Awareness, Attitudes and Impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act Among Minnesota Businesses A Qualitative and Quantitative Research Study prepared for: Minnesota Governor’s Council on Developmental Disabilities prepared by: market response international image: George Bush in front of White House sitting at table signing ADA; with a priest, a woman, and two men in wheel chairs Project #2039; Report Date 4/6/10 page 2 table of contents A:: project overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 B:: phase 1: exploratory interviews. . . . . . . 8 C:: phase 2: survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 respondent profile. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 accommodations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 awareness, impact of ADA . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 D:: quantitative summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 page 3 A:: project overview page 4 project overview The Americans with Disabilities Act will be 20 years old on July 26, 2010. The ADA is divided into 5 titles: Title I Employment Business must provide reasonable accommodations to protect the rights of individuals with disabilities in all aspects of employment. Title II Public Service State and local government instrumentalities, The National Railroad Passenger Corporation, and other commuter authorities, cannot deny services to people with disabilities. Also, public transportation systems must be accessible to individuals with disabilities. Title III Public Accommodations All new construction and modifications must be accessible to individuals with disabilities. For existing facilities barriers to services must be removed if readily achievable. Public accommodations include facilities such as restaurants, hotels, grocery stores, retail stores, etc. Title IV Telecommunications Companies offering telephone service to the general public must have telephone relay service to individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TTYs) or similar devices. Title V Miscellaneous Includes a provision prohibiting either A) coercing or threatening, B) retaliating against people with disabilities or those attempting to aid people with disabilities in asserting their rights under the ADA. The focus of this project is on Title III. page 5 project overview How far have we come with the ADA (Title III) in Minnesota after 20 years? • To what extent are Minnesota businesses aware of, and comply with the requirements of the ADA? • What has been the impact of the ADA on… - Minnesota businesses - Minnesota aociety at larger • To what extent has the ADA impacted the way Minnesota businesses think and act regarding people with disabilities? page 6 research design -- qualitative exploration This research consisted of 2 phases Phase 1: Exploration -- in-depth interviews, by telephone and in person with: • 5 commercial construction contractors - 2 located in Twin Cities - 3 located out-state (Owatonna, St. Cloud, Hibbing) • 4 architecture firms - 3 located in the Twin Cities - 1 located out-state (Rochester) • Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry (responsible for promulgating the State Building Code) • 1 small business involved in ADA compliant construction project page 7 research design – survey of MN businesses Phase 2: Survey Parameters: • List of selected businesses qualified by Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code • Random selection of businesses across state of Minnesota • 15 minute telephone interview • Range of business sizes included Sample size Total 500 Number of employees (FTE) 1 - 3 Sample size 202 Percent of total sample 40% 4 - 14 Sample size 180 Percent of total sample 36% 15 - 39 80 Sample size 80 Percent of total sample 16% 40+ Sample size 38 Percent of total sample 8% The survey was designed to measure awareness, attitudes and impact of the ADA among for-profit businesses in Minnesota that cater to the public. page 8 B:: Phase 1: exploratory interviews page 9 phase 1: exploratory interviews The purpose of this qualitative research was to gain an understanding of awareness, attitudes and perceived impact of the ADA, among the commercial builders in Minnesota. • When (and how) did architects and commercial builders first become aware of the ADA? • How do they feel about the ADA then and now? • What has been the impact of the ADA on their design and building projects? • What training, education, information materials regarding ADA do they have access to; and are they adequate? • What is their perception of the role and actions of local building inspectors? • Who do they believe is ultimately responsible for implementing the ADA? page 10 responsibility for ADA implementation Americans with Disabilities Act(Signed July 26, 1990) MN state government • State of Minnesota accessibility provisions of the State Building Code were first created in 1975. • ADA provisions were first incorporated into the State Building Code in 1996. • By 1999, the Minnesota Building Code incorporated all accessibility provisions of the Federal ADA Accessibility Guideline (ADAAG); net result: a 10-fold increase in the volume of Minnesota’s accessibility provisions. • Minnesota is 1 of 20 states that have statewide mandated accessibility provisions. • New construction or remodeling triggers the