(Here is an article which was written by Tzipporah Benavraham, who is now in Maimonides Hospital in Brooklyn.) DisABILITY Computing and the Law: What You Should Know by Tzipporah Benavraham Accessibility has many faces facets and aspects. And access for a person with a major life impairment (disability) is a matter of legal definition and resolve. The miracle of access to the printed word has been revolutionized for disabled people through the use of the computer. Miracles never though possible are occurring daily in elementary and secondary schools, as well as in colleges and businesses. To watch a quadraplegic input computer data by use of an eyeblink switch inspires and brings an enigmatic smile to us. To see a blind person read braille just output from a computer also poises our mind to wonderment. To see a deaf person use a telephone with a TDD (Telecommunications Device forthe Deaf) brings dignity of self-determination to a population we would never have thought could communicate so freely before. All this would have been science fiction a few short years ago. Yet today the wonders of technology are enabling many to enabling positions of independence. However, as in all tangible things, law and regulation has indeed found its nitch in this amazing world of computer miracles. And with the rule of law comes the perameters of access, affordability and use. Many laws and responibilities have come forth from this remarkable technological development called the adaptive computer. I wish to guide you around the key points of this human interface to technology and disabled. LAWS REGULATIONS COURT DECISIONS AND DISABILITY TECH Most people think of laws as scarey things that pin striped suited lawyers argue about in ornate halls of justice. However through law comes the greatest possibilities for technology access for disabled persons. Here are a few key laws: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990: 42 U.S.C. Sections 12101 et seq. This is called the most significant piece of legislation concerning disabled persons ever in the history of the world. This 102 page law contains elements concerning employment, housing, public accomodation, and telecommunications. Regulations and the public hearing processes will continue to 1992. In there are many issues concerning disabled and what is called "reasonable accomodation". That phrase is infused in many laws concerning disabled persons. Among the technologies of modern time are adaptive computer terminals for disability access. This would cover the broadest spectrum. Employers may have to place disability work stations in businesses where disabled will work. Or TDDs may be required for deaf to have access to the phone lines for simplistic communication. Public accomodation will include the spectrum of libraries having talking terminals for the print disabled for access to their computerized technology. In that also will be public buildings of all kinds such as resturants, hotels, train plane and rail stations, and an array of public service and commercial establishments. In all places a computer is placed, access for the disabled may indeed become an actionable issue if there is no accomodation under this law. Thus an airline with a computer terminal for information for their passengers may indeed be required to provide voice synthesis access for blind persons. Or a hotel may be required to have a TDD for a hearing impaired person to use. And the net effect may well be lower cost as more people are mandated to use this law in the future. However, since most of these laws will not be in regulatory form until 1992, they are not clearly established YET. Technology Act for the Disabled; Public law 100-407 29 USC 2201, 2202 et seq. This law establishes sites of technology access for disabled persons. The theory is that the technology is quite expensive at present. Yet if more people (the rationale states) with disability had access to "try out" and "train" in these devices, more disabled persons would take advantage of the technology. In this plan many centers are funded nationwide. Every state has established a "tech act" co-ordinator. In New York State, as an example, the New York State Office of Advocate for the Disabled has been so designated as the liason. In New York State they are at 518 474 5567 and the co-ordinator is Deborah Buck. However EVERY state has one designated agency and person to deal with this funding and plan. Seek out your own state's plan and director for more concrete information on this. International Meeting of Experts on Human Resources in the Field of Disability: Tallin Estonia SSR, 14-22 1989 A spectactular meeting was held on International implications of disability and technology use on that date by the United Nations Disabled Persons Unit. A rich pamphlet was produced quantifying technology use and law on the international plane in a document. The name of this paragraph is the name of the document. You may get a copy of it by writing to the Disabled Persons Unit; United Nations Centre for Social Development and Humanitarian Affairs; PO Box 500 A-1400; Vienna Austria. In this unique world document, you will find issues concerning disabled children and telecommunications education, the use of disability technology in the workplace, how to train teachers to develop such resources, and an array of codified instructions to governments on how to accomplish this task. In international law, the rules and guidelines can only look like "recommendations" as there are scarce resources to force or police a nation to compliance. Hence upon reading these do not appear as laws to the otherwise uninitiated. Indeed they are and this document presents a wealth of ideas and stipulations. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Public Law 93-112 as amended 29 U.S.C. section 702 et seq. The famous "504 law" appears in this section of law. 504 is "non discrimination on the basis of disability in federally assisted programs". Before the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, this 1973 law as amended was the civil rights provision for disabled persons. It only allowed what was called "reasonable accomodation" in those programs for disabled persons that received Federal money. Until present time a disabled person who needed an adapted computer to WORK could not use this law. However the raminifations were clear oin 504 issues to colleges and schools of education so funded by the government. In this act also is the definition of a disabled person. For the intents of clarifying "who is a disabled person" I include this definition: In the Federal Register, Volume 45 number 92 Friday May 9, 1980, page 30937, the Department of Education made regulations about disabled persons in education. Originally this was the a rule making for the education department alone. However, it has become a universal referance as to who or what a disabled person is for the federal governments' purposes. I will interject the verbatim listing of the definition. Section 104.3 part j states "Handicapped person." (1) "Handicapped persons" means any person who (i) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities.(ii) has a record of such an impairment.(iii) is regarded as having such an impairment. (2) As used in paragraph (j)(1) of this section, the phrase: (i) "Physical or mental impairment" means (A) any physiological disorder or condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatomical loss affecting one or more of the following body systems: neurological; musculoskeletal; special sense organs; respiratory, including speech organs; cardiovasular; reproductive; digestive; genito-urinary; hematic and lymphatic; skin and endocrine; or (B) any mental or psychological disorder such as mental retardation, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, and specific learning disabilities. (ii) Major life activities means functions such as caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, breathing, learning and working. In this context, we have a medical model definition of what handicap is. In effect, those persons with those impairments are a 'protected class', who require certain adaptation to be equal in society. As you see, many common ordinary people you know are "handicapped" under this definition. 504 gave the shape quantity and format to the issues. Section 508: Electronic Data Processing for Disabled Federal Employees of Public Law 99-506 as amended This was the start of another array of laws concerning disabled persons and technology. Here is the full text of the law: FULL TEXT OF SECTION 508 OF PUBLIC LAW 99:506 Electronic Equipment Accessibility Section 508. (a) (1) The Secratary, through the director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabiliation Research an the Administrator of General Services, and in consultation with the electronics industry, shall develop and establish guidelines for electronic equipment accessibility designed to insure that individuals with handicaps may use electronic office equipment with or without special peripherals. (2) The guidelines established pursuant to paragraph (1) shall be applicable with respect to electronic equipment, whether purchased or leased. (3) The initial guidelines shall be established not later than October 1, 1987 and shall be periodically revised by the director of the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research and the Administrator of General Services in consultation with the electronics industry and the Interagency Committee for Computer Support of Handicapped employees as technologies advance or change. (b) Beginning after September 30, 1988, the Administrator of General Services shall adopt guidelines for electronic equipment accessibility under subsection (a) for Federal procurement of electronic equipment. Each agency shall comply with the guidelines adopted under this subsection. (c) For the purposes of this section, the term, "special peripherals" means the specific needs aid that provides access to electronic equipment that is otherwise inaccessible to an individual with handicaps. In this simple law these 1591 characters started the revolution in disability technology policy. To dovetail this, the Public Law 99-506 and is sections is the amended form of the Rehab Act of 1973. In this