Meta Analysis A Qualitative and Quantitative Research History prepared for: Minnesota Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities prepared by: project #2082; october 2010 GCDD new picture George Bush in front of White House sitting at table signing ADA; with a priest, a woman, and two men in wheel chairs CBR003357 42-15655282 GCDD 10 Year Meta Analysis, Project 2082, Sept 2010 2 table of contents 3 3 3 A:: 10-year project history GCDD 10 Year Meta Analysis, Project 2082, Sept 2010 4 project history --timeline 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Quality of Life Assessment Survey Mail survey among people w/ DD; perceptions of IPII (n = 300) Consumer Directed Supports Mail survey among people with developmental disabilities/CDCS participants (n = 650) EGS study Qualitative interviews among people with developmental disabilities (n = 30) Minnesota Healthcare Opinion Poll Study Telephone survey among MN Gen Pop (n = 800) Employer survey Telephone survey among businesses, comparing employers to non-employers of people w/ DD. (n = 600) 5 Year Plan / Individuals Survey Online/mail survey among people w/ developmental disabilities; perceptions of IPSII (n = 552) 1962 / 2007 MN Survey of Attitudes Regarding People With Developmental Disabilities Telephone survey among Minnesota general population, 45 year comparisons (n = 806) Innovative Employers in Minnesota Presentation Face-to-face interviews among employers of people with DD and recognition awards (n = 11) Information Technology Customer Research Telephone survey including households with people with developmental disabilities (n=182) along with MN general pop. households (see below) Attitudes, Awareness and Impact of the ADA Among MN Businesses In-depth interviews among architects and builders (n = 9) Telephone survey among MN businesses (n = 500) Studies done among Minnesota employers and businesses Studies done among the MN general population Studies done among people with developmentaldisabilities, their families and care givers Information Technology Customer Research Telephone survey among MN general population households (n = 200) GCDD 10 Year Meta Analysis, Project 2082, Sept 2010 5 meta analysis summary Studies done among people with developmental disabilities, their families and care givers Five studies done between 2000 and 2009 indicated that progress in enhancing IPSII among people with developmental disabilities is slow going at best. These studies also revealed how government services (such as Consumer Directed Supports and electronic information sources/websites) and enhanced information technology and skills, can help accelerate IPSII progress for people with developmental disabilities. Studies done among Minnesota employers and businesses Three studies among employees and other businesses in Minnesota conducted between 2005 and 2010 revealed that most employers do not consider the prospect of hiring people with developmental disabilities, unless they are approached by an individual or employment service with the idea. Among those that do employ people with developmental disabilities, the majorityof employers thought that the costs of accommodations for employees with developmental disabilities were equal to or less than they had anticipated, and that the benefits of doing so outweighed the costs. While a majority of businesses believe their physical structures are adequately accessible to people with disabilities, attitudes and beliefs in total inclusion for people with disabilities has only been adopted by about one-third of retail oriented businesses. Studies done among the Minnesota general population Two surveys of the general population of Minnesota conducted in 1962 and repeated in 2007, revealed that attitudes and perceptions of people with developmental disabilities have changed substantially over the past four decades --from institutionalization to belief in integration, inclusion and the importance of families as primary care providers. The Minnesota Healthcare Opinion Poll, conducted in 2004, revealed that most Minnesotans (4-of-5) believed that all Americans should have healthcare coverage, even if it means raising taxes. GCDD 10 Year Meta Analysis, Project 2082, Sept 2010 6 Perceptions, Satisfaction and Status of EducationAlthough education is a main ingredient in achieving high levels of IPSII, MarketResponse has yet to have focused a study assessing the quality of education support services provided to people with developmental disabilities. Prior results from the Quality of Life Assessment Survey completed in 2001 suggest a need for an exploratory study to reveal opinions regarding thestate of public education among parents, teachers and care givers of people with developmental disabilities. Some key objectives would be to find out:•What is working ‒Success stories •What is notworking ‒Frustrations/barriers ‒Possible solutions •Budget impacts ‒How have budget limitations or cuts impacted educational support services for people with developmental disabilities? ‒What