Slide 1: Planning for pedestrians with disabilities: Sharing successes and gaps from ADA Transition Plans around the U.S.
Yochai Eisenberg, PhD
Amy Heider, MS
Rob Gould, PhD
Delphine Labbe, PhD
Robin Jones, MS
Great Lakes ADA Center - NIDILLR Grant # 90DP0091-02-00
University of Illinois at Chicago
ADA Audio Conference
August 18, 2020

Slide 2: Overview
•	Research ~ 40 minutes
•	Describe current gaps and limitations of transition planning for the public rights-of-way
•	Share successful practices gathered from ADA coordinators with high quality plans. 
•	Practice ~ 30 minutes
•	Case study about the City of Tempe, Arizona’s ADA Transition Plan. 
•	Dialogue with Tempe’s ADA Compliance Specialist and GIS Enterprise GIS Manager
•	Q & A ~ 20 minutes

Slide 3: Research Project #1: Systematic Evaluation of ADA transition plans

Slide 4: Some Background

Slide 5: PROW – All the places where we walk and roll
Public Rights-of-Way (PROW)
•	Pathways for walking and wheeling are important for people to get to the places they want to go to and to be a part of their community. 
•	However, pathways that are broken or not built in ways that are easy for people with disabilities to use make walking or wheeling difficult. 

Slide 6: Pedestrians with disabilities experience barriers in the PROW1-5
Image of street sign in middle of sidewalk
Image of bus stop on grassy hill
Image of a badly broken sidewalk and corner with no curbcut

Slide 7: Barriers affect community participation
Image of an Arm Ergometer
Image of man with cane walking on sidewalk
Image of women in wheelchair picking an apple a the grocery store

Slide 8: Barriers are not going away
Image of person trying to hold in stuff from bursting out of a closet

Slide 9: Several large lawsuits
•	Barden et al. v. City of Sacramento, 2002
•	Reynoldson v. City of Seattle, 2017
•	Project Civic Action

Slide 10: How can cities address barriers and mitigate the risk of lawsuits?
•	Develop an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan for the PROW
•	Required under Title II of the ADA
•	State and Local Government  Services 

Slide 11: ADA Transition Plans
•	Provide an understanding of current conditions (inventory)
•	Layout plan for improvement, which includes
•	How (methods for barrier removal)
•	When (schedule)
•	Who (responsible official)
•	Priorities (public participation)

Slide 12: Research Gap
•	Although the ADA was passed in 1990, we lack an understanding of progress made in planning for and implementing changes to the accessibility of the PROW in the US

Slide 13: Limited research on ADA Transition Plans
•	Existing studies focus on barriers to plan development
•	A survey of local governments from 1997 reported that 65% have ADA transition plans6
•	Self-reported  
•	Don’t know the quality of plans
•	No follow-up 

Slide 14: Purpose
•	Systematically examine the presence, content, and quality of ADA transition plans in the U.S. 
and 
•	Summarize current levels of PROW accessibility reported in ADA transition plans. 

Slide 15: Methods

Slide 16: Methods
1.	Developed audit tool with Expert Panel
2.	Stratified random selection of 401 local public agencies from the 2012 Census of Governments.
•	Greater than 50 full time employees
•	Government type - Townships, Counties and Municipalities
3.	Standardized website search for ADA transition plans
•	Supplemented with direct phone and email contacts
4.	Descriptive analysis for meeting requirements and quality indicators

Slide 17: Results

Slide 18: Results: Progress on plans
•	13% (54) of LPAs had an ADA transition plan ‘readily available’
•	7% (28) LPAs were ‘in-progress’
•	Working on inventory
•	Hiring consultants
•	Figuring what they need to do
•	50% response rate from direct contact

Slide 19: Results: Plans by region
Table: Total Census region has a total sample of 375, 40 had a plan, 100% from each region. 
Midwest Census region, has a sample of 112, 19 had a plan, 48% from each region, and 17% of sample strata with a plan. 
West Census region, has a sample of 62, 10 had a plan, 25% from each region, and 16% of sample strata with a plan. 
South Census region, has a sample of 130, 9 had a plan, 23% from each region, and 7% of sample strata with a plan. 
Northeast Census region, has a sample of 71, 2 had a plan, 5% from each region, and 3% of sample strata with a plan. 

Slide 20: Results: Met basic requirements
Table: Completed inventory has a proportion (n) of 88% (35)
Described methods to make accessible* has a proportion (n) of 66% (25)
Opportunity to participate has a proportion (n) of 65% (26)
Identify responsible official has a proportion (n) of 55% (22)
Schedule* has a proportion (n) of 41% (16)
*two plans were unclear about these two categories and so were left out of the denominator. 