we see the progression of policy as the rights of disabled procede. A rather remarkable policy document called the "COCA Bullitens" has been written concerning this. The regulations called the FIRMR bullitens quantify the rules of this law. You may get copies of this. Here is a quoted citation from the manual: Managing End User Computing for Users with Disabilities has been prepared by the Clearinghouse on Computer Accommodation (COCA) of the Information Resources Management Service (IRMS), General Services Administration (GSA). This handbook presents guidance to Federal managers and other personnel who are unfamiliar with the application of computer and related information technology to accommodate users with disabilities and provide for their effective access to information resources. Issues reviewed represent "lessons learned" by agencies and GSA's Clearinghouse On Computer Accommodation. The unbound format of this handbook accommodates the need for periodic updating due to the rapid introduction of new accommodation-related products and services and the evolving nature of the guidance presented. Updates will be available on-line and hard-copy and can be obtained by completing the registration form (appendix A). COCA staff invite comments and contributions to the guide. In addition, COCA can be contacted to arrange demonstrations of accommodation solutions at their technical resource center. COCA is also available to assist managers with technical advice and assistance during acquisition planning. The COCA staff may be reached on 202-523-1906 voice/TDD (FTS 523-1906) or via mail at GSA, Susan A. Brummel, Director, Clearinghouse on Computer Accommodation, Room 2022, KGDO, 18th & F Streets, N.W., Washington, DC 20405. COCA offers a training class for managers entitled "Managing Computer Accommodation for Users with Disabilities". In addition, COCA also offers informal introductory consultation/training at its technical resource center at the GSA building, 18th and F Sts. N.W., Washington, D.C. 20405. Consultations can be scheduled by calling (FTS or 202) 523-1906. Appropriate documentation is an important part of training. Whenever possible, documentation should be made available to the user in the most useful manner, whether this be braille, audio tape, large print, captioned tapes or electronic media. For example, a printed manual on a database package is virtually useless to a blind user. If documentation in a special form is required, management should take steps to secure such documentation after determining the accommodation requirements. ((end of quote from COCA documentation)) We see from this that technology assistance is well defined with the law and regulations. No base has been left uncovered. Thus the ever expanded laws and rules of disability and technology surfaces and remains intact. We see the massive building blocks of law and service which are the benchmarks and foundations of access technology. Education of All Handicapped Children Act Public Law 94-142 as amended. 20 USC Sec 1400 et seq. This law is soon to be named the "Individuals with Disabilities Education Act" (IDEAS) by Congress on its re-enactment. Children with disabilities also are afforded "reasonable accomodation" in their education. However another phrase called "related services" has appeared in the laws for children with disabilities. In 20 USCA Section 1401 (18) "approprriate education" for a disabled child is defined as providing "special education and related services". A rather significant court ruling came from a child named "Tatro" who needed a "related service" of a catheterization to attend a mainstreamed school. In the case before the Supreme Court of the United States, "Tatro v. State of Texas, 703 F.2d 823 (5 Cir. 1983" The bottom line was the Supreme Court decided an array of services are indeed "related" IF IT ENABLES THE CHILD TO CONTINUE IN SCHOOL IN THE LEAST RESTRICTIVE MOST APPRORPRIATE ENVIRONMENT. Thus catheterization was indeed given in her "free and approprriate public education". From this interface and decision an array of "related services" are contracted for including use of and instruction of adaptive technology. In New York City Board of Education as an example, Dr Stephen Hittman runs the Office of Contracted and Related Services. He runs a program by which disabled children and their schools can "contract" for "related services" for their needs. This came to be because of the Tatro decision. Dr Hitmman's Office at the New York City Board of Education is at 111 Livingston Street, Brooklyn NY Room 444. (718 935 3581) Perhaps your own area includes such an office. Disabled children have also been afforded such devices as "augmentative speech" devices and "hearing aid loops" in what is called their "individual education program". That becomes a "legal and binding contract" for services for each child. In New York State, an array of technology assistance centers called SETRCs (Special Education Training and Resource Centers) have been established. Many of the expensive technological devices used by disabled children have been recycled in these centers. One such SETRC is the