4

Technologies to Promote Community Integration and Participation Through Community Design

The design of communities can promote the integration and participation of all family members, including those with disabilities. In the second panel of the workshop, a pair of speakers discussed two prominent features of community design. Mohammed Yousuf, research engineer at the U.S. Department of Transportation, described several radically new approaches to transportation technologies that could meet the mobility needs of people with disabilities. Jon Sanford, associate professor in the College of Architecture and director of the Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access at Georgia Tech, described workplace accommodations that can foster not just participation but inclusion. In both cases, these changes could have benefits for everyone, not just people with disabilities.

NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORTATION

Mohammed Yousuf, M.S.

U.S. Department of Transportation

More than three-quarters of people with disabilities say that adequate transportation is important to their daily living needs, and more than a quarter consider it a significant problem in accessing jobs. Transportation is also critical in health care, recreation, and aging in place for people with disabilities.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 27
4 Technologies to Promote Community Integration and Participation Through Community Design T he design of communities can promote the integration and partici- pation of all family members, including those with disabilities. In the second panel of the workshop, a pair of speakers discussed two prominent features of community design. Mohammed Yousuf, research engineer at the U.S. Department of Transportation, described several radi- cally new approaches to transportation technologies that could meet the mobility needs of people with disabilities. Jon Sanford, associate professor in the College of Architecture and director of the Center for Assistive Tech- nology and Environmental Access at Georgia Tech, described workplace accommodations that can foster not just participation but inclusion. In both cases, these changes could have benefits for everyone, not just people with disabilities. NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR ACCESSIBLE TRANSPORTATION Mohammed Yousuf, M.S. U.S. Department of Transportation More than three-quarters of people with disabilities say that adequate transportation is important to their daily living needs, and more than a quarter consider it a significant problem in accessing jobs. Transportation is also critical in health care, recreation, and aging in place for people with disabilities. 27

OCR for page 27
28 FOSTERING INDEPENDENCE, PARTICIPATION, AND HEALTHY AGING New Paradigm Yousuf covered three “new paradigms” in transportation that ad- dress these needs. The first involves intelligent transportation systems, which include connected vehicle research and automated vehicle research. Connected vehicle research seeks to develop vehicles that communicate with each other and with the traffic infrastructure, such as traffic lights. Pedestrians also can be brought into the mix using wireless technologies. Automated vehicle research, which seeks to create vehicles that can drive on their own, could be an even greater boon to travelers with disabilities. The second paradigm involves advanced research in such areas as artifi- cial intelligence, computer machine learning, and brain-reinforced learning. Some of this research is being carried out through the SBIR program at the Federal Highway Administration and through the Intelligent Transporta- tion Systems Joint Program Office. These programs are focused largely on mobility in general, but they also have applications for travelers with disabilities. Finally, Yousuf mentioned synergistic approaches that combine wireless technologies, sensors, robotics, and artificial intelligence. For example, he described a system in which a pedestrian with a smartphone could commu- nicate with the traffic signal to request more time to cross an intersection.1 Such a system could accommodate mobility-impaired, vision-impaired, or hearing-impaired pedestrians in ways suited to each group. Cost Benefit New technology solutions could result in big savings, Yousuf said. As an example, he mentioned the idea of converting some paratransit trips to fixed-route trips. If a quarter of the paratransit trips in 2010 were con- verted, the savings could be $1.5 billion per year. In addition, service could be better, compared with the fragmented and sometimes delayed service that exists today. Building users’ needs into the transportation system at the beginning is generally less costly than retrofitting existing systems. Understanding Users’ Needs Yousuf described four major categories of disabilities—mobility, hear- ing, vision, and intellectual—and focused specifically on the last category as an example. If a parent asks the question, “Did my son get on the bus?,” 1  Inhis presentation earlier in the workshop, Rory Cooper noted that a wheelchair travels at a typical speed of about 0.8 meters per second, which means that the average wheelchair user cannot get across the street before a streetlight changes, because streetlights are set for speeds of about 1 meter per second.

OCR for page 27
TECHNOLOGIES TO PROMOTE COMMUNITY INTEGRATION 29 wireless technologies could provide an answer quickly and inexpensively. Furthermore, technologies developed to overcome one type of disability can help overcome others and benefit travelers without disabilities as well. Technologies can apply to many travel modalities, including sidewalks, automobiles, buses, trains, and planes, as well as many reasons for travel- ing, including work, school, errands, and leisure. And technologies can be particularly powerful if they are inclusive and universal so that the same technology works in Chicago or San Diego. Data standards are a big piece of the puzzle, said Yousuf. Is an elevator working? Is a bus wheelchair accessible? Answering such questions requires data capture and management from vehicles, cell phones, and other devices. Smartphones, cloud computing, and analysis of “big data” all could be har- nessed to meet these needs if standards for data and metadata are in place. The proper use of technology can support all aspects of travel, from the initial planning to the end of a trip. User needs can be integrated so that if someone is traveling to Chicago, for example, he or she will know if a hotel is accessible and has the kind of bathroom that is needed. Travelers will be able to get to their destinations safely, reliably, and on time. Yousuf, who has a physical disability himself, closed with a vision of a transportation system in which he could take a Segway-type device to a bus stop, leave the device there, and then pick up a similar device when he gets off the bus, just as bike-sharing systems allow people to acquire bikes when and where they need them. People with disabilities should not have to worry about how to get from point A to point B, he said. WORKPLACE ACCOMMODATIONS Jon Sanford, M.Arch. Georgia Tech Workplace accommodations support the execution of work-related tasks, coordination of group and collaborative activities, transmission of office culture, and team building. They enhance work outcomes through higher individual and firm productivity, increased satisfaction with col- leagues and their work, and lower levels of intention to leave their jobs. Thus, workforce accommodations have positive benefits for individuals who work and for the firms in which they work. These accommodations are mandated by the Americans with Disabili- ties Act.2 Title III of that act mandates particular technical requirements for public facilities. For the workplace, Title I of the act mandates “reasonable 2  Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Public Law 336, 101st Congress, 2nd sess. (July 26, 1990).

OCR for page 27
30 FOSTERING INDEPENDENCE, PARTICIPATION, AND HEALTHY AGING accommodations,” which is defined as “any change in the work environ- ment or in the way things are customarily done that enables an individual with a disability to enjoy equal employment opportunities.” For example, accommodations could include changes to a job application process that enable a qualified applicant with a disability to be considered for the po- sition, changes that enable an employee with a disability to enjoy equal benefits and privileges of employment as others, or changes to the work environment or way in which work is customarily performed that enable a qualified individual with a disability to perform the essential functions of that position. Workplace accommodations are contextual, Sanford empha- sized. They encompass whatever needs to be done—within reason—with the determination of what is reasonable often a matter of cost. Survey of Workplace Accommodations A recent survey of 394 currently employed individuals with at least one functional limitation sheds light on the kinds of accommodations that are deemed reasonable (Williams et al., 2006). In all these cases, the satisfaction of employees with these accommodations was rated slightly or moderately lower than their importance. With the exception of hearing aids, older adults are less likely to get big-ticket items, such as modified workstations and accessible transportation. Except for hearing loss, receiving no accom- modations consistently increases with age. Vision Limitations Employees with vision limitations reported receiving such accommo- dations as reading aids, electronic media scanners, magnifiers, enlarged print, Braille documents, antiglare devices, new displays, assistants, and redesigned jobs. Nonetheless, 12 percent of 18- to 54-year-olds, 17 percent of 55- to 64-year-olds, and 50 percent of employees older than 64 reported receiving no accommodations at all (see Table 4-1). TABLE 4-1 Percentage of Adults Reporting Accommodations for Vision Limitations Electronic- Formatted Materials Screen Reading Braille-Formatted Group (OCR) Software Materials None Provided 18-54 10% 14% 7% 12% 55-64 7% 7% 4% 17% 65+ 0% 0% 0% 50% NOTE: OCR = optical character recognition. SOURCE: Williams et al., 2006.

OCR for page 27
TECHNOLOGIES TO PROMOTE COMMUNITY INTEGRATION 31 TABLE 4-2 Percentage of Adults Reporting Accommodations for Hearing Limitations Written Group Hearing Aids Communication Sign Language None Provided 18-54 29% 17% 12% 21% 55-64 39% 19% 6% 12% 65+ 39% 14% 3% 17% SOURCE: Williams et al., 2006. Hearing Limitations For people with hearing limitations, typical accommodations included hearing aids, written communication, communication devices, sign lan- guage, ear protection, redesigned jobs, and assistants. In this case, 21 percent of 18- to 54-year-old employees, 12 percent of 55- to 64-year-old employees, and 17 percent of employees older than 64 reported receiving no accommodations, suggesting that older people with hearing limitations are more likely to receive accommodations than older people with other kinds of limitations (see Table 4-2). Cognitive Limitations For people with cognitive limitations, accommodations to help them attend to their tasks included checklists, reminder devices, timers, job coaches, assistants, and redesigned jobs, but 32 percent of 18- to 54-year- old employees, 42 percent of 55- to 64-year-old employees, and 50 percent of employees older than 64 reported receiving no accommodations (see Table 4-3). Some cognitive limitations are hard to prove, Sanford said, and sometimes people do not want to ask for an accommodation or do not want others to know that they need an accommodation. TABLE 4-3 Percentage of Adults Reporting Accommodations for Cognitive Limitations Group Checklists Reminder Devices None Provided 18-54 25% 22% 32% 55-64 26% 11% 42% 65+ 25% 13% 50% SOURCE: Williams et al., 2006.

OCR for page 27
32 FOSTERING INDEPENDENCE, PARTICIPATION, AND HEALTHY AGING TABLE 4-4 Percentage of Adults with Mobility Limitations Reporting Accommodations to Maintain Body Position Modified Ergonomic Group Workstation Chairs Steps or Lifts None Provided 18-54 24% 20% 13% 43% 55-64 25% 25% 5% 45% 65+ 14% 29% 21% 36% SOURCE: Williams et al., 2006. Mobility Limitations For people with mobility limitations, accommodations to maintain body position include modified workstations, ergonomic chairs, and steps and lifts. For these limitations, 43 percent of 18- to 54-year-old employees, 45 percent of 55- to 64-year-old employees, and 36 percent of employees older than 64 reported receiving no accommodations (see Table 4-4). Dexterity Limitations Finally, with dexterity limitations, accommodations include equipment modifications, gripping aids, carts, custom devices, clamping devices, lever- age aids, lifts, hoists, measuring tools, assistants, and redesigned jobs. In this case, 15 percent of 18- to 54-year-old employees, 21 percent of 55- to 64-year-old employees, and 21 percent of employees older than 64 reported receiving no accommodations (see Table 4-5). Barriers to Workplace Participation Accommodations tend to be abandoned over time, Sanford reported. Sanford described data collected in an unpublished study by the Reha- bilitation Engineering Research Center on Workplace Accommodations at the Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access at Georgia Tech. This telephone survey of 54 vocational rehabilitation clients found TABLE 4-5 Accommodations for Dexterity Limitations Buddy Equipment Gripping None Group System Assistant Modifications Aids Provided 18-54 14% 12% 11% 11% 15% 55-64 21% 11% 5% 5% 21% 65+  7% 14% 7% 7% 21% SOURCE: Williams et al., 2006.

OCR for page 27
TECHNOLOGIES TO PROMOTE COMMUNITY INTEGRATION 33 30% 27.7% 25% 23.4% 20% 14.9% 14.9% 15% 10% 8.5% 8.5% 5% 2.1% 0% Never Upgraded Never Within 1-5 years 6-10 11-15 stopped to newer started first year years years version using FIGURE 4-1 Abandonment of workplace accommodations over time. SOURCE: Reprinted with permission from Jon Sanford, Georgia Tech. that 38 percent never used their accommodations or discontinued use within 1 year, and two-thirds discontinued use within 5 years (see Figure 4-1). Among those who abandoned an accommodation, one-third left their accommodations behind when they left a job and could not take the ac- commodation with them. Another third abandoned a technology when it became outdated. Abandonment of a technology is just one of several barriers to partici- pation that Sanford cited. Others include negative attitudes on the parts of employers and coworkers, lack of awareness about available accom- modations, the inaccessibility of technologies, the lack of acceptance of accommodations, and the technologies’ expense. Sanford also cited three less obvious barriers to obtaining the right technology. A technology may produce workplace activity but not workplace participation if an employee is not able to engage in a shared experience that creates a sense of belong- ing. Similarly, accessibility implies access not only to spaces but to conver- sations, meetings, social events, and the other aspects of the workplace. An employee may not be able to get to the cafeteria, participate in a training session, or even go to an office party if it is in an inaccessible place. Aware- ness and understanding of how to keep people engaged in the workplace, and not just in work, is the issue. True participation implies a sense of belonging, inclusion, and recognition that a person’s work is adding value to a workplace.

OCR for page 27
34 FOSTERING INDEPENDENCE, PARTICIPATION, AND HEALTHY AGING Part of the problem is that workplace participation still draws on a paradigm based on the Americans with Disabilities Act, which is focused on the performance of activities as a measure of participation. But a better paradigm for the 21st century is the framework of the International Clas- sification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF), in which accommo- dations for both work tasks and inclusive interactions lead to participation. Activity and participation are linked, but they are independent and equally important outcomes. For example, Sanford and his colleagues found that employed individuals with disabilities have unmet needs in shared work- spaces more frequently than in their individual workspaces. And those with unmet needs have a much higher level of dissatisfaction with activity and participation outcomes than people without disabilities who do not have unmet needs. The policy implication Sanford drew is that the assumptions within the Americans with Disabilities Act about activity leading to participation are not supported. In the ICF, activity and participation are independent constructs, and they require different types of technologies to facilitate both activity and participation. Emerging Technologies and Approaches Sanford pointed to several examples of emerging technologies that can increase the participation of employees with disabilities in the workplace. Telepresence robots, devices that allow for mobile videoconferencing, can bring people in remote locations together to collaborate or provide remote job coaching and training. Collaborative software and applications of social media can coordinate distributed teams and enhance social inclusion and networking, especially for teleworkers. Gaming platforms or virtual reality can be used for training, collaboration, and social interactions. Augmented reality, which involves superimposing content onto a scene that is either in physical space or a computer-generated image, can be used as a navigation tool, provide coaching for specific tasks, or offer job training. Finally, uni- versal design can incorporate accessibility technologies into the everyday design of product and spaces to support both activity and participation. Universal design in the workplace can benefit workers both with and with- out disabilities across an employee’s work life. Universal design features save time, money, and effort. And workers no longer have to leave accom- modations behind because they already exist in the workplace.