are the most critical needs vs. what could be cut?For this research we recommend qualitative research among parents and other care givers of grade school, junior high, high school and college/vocational level students with developmental disabilities. Teachers and school administrators could also be included in the study. Either focus groups and/or in-depth interviews could be employed.Recommendations for Future Research, continued recommendations for future research GCDD 10 Year Meta Analysis, Project 2082, Sept 2010 7 Access to Government Services MarketResponse recommends conducting an exploratory, qualitative research study among families and care givers of people with developmental disabilities. This study would focus on how government services are used, their accessibility and how well they are implemented. We would also revisit the status of Consumer Directed Communities Supports and find out if the Dakota County model still has the best model of implementation, have other counties improved and has adoption of CDCS increased. This study would provide understanding on how to maximize the value of government services for people with developmental disabilities. This is particularly pertinent given the current economic situation and budget limitations. Information Technology and Impacts on People/Families with Developmental Disabilities Based on the Information Technology Customer Research study done in 2009, there appears to be a segment within this population that benefits more from their use of information technologies. MarketResponse recommends further research among this segment of technology users to uncover how they use technology and the relationship between increased technology use and higher levels of IPSII. There may be an opportunity for technology training and information sharing within the population of people with disabilities to raise the general level of technology use and thereby enhance the lives of more people with disabilities. Benchmark Quantitative Study of Employment Among People with Developmental Disabilities MarketResponse recommends conducting a benchmark study regarding the employment rate among people with developmental disabilities compared to the general population. The purpose of this study would be to attain a rich understanding of: •The rate of employment ‒Full time versus part time •The types of jobs that are being performed •Levels of compensation •Job satisfaction Levels of unemployment and underemployment are always an issue among the population of individuals with developmental disabilities, and given the current economic situation this issue may be even more critical. This quantitative study could provide a benchmark from which to measure future changes in employment among people with developmental disabilities. recommendations for future research GCDD 10 Year Meta Analysis, Project 2082, Sept 2010 8 project history Project # Date Completed Project Name Methodology Study Brief 1159 January 2001 Quality of Life Assessment Survey Mail survey among people w/ DD (n = 300) The Minnesota Council conducted a survey in 2000 to determine how people with developmental disabilities perceive their own levels of IPII,and evaluate the quality of services they receive from the array of service providers, and what obstacles they may face in their day-to-day living. 1386 May 2002 Consumer Directed Supports Mail survey among people w/ DD/CDCS participants (n = 650) The MN GCDD believed that individuals with developmental disabilities and their families experienced higher levels of Independence, Productivity, Self-determination, Integration, and Inclusion (IPSII) based on their participation in Consumer Directed Supports. A mail survey was done to learn how Consumer Directed Supports met customer needs, requirements, and expectations. 1504 September 2003 EGS Study Qualitative interviews among people w/ DD (n = 30) The objective of this study was to evaluate the current state of Electronic Government Services (EGS), and develop an understanding of the needs, requirements, expectations and desires of customers related to EGS. 1546 January 2004 Minnesota Healthcare Opinion Poll Study Telephone survey among MN Gen Pop (n = 800) The Minnesota Citizens Forum on Health Care Costs commissioned MarketResponse International to gather opinions from Minnesotans regarding their current feelings on many key issues related to health care. 1605 May 2005 Employer survey Telephone survey among businesses (n = 600) MarketResponseconducted a customer-focused study among Minnesota employers andnon-employers of people with DD, in order to identify and measure issues and perceptions that constitute barriers to employment for individuals with disabilities. GCDD 10 Year Meta Analysis, Project 2082, Sept 2010 9 project history Project # Date Completed Project Name Methodology Study Brief 1713 January 2006 5Year Plan/ Individual Survey Online/mail survey among people w/ developmental disabilities (n = 552) The objective was to conduct a customer-focused study among people with developmental disabilities in Minnesota to measure the degree to which they believe they are independent, productive, self determined, integrated and included in the community. 