State Government Compliance in the U.S. with the
           Americans with Disabilities Act:  A Report


















                        Joan Finn, M.P.A.
                      David Pfeiffer, Ph.D.
                 Department of Public Management
                       Suffolk University
                      Boston, MA 02108-2770



               Copyright 1995 All Rights Reserved
              Permission for reproduction granted
              provided proper attribution is given.
         State Government Compliance in the U.S. with the
           Americans with Disabilities Act:  A Report



                            Overview


     Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is
intended to help integrate persons with disabilities into the
work force and into society.  It prohibits public entities from
discriminating against people on the basis of a disability in
their services and programs.  The term "public entity" includes
all 50 state governments in the United States and the six
territories.  In this report the term "states" will be used to
refer to states and territories collectively.  All aspects of a
public entity are covered including services, programs, and
employment.
     By January 1995 all public entities with 50 or more
employees (all states) had to designate an ADA coordinator and
establish an internal grievance procedure to resolve complaints.
All public entities (regardless of size) must have conducted a
self-evaluation of policies and practices (including the physical
plant) to identify any policy or practice which violates Title
II.  They must then undertake necessary modifications to come
into compliance and these changes must be detailed in its
transition plan.  This transition plan must be filed with the
U.S. Department of Justice.
                           Methodology
     In January 1994, 55 questionnaires were sent out to the
fifty state government ADA offices and five of the six
territories.  The District of Columbia was considered to be more
analogous to a municipality and was included in the survey of
local governments.  There were 47 questionnaires received back
for a return rate of 86%.  The 47 states and territories are
listed in Table One.
                            Table One
                States and Territories Responding


               Alabama                     Missouri
               Alaska                      Montana
               Arizona                     Nebraska
               Arkansas                    Nevada
               California                  New Hampshire
               Colorado                    New Jersey
               Connecticut                 New Mexico
               Delaware                    New York
               Florida                     North Mariana Islands
               Georgia                     Ohio
               Guam                        Oklahoma
               Hawaii                      Oregon
               Idaho                       Pennsylvania
               Illinois                    Puerto Rico
               Iowa                        Rhode Island
               Kansas                      South Carolina
               Kentucky                    South Dakota
               Louisiana                   Tennessee
               Maine                       Texas
               Maryland                    Utah
               Massachusetts               Washington
               Michigan                    West Virginia
               Minnesota                   Wyoming
               Mississippi

                             Results

     The person responding was asked to list his/her position and
57% listed ADA coordinator or compliance officer.  The other 43%
had a number of different titles with director of the state
office on disability accounting for 6% of the sample.  They were
then asked if the state had an office on disabilities and 61%
responded in the affirmative.  Since every state and territory
has some office which is responsible for disability affairs, the
fact that 37% of the respondents answered in the negative may
indicate a lack of knowledge by the respondents.  Alternatively
it may indicate that ADA compliance is being handled outside of
the traditional areas of disability policy.  Only 2% answered
that they did not know if the state had such an office.
     Even though the self-evaluation was supposed to have been
completed well before the date of the questionnaire, only 58% of
the respondents said that the state had completed the document.
Another 20% replied that it was in process.  Thirteen percent
said the state said no and 9% replied that they did not know.
All of the states which said they had completed the document also
said that persons with disabilities were involved in the process
as required by the ADA.
     A transition plan detailing how and when barriers identified
in the self-evaluation would be removed was required at the time
of the mailing.  Curiously, 76% indicated that they had filed the
transition plan and 9% more said that they were in the process of
completing it for a total of 85%.  This number is higher than the
previously mentioned percentage (78%) who said they had completed
their self-evaluation or had it in process.  The transition plan
is generated from the self-evaluation.
     In order to gauge the amount of ADA related activ