need for compliance with the accessibility provisions. page 11 responsibility for ADA implementation Americans with Disabilities Act(Signed July 26, 1990) Architects and engineers Architects need to be knowledgeable about ADA in order to get licensed I first learned about the ADA in architectural school; it was introduced as important design criteria, affecting building programming and how people move through space. They put us (students) in wheelchairs and we had to navigate through the environment for a day. The ADA seemed reasonable to me when I first learned about it. It represented societal change that was necessary; it’s an equality issue and quality of life issue. It’s nice that architects have the muscle of the ADA behind them, because if we just told the (building) owners they should do something because it’s good, they may not listen to us. We use our client relations skills to make them understand it’s a requirement. We as architects are ultimately responsible for making sure the standards and requirements of the ADA are being met. page 12 responsibility for ADA implementation Americans with Disabilities Act(Signed July 26, 1990) Architects and engineers Commercial building contractors For commercial building contractors the ADA is embodied in accessibility provisions that they need to be aware of and adhere to, like any other sections of the Building Code. When I think of the ADA I think of clearances, accessibility… it’s a way of life in the industry. The intent of the ADA is to provide people with disabilities the same advantages as people without disabilities. I’ve got no problem with the ADA, but it does add costs to our projects. I’m good with (the ADA); it’s about accessibility provisions, nothing negative or positive, just a reality. And depending on how you look at it, it can be good for other people (without disabilities) to have larger restroom stalls, slopes on the side walks, curb ramps, and so forth. page 13 responsibility for ADA implementation Americans with Disabilities Act(Signed July 26, 1990) Architects and engineers Commercial building contractors 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. There are federal and state regulations, but ultimately it’s the responsibility of the architect; so when we (contractors) build it, none of the codes are missed. It starts with an architect, and they are AIA (American Institute of Architects), which means they should already know the codes in and out. The building inspector has several other things to do, so I don’t think they know the codes inside and out. They rely on architects and engineers to know everything, and they sign the drawings. page 14 responsibility for ADA implementation Americans with Disabilities Act(Signed July 26, 1990) MN state government Municipal building inspectors • The Building Code is enforced by municipal building inspectors. • All cities and towns across the state are mandated to adopt and enforce the state’s accessibility provisions within the Building Code. • However, state officials believe accessibility provisions are not enforced in parts of Greater Minnesota. page 15 responsibility for ADA implementation Americans with Disabilities Act(Signed July 26, 1990) Architects and engineers Commercial building contractors Architects and construction contractors have experienced inconsistent attention to, and enforcement of, accessibility provisions. We are in a rural county surrounded by very rural counties; some of them do not have a local building official. I know of several places where (the Building Code) is loosely applied; ADA is probably not enforced in some rural towns. I’d like to see more consistency across jurisdictions. Inspectors are not all created equal (regarding ADA enforcement). Some rely on architects; some (especially in small towns) wear many hats and do not go in-depth with their inspections. But awareness of ADA is out there. page 16 responsibility for ADA implementation Americans with Disabilities Act (Signed July 26, 1990) MN state government Municipal building inspectors State Building Code enhancement process • Changes to the State of Minnesota Building Code are (typically) published every 3 years, and announced in the State Register; notices are sent to municipalities, architecture and construction industry associations, etc. • New accessibility provisions may trigger training seminars, primarily designed for local inspectors. • Budget limitations have inhibited the code revision and training process recently. The next review cycle is due in 2012. page 17 perceptions of ADA impact in MN Implementation of the ADA, and acceptance of it, have evolved over time.