1776 March 2007 1962 / 2007 MN Survey of Attitudes Regarding people with DD Telephone survey among Minnesota general population (n = 806) A survey of the Minnesota general population was conducted in thesummer of 1962, to measure awareness and attitudes regarding(developmental disabilities).The survey was updated and repeated in January 2007 to assess and measure changes during the past 45 years. 1919 October 2008 Innovative Employers in Minnesota Presentation Face-to-face interviews among employers of people with DD, and recognition awards (n = 11) Identify businesses that are using innovative employment practices in hiring people with developmental disabilities and promoting an inclusive work environment. 1954 April 2009 Information Technology Customer Research Telephone survey among households of people with DD (n = 182), and the Gen Pop of MN households (n = 200) The Minnesota Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities commissioned a survey to obtain measures of information technology adoption and use among people with developmental disabilities compared to the general population in the state of Minnesota. 2039 April 2010 AAI of the ADA Among MN Businesses In-depth interviews among architects and commercial builders (n = 9) Telephone survey among MN businesses (n = 500) The purpose of this research was to gain an understanding of awareness, attitudes and perceived impact of the ADA, among commercial builders, architects and retail business owners/managers in Minnesota. 10 10 10 B:: project summaries GCDD 10 Year Meta Analysis, Project 2082, Sept 2010 11 Quality of Life Assessment Survey January 2001 Project # Date Completed Project Name Methodology Study Brief 1159 January 2001 Quality of Life Assessment Survey Mail survey among people w/ DD (n = 300) The Minnesota GCDD commissioned this survey in 2000 to determine how people with developmental disabilities perceive their own levels of IPII, and evaluate the quality of services they receive from the array of service providers, and what obstacles they may face in their day-to-day living. Perceptions of Independence, Productivity, Integration, Inclusion (IPII), Education and Government were asked to all respondents. Overall perceptions of IPII were generally positive with 3 out of 5 respondents being satisfied with their levels of IPII. Independence Independence was more tangible for people than the other IPII dimensions. People with mild developmental disabilities felt they had more Control of their Destiny than those with moderate or severe disabilities. Consequently, this group had a more positive rating on Independence. Productivity Those who gave higher productivity ratings were: people who develop skills, are given responsibilities at home, work or volunteering; people who were recognized for their achievements, especially at home and at school. Integration When people with disabilities have the resources they need and feel they are treated as equals, their ratings on Integration improve. Inclusion Satisfaction with Inclusion was rated the lowest, and appears to have potential for the most improvement. Inclusion is the most subjective area for people. It is a measure of their feelings about Relationships, Equality and Respect. As people feel better about these aspects their ratings on inclusion become higher. Education One of four parents/advocates feel their child spends too little time in regular classes. Almost one-third of parents/advocates feel their concerns are neither addressed promptly nor professionally by their school. Government All levels of Government -County, State and Federal -received low ratings on their performance as it relates to people with developmental disabilities. Many people find the process of learning the government system -in order to get assistance -confusing and time consuming. GCDD 10 Year Meta Analysis, Project 2082, Sept 2010 12 Consumer Directed Supports May 2002 Survey questionnaires were mailed to individuals participating in the Consumer Directed Community Supports (CDCS) program offered by the Minnesota Department of Human Services (DHS). The Consumer Directed Community Supports (CDCS) program has been very successful and highly appreciated by its participants --83% are more than somewhat satisfied with the overall program. Participants’ satisfaction is driven mostly by their relationship with their county social services department, as well as their belief that the program is flexible, allocates moneybetter within the system, and decreases their overall stress level. CDCS is clearly the best option that has come along for individuals with developmental disabilities who have access to a support network of family and friends needed to successfully participate. The program should continue to expand to the rest of the counties in the state, as well as to groups not currently participating