Today is July 26,1993. The park district recreation supervisor rolls in her wheelchair from her office to the park district bus in the parking lot where she mounts the electric lift and enters the bus. She will supervise a group of 22 participants, including two children with physical disabilities and one child who has a mental disability along with two other staff on the district's trip to Great America.

Seem farfetchcd to you? A park district employee who has a physical disability? A park district with an office free of architectural barriers? A park district offering mainstreamed recreation opportunities for people with disabilities? A park district vehicle that is readily accessible to individuals with disabilities? Well, get used to these ideas because The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 will cause changes like these to occur in park districts and leisure service agencies across the country.

Signed into law on July 26,1990, by President George Bush, The Americans With Disabilities Act has a clearly defined purpose. Congress and the president intend the Act to state a proper national goal towards people with disabilities and to enable the further independent growth of such individuals by the guarantee of access to every critical service and area of American life.

Present systems

Currently, more than 135 park districts and municipalities provide recreation opportunities through intergovernmental cooperatives known as special recreation associations (SRA). There are 25 such cooperatives which are authorized by Article 10 of the Illinois Constitution and Section 8-10.2 of the Park District Code. Less than 10 other districts or municipalities provide programs on their own. The remaining park districts and municipalities (nearly 200 more) provide few or no recreation services for people with disabilities.

The advantage to SRA involvement has been a wider variety of program offerings for a greater range of people with disabling conditions. Research has shown that agencies in a SRA have almost twice the opportunities for residents with disabilities as a single agency program, and can serve almost three times as many different disability groups. This is especially important in serving individuals with rare or infrequently occurring conditions or disabilities. The disadvantage, although few would have identified it two years ago, is that the SRA programs tend to be segregated. People with disabilities are rarely placed in recreation programs with those who are not disabled. Under the Act, this will change.

The Act says...

If a park district or municipality provides recreation programs, people with disabilities cannot be excluded on the basis of disability alone. The Act does not mandate that all recreation programs be "mainstreamed." However, the principal of least restrictive setting flows through the Act. Simply put, this means that leisure service agency programs for people with disabilities must be available in a setting where the participants do not have a disability. The result of this concept is that SRA participation is no longer enough.

The Act places the burden for initiation of this principal on the consumer of leisure services, not the agency. An agency must comply when asked to make recreation opportunities available. Participation in a SRA should be viewed as just part of a park district's or village's obligation to provide recreation opportunities on a non-discriminatory basis for residents with disabilities.

The Act describes this potential participant as a "qualified in-

dividual with a disability." Qualified means that the person meets eligibility requirements for participation in the park district's programs. These eligibility requirements could mean that the individual lives in the district, can pay the registration fee charged to all others for the program, is of the age group set aside for the program, and abides by any rules of conduct imposed by the district. Eligibility requirements for a person with a disability must be the same as for a person who does not have a disability.

The Act further requires reasonable modification to accommodate the disability of an otherwise qualified individual. The Americans With Disabilities Act defines three areas of modification.

Rules, policies or practices

Many park districts require in-person registration for crowded or popular programs such as day camp, day care or preschool. Because people with physical disabilities may find it difficult— if not physically impossible — to arrive early and wait in a slow moving line for long periods of time, the in-person requirement may tend to exclude people with disabilities. If it does, it is discriminatory. A reasonable modification may be to allow phone-in registrations for such a program which would not have the discriminatory impact of waiting in a long line. Another might be to accept mail registrations only.

Removal of barriers.

The three barriers discussed here are architectural, transportation and communication. Two of these are easy to discuss. Agencies should acquire and publicize the availability of a telecommunications device for the deaf. These relatively inexpensive, easy to use and maintain devices are available through phone companies.

Architectural barriers are being eliminated, if not under the Act, then under the Illinois Environmental Barriers Act. This more costly effort is well underway according to some agencies.

Transportation will require more thought. Clearly, any agency that purchases vehicles for use in program transportation (which includes vans, buses or cars used to move participants for any reason from one location to another) must make these vehicles "readily accessible." This means that wheelchair lifts, interior tie downs, raised roofs and other similar modifications will need to be made. In addition, vehicles leased or contracted must be readily accessible. These conditions apply whether a person with a disability uses the transportation or not. An additional issue is whether an agency would consider providing transportation to and from a recreation program for a person with a disability when people without disabilities are not transported. SRAs do it, and some park districts and municipalities will eventually adopt this practice as a reasonable modification.

Provision of auxiliary aids or services.

A resident with a hearing impairment registers for a park district arts and crafts program. The park district is required to provide a sign language interpreter for the individual at every class at the cost of the park district. A more difficult question has to do with individuals with limited mental capacity, such as mental retardation. It is likely that an appropriate modification would be for the agency to furnish additional staff for a program. This would lower the staff to participant ratio, ensuring that the individual with a cognitive problem would receive sufficient attention and assistance, thereby making the opportunity roughly equivalent to the opportunity enjoyed by participants without a mental disability.

These examples are already occurring throughout Illinois in the SRAs, which are park district and municipal programs. They are tried and tested accommodations that agencies will use in their own programs when necessary.

How can we respond to the Act?

Illinois has long been recognized as the leader across the country in providing high quality leisure services for adults and children with disabilities, as well as those without disabilities. The Act is simply another step in the evolution of these services.

For park districts and villages not in a SRA, the Act will require considerable thought. If an agency provides recreation programs to any population, these programs will have to be available to otherwise qualified individuals with a disability. Presently, these districts and villages cannot levy the property tax for special recreation unless they cooperate with other districts or municipalities. Perhaps a change in the property tax authority is in order to enable single districts and villages to levy a portion of the tax available to entities in a SRA. Some added source of revenue will be needed to offset the cost of interpreters, staff and accommodations. However, the proven advantage to the consumer of cooperation by districts and villages should have some incentive, such as those districts and villages that cooperate being able to levy all of the statutory limit.

For districts and villages in a SRA, and for the SRAs themselves, perhaps a change in direction or philosophy should be considered. SRAs are now primarily providers of segregated services. Perhaps they should also become facilitators of the participation by people with disabilities in regular recreation programs conducted by park districts and municipalities within the SRA. This facilitator model for leisure service delivery systems has been around for several decades and has met with great success in at least one large community and in several suburbs. This two-pronged approach would allow the SRA staff to facilitate the placement of individuals with disabilities in recreation programs conducted by the SRA partner districts and villages. And, it could still allow the SRAs to conduct segregated programs for those participants who do not desire "mainstreamed" recreation participation.

In a way, this choice by the consumer is another feature of the Act. People with disabilities no longer have to accept what is offered to them. They will be able to choose from the entire range of leisure services available in any park district or municipal recreation department.

Conclusion

The Act will improve the quality of life for people with disabilities. However, the real accomplishment will be the inclusion of people with disabilities in all aspects of life. Park districts and municipal recreation providers deal with quality of life issues on a daily basis and have the unique opportunity to make compliance with the Act a visible and positive statement for the leisure service industry and most importantly, for people with disabilities.

About the Author
John N. McGovern is the former executive director of the West Suburban Special Recreation Association, Franklin Park, Ill. and the National Lekotek Center, Evanston, III. He earned his law degree in 1988 at Loyola University of Chicago.