The survey instrument for this study was mailed on October 1, 1995, along with a cover letter. Included in the mail- ing was a stamped, self-addressed return envelope to help increase the response rate. To help reduce nonresponse bias, a 560 College & Research Libraries second cover letter and questionnaire were mailed, two and a half weeks after the first mailing (October 18, 1995), along with a stamped, self-addressed return en- velope, to those who had not yet re- sponded. The questionnaire was identi- cal to the first one mailed, and the cover letter reminded the respondent that the first letter and questionnaire were mailed on October 1, 1995. If after these two at- tempts a response was not received, it was assumed that the respondent chose not to participate in the study. To maintain confidentiality, the only identifier was a coding number on the back of the envelope. The code was on the return envelope so as to minimize its presence. If a second questionnaire was sent in an attempt to persuade a respon- dent to participate, the same coding num- ber was used. Respondents were told in the cover letter that their responses would be confidential and used for re- search purposes only and that their November 1996 names would never be used or associ- ated with the results in any way. Data Analysis A Profile of Accommodation The extent to which college and univer- sity libraries in Ohio have made accom- modations to persons with disabilities varies considerably, both in terms of the kinds of changes they have made and in the degree of their efforts. This section details the amount of accommodation made in each of the six different areas (access, auxiliary aids and services, rest room facilities, signage, and staff and policymaking). To facilitate discussion of the extent to which libraries have made accommoda- tions to persons with disabilities, ques- tions within each of the categories of ac- commodation have been collapsed into scales. Table 1 details, within each of the six categories of accommodation, which questions comprise each of the ten scales. TABLE 1 Accommodation Scales Scale Name Description Mean Median Access ACCESS Accessibility to the building .662 .800 Auxiliary Aids AUDNET Availability of audio forms .079 .000 of Internet services TDD Availability of TDD services .034 .000 READ Availability of manual .242 .000 magnification devices MAGNIFY Availability of electronic .214 .000 magnification devices PHOTO Availability of photocopying .819 1.00 and paging services Restrooms RESTROOM Accessibility of restroom facilities .420 .500 Signage SIGN Accessibility of library signage .286 .200 Staff STAFF Existence of staff for .353 .400 persons with disabilities Policy POLICY Existence of policymaking sensitive .511 .667 to persons with disabilities Factor analysis was used to help guide the choice of question grouping. That is, within each of the six categories, ques- tions that belonged together substan- tively were entered into a factor analy- sis. After examining the solution, the author made final judgments as to which items belonged together in a scale. As a final check on the reliability of the scale, a Cronbach' s Alpha statistic was gener- ated for each of the ten scales. For each, the alpha attained acceptable levels. The Cronbach' s Alpha statistic measures the extent to which individual items in uni- dimensional scales belong in the same scale. Using this tool, researchers can examine whether each component adds to, or detracts from, the reliability of the · scale itself. Once the choice of items in each scale was made, the author generated the scale. Because the survey questions are bivari- ate, each one eliciting a positive or "yes" response received one point. The points were totaled across all the items in the scale and then divided by the total num- ber of items in the scale. For each of the ten scales, this resUlts in scores that are proportions of accommodation rendered. That is, each of the scores varies from 0 to 1.0, where 1.0 indicates the highest level of accommodation. Table 1 also provides information about the average (mean) score for each of the scales as well as the median (middle-most) score in order for a "typical" library to be described. Missing data were excluded listwise; if a respondent did not answer a question among those in a scale, the re- spondent was removed from the calcula- tion of that particular scale. Access Among the six different categories of ac- commodation, the greatest accommoda- tion generally made is in the area of physical access. Of the ten scales created to measure accommodation efforts across the six categories, the average library scored .662 on the access scale. Table 1 Americans with Disabilities Act 561 compares the mean scores for each of the ten accommodation scales. That is, this table represents how the average library scored on each of the ten measures. (Re- call from the previous section that these ten measures represent accommodation across the six different categories.) The relatively high mean on the access scale is indicative of the 30 percent of all libraries that answered yes to three of the five items in the access scale, and the 54 percent of libraries that said yes to four out of the five items. (This access score is composed largely of questions dealing with access to the building itself, in terms of ramps, parking spaces, and curb cuts.) In contrast to the relatively large por- tion of libraries that have made access to the building easier, responses to