Slide 21: Results: Quality of Plans
Table: List physical barriers has a proportion (n) of 68% (27) and total is 40
Targeted outreach to people with disabilities has a proportion (n) of 18% (7) total is 40
Responsible official is in a position of authority has a proportion (n) of 41% (13) total is 32
Funding sources identified has a proportion (n) of 70% (28) total is 40
Transition plan signed into ordinance/other regulation has a proportion (n) of 33% (13) total is 40
Monitor progress has a proportion (n) of 48% (19) total is 40
Dates are attached to barrier removal plans has a proportion (n) of 44% (16) total is 36 

Slide 22: Results: Percentage of PROW with barriers*
Table: Sidewalks have a mean of 48%, sd 30%, min 11%, max 80%, and number reporting is 9
Curb ramps have a mean of 65%, sd 23%, min 7%, max 100%, and number reporting is 23
Traffic signals have a mean of 50%, sd 30%, min 15%, max 100%, and number reporting is 6

Slide 23: Results: Funding for PROW improvements
Table: Funding type= capital improvement plan (CIP), n is 17, 85% of plans
Funding type= Transportation specific fund (Highway, sidewalk, or street), n is 5, 26.3% of plans
Funding type= Community Development Block Grant, n is 2, 10.5% of plans
Funding type= Local Option Sales Tax (LOST), n is 1, 5.3% of plans
Funding type= Country Economic Development Income Tax (CEDIT), n is 1, 5.3% of plans
Funding type= State Department of transportation funds, n is 1, 5.3% of plans
Funding type= State gas tax fund, n is 1, 5.3% of plans
Funding type= Federal grant, n is 1, 5.3% of plans

Slide 24: Discussion

Slide 25: Discussion
•	Development and implementation of ADA transition plans for the PROW is low
•	Lower rate compared to previous research
•	Even among those with plans, a small proportion meet the quality criteria for the plan to be effective
•	Are communities just checking the boxes?
•	Monitoring is needed to hold LPAs accountable
•	Trainings to support involvement of people with disabilities

Slide 26: Discussion: continued
•	A large % of the PROW is still inaccessible
•	First study to report on the level of PROW accessibility
•	Doesn’t tell us if priority areas are inaccessible
•	Variation by region
•	Regional working groups and pressure from the state DOT may be important facilitators

Slide 27: Limitations
•	Smaller then expected % with a plan
•	Half of LPAs directly contact didn’t respond
•	Some difficulty coding plans
•	Plans in-progress were not assessed

Slide 28: The Takeaway
•	Communities in the US do not have strong plans for building accessible pathways for people with disabilities. 
•	Local governments need to begin making or updating their transition plans with concrete details and timelines so that people with disabilities can get around their communities. 
•	Meaningfully involving people with disabilities in making transition plans can help cities and counties develop plans and prioritize community locations that matter most. 
•	People with disabilities and advocates can encourage their local governments to make a transition plan or can use the audit tool developed in this study to measure the quality of their communities’ current plan.

Slide 29: References
1.	Gell, N. M., Rosenberg, D. E., Carlson, J., Kerr, J., & Belza, B. (2015). Built environment attributes related to GPS measured active trips in mid-life and older adults with mobility disabilities. Disability & Health Journal, 8(2), 290-295. doi:10.1016/j.dhjo.2014.12.002
2.	Haselwandter, E. M., Corcoran, M. P., Folta, S. C., Hyatt, R., Fenton, M., & Nelson, M. E. (2015). The built environment, physical activity, and aging in the United States: A state of the science review. Journal of Aging & Physical Activity, 23(2), 323-329. doi:10.1123/japa.2013-0151
3.	Levasseur, M., Généreux, M., Bruneau, J. F., Vanasse, A., Chabot, É., Beaulac, C., & Bédard, M. M. (2015). Importance of proximity to resources, social support, transportation and neighborhood security for mobility and social participation in older adults: results from a scoping study. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 503. doi:10.1186/s12889-015-1824-0
4.	Kirchner, C. E., Gerber, E. G., & Smith, B. C. (2008). Designed to deter: Community barriers to physical activity for people with visual or motor impairments. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 34(4), 349-352. doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2008.01.005
5.	Rosenberg, D., Huang, D., Simonovich, S., & Belza, B. (2013). Outdoor built environment barriers and facilitators to activity among midlife and older adults with mobility disabilities. The Gerontologist, 53(2), 268-279. doi:10.1093/geront/gns119
6.	Barden et al. v. City of Sacramento, 292 F. 3d 1073. (9th Cir. 2002). 
7.	Switzer, J. V. (2001). Local government implementation of the Americans with Disabilities Act: Factors affecting statutory compliance. Policy Studies Journal, 29(4), 654-662. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2001.tb02118.x
8.	Pfeiffer, D., & Finn, J. (1997). The Americans with Disabilities Act: An examination of compliance by state, territorial and local governments in the USA. Disability & Society, 12(5), 753-774. doi: 10.1080/09687599727038
9.	Condrey, S. E., & Brudney, J. L. (1998). The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: Assessing its implementation in America's largest cities. The American Review of Public Administration, 28(1), 26-42. doi: 10.1177/027507409802800102

Slide 30: Contact info
Yochai Eisenberg
yeisen2@uic.edu
312.413.9410
Website - http://adagreatlakes.com/Research/transitionPlan.asp

Slide 31: Research Project 2: Successful Implementation factors IN ADA Transition Planning

Slide 32: Purpose of Interviews
•	Identify factors that lead to excellence in implementation of Americans with Disabilities Act transition plans. 
•	Learn from those with high-quality plans
•	Improve understanding of how the ADA has been successfully implemented across local governments. 

Slide 33: Approach used Implementation Science
•	Focuses on mechanisms for successful implementation
•	“the scientific study of methods to promote the systematic uptake of research findings and other evidence-based practices into routine practice,”  (Bauer et al. 2015)
•	Strengths
•	Understand why things worked in certain settings
•	Use validated framework for implementation research to organize and map out factors leading to successful implementation

Slide 34: Methods
•	Sought recommendations of municipalities who developed high-quality ADA transition plans from:
•	ADA coordinators in State Departments of Transportation (DOT), 
•	Regional ADA technical assistance centers, 
•	State Local Technical Assistance Programs (LTAP) coordinators.
•	Independently evaluated plans using a short version of our transition plan audit tool 
•	1 hour interviews via Webex with selected municipalities using a structured interview guide that focused on topics such as: 
•	Motivation for starting the transition planning process 
•	Outside resources 
•	Inventory process
•	Public involvement
•	Prioritization system
•	Implementation successes

Slide 35: Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)
•	CFIR is a theoretical model for implementation that assesses environmental factors that influence implementation.
•	Often used for interventions in clinical settings
•	Value to us = structured coding guide for coding data on implementation using these domains:
•	Intervention Characteristics
•	Inner Setting
•	Outer Setting
•	Characteristics of Individuals
•	Process

Slide 36: Results
•	Preliminary results will be reported using the codes that were most frequently used in each CFIR domain. 
Chart: Number of codes per CFIR domain
Characteristics of ADA Coordinators = 65
Outer Setting = 141 
Transition Plan Characteristics = 198
Inner Setting = 515
Transition Plan and Implementation Process = 555 

Slide 37: Transition plan characteristics
Code 1: Design quality and packaging of the transition plan
“While there's no golden template out there that works for everyone, other people have done this before”
•	Data collection
•	iPad with automatic coordinates, ARC collector programs, linked to GIS, dividing city into sections
“Another great tool that we’ve used is Google Maps Street View. When you’re sitting there wondering, ‘Hey, I wonder when this subdivision was built, what was the standard curb ramp  at the time?’ You can sit at your computer, pull up Street View on Google Maps and this is what it was.”

Slide 38: Transition plan characteristics continued
Code 1 (cont): Design quality and packaging of the transition plan
•	Prioritization
•	The worst conditions in the highest priority areas, creating rating systems labeled by numbers, letter grades, or colors
•	Strictly quantitative calculations
•	Input from grievances and disability committees to help prioritize
•	Document design
•	Some intentionally kept the plan document simple so that the contents were accessible to the general public
•	Story map
•	Plain language reports

Slide 39: Transition plan characteristics continued
Code 2: Adaptability and complexity of creating a transition plan
•	Adaptability: Municipalities used creative approaches and leveraged of existing resources
•	Complexity: Given the challenge of the scale of the work and requirements of transition planning, it is important to 
•	Break it down into manageable pieces
•	Adapt to fit with your community’s needs, resources, and priorities. 
“Eat the elephant one bite at a time, take baby steps. Okay. What what is the first thing you need to do? And then, when you do that, find someone, for example, for me, it was, let's get this data collection. Let's try an engineer. But for other communities, that don't have that money. We've gotta get this data collection. Let's find a partner with our schools or our volunteer groups to make this happen."

Slide 40: Outer setting
Code 3: The degree to which the municipality is networked with other external organizations
•	Connected with state departments of transportation, the Federal Highway Administration
•	Built regional coalitions of ADA coordinators, “peer cities,” and local universities 
Code 4: External policies and incentives influencing transition planning development
•	Negative consequences of being out of compliance such as threat of lawsuits, threats to lose funding opportunities like grants 
•	Given deadlines by their state DOT 
•	Existing settlement agreement with DOJ 
•	Positive incentives from external policies such as availability of new grants

Slide 41: Outer setting continued
“Threats of lawsuits or losing federal funding– that's a pretty big hammer. And if you want grants for your community, then you better get on it. And unfortunately, that speaks to more people than doing the right thing because it's the right thing and because everyone should have equal access to neighborhoods, to businesses, to be able to live their lives.”

Slide 42: Inner setting
Code 5: Municipal Government Culture
•	The way ADA became an embedded part of the values and philosophical approach of municipalities
•	“now its just part of absolutely everything that city does.”
•	“It's not just a block on a checklist, right? That's not what the intent of the ADA is in my opinion, it's a complete philosophy change in the way that we look at and treat other people. It’s a sense of awareness that someone who might have a disability still has the same rights and accessibility to everything that we provide as a city.”
Code 6: Available resources for ADA transition planning work
•	Transition planning methods and available technology varied based on access to resources
•	Had to make an argument for prioritization of the transition plan and barrier removal process in their city, regardless of city size/wealth
•	Several faced state-wide restrictions on how much money they can raise through increased city and property taxes 

Slide 43: Inner setting continued
Code 7: Nature and quality of social networks and communications within an organization
•	Suggestion to bring in all relevant staff members, interns, leadership, and stakeholders early on to build ownership along the way 
•	Data as communication– How data is stored and communicated and collected so that it is consistently measured and usefully displayed—i.e. using an interactive map 
•	Educating leadership, making case for funding
•	“It’s amazing how a 30-year-old law requires so much handholding and educating, but yeah, that is consistently being reinforced.” 
Code 8 : Leadership engagement
•	Varying degree of support and involvement from leadership
•	Importance of supportive leadership at the beginning of the process

Slide 44: Characteristics of ADA Coordinators
Code 9: Knowledge and belief about the intervention 
•	Previous experience at different municipalities or transit organizations gave unique knowledge 
•	“I come from TA, doing Technical Assistance for the ADA for a long time, knowing the ADA as well as I do is a huge plus”
•	Personal investment in access and equity as a cause  
•	“I understand it, I grew up near Berkeley, so I know about the independent Living Movement.”
•	“I am very passionate about what we do here”

Slide 45: Transition Plan and Implementation Process
Code 10: Strategic public participation
•	Partnerships with local disability rights and advocacy organizations, senior centers
•	Mayor’s committee’s and disability advisory boards (most common) 
•	Balancing the most vocal requests with the highest level of need
•	“So, we have one neighborhood where we had literally had one person who's got a lot of time. And there was hundreds of reported things that we could barely find a crack in the sidewalk. And then we have other neighborhoods where it's non-English speaking, economically-challenged. We had no reports and the sidewalks are complete disaster and so, we set all these mechanisms up for a public communication, but we’ve got to understand certain populations that just don't have the time or resources to communicate with us at all.”

Slide 46: Transition Plan and Implementation Process
Code 11: Executing the transition plan
•	Cyclical and continuous process 
•	Frequent updates 
•	Some update live as repairs are made, some schedule regular updates
•	A “living document”
“The DOT training brought it to our attention, ‘Hey, this needs to be a living document. You need to update it.’ We came back, found the 1993 version and really tailored ours to the right-of-way.”
Code 12: Reflecting and evaluating
•	Data and quality control systems reevaluated with use, city crew instead of concrete contractor
“Our actual biggest challenges are not tripping over our own feet by creating right-of-way, permitting roadblocks for our own projects, Development permit issues that are self-imposed.”

Slide 47: Take away
•	Factors of success are related to relationships with people inside and outside the local government
•	Different aspects of pre-planning support more implementation later on
•	Good data in = Good data out
•	Experience/training of ADA coordinators is necessary 
•	Organizational change is needed to built support and buy-in for the plan and implementation

Slide 48: Citations
•	Bauer, M. S., Damschroder, L., Hagedorn, H., Smith, J., & Kilbourne, A. M. (2015). An introduction to implementation science for the non-specialist. BMC psychology, 3(1), 32. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-015-0089-9

Slide 49: Questions remaining
•	Does a high quality plan lead to a more accessible community
•	What about greater community participation?
•	How can transition planning be best integrated into other municipal planning initiatives (pedestrian and transportation plans)?
•	What data models can be developed to leverage the data on accessibility of the PROW?

Slide 50: ADA Story Map 
Tempe, Arizona

Slide 51: Presenters
Stephanie Deitrick, PhD, GISP
Information Technology Dept.
Enterprise GIS & Analytics Manager
Michele D. Stokes
Strategic Management and Diversity Office
ADA Compliance Specialist

Slide 52: Tempe’s ADA Story Map Presentation
1.	Introduction 
2.	ADA Title II – Transition Plan
3.	Public Involvement Plan
4.	Tempe’s ADA Story Map
5.	Q & A

Slide 53: ADA is included in City Council Priorities
	ADA - NONDISCRIMINATION ON THE BASIS OF DISABILITY 
	City Council Priorities
•	Disability Social Inclusion (3.13) – Programs & Services
•	ADA Transition Plan (3.14) – ROW, Parks & Facilities
•	Data gathering was contracted out to an engineering firm – Cole 

Slide 54: Collecting the Right of Way Data
	Cole and Associates
	 Cole’s team conducts the ADA public inventory in an accurate and cost-effective manner by using an Ultra Light Inertial Profiler (ULIP) mounted on a Segway. 
Picture:  ADA evaluator in helmet and safety vest  on a Ultra Light Inertial Profiler (ULIP) mounted on a Segway, on a sidewalk.

Slide 55: Collecting Data for Facilities and Parks
	Accessology collected data for Parks in Phase I and II
	Life Quest Planning & Consulting, LLC is collecting Parks and Facility data in Phase III
Picture: Life Quest report page showing picture of the ADA  non-compliant element, a door, which needs to be made ADA compliant

Slide 56: Displays help with Understanding
	Accessology provided data for Parks in Phase I and II
	Life Quest Planning & Consulting, LLC is providing Parks and Facility data in Phase III
Picture of sample dashboards that a  Life Quest ADA Transition plan report can provide.

Slide 57: Public Involvement Plan
•	Phase II is complete (North Tempe) 
•	Involvement strategies in Phase II
•	Easy English/Plain Language -ADA Summary report - large print at 5th grade reading level
•	Request feedback on “priority” at health & wellness community fairs
•	Visited 10 disability  advocacy groups 
•	Phase III is in progress (South Tempe) and same public involvement plan will occur
Picture of the cover of the Tempe Transition Plan document: 
Summary of Findings -Phase II 
Easy English/Large Print version. 
Available at www.tempe.gov/ADA
ADA Transition Plan – www.tempe.gov/ADA

Slide 58: Sharing Results: Educate, Engage, Inform
Screenshot of the ADA Story Map's first screen showing photos of individuals with different disabilities and the introduction: to the ADA Story Map entitled: "Becoming a more Accessible City."

Slide 59: 
Screenshot of the ADA Story Map showing the parking and park facilities and data layers which include corridors, curb ramps, parking & park facilities, crosswalks, traffic signals. pedestrian islands, phase areas, sidewalk cross slopes, obstructions and transit stops. Each barrier is indicated by color on the map.

Slide 60: 
Screen shot of an areal view of the Mill and 5th Street intersection in Tempe. The markers indicate where non-compliant curb ramps and crosswalks are located. The story on the left side talks of curb ramps and crosswalks common barriers.

Slide 61: 
Image showing the details of  joint heaving, joint gaps, cross slope and running slope. The Story talks about Sidewalks.

Slide 62: Maintaining Data in ADA Story Map
Screenshot of the ADA Story map showing how data is maintained and reported using check lists to reflect repairs and features.
Screen shot showing how elements are marked once they are fixed so that the barriers are removed from the ADA Story Map.

Slide 63: More Information
Tempe ADA Website
www.tempe.gov/ADA 
Tempe ADA Transition Plan
https://www.tempe.gov/government/strategic-management-and-diversity/diversity/ada-accessibility/ada-transition-plan 
Tempe ADA Story Map
https://bit.ly/3gv9Ndq 

Slide 64: Contact
Michele Stokes, Tempe ADA Compliance Specialist
Strategic Management & Diversity Office
31 E. 5th St,  2nd Floor, Tempe, AZ  85281
Michele_Stokes@Tempe.gov
480-350-2704 or via Relay 7-1-1
www.tempe.gov/ADA