Batavia School for the Blind of Richmond Avenue, Batavia NY, 14020. (716 343-5384) Here they recycle such things as computers voice synthesizers and braillers and an array of disability technology relating to blindness and vision impairment for children. A similar SETRC is at the Rome School for the Deaf. (315) 337 8400 (401 Turin St. Rome NY) State Run Schools for Handicapped Children Public Law 89-313 Previous to Public Law 94 142, this law funded schools for disabled children. They were to be run by the State Education Department and were mostly sequestured schools. Many schools such as the above Batavia School for the Blind and Rome School for the Deaf were established and were "disability specific" under this law. However, since mainstreaming was mandated and funded by Public Law 94 142 as amended, many of these schools have taken on a new face and purpose. Many now provide centralized points of training and technology for that specific disability. Look in your area for similar schools. Many of them may even contract to provide technology training for the specific disability and child you are seeking to assist. You may find resources you are amazed at. For deaf children and adults, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services of the Federal government funds a project called "Captioning of Films for the Deaf". There are two places specifically funded to produce captioned educational films for deaf persons. Here are their addresses: National Captioning Institute Inc. 5203 Leesburg Pike Falls Church, VA 22041 (703) 998-2400 Provides closed captioning service for television networks, program producers, cablecasters, producers of home entertainment video cassettes, advertisers and other organizations in the federal and private sectors. Also the second place is: Modern Talking Picture Service is a captioned film/video program made available by the U.S. Department of Education. It makes available feature films and a range of educational films and videos. Users of theatrical films/videos should have a general audience setting that contains at least six deaf or hard of hearing persons. Users of educational titles should have a class or educational setting that contains at least one deaf or hearing impaired person. There are 3,561 educational and theatrical titles in this free-loan captioned program. Contact Modern Talking Picture Service, 5000 Park Street N, St. Petersburg, FL 33709, (800)237-6213.* ((* My thanks to Mr Chuck Lynd of LINC Resources Inc at 1 800 772 7372 for this captioning information)) The US Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services funds many services dealing with technology and the needs of the disabled. The specialized money to produce these captioned films is defined in the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance which you can find at any US Government bookstore. Many of these films are now captioned by use of specialized computer technology. An impressive array of these devices can be found at the Rochester Technical Institute for the Deaf in Rochester New York. Much software is available at present to help your common personal computer assist with captioning of any film. Hence again disability and computers take on a facinating interface. SOME COURT CASES OF NOTE Several court cases also quantify the fact that persons with disabilities also have access to technology as a civil right. Here are some cases of particular note. Children are particually of interest to the US Supreme Court and an array of Federal courts. Many cases justify the right of a disabled child to education with RELATED SERVICES in the least restrictive environment. These are most noteworthy: Board of Education V Rowley , 458 US at n.4; (on related services of an FM loop for a hearing impaired child to mainstream) AW v. Northwest R-1 School District, 813 F.2d 158 162-163 (8th Circuit), cert denied, 56 USLW. 3244 (1987) Rockner v Walter, 700 F.2d 1058, 1063 (6TH Cir) cert denied, 464 US 864 (1983) Springdale School District #50 vs Grace, 693 F2d. 41, 43 (8th Cir.) vert denied, 461 US 927 (1983) Most noteworthy is Rowley. In the text of the Supreme Court decision, the decision states: (the educational service must) " to the maximum extent appropriate, handicapped children... are to be educated with children who are not handicapped, and that removal of handicapped children from regular educational environment [should occur] only when the nature of the severity of the handicap is such that education in a regular class WITH THE USE OF SUPPLEMENTARY AIDS AND SERVICES cannot be achieved satisfactorily." In this, the Rowley decision, we find mainstreaming WITH RELATED AIDS AND SERVICES (such as the FM loop for the child) is indeed in keeping with Public Law 94-142's intent. So children can and do receive an array of technology for their disabilities in the course of their education. The above mentioned accomodation for the captioning of films for the deaf is a clear example of this. It is clear that if a child in a regular class has any use of technology in the educational persuits of the class, the disabled child should have adaptions for their disability as well so they can participate equally. Hence we see Rowley firmy establishes technology access for disabled children. In regards to bilingual education and technology for disabled persons, we find two noteworthy class action suits. One is the Jose P case. The cite is Jose P vs Aumbach and the NYS Board of Education and NYC Board of Education. 