three specific items stood out as overwhelm- ingly negative: the use of levers for ex- terior doors; levers for interior doors; and existing doors being widened with offset hinges. A great majority of respon- dents said their library did not have these features (71 %, 77%, and 77%, re- spectively). Access to public phones was a bit more readily available to persons with disabilities. Almost half (49%) of there- spondents reported that they had low- ered at least one telephone to make it accessible to persons with disabilities. Auxiliary Aids and Services With the exception of access to photo- copying services, auxiliary aids and ser- vices were the least accessible to persons with disabilities. As table 1 demonstrates, four out of the five scales measuring com- pliance in auxiliary aids and services had the lowest average scale scores (Telecom- munications Device for the Deaf [TDD] availability, audio access to Internet ser- vices, manual magnification devices, and electronic magnification devices). The average library had only one of the three items that comprise the TDD scale, as reflected in the mean of .034. The largest percentage (94%) had none. 562 College & Research Libraries Also, most libraries have neither poli- cies to purchase closed-captioned vid- eotapes (86 %) nor closed-captioned de- coders (90 %). Similarly, 81 percent of all libraries made no Internet services available in audio form. Ninety-six percent had nei- ther collections of large-print books, nor did they provide audiocassette copies of printed books from the collection. Libraries provided relatively greater access to magnification aids (both manual and electronic). In terms of ac- cess to manual magnification devices, the majority of libraries had neither item in the scale, but a fair percentage (37%) had one. The slightly higher average score on the scale measuring electronic magnifi- cation device availability belies that a substantial percentage (13 %) answered yes to both items in that scale. Most of the libraries (65 %) responded that bibliographic instruction is not taught in special computerized class- rooms. Also, 96 percent do not have a special disabilities services room. Just over half (51 %) of the libraries did not have workstations established for persons with disabilities. However, of those that did respond that they had such stations, an overwhelming percentage (84 %) said that persons with disabilities have first priority to use the stations. Access to photocopying and/ or pag- ing services was the highest across all ten scales. A clear majority (73 %) re- sponded that policy stipulated that the reserves and reference staffs photo- copy and page rna terials for persons with disabilities. Rest Room Facilities In general, libraries showed moderate ac- cessibility to rest room facilities for per- sons with disabilities. The typical library had four out of the five items that com- prise the rest room scale, as represented by the mean rest room score of .420. Eleven percent had all eight of the items that are captured by this measure. November 1996 However, full-length mirrors were less common. Libraries responded that 87 percent of men's rest rooms and 69 per- cent of women's rest rooms did not have these features. Also, many sink pipes have not been insulated to protect persons with dis- abilities. For example, the heat gener- ated from hot water pipes poses a risk of burns to people in wheelchairs. Re- sponses indicate that 85 percent of men's rest rooms and 84 percent of women's rest rooms do not have insu- lated pipes . Finally, most libraries have not put pa- per cups at inaccessible water fountains. Ninety-three percent responded that they had no such paper cup dispensers. Signage Directors also were asked a series of ques- tions on the signs posted within the fa- cility. Generally, signs were not made vis- ible to persons with disabilities . The typical library responded that it had only one of the five items that comprise the signage scale, a mean score of .286. A quarter of the libraries (25 %) said they had none. Staff and Policymaking In general, libraries scored relatively high on both of the scales that measure the ex- istence of staff geared toward persons with disabilities and the extent to which persons with disabilities have been taken into consideration in the policymaking process. As table 1 shows, typical librar- ies have two out of the five items that comprise the staff scale, a mean score of .353. Many (16 %) have three out of the five items. A full 50 percent have two out of the three items in the policymaking scale. This suggests that, to a certain extent, the needs of persons with disabilities have been considered in making university and library policy. In fact, almost half the respondents (48 %) said the library was consulted before changes were made. TABLE2 Staff with Disabilities De greed Nondegreed Sight 2 1 Hearing 4 1 Mobility 6 9 Acquisitions 2 Administration 0 2 Archives 1 0 Cataloging 2 2 Circulation 2 1 Government 0 0 Documents Interlibrary Loan 1 3 Bibliographic 2 0 Instruction Periodicals 2 2 Reference 7 3 Reserves 2 Other Despite the degree of accessibility to the different areas and services within the libraries, few staff members (degreed or nondegreed) have disabilities. Table 2 dis- plays these results. With regard to the degreed staff who have disabilities, most are disabled in mobility (six cases), while some have hearing disabilities (four cases). In contrast, all but two cases of nondegreed staff have mobility disabili- ties. Table 2 also shows the distribution of staff members with disabilities across the various library departments. Within the ranks of the degreed staff with disabili- ties, most are in reference services. Among nondegreed staff, the distribu- tion is more even. Three cases each are in interlibrary loan and reference; two cases each are in administration, catalog- ing, and periodicals. In general, the previous descriptions indicate that there are some areas of the library in which there has been a fair degree of accommodation. Photocopy- ing services and access to the buildings stand out in this regard. However, there Americans with Disabilities Act 563 are many other areas of the libraries where accessibility is not widely pro- vided to persons with disabilities . Next, the author examined the extent to which the level of accommodation is differenti- ated by characteristics of the libraries. Hypotheses Testing Type of Institution One of the hypotheses was that public institutions would be more likely than private institutions to provide accommo- dation to persons with disabilities. To test this proposition, a difference of means test was performed to see if the differ- ence between these two groups' mean scores on each of the scales of accommo- dation is statistically significant. Type of institution differentiated sev- eral of the scales. As table 3 shows, the availability of the following differed sig- nificantly between private and public in- stitutions: audio Internet services, TDD services, manual magnification devices, TABLE3 Accommodation by Type of Institution Scale Private Public Mean Mean ACCESS .659 .679 AUDNET** .015 .145 TDD** .000 .070 READ** .136 .354 MAGNIFY .233 .198 PHOTO .830 .796 REST .390 .483 SIGN** .241 .339 STAFF** .265 .449 POLICY** .427 .615 t* .601 .003 .043 .003 .545 .625 .295 .079 .001 .010 * The t statistic assesses the extent to which a given relationship (in this case the difference between the means) is statistically meaningful or mere chance. For example, there is a 60 percent chance that the difference between the mean ACCESS score of private institutions and public institutions is due to chance. · ** Indicates statistically significant differences. 564 College & Research Libraries TABLE4 Accommodation by Age of Building Scale New Bldg Old Bldg Mean Mean ACCESS .700 .665 .582 AUDNET .125 .078 .551 TDD .000 .038 .589 READ .250 .250 1.0 MAGNIFY .250 .212 .714 PHOTO .929 .803 .327 REST .542 .422 .423 SIGN* .550 .276 .028 STAFF .433 .347 .427 POLICY .444 .515 .675 * Indicates statistically significant differences. signage, staffing, and policymaking. Across the board, the hypothesis was confirmed; public institutions were sig- nificantly more likely to provide these services than were private institutions. New/Old Building Another hypothesis is that newer build- ings, especially ones built after the ADA was passed in 1992, would have a higher likelihood of providing disabilities ser- vices. However, there was much less evi- dence in support of this hypothesis. As can be seen from table 4, only the acces- sibility of library signage evidences any significant difference between old and new buildings. Single versus Multistoried Buildings Another hypothesis is that where the li- brary structure provides greater chal- lenge to some persons with disabilities, compliance will be greater. In this regard, one would expect multistoried buildings to show greater accommodation, espe- cially in access to the building. As table 5 shows, there is some evidence to support this hypothesis. Access to the building varies significantly with whether the building has one or more floors; librar- ies in multistoried buildings have greater November 1996 access. Also, at relaxed levels of statisti- cal significance, accessibility of library sig- nage also varies by single versus multistoried buildings. Again, multisto- ried buildings are more likely to have better compliance in sign accessibility. Staff with Disabilities The final hypothesis is that libraries that have staff members (degreed or non- degreed) with disabilities will be more likely to be more accommodating to pa- trons with disabilities. As table 6 dem- onstrates, there is limited evidence that this is the case. Only audio access to In- ternet services and accessibility of library signage are differentiated by having dis- abled staff or not. Even the difference be- tween the groups on these scales is sig- nificant only at levels · far below conventional levels. In general, the greatest differentiating factor in whether libraries make accom- modations for persons with disabilities is type of institution. The likelihood of public institutions showing greater com- pliance was stronger than for other po- tentially influencing factors and also had an impact across a greater portion of the different scale measures. TABLE 5 Accommodation by Number of Stories Scale 1 Floor 1+ Floor Mean Mean ACCESS* .590 .687 .034 AUDNET .121 .061 .206 TDD .063 .023 .291 READ .167 .272 .195 MAGNIFY .250 .199 .413 PHOTO .796 .828 .668 REST .456 .407 .622 SIGN* .226 .310 .160 STAFF .374 .344 .646 POLICY .556 .496 .485 * Indicates statistically significant differences. TABLE6 Accommodation by Staff with Disabilities Scale No Disabled Disabled Staff Mean Staff Mean ACCESS .667 .648 AUDNET* .094 .024 TDD .040 .018 READ .237 .262 MAGNIFY .200 .262 PHOTO .833 .763 REST .481 .427 SIGN* . 265 .358 STAFF .357 .338 POLICY .497 .576 *Indicates statistically significant differences. Significance .683 .177 .576 .775 .371 .399 .929 .143 .784 .404 Although college and university librar- ies will continue to make strides in ac- commodating persons with disabilities, thus causing this research to be outdated quickly, the research is still important in that it provides a baseline by which other research studies can determine how rap- idly changes are occurring. A limitation of this research is that it considered only college and university libraries in Ohio. Further research needs to include investigation into accommo- dations made by other types of libraries- public, school, and special. One could suspect that the degree of accommoda- tion across these types of libraries might vary. In addition to concerns about includ- ing studies of other types of libraries, pre- sumably libraries will continue to make their facilities more available. In this light, it will be important to reassess the de- Americans with Disabilities Act 565 gree to which they have complied with the ADA. A similar study to this one should be undertaken every three to five years. Finally, this work helps us to under- stand accommodation to the ADA in Ohio only. In order to have a basis on which to compare Ohio to the rest of the country, it would be necessary to undertake similar studies in other states. In this way, we can know more precisely the adequacy of the job Ohio college and university libraries are do- ing . This research study provides in- sight into how well Ohio college and university libraries have made accom- modations for individuals with dis- abilities. The ADA indicates that ap- proximately 20 percent of the population is recognized as having a disability. With college and university enrollment declin- ing and more individuals with disabili- ties being mainstreamed into society, the number of college and university students with disabilities will fill in this declining A limitation of this research is that it considered only college and university libraries in Ohio. "traditional" student population. This study provides accommodation statistics for the 134 Ohio college and university li- braries in terms of access, auxiliary aids and services, rest room facilities, signage, and staff and policymaking. Although li- braries in Ohio have made inroads in ADA accommodations (especially in making ac- cess to physical facilities easier), much work remains. Notes 1. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice, Ameri- cans with Disabilities Act Handbook (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1991). 2. Ibid. 3. Ibid. 4. Ibid. 5. Michael G. Gunde, "Working with the Americans with Disabilities Act," Library Journal 566 College & Research Libraries November 1996 116 (Dec. 1991): 99-100; and "Working with the Americans with Disabilities Act: Part II," Library Journal117 (May 1992): 41-42. 6. Nancy C. Pack and Donald D. Foos, "Library Compliance with the Americans with Dis- abilities Act," RQ 32 (winter 1992): 255--67. 7. Ty D. Laurie, "Libraries' Duties to Accommodate Their Patrons under the Americans with Disabilities Act," Library Administration & Management 6 (fall 1992): 204-05; Richard T. Miller, "The Americans with Disabilities Act: Library Facility and Program Access under Titles II and III," Ohio Libraries 5 (Mar./ Apr. 1992): 8-11. 8. John L. Jax and Theresa Muraski, "Library Services for Students with Disabilities at the University of Wisconsin-Stout," Journal of Academic Librarianship 19 (July 1993): 166-68. 9. Melanie J. Norton, "Effective Bibliographic Instruction for Deaf and Hearing-Impaired College Students," Library Trends 41 (summer 1992): 119-25. 10. Jessica Adams Bray, "The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: New Questions," RQ 31 (spring 1992): 315-24. 11. Joseph Vincent Reinert, "Nebraska School Districts: Coming into Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (Disabilities)" (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Nebraska-Lincoln, 1994); Jef- frey Carl Senge, "Print Accessibility for Print Disabled Students in the California State University System" (Ph.D. diss., California State Univ. -Fullerton, 1993); William Mark Fornadel, "The Imple- mentation of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 in Public Higher Educat~on: Organization, Compliance, and Concerns" (Ph.D. diss., Univ. of Virginia, 1994); Bobbie Beth Scoggins, "A Study to Develop Executive Guidelines for the Successful Implementation of the Americans with Dis- abilities Act in California Community Colleges (Disabilities, Compliance)" (Ph.D. diss., Pepperdine Univ., 1992). 12. Fornadel, "The Implementation of Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990." 13. Reinert, "Nebraska School Districts." 14. ScottJaschik, "Backed by 1990 Law, People with Disabilities Press Demands on Colleges," Chronicle of Higher Education 39 (Feb. 1993): A26. 15. U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Office on the Americans with Disabili- tiesAct, The Americans with Disabilities Act: Title III Technical Assistance Manual (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1992). 16. Ibid. 17. Directory of Ohio Libraries 1995 (Columbus: The State Library of Ohio, 1995). by Peter Hernon, Simmons College, & Ellen Altman Cloth: 1-56750- 209-1 I $52.50 Paper: 1-56750-210-5 I $24.50 This book examines service quality, identifies its essential elements and discusses ways in which service quality can be assessed. To pface an oraer ca[[: JtDfe~Pu6{is/iing at 201-767-8455 or sentf a fa~ to 201-767-6717