Search

Federal legislation requires most colleges and universities to provide equal access and reasonable accommodations for students with disabilities. However, many students do not fully avail themselves of college disability services and accommodations. It is important for Office of Disability Services (ODS) personnel to understand the reasons for this, as they attempt to best assist students with disabilities at their institutions. In this qualitative study, 16 college students with disabilities at a medium-sized state university were interviewed. Five major thematic categories emerged from the data analysis, which were identified as barriers to why some students might not seek-out or more fully utilize disability services and accommodations in postsecondary education: (a) identity issues, (b) desires to avoid negative social reactions, (c) insufficient knowledge, (d) perceived quality and usefulness of services, and (e) negative experiences with faculty. Suggestions for ODS personnel to eliminate institutional barriers and to help students overcome personal barriers are provided. (Contains 2 tables.)

Using the Integrated Mission System (IMS) of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) for allegations of discrimination involving Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), allegations made by individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) and by individuals with intellectual disabilities (IDs) are compared and contrasted. Key dimensions of workplace discrimination examined include: demographic characteristics of the charging parties; the industry designation, location and size of employers against whom allegations were filed; the nature of workplace discrimination alleged to have occurred; and the EEOC outcome/resolution of these allegations. The characteristics of ASD allegations are then compared and contrasted with those of ID allegations. The findings of this study imply that typical ASD and ID allegations are characteristically quite similar to each other. Differences that were found between the two groups of allegations indicate that charging parties with ASD are more likely to be a bit younger than those with ID, and are more likely to be male. Additionally, ASD allegations of discrimination were more likely than ID to have been made against Information, Educational Services, and Arts/Entertainment/Recreation industry employers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using the Integrated Mission System of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the employment discrimination experience of Americans with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs) is documented for Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The researchers examine demographic characteristics of the charging parties; the industry designation, location, and size of employers against whom complaints are filed; the nature of discrimination (i.e., type of complaint) alleged to occur; and the legal outcome or resolution of these complaints. Researchers compare and contrast these key dimensions of workplace discrimination involving individuals with ASDs and persons with other physical, sensory, and neurological impairments. Researchers also attempt to discern whether or not the resolutions of the ASD charges can be predicted using the variables available for analysis. The comparative findings of this study indicate that individuals with ASDs were more likely to make charges of discrimination against Retail industry employers. Persons with ASDs were also more likely to make charges of discrimination when they were younger, male, and/or of Native American/Alaskan Native ethnicity. The predictive findings of this study indicate that the odds of ASD charges resulting in meritorious resolution (i.e., discrimination determined by the EEOC to have occurred) increase when the discrimination was encountered in Service industries and by larger employers. Implications for policy, advocacy and further research efforts are addressed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been debate among life care planning practitioners and policy-makers regarding the minimum educational requirements for nurses engaged in life care planning practice. Specifically, should nurses be required to attain a minimum of a bachelor's degree in order to be considered qualified, and to be eligible for certification in the area of life care planning? Some historical background about this debate is presented, followed by an analysis of current nursing educational policy and practice in the United States. Implications for credentialing in the area of life care planning are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]