in the program. This does not mean, however, that the program cannot be improved. There are dramatic differences in participant satisfaction and in the ways that the program has been implemented across the counties. Counties have identified inconsistencies in theirapproaches, but have responded to this issue mainly by increasing the guidelines and limiting the flexibility of the program.The counties need to establish a model that provides consistency but maintains the individual’s self direction opportunities. Keys to maintaining CDCS as a successful program are adopting the Dakota County program model and philosophy as much as possible, eliminating the use of terms such as “defensible to the taxpayer” and “normal parental responsibility” as decision making criteria, and keeping the program simple and understandable for participants of all abilities, cultures, and languages. Project # Date Completed Project Name Methodology Study Brief 1386 May 2002 Consumer Directed Supports Mail survey among people w/ DD/CDCS participants (n = 650) The MN GCDD believed that individuals with developmental disabilities and their families experienced higher levels of Independence, Productivity, Self-determination, Integration, and Inclusion (IPSII) based on their participation in Consumer Directed Supports. A mail survey was done to learn how Consumer Directed Supports met customer needs, requirements, and expectations. GCDD 10 Year Meta Analysis, Project 2082, Sept 2010 13 Electronic Government Services September 2003 There was a huge opportunity for agencies to provide further Electronic Government Services to adults, family members and professionals who work with individuals with developmental disabilities. The Internet was recognized as having a tremendous potential to provide information and services to this group.Respondents viewed EGS broadly as all services the government could provide electronically. The main components of this included: •Information (documents, frequently asked question’s, program descriptions and eligibility criteria, etc.) •Transactions (application for services, on-line courses/training, etc.) •Connections (facilitate communications between customers)Based on this consumer research the sites were updated to provide enhanced information, transactions and links. There were also opportunities revealed for improvement and expansion of web sites to encourage greater use of EGS. From the research: •Customers provided clear, concrete direction •There was considerable consensus as to improvement opportunities Project # Date Completed Project Name Methodology Study Brief 1504 September 2003 EGS Study Qualitative interviews among people w/ DD (n = 30) The objective of this study was to evaluate the current state of Electronic Government Services (EGS), and develop an understanding of the needs, requirements, expectations and desires of customers related to EGS. GCDD 10 Year Meta Analysis, Project 2082, Sept 2010 14 Minnesota Healthcare Opinion Poll Study January 2004 While most Minnesotans are satisfied with the quality of health care in the US, well over half are dissatisfied with its costs.A greater majority of Minnesotans are insured than those in the ABCNEWS national poll (95% Minnesotans v. 83% national respondents.) The highest proportion of Minnesotans without health care coverage can be found among young adults, ages 18-24, 16% of whom are not insured. And 12% of those in the lowest income category (<$25K) do not have health insurance coverage. Nine of ten Minnesotans believe their health care costs have been rising in recent years. The perception of increasing costsappears to be stronger in Minnesota when compared to Americans in general. According to the ABCNEWS poll, 2/3 believe they are going up versus 89% of Minnesotans.Most Minnesotans (4 of 5) believe all Americans should have health care coverage, even if it means raising taxes.Among the Minnesota population as a whole, a slight majority (56%) would favor a universal system where the government ensures that everyone has health coverage over a private system that relies on individuals and employers to provide for theirown health care needs; however, the strength of the preference is questionable: About half of the proponents would change their minds and oppose the universal health coverage system if it limited their choice of doctors; and if the universal health coverage system brings waiting lists for some non-emergency treatments, then 4 of 10 proponents would then become opposed to it. Most believe the best approach to a universal health care system would have government ensuring that all Americans have health care coverage, but the health care industry would remain in the private sector. Project # Date Completed Project Name Methodology Study Brief 1546 January 2004 Minnesota Healthcare Opinion Poll Study Telephone survey among MN Gen Pop (n = 800) The Minnesota Citizens Forum on Health Care Costs commissioned MarketResponse International to gather opinions from Minnesotans regarding their