557 Fed Supp. 1230 et seq. In this a Spanish speaking disabled child sought related services for his disability in the school system. This suit is ongoing to this day. In this an array of special accomodations have been enforced and mandated through what is called a "writ of mandamus". Spanish speaking disabled children as an example are learning Spanish word processing if they are orthopedically impaired by using Dr Steven Hittman's Office of Contracted and Related Services to fullfil the need. Several vendors of training and Spanish speaking technology have adapted lessons for these children and are "contracted with" for these educational services. Also the Lora consent decree concerning bi-lingual, bi-cultural special education services. This is found in 456 Fed Supp 1211 et seq. Under this decision and consent decree a blind from birth child received Hebrew computer braille training at Brooklyn College under my tutalage. This was quantified in her IEP and placed in force by NYS Family Court as her IEP for related services. The stipulation decreed that this was a "free appropriate education with related services based on the Lora decreee and the Jose P case decrees." Hence this very specialized educational service is provided by court ruling. In higher education, we come across the case United States v University of Alabama CA No 86-C1779-S, N.D. 12/30/88, slip op. at 7, 26-27. This case dealt with the University holding a scrutiny on the disabled that they be made eligible for financial aid to be eligible for auxillary aids. The decision stated that in 34 CFR section 1044.44(d) the recipients of Federal funding are required to ensure that students with disabilities are provided auxillary aids, including taped texts, interperters for students with hearing impairment, readers for students with visual impairment classroom equipment adapted for use by students with manual impairments and other similar services and actions. This should be only if the assistive device would not fundamentally alter or substantially modify the character of the program. Hence if all the class must learn statistics on a computer as an example, and a student requires a voice synthesis device to perceive the screen independently, the college is obligated to provide the device free of charge to the student. It is actionable offense under US Civil Rights law otherwise. In the arena of employment, the issues of "reasonable accomodation" for the disability also occurs. In recognition of the fact that certain "accomodations" are needed for a person with a disability to be employed. Noteworthy is Gardner V Morris 752 F2nd 1271 (8th Cir. 1985) which said a "reasonable accomodation" should not be oppressive to the employer, however referred to 28 CFR Sections 41.53, 42.513(c) for a clearer definition of the meaning of "oppressive". The CFR reference is in relation to disabled FEDERAL employees and what is considered a reasonable accomodation. However, the Americans with Disabilities Act now defines the accomodations of this section of Federal law as integral to the enforcement of the employment section in ADA. It is NOT considered "opressive" for the telephone company as an example to provide a versabraille (TM) on the computer teminal to a blind telephone information operator who requires one for the functioning of the job. The numbers of the employees in the company, the nature and cost of the particular accomodation, and the nature and size of the employers business. Based on these specific decisions of the court, we have the guideline for businesses. MISCELLENEOUS PROVISIONS OF LAW RELATING TO TECHNOLOGY AND THE DISABLED: In 1984, I was quite instrumental in the formulation of the computer funding formula for disabled children in New York State. In Title 8 NYCRR Section 175.25 we find line 8 which states all disabled children in NYS should have $17.25 per child for computer hardware and $5.25 for software per semester provided for their needs. This is the exact formula as non disabled children in the state. I would deem this an important provision for disability computer policy persons to consider in their lobbying of their legislators. The exact same formula for non-disabled children for access to computer technology should be the same. This law is a model. The National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped also provides free tape recorded and brailled text books to qualified persons. However, most people are not aware that in 1969, the physically handicapped who could not turn pages were also allowed in the program. However, the free tape player, record player and earphones are also available free to schools and institutions upon proper certification. The address for further query on this is "National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped; Library