Work RERC

1. Prepared for the 2006 APA National Planning Conference April 22-26, 2006 San Antonio, TX Work RERC Planning Socially Inclusive Accessible Communities (S523) Paul M.A. Baker, Ph.D., AICP Shelley Kaplan, MSccc Cheryl K. Contant, Ph.D. Robert G.B. Roy, MBA www.catea.gatech.edu The Center for Advanced Communications Policy (CACP); Southeast Disability and Business Technical Assistance Center (SEDBTAC), Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access (CATEA), and the City and Regional Planning Program, College of Architecture, Georgia Institute of Technology National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), U.S. Department of Education

2. 1.0 Disability, Aging, and Human Experience: A Dialogue on Planning Socially Inclusive, Accessible Communities Disability and aging are part of the human experience, but not familiar to everyone's personal experience. Planners, must be aware not only of the requirements of regulatory compliance, but of larger issues of community participation and full engagement. How then can we plan for inclusive communities, including people with disabilities, that go beyond the "building barriers" (i.e., the design, scoping and standards for individual buildings)?

3. 1.0b Disability, Aging, and Human Experience: A Dialogue on Planning Socially Inclusive, Accessible Communities Salon Objectives • Develop a perspective of community inclusivity, including civil rights/equity issues • Articulate social, economic and technological parameters of accessibility • Rethink planning education preparation addressing disabilities, and the aging population, in light of evolving legislative/judicial integration decisions

4. 2.0 Framing the Conversation • Issues of aging and disability as a fundamental component of the human condition • Design, planning, and policymaking in communities, and community development normatively need to consider issues of socioeconomic accessibility and inclusion • Planners and planning practice reflects training and understanding of contextual issues • Lack of awareness does not make the problem “go away”

5. 3.0 Social/Policy Context: Changing Face of Our Nation • Demographic Influences • Citizen Expectations • Legislative/Policy Initiatives • Architectural Barriers Act (1968) • Sec. 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 • Fair Housing Act (1988 amendments) • ADA (1990) • New Freedom Initiative (2001) • HAVA (2002) • Visitability Initiatives • Project Civic Access

6. 3.0b The Changing Face of Our Nation (cont.) Supreme Court Decisions • ADA Interpretations • Olmstead Decision • Fair Housing Enforcement • Transportation Enforcement

7. 4.0 Segregation or Inclusion?

8. 5.0 Educational Context: Planning Accreditation Criteria • Disability included in definition of “diversity” • Goals and Objectives • Students • Faculty • Administrative and Fair Practices (non-discrimination) • Disability NOT specifically included in Curriculum criteria (income, race, ethnicity, gender); implicit yes (multicultural?) • Knowledge • Skills • Values

9. 6.0 Professional Context: AICP Code of Ethics • “…share in the goal of building better, more inclusive (universal?) communities.” • Responsibility to Public: • “Participation shall be broad enough to include those that lack formal organization or influence.” • “We shall seek social justice…special responsibility to plan…needs of disadvantaged.”

10. 7.0 Anchor Points for Planning’s Identification • Six Themes • Human settlements (universal design?) • Interconnections (accessibility and opportunity?) • Future (aging in place?) • Diversity of needs (all segments included?) • Open participation (access, full participation?) • Linking knowledge and collective action (technologies, access, action? – public and private?)

11. 8.0 Empirical Context: Survey of Academic Programs and Professional Planners • Study components • Online survey of accredited planning schools • Online survey of professional planners • 68 accredited programs contacted/12 responded • Reported focus (e.g. Physical design/Policy/Social Planning) • Content exposure to accessible design

12. 8.0b Empirical Context: Survey of Academic Programs Programs with course content in: • Exploring design & policy alternatives (9) • Understanding barriers (8) • Fair Housing Act (1988 amendments) (11) • Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (1990) (6) • ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) (3) • Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) (2) • Sec. 504, Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (2) • None of the Above (1)

13. 8.0c Empirical Context: Survey of Academic Programs Courses with accessibility content (n=17) • 10 seminars • 5 lectures • 2 other • 13 indicated accessibility was <25% of content • 3 indicated accessibility was 25%-50% of content • 10 elective • 6 required

14. 9.0 Comments from Professional Planners Survey • “It is an eye opener to realizing I have some work to do in becoming more knowledgeable in this area.” • “More awareness of how all of us become disabled.” • “With the aging of the baby boomers, this will become a more prominent issue.” • “Convincing planners isn't the problem; helping planners sell need to others is the problem.” • “We need to have better directions from our professional leaders/orgs. to make this happen.”

15. 10.0 Questions to ponder • Does the planning profession recognize disability as a social/civil rights issue that requires serious consideration in the planning process? • How do (or do they) planners (practitioners and the academia) perceive a role for the profession in contributing towards an inclusive, accessible, disability- senior- friendly society? • Are planners adequately prepared to address the needs of people with disabilities, especially in light of recent judicial decisions?

16. 11.0 Survey Solicitation Card

17. City and Regional Planning Program Georgia Institute of Technology Supported in part by grant ## H133D010207, National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), U.S. Department of Education Wish to acknowledge the research support of Nathan Moon of the Center for Advanced Communications Policy (CACP)