current feelings on many key issues related to health care. GCDD 10 Year Meta Analysis, Project 2082, Sept 2010 15 Employer Survey May 2005 Employees with disabilities most often come directly to the employers, however many are hired through personal references, support agencies or the WorkForce Center. Hiring a person who is motivated to do the job was rated as the most important success factor for hiring an individual with adisability. The majority of employers seldom or never found it necessary to assist their employees with disabilities with basic functionssuch as performing the job tasks, managing the work day, making decisions, mobility, communication, or grooming.The majority of employers thought that the costs of accommodations for employees with developmental disabilities were equal to or less than they had anticipated, and that the benefits of doing so outweighed the costs.Safety came up as the number one barrier for employment of individuals with disabilities –and was perceived as a significantly higher barrier for employers who do not currently employ individuals with disabilities. Performance issues also ranked high as barriers to employment of individuals with disabilities. Concerns related to the employer’s discomfort or lack of informationare similar for employers and non-employers –meaning these concerns do not vary much based on experience. Non-employers are more concerned about having a lack of information on disabilities. Employers are more concerned about co-worker acceptance of individuals with disabilities. Project # Date Completed Project Name Methodology Study Brief 1605 May 2005 Employer survey Telephone survey among businesses (n = 600) MarketResponseconducted a customer-focused study among Minnesota employers andnon-employers of people with DD, in order to identify and measure issues and perceptions that constitute barriers to employment for individuals with disabilities. GCDD 10 Year Meta Analysis, Project 2082, Sept 2010 16 5 year plan/individual survey January 2006 Project # Date Completed Project Name Methodology Study Brief 1713 January 2006 5 Year Plan/ Individual Survey Online/mail survey among people w/ developmental disabilities (n = 552) The objective was to conduct a customer-focused study among people with developmental disabilities in Minnesota to measure the degree to which they believe they are independent, productive, self determined, integrated and included in the community. The most obvious result of this study is that there are huge differences in satisfaction with (IPSII) within the total population of individuals with developmental disabilities in the State of Minnesota; and their was no measurable improvement from the 2000 survey. Productivity Whether an individual has a job or is volunteering appears to have a strong positive impact on his/her level of satisfaction with Productivity. Inclusion Inclusion received low overall satisfaction ratings driven by lower ratings on statements such as being treated as equals, being treated with respect, and having opportunities to develop friendships with individuals who do not have a developmental disability. Self Determination, Independence, Integration Independence, Self Determination & Integration rated better than the other IPSII measures. Information access, privacy issues and mobility were rated relatively high as aspects of Independence that were being met; while housing options and being able to choose one’s provider and staff received lower ratings. Community and Basic Needs The majority of respondents agreed that their community is a good place for people with developmental disabilities to live, and that it is getting better. Family Support Less than half of the family members that participated in this survey receive any family support services. Of those receiving family support services, most agree that the types of services they need are provided by competent staff, and that they receive enough services to keep their families together. Education Of individuals still in school, those with less severe disabilities were more satisfied with the education they were receiving than those with more severe disabilities. Critical Improvements Critical issues that Minnesotans with developmental disabilities will face in the next five years, top responses were related to: financial issues, access to services, access to healthcare and improved employment opportunities. GCDD 10 Year Meta Analysis, Project 2082, Sept 2010 17 1962 / 2007 MN survey of attitudes regarding developmental disabilities --March 2007 Project # Date Completed Project Name Methodology Study Brief 1776 March 2007 1962 / 2007 MN Survey of Attitudes Regarding people with DD Telephone survey among Minnesota general population (n = 806) A survey of the Minnesota general population was conducted in thesummer of 1962, to measure awareness and attitudes regarding(developmental disabilities).The survey was updated and repeated in January 2007 to assess and measure changes during the past 45 years. From institutions to integration