of Congress; Washington DC 20542. If your institution, school or place of public accomodation has print disabled persons utilizing your facility you MAY be eligible to obtain not only this technology but also tape recorded materials for the blind free of charge. In pace with the Technology Act for the Disabled, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services has given Recording for the Blind a grant to produce computer diskette books for the blind and print disabled. Yoy may make query of this publicly funded service by writing to Recording for the Blind; 20 Roszel Road, Princeton NJ. This would make the project a federally funded project subject to the stipulations of section 504 of Public Law 93-112. The New York State Science and Technology Foundation is funded by the New York State Office of Economic Development. They provide grants to commerial developpers of disability technology on an application basis. Many disabled persons are eligible to receive technology free by evaluation from their local Office of Vocational Rehabilitation. Call your local Vocational Rehabilitation Center for rules and stipulations by which you or a disabled person you know can be funded for vocational rehabilitation services which COULD include the training of technology and the agency purchasing same. There is an array of different procedures for this service. Often such services are provided as a stipulation of Title 5 of Public Law 93-112, aid to states to provide services for ADULT disabled persons. In the law also there is a provision of providing various services INCLUDING TECHNOLOGY to elderly blind person. Here is the law: TITLE VII--COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING PART C--Independent Living Services for Older Blind Individuals. SEC. 721. SERVICE PROGRAM ESTABLISHED (a) The Commissioner may make grants to any designated State unit to provide independent living services to older blind individuals. Such services shall be designed to assist an older blind individual to adjust to blindness by becoming more able to care for individual needs. Such services may include-- (1) services to help correct blindness such as (A) outreach services, (B) visual screening, (C) surgical or therapeutic treatment to prevent, correct, or modify disabling eye conditions, and (D) hospitalization related to such services; (2) the provision of eyeglasses and OTHER VISUAL AIDS; (3) the provision of services and equipment to assist an older blind individual to become more mobile and more self-sufficient; (4) mobility training, Braille instruction, and other SERVICES AND EQUIPMENT to help an older blind individual adjust to blindness; (5) guide services, reader services, and transportation; and (6) any other appropriate services designed to assist a blind person in coping with daily living activities, including supportive services or rehabilitation teaching services. (b) No grant may be made under this section unless an application therefor, containing such information as the Commissioner may require, has been submitted to and approved by the Commissioner. The Commissioner may not approve any application for a grant unless the application contains assurances that the designated State unit will seek to incorporate any new methods and approaches relating to the services described in subsection (a) into its State plan for independent living services under section 705 of this title. (c) Funds received under this section by any designated State unit may be used to make grants to public or private nonprofit agencies or organizations to-- (1) conduct activities which will improve or expand services for older blind individuals and help improve public understanding of the problems of such individuals; and (2) provide independent living services to older blind individuals in accordance with the provisions of subsection (a). (d) For purposes of this section, the term "older blind individual" means an individual aged fifty-five or older whose severe visual impairment makes gainful employment extremely difficult to attain but for whom independent living goals are feasible. From this we can discern that older blind persons may apply for rehabilitation services and RELATED DEVICES AND SERVICES (including computer technology) for their disabilty as well. CONCLUSION Laws have enabled the use of technology by disabled persons in many ways. As the enablements become greater and as technology progresses, we may see yet more laws and regulations. In brief, adaptive technology has enabled disabled persons for many years. It continues to do so in an array of ways. Law both quantifies and also stipulates the use of technology by disabled persons. The singular proof and affirmation this will continue is the progression of past laws carried to present time. It is obvious that an array of thoughtful laws and judicial decisions have made this tech available in great quantity. The proliferation of these highly enabling machines will continue. It is my hopes this has provided a valuable and useful guide. Please refer any questions to me at Project Easi if you should have any questions. Tzipporah Benavraham, PhD