* *Quotes from architects and general contractors 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. I don’t think it was heavily enforced early on; buildings built 15 to 20 years ago are lacking the requirements that they should have. Some owners of buildings may have negative opinions (towards ADA requirements); it costs them money. But negative attitudes are getting less and less. I saw (more resistance) when I was younger, but now that I’m in my forties, the ADA requirements are just standard. I would like to say (the ADA standards) are fully implemented 100% in Minnesota, but that’s not going to be the case, because buildings from the 1930s and 40s are still the way they were. I assume the reason for that is because there are no (people with disabilities) working there. page 18 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. It varies from owner to owner: Sophisticated owners accept it; small business owners see it as a burden. Ultimately, we (architects) are advocates for the owner, and they make the final decisions in the end. We will make it clear to them if they’re in violation (of ADA requirements), we will get them to put it in writing that we told them and they refused. Any business that deals with the public has been impacted by the ADA. Lawsuits hit hotels quite a bit. Some Ma and Pa businesses don’t see revenue from ADA compliance, like for example some women's clothing stores. The way the clothing racks are set up and so close together, they are not wheelchair compatible. Some of those businesses won’t change until they’re compelled. Some business owners may have some negative feelings if they feel forced to comply, when they don’t see themselves dealing with those conditions. page 19 ADA ultimate goals -- integration and inclusion The ultimate goals of the ADA were expressed by some respondents as the achievement of integrated accessibility and complete inclusion of people with disabilities in the experiences of physical structures. Seamless Integration Older historic buildings, like the Minnesota State Capitol, have a grand staircase leading up to the front entrance. A person in a wheelchair can’t participate in the experience of the grand entrance. New buildings won’t have steps like that; but with good design you can replicate that grand entrance look and experience in other ways, and make it accessible to everyone. And a good design is seamless; you wouldn’t even notice that it’s accessible. http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/2176282.jpg - Captitol Photo page 20 ADA ultimate goals -- integration and inclusion Design Tension and Inclusion There is a tension that happens early in the design of a building, where a lot of attention, budget and finish work goes into the entry or main area, and then a separate (accessible) entrance is put at a secondary location. Yet the intent of the ADA is for universal enjoyment of the building and the way the building is experienced. Like in the new Guthrie there is the largest escalator in North America; it’s a real dramatic experience going up that escalator to the theater, but if you’re in a wheelchair you have to take a different path. They solved the physical problem, it’s accommodating, but people with disabilities are not included in that part of the Guthrie experience. Guthrie accessibility Important information found on Guthrie website: The Guthrie strives to make its facility and performances accessible to all patrons. For questions and ticket information or if you need assistance, please call… If you have specific program questions or need an accommodation not mentioned below, please contact the Accessibility Office by phone at… Access programs at the Guthrie are sponsored by Xcel Energy Foundation with additional support from Think Community Bank. http://www.twincitiestourguide.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/854840995_49734b8e76.jpg page 21 ADA ultimate goals -- integration and inclusion Herzl Camp Example: MN organization with summer camp in Wisconsin, rebuilding their 80 year old buildings. Camp will be completely accessible, ADA compliant. The path down to the lakefront was particularly challenging. Tram system rejected: My daughter would feel singled out, different from the other campers. image: tram to lake Alternative design: An inclusive experience This represents one design considered but is not the final design selected for lakeshore access. Being ADA compliant means everyone is welcome. When I start to think about the inclusion issue, it all makes sense to me. (Quotes from the Chair of the Building Committee) page 22 qualitative summary Adoption of Federal ADA Accessibility Guidelines into the State of Minnesota Building Code was completed in 1999, nine years after passage of the Act. • A 10-fold expansion of The Minnesota Building Code accessibility provisions. • New construction or remodeling triggers accessibility provisions compliance. Architects play a significant role in making sure the standards and requirements of the ADA are being met. • ADA is part of an architect’s education • Knowledge of ADA is required for licensing • Seamless integrated design of accommodations is the goal For commercial building contractors the ADA is embodied in the accessibility provisions. Like any other part of the Building Code it is an accepted part of their business. page 23 qualitative summary Minnesota is one of 20 states with mandated accessibility provisions for all cities and towns across the state. • However, some state officials and commercial builders believe there are some inconsistencies in enforcement in greater Minnesota. Three year cycle is typical for changes, enhancements to the Building Code. • Budget limitations have inhibited the Building Code revision and training process recently. The next review cycle is due in 2012. Implementation of the ADA, and acceptance of it, have evolved over time. • Some building owners resist, due to increased costs; however, industry professionals believe negative attitudes have been waning over time. • The importance of ADA compliance, and the concept of inclusion, have been adopted by some building/property owners. page 24 C:: Phase 2: survey - respondent profile - accommodations - awareness, impact of ADA page 25 survey of MN businesses Public accommodations businesses included in the survey Total Retail store/service (general category) 184 Restaurants 133 Hair salon/barber shops 41 Hotel/motels 33 Convenience stores 28 Banks 21 Grocery stores 21 Vehicle dealerships (cars, rec. veh, farm) 20 Gas stations 12 Funeral homes 4 Movie theaters 3 Total sample (n) 500 Percent of total sample 100% Business Location: Twin Cities Retail store/service (general category) 50 Restaurants 36 Hair salon/barber shops 9 Hotel/motels 3 Convenience stores 8 Banks 7 Grocery stores 6 Vehicle dealerships (cars, rec. veh, farm) 2 Gas stations 2 Funeral homes 1 Movie theaters 1 Total sample (n) 125 Percent of total sample 25% TC Suburbs Retail store/service (general category) 85 Restaurants 60 Hair salon/barber shops 17 Hotel/motels 14 Convenience stores 11 Banks 8 Grocery stores 10 Vehicle dealerships (cars, rec. veh, farm) 8 Gas stations 4 Funeral homes 2 Movie theaters -- Total sample (n) 219 Percent of total sample 44% Small City Retail store/service (general category) 13 Restaurants 13 Hair salon/barber shops 5 Hotel/motels 5 Convenience stores 2 Banks 1 Grocery stores 1 Vehicle dealerships (cars, rec. veh, farm) 2 Gas stations 2 Funeral homes -- Movie theaters -- Total sample (n) 44 Percent of total sample 9% Small Town/Rural Retail store/service (general category) 36 Restaurants 24 Hair salon/barber shops 10 Hotel/motels 11 Convenience stores 7 Banks 5 Grocery stores 4 Vehicle dealerships (cars, rec. veh, farm) 8 Gas stations 4 Funeral homes 1 Movie theaters 2 Total sample (n) 112 Percent of total sample 22% page 26 building, location and ownership parameters The random sample of business resulted in a good mix by type of location, age of building and geographic location. About half of the respondents were building owners, half were lease holders. Type of location Business within mall or large building 40% Stand-alone building 60% * To qualify, the business’ main entrance had to open to the exterior. Age of building 1 - 10 years 22% 11 - 20 years 20% 21 - 50 years 36% More than 50 years 22% Geographic location Within Twin Cities limits 25% Twin Cities suburbs 44% Small city 9% Small town, rural 22% (Base: n = 500) Building / Space Ownership 46% Own 54% Lease page 27 business size parameters While 60% of the businesses have one location only, the sample appears to represent small and larger companies based on number of locations, daily customer volume and annual revenue. Number of Retail/Public Locations in Minnesota* * All questionnaire responses were based on one primary business location. 1 only 60% 2 - 10 19% 11 - 50 10% 51+ 11% Number of Customer Visits in a Typical Day Note: DK = don’t know DK 3% 1 - 25 28% 26 - 50 16% 51 - 100 16% More than 100 37% Total Annual Revenue DK/refused 34% < $100K 15% $100K - $300K 12% $300K - $3 million 30% >$3m 9% page 28 C:: Phase 2: survey - respondent profile - accommodations - awareness, impact of ADA page 29 building/property accommodations 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. Are there any aspects of the interior or exterior or surrounding property that were either originally designed or later remodeled to make your business more accessible to people with disabilities? (Q2) (Base: n) Total (500) Yes 61% No 31% Don’t know 8% Age of building in years 1 - 10 Total (110) Yes 66% No 27% Don’t know 7% 11 - 20 Total (99) Yes 73%* No 18% Don’t know 9% 21 - 50 Total (180) Yes 57% No 34% Don’t know 9% > 50 Total (111) Yes 51%* No 41% Don’t know 7% Number of daily customers 1 - 100 Total (299) Yes 56% No 36% Don’t know 8% 101 + Total (186) Yes 68%* No 23% Don’t know 9% *Indicates statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level. page 30 location/revenue Smaller companies, in terms of annual revenue, were less likely to have accommodations in their building or property than higher revenue companies. There were no significant differences by location. Are there any aspects of the interior or exterior or surrounding property that were either originally designed or later remodeled to make your business more accessible to people with disabilities? (Q2) Total (Base: n) Total (500) Yes 61% No 31% Don’t know 8% Location TC city Total (125) Yes 54%* No 38% Don’t know 8% TC suburb Total (219) Yes 64% No 27% Don’t know 9% Small city Total (44) Yes 61% No 25% Don’t know 14% Small Town/Rural Total (112) Yes 62% No 33% Don’t know 5% Annual Revenue <300K Total (139) Yes 48%* No 42% Don’t know 10% 300K - 3M Total (148) Yes 68% No 23% Don’t know 10% 3M + Total (45) Yes 78% No 16% Don’t know 7% *Indicates statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level. page 31 accommodations, unaided When asked about accommodations, most Minnesota business managers think of restrooms, designated parking spots and the main entrance to their business. What are all of those accommodations in your building or property? (Q3, Q4) (n=500) Types of accommodations / Percent mentions (unaided) Restrooms fully accessible 35% Designated parking spots 32% Main entrance accessible 29% Path of travel to front entrance 25% Designated parking extra large 20% Interior passage ways accommodating 19% Counters, desks, tables accessible 15% Interior ramps, as needed 14% Alarm systems; acoustic and visual 7% Wide, adequate elevators 5% Elevator buttons accessible 3% page 32 accommodations On average, approximately 75% of Minnesota business managers believe their businesses, buildings/property are accommodating to people with disabilities. What are all of those accommodations in your building or property? (Q3, Q4) (n=500) Restrooms fully accessible Percent mentions (unaided) 35% Awareness of accomodations(aided) 43% = 78% Not Applicable 10% Net Accomm 87% Designated parking spots Percent mentions (unaided) 32% Awareness of accomodations(aided) 43% = 75% Not Applicable 3% Net Accomm 78% Main entrance accessible Percent mentions (unaided) 29% Awareness of accomodations(aided) 61% = 90% Not Applicable -- Net Accomm 90% Path of travel to front entrance Percent mentions (unaided) 25% Awareness of accomodations(aided) 63% = 88% Not Applicable 1% Net Accomm 89% Designated parking extra large Percent mentions (unaided) 20% Awareness of accomodations(aided) 47% = 66% Not Applicable 6% Net Accomm 70% Interior passage ways accommodating Percent mentions (unaided) 19% Awareness of accomodations(aided) 69% = 88% Not Applicable -- Net Accomm 88% Counters, desks, tables accessible Percent mentions (unaided) 15% Awareness of accomodations(aided) 58% = 72% Not Applicable -- Net Accomm 72% Interior ramps, as needed Percent mentions (unaided) 14% Awareness of accomodations(aided) 10% = 24% Not Applicable 63% Net Accomm 64% Alarm systems; acoustic and visual Percent mentions (unaided) 7% Awareness of accomodations(aided) 46% = 53% Not Applicable 11% Net Accomm 60% Wide, adequate elevators Percent mentions (unaided) 5% Awareness of accomodations(aided) 6% = 11% Not Applicable 84% Net Accomm 68% Elevator buttons accessible Percent mentions (unaided) 3% Awareness of accomodations(aided) 5% = 8% Not Applicable 86% Net Accomm 59% AVERAGE ACCOMMODATIONS INDEX. . . . . . . . .. . . . 75% page 33 accommodations Older buildings have the lowest percentages of accommodations. NET ACCOMMODATIONS: Percent accommodations made where applicable. Age of building in years (Base: n) Total (500) 1 - 10 (110) 11 - 20 (99) 21 - 50 (180) More than 50 (111) Restrooms fully accessible Total 87% 1 - 10 96% 11 - 20 97% 21 - 50 86%* More than 50 70%* Designated parking spots Total 78% 1 - 10 88% 11 - 20 89% 21 - 50 80%* More than 50 51%* Main entrance accessible Total 90% 1 - 10 95% 11 - 20 97% 21 - 50 92% More than 50 76%* Path of travel to front entrance Total 89% 1 - 10 97% 11 - 20 95% 21 - 50 89%* More than 50 76%* Designated parking extra large Total 70% 1 - 10 84% 11 - 20 81% 21 - 50 68%* More than 50 48%* Interior passage ways accommodating Total 88% 1 - 10 95% 11 - 20 98% 21 - 50 87%* More than 50 77%* Counters, desks, tables accessible Total 72% 1 - 10 88%* 11 - 20 77% 21 - 50 67%* More than 50 62%* Interior ramps, as needed Total 64% 1 - 10 68% 11 - 20 82% 21 - 50 68% More than 50 44%* Alarm systems: Acoustic and visual Total 60% 1 - 10 72%* 11 - 20 60% 21 - 50 59% More than 50 47%* Wide, adequate elevators Total 68% 1 - 10 84% 11 - 20 63% 21 - 50 64% More than 50 56%* Elevator buttons accessible Total 59% 1 - 10 73% 11 - 20 50% 21 - 50 63% More than 50 40%* AVE. ACCOMMODATIONS INDEX Total 75% 1 - 10 85% 11 - 20 81% 21 - 50 75% More than 50 59% *Indicates statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level. page 34 building/property accommodations Almost half of the respondents (47%) reported construction in their building or property within the past 20 years resulting in new accommodations. And while most (around 60%) said they wanted to make their businesses more accessible, in about half of the projects the accommodations may not have been the primary reason for the construction or remodeling. Only 1% of the accommodation projects were initiated with a threat of a lawsuit by a person or persons with disabilities. When was the most recent construction or remodeling project resulting in any accommodation? (Q6) Most recent accommodation/construction (n = 500) Within 0-5 years age 26% 61- years ago 13% 11-20 years ago 8% >20 years ago 7% Don't know 46% Reasons for physical accommodations (Q7): (Base: n) Total(233) We wanted to make our business more accessible to potential new customers with disabilities 61% We wanted to make our business more accessible to current customers with disabilities 60% We firmly believed that it was the socially responsible thing to do 59% We thought it was good public relations for our business 59% We were doing other work on our building and had to include these accommodations in order to adhere to the Building Code 52% We wanted to make our business more accessible to employees with disabilities 41% We were being threatened with a lawsuit by a person or persons with disabilities, who claimed we were legally bound to make accommodations for them 1% page 35 accessibility of websites Businesses’ virtual spaces lag far behind physical spaces, when it comes to adoption of accessibility features for people with disabilities. Does your business have a website? (Q9) (n=500) Yes 615 No 39% Has your website ever been tested/checked for accessibility features, for people with vision loss, loss of hearing or cognitive disabilities? (Q10) (n=305) Yes 3% No 41% Don’t know 56% Does it have any accessibility features? (Q11) (n=305) Yes 4% No 39% Don’t know 58% Has the idea of making your website accessible to people with disabilities ever been discussed (Q13) (n=305) Yes 7% No 47% Don’t know 46% page 36 attitudes toward accessibility/accommodations While a majority of respondents tend to agree with positive statements regarding accommodations, some resistance to making accommodations was also expressed. Please indicate whether you agree or disagree with each of the following statements. (Q15) Attitude Statements It is important to our business that people with disabilities not only have access, but rather, they have the same experience with our business as everyone else. Disagree 2% Agree 91% We have made accommodations for people with disabilities in order to be a better community citizen. Disagree 4% Agree 81% It has been important for us to make accommodations because we have customers with disabilities. Disagree 8% Agree 79% We believe it is important to continually look for new ways to make our business more accessible to more people with disabilities, and we’ve acted on that. Disagree 9% Agree 74% We have gone above and beyond the minimum requirements in making our business accessible to people with disabilities. Disagree 8 Agree 66% We have never felt the need, or had a reason to make our business more accessible to people with disabilities. Disagree 42% Agree 38% There is no need for us to go beyond the letter of the law regarding accessibility requirements for people with disabilities. Disagree 44% Agree 34% The only way we would make alterations to our building or property to accommodate people with disabilities would be if we were required to; it just would not make sense for our business otherwise. Disagree 46% Agree 30% It would be too expensive for us to try and make our business completely accessible to people with disabilities; it’s just not practical. Disagree 48% Agree 25% page 37 attitudinal segments The Inclusion segment agreed most strongly with all of the more positive attitudinal statements related to accessibility and inclusion for people with disabilities. AGREE STRONGLY 5 AGREE SOMEWHAT 4 NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 3 DISAGREE SOMEWHAT 2 DISAGREE STRONGLY 1 Attitude Statements (Base) Attitudinal Segments (mean ratings) Inclusion(176) Compliance(200) Avoidance(124) It is important to our business that people with disabilities not only have access, but rather, they have the same experience with our business as everyone else. Attitudinal Segments (mean ratings) Inclusion 4.9* Compliance 4.8 Avoidance 4.1* We have made accommodations for people with disabilities in order to be a better community citizen. Attitudinal Segments (mean ratings) Inclusion 4.8* Compliance 4.5 Avoidance 3.6* It has been important for us to make accommodations because we have customers with disabilities. Attitudinal Segments (mean ratings) Inclusion 4.8* Compliance 4.6 Avoidance 3.0* We believe it is important to continually look for new ways to make our business more accessible to more people with disabilities, and we’ve acted on that. Attitudinal Segments (mean ratings) Inclusion 4.7* Compliance 4.2 Avoidance 3.2* We have gone above and beyond the minimum requirements in making our business accessible to people with disabilities. Attitudinal Segments (mean ratings) Inclusion 4.4* Compliance 4.0 Avoidance 3.3* *Indicates statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level. page 38 attitudinal segments The Inclusion segment disagreed with all of the more negative attitudinal statements regarding making their business more accessible to people with disabilities. AGREE STRONGLY 5 AGREE SOMEWHAT 4 NEITHER AGREE NOR DISAGREE 3 DISAGREE SOMEWHAT 2 DISAGREE STRONGLY 1 Attitude Statements (Base) Attitudinal Segments (mean ratings) Inclusion (176) Compliance (200) Avoidance (124) We have never felt the need, or had a reason to make our business more accessible to people with disabilities Attitudinal Segments (mean ratings) Inclusion 1.8* Compliance 3.4 Avoidance 3.7* There is no need for us to go beyond the letter of the law regarding accessibility requirements for people with disabilities. Attitudinal Segments (mean ratings) Inclusion 1.5* Compliance 3.4 Avoidance 3.6 The only way we would make alterations to our building or property to accommodate people with disabilities would be if we were required to; it just would not make sense for our business otherwise. Attitudinal Segments (mean ratings) Inclusion 1.5* Compliance 3.2 Avoidance 3.8* It would be too expensive for us to try and make our business completely accessible to people with disabilities; it’s just not practical. Attitudinal Segments (mean ratings) Inclusion 1.6* Compliance 2.8 Avoidance 3.7* *Indicates statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level. page 39 motivational map The three attitudinal segments will be displayed within the 2-dimensional motivational map: Expand - Defend Independence - Social Bonding The vertical axis differentiates those motivated by change –expanding horizons– from those motivated by defending their traditions, values, lifestyle, etc. The horizontal axis differentiates those who are motivated by the need to bond with other people, from those driven by the need to assert themselves and feel independence. page 40 motivational map The relationships between attitudinal statements and segments are displayed within the motivational map. Independence - Expand We have customers with disabilities Expand We’re always looking for new ways to be more accessible Everyone should have the same experience with our business Being accessible makes us a better community citizen Expand - Social Bonding Inclusion 35% We’ve gone above and beyond the minimum requirements for accessibility Social Bonding - Defend Complete accessibility is too expensive for our business Defend Avoidance 25% Defend - Independence We never felt the need to make accommodations No need for us to go beyond the letter of the law We’d make accommodations only if required Independence Compliance 45% page 41 attitudinal segments The Inclusion segment was most likely to have had enhanced accommodations within the past 10 years, and more likely to do more within the next 5 years, compared to the other 2 segments. Inclusions (176) Building/Property has accessibility features (Q2) 75%* Construction has been done within the past 10 years resulting in enhanced accommodations. 54% Compliance(200) Building/Property has accessibility features (Q2) 60% Construction has been done within the past 10 years resulting in enhanced accommodations. 38% Avoidance (124) Building/Property has accessibility features (Q2) 42%* Construction has been done within the past 10 years resulting in enhanced accommodations. 19% Likelihood of business making new enhanced accommodations within the next 5 years (Base) Inclusion(176) Definitely 18%* Probably 31%* Might/might not 30% Probably not 14%* Definitely not 3% Compliance(200) Definitely 9% Probably 16% Might/might not 33% Probably not 30% Definitely not 7% Avoidance(124) Definitely 5% Probably 8%* Might/might not 30% Probably not 39% Definitely not 16%* *Indicates statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level. page 42 attitudinal segments The Avoidance segment was more likely than the other two segments to include smaller revenue companies, with fewer employees and customers, operating out of older buildings. Business Parameters* *NOTE: There was no statistically significant relationship between segment membership and geographic location. (Base) Total (500) Average age of building (Q30) 37 years Number of employees (FTE)(Q32) 17 Daily customer traffic (median)(Q33) 70 Inclusion(176) Average age of building (Q30) 28 years Number of employees (FTE)(Q32) 17 Daily customer traffic (median)(Q33) 125 Compliance (200) Average age of building (Q30) 36 years Number of employees (FTE)(Q32) 23 Daily customer traffic (median)(Q33) 63 Avoidance(124) Average age of building (Q30) 53 years Number of employees (FTE)(Q32) 7* Daily customer traffic (median)(Q33) 30 Business Total Annual Revenue (Q39) (Base)(332) Less than $300,000 42% $300,000 to $999,999 28% $1,000,000 or more 30% Inclusion(113) Less than $300,000 35% $300,000 to $999,999 29% $1,000,000 or more 36% Compliance (200) Less than $300,000 36% $300,000 to $999,999 32% $1,000,000 or more 32% Avoidance(124) Less than $300,000 61%* $300,000 to $999,999 18%* $1,000,000 or more 20% *Indicates statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level. page 43 C:: Phase 2: survey - respondent profile - accommodations - awareness, impact of ADA page 44 awareness/familiarity of ADA While awareness of the ADA is relatively high (82%) familiarity with the Act is relatively low; only 25% of all respondents are aware that the Act was passed 20 years ago. Have you ever heard of the Americans with Disabilities Act? (Q15) (n = 500) No/DK 18% Yes 82% How familiar are you with the Americans with Disabilities Act, including its overall objective and its specific aspects? (Q16) (n = 410) Very Familiar 11% Somewhat Familiar 48% Not at all familiar 41% Approximately how many years ago was the ADA passed? (Q17) (Base - Very Familiar)(45) Less than 10 years ago 4% About 15 years ago 31% About 20 years ago 44%* 25 or more years ago 7% Don’t know, no idea 13% (Base - Somewhat Familiar/not at all familiar)(365) Less than 10 years ago 9% About 15 years ago 23% About 20 years ago 28% 25 or more years ago 14% Don’t know, no idea 26%* (Base - Total aware)(410) Less than 10 years ago 8% About 15 years ago 24% About 20 years ago 30% 25 or more years ago 13% Don’t know, no idea 25% *Indicates statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level. page 45 impact of ADA All respondents were read this statement: THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT was passed by Congress 20 years ago in 1990, and was described as, “Wide ranging legislation intended to make American society more accessible to people with disabilities.” One part of the Act related to public accommodations states that all new construction and modifications must be accessible… Thinking about businesses like yours, 20 years ago as compared to today, do you believe the Americans with Disabilities Act has had… (Q18) (n = 500) No impact at all on our business 46% Some impact 27% A big impact 27% How do you believe your business has been impacted? (Q19) (some impact/a big impact)(n = 268) Percent Mentions NET: POSITIVE IMPACTS 77% Our business has increased because we’re more accessible/accommodating 52% Increased awareness of needs of people with disabilities 16% Better, easier access benefits people with disabilities 15% Feels good; it’s a good thing; the right thing to do 6% NET: NEGATIVE IMPACTS 21% We had to make changes to comply with the law 13% Increased our costs 6% Challenging for small business; affected business negatively, etc. 2% page 46 impact of ADA Do you believe your business has incurred any costs that were the result of requirements specified by the Americans with Disabilities Act? (Q20) No / Don’t know -- 75% Yes -- 25% Would you say the benefits to your business have… (Q22)(n = 126) Outweighed the costs 11% Equaled the costs 6% Not justified the costs 8% Roughly, how much cost has your business incurred as a result of the requirements of the ADA? (Q21) Less than $5,000 37% $5,000 to $9,999 18% $10,000 to $19,000 12% $20,000 to $49,999 8% $50,000 or more 6% Don’t know 20% page 47 ADA impact A majority of respondents feel the ADA has had a positive effect on their business and general community. All things considered, how do you feel about the Americans with Disabilities Act, in terms of the effects it has had… On your business (Q27)(n = 500) Very positive 30% Somewhat positive 28% Neutral 40% Somewhat negative 2% Very negative 1% On your general community as a whole (Q28)(n = 500) Very positive 47% Somewhat positive 33% Neutral 19% Somewhat negative 1% Very negative 0% *Indicates statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level. page 48 ADA impact Those with more positive attitudes towards ADA’s affect on their business are more likely, compared to those with less positive attitudes, to enhance the accommodations of their business within the next 5 years. In the next 5 years, what is the likelihood that your business will make any enhancements or new accommodations, making your business more accessible to people with disabilities: Will your business… (Base) Total( 500) 11% Definitely make new accommodations 19% Probably 31% Might/might not 26% Probably not 8% Definitely not make new accommodations -- Attitudes about ADA’s effect on their business: Very positive(Base)(152)* Definitely make new accommodations 22%* Probably 24% Might/might not 27%* Probably not 15% Definitely not make new accommodations 7% Somewhat positive(Base) (138) Definitely make new accommodations 12% Probably 19% Might/might not 32% Probably not 26% Definitely not make new accommodations 4% Neutral(Base) (198) Definitely make new accommodations3% Probably 16% Might/might not 41% Probably not 35% Definitely not make new accommodations 10% Somewhat/very negative(Base) (12) Definitely make new accommodations 8% Probably 8% Might/might not 1% Probably not 25% Definitely not make new accommodations 50% *Indicates statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence level. page 49 D:: quantitative summary page 50 quantitative summary 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. • Smaller companies were less likely to have accommodations in their building or property than larger companies. 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 - interior passageways • Penetration of accommodations was lowest (60%-70%) for: - Alarm systems - Interior ramps - Elevators - Checkout counters, desks, tables - Extra large designated parking spots page 51 quantitative summary Businesses’ virtual spaces (websites) lag far behind physical spaces, when it comes to adoption of accessibility features for people with disabilities. • Only 4% of websites have accessibility features. • Only 7% of businesses with websites have discussed the idea of making their website more accessible to people with disabilities. A majority of respondents tend to agree with positive statements regarding accommodations… • 3 out of 4 believe it is important for them to continually look for new ways to make their business more accessible to more people with disabilities; However, some resistance to making accommodations was also expressed: • 3 out of 10 said it would not make sense to make alterations to their business or property to accommodate people with disabilities; • 1 in 4 said it would be too expensive and not practical to try and make their business completely accessible to people with disabilities. 52 quantitative summary While awareness of the ADA is relatively high (82%) familiarity is relatively low. • Only 25% of all respondents are aware that the Act was passed 20 years ago. About half of the respondents believe the ADA has impacted their business. • 58% said the ADA has had a positive impact on their business: - Our business has increased because we are more accessible - Increased awareness of needs of people with disabilities - Better, easier access benefits people with disabilities • Only 3% said the ADA has had a negative impact on their business: - We had to make changes to comply with the law - Increased our costs; affected business negatively, etc. 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. page 53 Thank you! MarketResponse International 1304 university ave. ne suite 304 minneapolis, mn 55413 t:: 612.379.1645 f:: 612.379.1659 web:: www.marketresponse.com Tom Pearson, Managing Director t.pearson@marketresponse.com Derek Pearson, Research Analyst d.pearson@marketresponse.com Char Psihos, Project Director c.psihos@marketresponse.com image: George Bush in front of White House sitting at table signing ADA; with a priest, a woman, and two men in wheel chairs