Attitudes regarding people with developmental disabilities have changed substantially over the past 45 years --from institutionalization, to integrating and including people with developmental disabilities into their community and society at large. Belief in the family From 1962 to 2007 the majority opinion has shifted from disagreement to agreement, that the best way to care for people with developmental disabilities is through their immediate family, as much as possible. However, there was great support for the idea that the family cannot carry the responsibility alone. Integration benefits everyone In 2007 Minnesotans embraced the idea that everyone is better off when people with developmental disabilities are integrated into society, and living independent and productive lives as much as possible. Uncertainties related to personal freedoms While the majority of Minnesotans believe that most people with developmental disabilities are capable of living normal lives, there are uncertainties regarding some personal rights and freedoms, such as: Whether people with developmental disabilities should be allowed to: have children, drink alcohol, live on their own, drive a car. Wide majority support government and taxpayers’ services/ In 2007 Minnesotans expressed overwhelming support for a wide range of government services for people with developmental disabilities,such as: education, training, job skills, access to quality health care,protection from abuse, training and counseling for parents,advocacy trainingand research to learn about causes of developmental disabilities. GCDD 10 Year Meta Analysis, Project 2082, Sept 2010 18 Innovative Employers in Minnesota PresentationOctober 2008 Companies who hire people with developmental disabilities find that these employees can turn into vital team members. In addition to a wide range of office tasks, Kris (who has developmental disabilities) is the ‘scanning expert’ and trains others on scanning techniques. Kris knows all the specifics about how to do some of the detailed printing and packaging of time sensitive materials. Having a job helps people with developmental disabilities discover their own interests and reach their potential. We are adding roles and training to meet Brad’s interests. He wants to expand his knowledge and his contribution…and we want to help him do just that. We feel that by example we are making sure that we do not hold these employees back from their potential. I want to give people a chance to work and to prove themselves. Employers feel they are not just impacting there employees lives, but also the community’s perception of their business. Customers seem to appreciate our business supporting people with developmental disabilities. Lynda needed more help in office administration and hiring a person with developmental disabilities was, “a chance to do the right thing.” Project # Date Completed Project Name Methodology Study Brief 1919 October 2008 Innovative Employers in Minnesota Presentation Face-to-face interviews among employers of people with DD, and recognition awards (n = 11) Identify businesses that are using innovative employment practices in hiring people with developmental disabilities and promoting an inclusive work environment. GCDD 10 Year Meta Analysis, Project 2082, Sept 2010 19 Information Technology Customer Research April 2009 Two-thirds of Minnesota households have a computer with broadband Internet access; an additional 13% have dial-up Internet. 14% of Minnesota households do not have a computer. •Households where there are persons with developmental disabilities appear to have equal access to computers and the Internet, as compared to the general population of Minnesotans. •Residents living in rural areas were different with respect to computer ownership and Internet access; –Only 34% own a computer and have broadband Internet access; –27% do not own a computer at all. Although their use of government websites is higher, households where there are persons with developmental disabilities rate some attributes of government websites lower than the general population. Issues related to the website are: Font sizes are large enough, and web pages are designed in a way that makes them easy to read; Search function recognizes common language, and I can find what I need using this search function; and Website forms are accessible and easy to use, the formats are familiar and they don’t ask for unnecessary information Compared to the general population, households where there are persons with developmental disabilities tend to use technologymore for creative self expression and to enhance inclusion in community activities. They also expressed more interest in keeping up with the latest technologies and learning more about the ways in which technology devices can help them live better. There appears to be a segment within this population that benefits more from their use of information technologies, and thus there is an opportunity for technology training and information sharing within