Search

The overall aim of this study was to describe experiences of discrimination due to inaccessibility among people using mobility devices. We conducted a thematic qualitative analysis of 88 complaints about wheeled mobility device use, inaccessibility, and discrimination submitted to the Swedish Equality Ombudsman (DO) during 2015 and 2016. The analysis resulted in three themes: instigating change by invoking laws and regulations and highlighting lack of compliance; demanding to be recognised, understood, and listened to; and struggling for equal access and social participation. Regulations and treaties were invoked as the basis for complaints by people using mobility devices regarding their lack of access to physical environments and impediments to their enjoyment of their full right to participate in and contribute to society. The complaints described feelings of discrimination, the disadvantages and exclusion due to physical inaccessibility, and experiences of being prevented from living one's life as others do. Complaints filed by people using mobility devices showed that they were denied access to a wide range of contexts, including offices, theatres, restaurants, schools, and public transportation, though they desired to live an active and social life outside their homes. Filing a complaint was a way to take action, highlight present inaccessibility, and express a hope for change. Difficulties experienced by people using wheeled mobility devices can reveal knowledge important for revising existing design and renovation standards for housing and public buildings. Documenting facilitators and barriers in different environments is important for giving voice to the needs of wheeled mobility device users and revealing standards that need to be strongly enforced or revised. People using wheeled mobility devices should be supported in finding solutions in inaccessible environments, both to fulfil their wishes and to enable their participation in society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scholars, policymakers, and the media acknowledge that surveillance can threaten privacy and increase the risk of discrimination. Surveillance of people with disabilities, however, is positioned as being a convenient way of averting a host of problems: It can be seen as a way to protect people with disabilities from abuse and neglect, to prevent Medicaid fraud, and to proactively protect school communities from mass shootings. Increasingly, as surveillance systems become more sophisticated, state and federal laws have begun sanctioning, and occasionally mandating, the surveillance of people with disabilities for these purposes. This Essay interrogates narratives that justify the increased surveillance of people with disabilities by analyzing them through the lens of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and its integration mandate. The ADA expresses a clear goal of preventing the unnecessary segregation and isolation of people with disabilities. To achieve this aim, states must provide services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting possible. Looking at laws and policies that mandate surveillance through the lens of integration draws attention to their oppressive and isolating effects. This Essay breaks new ground by centering disability discrimination in its analysis of surveillance. It is the first to demonstrate how ostensibly benevolent surveillance systems embed punitive, carceral practices within therapeutic and community-based settings. It yields new insights about how surveillance systems deployed within a community can result in a constrained and superficial, rather than expansive, idea of integration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In today's society, major arts organizations and other large-scale public venues are making additional accommodations for persons with disabilities beyond those under Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Often termed "sensory-friendly," this approach makes it easier for individuals with sensory sensitivities to participate in social activities and community events. However, we rarely see similar efforts occurring in school-based music performances. Therefore, we set out to create an inclusive concert experience that welcomes all persons to attend regardless of their sensory, mobility, or other needs to benefit everyone—the students, the families, the school, and the community. During our journey, we realized several components were essential to the overall success of our concerts. In this article, we share five tips that may help you feel more confident implementing something similar in your school. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is helpful to think about the needs of patients with moderate to severe brain injury through the lens of disability law. However, there are limitations to current disability law that contribute to ongoing segregation and marginalization of individuals with severe brain injury. Indeed, one of the paradoxes of American jurisprudence is that more clear constitutional protections accrue to those who have definitively immutable conditions. Thus, as neuroscience brings new therapies to those with brain injury, they may become less protected by the constitutional elements of disability law because their conditions have changed and become mutable. This is the clinical progress that brain injury professionals all seek to achieve, but ironically these advances could potentially degrade the legal protections of patients who benefit from emerging treatments. In this paper, we will critically examine this paradox at the interface of medicine and the law and suggest that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) could be nicely complemented by legislation we have named the Americans with Abilities Act (AWAA). Instead of focusing on disabilities that need protection, the AWAA seeks to sustain and foster newfound abilities made possible by the fruits of medicine and neuroscience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Progress towards development of accessible pedestrian networks for people with disabilities has been slow, perpetuating social exclusion in many cities world-wide. There is increased pressure to develop and implement plans for barrier-removal, such as Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) transition plans. Limited research has examined the elements for effectively developing and implementing plans in a comprehensive way that identifies the role of individual, organizational, and cultural factors. To better understand the factors influencing effective planning, we interviewed municipal planners with high-quality plans about their experiences and perceptions. We analyzed the interview data using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to better understand how well the data aligned with established constructs of effective implementation. Our results suggest that planners of high-quality plans were supported by factors that were both internal to the city, such as technology, training, and interdepartmental relationships; and/or external, such as connections with other organizations or being accountable to their state transportation offices. Several interviewees described the need for organizational and cultural change around planning for more accessible pedestrian networks. The lessons learned from effective planning can be used to improve barrier-removal planning in cities in and outside of the U.S. • Progress towards removing pedestrian barriers for disabled citizens is slow. • High-quality barrier removal planning can be studied using implementation science tools. • Planning processes are adaptable to local government resources and capacities. • High quality plans are nurtured by interdepartmental, inter-city, and state relationships. • Communication and public engagement support buy-in from stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]