the population of people with disabilities, toraise the general level of technology use and thereby enhance the lives of more people with disabilities. Project # Date Completed Project Name Methodology Study Brief 1954 April 2009 Information Technology Customer Research Telephone survey among households of people with DD (n = 182), and the Gen Pop of MN households (n = 200) The Minnesota Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities commissioned a survey to obtain measures of information technology adoption and use among people with developmental disabilities compared to the general population in the state of Minnesota. GCDD 10 Year Meta Analysis, Project 2082, Sept 2010 20 Awareness and Impact of the ADA Among MN Businesses --phase 1, April 2010 The responsibility of implementing the ADA relies heavily on architects, as they need to be knowledgeable about the ADA in order to get licensed. It is generally believed among the building profession that architects play a significant role in making sure the standards and requirements of the ADA are being met. For contractors the ADA has provisions that are adhered to like anyother Building code. However, state officials believe accessibility provisions are not enforced consistently in parts of Greater Minnesota. Perceptions of ADA Impact in Minnesota Implementation of the ADA, and acceptance of it, have evolved over time. At first it was just bathrooms, but now it’s swimming pools, public transportation, work stations for (people with disabilities)… 100% of commercial buildings are reviewed for ADA. Building owners’ reactions to ADA varied Architects and commercial builders have experienced both positive and negative reactions to ADA requirements among their clients, the building owners. Some business owners accept it as a reality; others see it as a burden and don’t feel they gain any increased revenue from ADA compliance. Any business that deals with the public has been impacted by the ADA. Project # Date Completed Project Name Methodology Study Brief 2039 April 2010 AAI of the ADA Among MN Businesses Phase 1: In-depth interviews among architects and commercial builders (n=9) The purpose of this research was to gain an understanding of awareness, attitudes and perceived impact of the ADA, among commercial buildersandarchitects in Minnesota. GCDD 10 Year Meta Analysis, Project 2082, Sept 2010 21 Six out of ten respondents report that their building or property was originally designed or later remodeled for greater accessibility. Accessibility features were less prevalent in older buildings, and more prevalent among businesses with high daily customer traffic. On average, approximately 75% of Minnesota business managers believe their businesses’ buildings/property are accommodating to people with disabilities. Perceived percentages of accommodations was highest (85%-90%) for: Main entrances to businesses, Restrooms, Path of travel from parking and interior passageways. Penetration of accommodations was lowest (60%-70%) for: Alarm systems, Interior ramps, Elevators, Checkout counters, desks, tables, and extra large designated parking spots.Businesses’ virtual spaces (websites) lag far behind physical spaces, when it comes to adoption of accessibility features forpeople with disabilities. Only 4% of websites have accessibility features. 3 out of 4 respondents agreed that it is important to continually look for new ways to make their business more accessible tomore people with disabilities. However, 3 out of 10 said it would not make sense to make alterations to their business or property to accommodate people with disabilities; and 1 in 4 said it would be too expensive and not practical to try and make their business completely accessible to people with disabilities.58% said the ADA has had a positive impact on their business; 25% of the respondents believe their business has incurred costs as a result of the ADA; 2/3 believe the benefits to their business have outweighed or equaled the costs.30% of all respondents believe that within the next 5 years their business will definitely or probably make enhancements or new accommodations, making their business more accessible to people with disabilities. Project # Date Completed Project Name Methodology Study Brief 2039 April 2010 AAI of the ADA Among MN Businesses Phase 2: Telephone survey among MN businesses (n = 500) The purpose of this research was to gain measures of awareness, attitudes and perceived impact of the ADA, among retail business ownersand managers in Minnesota. Awareness and Impact of the ADA Among MN Businesses --phase 2, April 2010 MarketResponse International 1304 university ave. ne suite 304 minneapolis, mn 55413 t:: 612.379.1645 f:: 612.379.1659 web:: www.marketresponse.com proud to be your research partner Tom Pearson, Managing Director t.pearson@marketresponse.com Derek Pearson, Research Analyst d.pearson@marketresponse.com Char Psihos, Project Director c.psihos@marketresponse.com Minnesota Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities