The ADA Standards for Accessible Design establishes design requirements for the construction and alteration of facilities subject to the law so as to not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. The most recent version of the design standards was adopted in 2010 and this was the version used for comparison to the Florida design standards during this project. In 2011, the Florida Building Commission (FBC) updated the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction to incorporate the 2010 ADA Standards and Florida law, Part II, Chapter 553, Florida Statutes. The FBC has maintained provisions of the Florida law that were thought to be more stringent than the ADA guidelines. The purpose of this project is to determine if these Florida-specific provisions are necessary and to develop a technical basis for these items.

In order to determine a technical basis for the Florida-specific items it was necessary to understand what technical basis was used to develop the 2010 ADA Standards, as well as Chapter 11 of the International Building Code and the ANSI Standards. The University of Florida hired ADA specialist Jim Terry from Evan Terry and Associates to help to assess the pros and cons of these Florida-specific items. Jim Terry is a member of the Board of Directors for the National Association of ADA Coordinators and has served on the Access Board’s Committee for Accessibility Standards for Assembly Areas. He was chosen based on his extensive experience with the ADA Standards and for his access to technical documents used for the development of the ADA Standards.

2.1. Description of Issues

· The 2010 Federal ADA Standards for Accessible Design were adopted by the state of Florida as part of the 2012 Florida Building Code (FBC), Accessibility. The Florida Building Commission has authority for implementing its provisions (see Laws of Florida Chapter 2011-222, Sections 22 through 29).

· The efficacy/technical bases for the seven Florida Specific items in the FBC, Accessibility is unknown to the FBC and research is needed to determine whether they need to be expanded, reduced or eliminated.

· Historical assessment and analysis of available data/literature specific to the seven issues of concern are needed to understand the impact this law has had in the State.

2.2. Recommendations for the Code

There are no recommendations at this stage of the project.

3. Scope of Work

· Perform literature review of recent scholarly work on the subject of concern and its impacts in Florida

· Evaluate and summarize data on the results the law has had on building construction and welfare of the general public.

· Interpret results, determine whether the problem requires action, and produce a report that explains the results and implications for the Code

· Develop a technical basis for Florida-specific items.

· Present report/findings to the Commission’s Technical Advisory Committee and interest groups for review and feedback

4. Deliverables

· A report providing technical information on the problem background, results and implications to the Code submitted to the Program Manager by June 15, 2014

· A proposed scope of work for 2014-2015 funding cycle, if warranted

· A breakdown of the number of hours or partial hours, in increments of fifteen (15) minutes, of work performed and a brief description of the work performed. The Contractor agrees to provide any additional documentation requested by the Department to satisfy audit requirements

5. Detailed Project Description

5.1. Background

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) provides a national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The ADA defines “disability” with respect to an individual as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual; a record of such an impairment; or being regarded as having such an impairment. These major life activities include, but are not limited to, caring for oneself, performing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working (Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990). In order to ensure that the needs of disabled individuals are met, the ADA Standards for Accessible Design, as well as the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction, provide technical requirements for the construction and alteration of sites, facilities, and buildings.

5.2. Demographic Differences

It is important to understand how the demographics vary at the state and national level in order to assess if the requirements of the Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction need to be more stringent than the national requirements of the ADA Standards for Accessible Design. The percentage of the population with disabilities and the population of elderly will influence the necessity for certain accessibility requirements. Individual states having a prevalence of disabled and elderly compared to the United States as a whole may desire to have more stringent laws.

The American Community Survey (ACS) is an on-going survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau and defines a disability as anyone of the following conditions: hearing difficulty, vision difficulty, cognitive difficulty, ambulatory difficulty, self-care difficulty, or independent living difficulty. The questions used in the ACS for disability are shown in Figure 1 below. In 2012 approximately 12.0% of the 309 million people in the United States had a disability, while 12.9% of the 19 million people in Florida had a disability, as shown in Table 1. Florida was ranked 19 out of 51 states, with 1 being the highest percentage of disabled population and 51 being the lowest. West Virginia and Utah were ranked 1 and 51 in the US, respectively, and both have adopted the ADA Standards for Accessible Design. The ranking of all the states can be seen in Appendix 7.3.

Figure 1: Disability Questions used in the American Community Survey

	United States	Florida	West Virginia	Utah
Percent Disabled	12.2	12.9%	19.0%	9.2%
Margin of Error	+/- 0.1	+/- 0.1%	+/- 0.4%	+/- 0.3%
Percent Difference	N/A	5.6%	43.6%	28.0%
National Ranking	N/A	19	1	51

Table 1: Percentage of State Disabled Population Compared to US in 2012

A breakdown of the various types of disability will help to determine what type of accessibility requirements are most needed. Table 2 shows the number of people in Florida with each type of disability and the percentage of each specific disability to the total number of people with disabilities. Keep in mind that some people may have more than one type of disability, which is why the percentages don’t total to 100%.

Type of Disability	Population above 5 years	Percentage of Total Disability
Hearing Difficulty	699998	28.5%
Vision Difficulty	432172	17.6%
Cognitive Difficulty	919971	37.5%
Ambulatory Difficulty	1355292	55.2%
Self-Care Disability	517717	21.1%
Independent Living Difficulty	917665	37.4%
Total with Disability	2453376
Total Population	17942110

Table 2: Types of Disabilities in Florida

There is a discrepancy of approximately 600,000 less disabled people in Florida in the 2012 ACS data as compared with the 1990 Decennial Census survey. The 1990 Decennial Survey reported 3 million disabled persons out of a total state population of 13 million, or 30%. The current disabled population in Florida reported by the ACS in 2012 is 2.4 million out of a total population of 19 million, or 13%. The University of Florida could not determine whether this is a statistical aberration or the ACS has excluded a portion of disabled populations for their survey. UF will continue its efforts to find sources for the demographics of Florida that will be appropriate for this project and include it in their final report to the Florida Building Commission.

Comparing the state of Florida’s disability statistics to the national averages alone indicates that Florida should not need more stringent accessibility requirements, considering Florida’s percentage of disabled is very close to the national level. However, it is important to also examine the percentage of elderly in Florida compared to the national level. Roughly half of people in Florida with a disability are above the age of 65 (US Census Bureau) which suggests that there is a large correlation between disability and age.

The U.S. Census Bureau’s Population Estimates Program (PEP) produces annual estimates of the population for the United States and each of its states, including Puerto Rico. According to the 2012 PEP estimates the percentage of the U.S. population above the age of 65 was 13.7%, compared to 18.2% in Florida. Florida had the highest percentage of people over the age of 65, with West Virginia having the second highest and Alaska having the lowest.

	United States	Florida	West Virginia	Alaska
Percent Over 65	13.7	18.2%	16.8%	8.5%
Percent Difference	N/A	28.2%	20.3%	46.8%
National Ranking	N/A	1	2	51

Table 3: State Percentages of Population over Age 65 Compared to US in 2012

Figure 2 shows a side by side comparison of the percentage of elderly and disabled for a select number of states. Although the percentages are from two different surveys and should not be compared directly, it can be used to see which states have a higher or lower number of both elderly and disabled populations. It is important to note that West Virginia had a very high percentage for both disabled and elderly populations, as shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Percentage of Disabled and Elderly Populations in 2012

5.3. Tourism Industry

The large tourism industry in Florida may also suggest a need for more stringent accessibility requirements due to an increased number of people using these tourism related facilities and sites. Governor Rick Scott announced that in 2013 approximately 95 million people visited the state of Florida, which is an increase of 3.5% over 2012. Rick Scott has claimed that for every 85 people that visit Florida, one more job is created in the state. The State of Florida strives to have a higher number of visitors each year in order to increase spending and create jobs, meaning the number of people using these tourism related facilities is expected to grow.

Florida’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research develops reports on the tax revenues that are available for State spending. For the 2012-2013 Fiscal Year approximately $4.3 billion, or 17%, of the total state revenue was from the tourism industry. The Florida Statutes provide definitions for “theme-park or recreation complex” and “resort condominium”, which are included in the Florida Accessibility Code but are not defined in the ADA Standards. A theme park or entertainment complex is defined as a complex comprised of at least 25 contiguous acres owned and controlled by the same business entity and which contains permanent exhibitions and a variety of recreational activities and has a minimum of 1 million visitors annually. A resort condominium is any unit or group of units in a condominium, cooperative, or time-share plan which is rented more than three times a calendar year for periods of less than 30 days or which is advertised or held out to the public as a place regularly rented for periods of less than 30 days. These types of facilities, as well as hotels and other tourism related facilities, in Florida are used by a large number of people, and therefore ay need to have slightly stricter or expanded requirements than the ADA Standards.

5.4. Consulting Review by Evan Terry and Associates

We provided Evan Terry and Associates with our list of Florida specific items in the 2012 Florida Accessibility Code for Building Construction and asked them to provide us with information on why the Florida specific items are necessary. A side-by-side comparison of the Florida specific items and the 2010 ADA requirements can be seen in Appendix 7.1. Evan Terry and Associates has provided an explanation for these differences, shown in the Appendix 7.1, as well as a list of questions that should be considered when developing accessibility design standards, shown in Appendix 7.2. As the project continues, more information on the differences as well as recommendations for the items will be determined.

6. References

Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990. Pub. L. 101-336. 26 July 1990. 104 Stat. 328.

Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR). (2013). “Detailed Revenue Report FY1213.” <http://edr.state.fl.us/Content/revenues/reports/detailed-revenue-report/detailrpt_final1213.pdf>

State of Florida. (2013). “Gov. Rick Scott: Another Record Year for Florida Tourism” <http://www.flgov.com/gov-rick-scott-another-record-year-for-florida-tourism-2/>

U.S. Census, American Community Survey, 2012: Disability Characteristics. <http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_1YR_S1810&prodType=table>.

U.S. Census, American Community Survey, 2012: Percent of People With a Disability: United States, States, and Puerto Rico. <http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_12_1YR_R1810.US01PRF&prodType=table>.

VISIT FLORIDA. (2012). “Research”. < http://www.visitfloridamediablog.com/home/florida-facts/research/>

7. Appendices

7.1. Comparison of Florida Specific Items to ADA Standards

See attached.

7.2. Accessibility Standards Development Consideration

The following was provided by Jim Terry at Evan Terry Associates, P.C.

Writing an accessibility standard requires the authors to balance a large number of often conflicting considerations for each detailed issue they review. These questions are technical, demographic, economic, and political. Some of those considerations are listed below. They should be considered for every single technical requirement being considered for inclusion in or elimination from the standards.

1) What is the particular barrier type that restricts or blocks safe access for people with disabilities?

2) Are any developments underway that will likely change the impact of this barrier type on people with disabilities or others? For example, the function of pay telephones has mostly been replaced by cell phones and TDDs by smartphones.

3) What types of disabilities are affected by this barrier type?

4) How many people are currently affected by the current problem and proposed solutions

a. By disability type,

b. By the extent or degree of disability (most disabilities are a matter of degree), and

c. Including people who do not have disabilities (the universal design effect that counters some of the costs)?

5) What are the predictions for the future demographics of each of these disability types among projected Florida users over the expected lives of the facilities being designed under the Standard?

6) What does research show about the impact of the barrier type in its various permutations on people with disabilities across the broad spectrum of each of those disabilities? For example, when reviewing 553.504(2), how many wheelchair and scooter users cannot consistently maneuver safely through a range of door clear widths between, say, 27” and the 32” minimum required by the ADA Standards? How many people with other disabilities have what types of difficulties with those same door widths? A similar example that would yield different results would be the usability of various exterior route widths for 553.5041(5)(a).

7) What types of alternatives and solutions are available to reduce or eliminate the current discriminatory practices?

8) How effective are the alternatives and proposed solutions at eliminating or effectively reducing barriers?

9) What is the relative cost of the proposed measures compared to current practice?

10) How disruptive are the proposed solutions when compared to current practice?

11) What are the dangers of current practice when compared to the proposed solutions for

a. People with disabilities and

b. Others?

12) What are any other positive and negative effects of the proposed solutions on

a. People with disabilities,

b. Others who visit the facilities as customers and program participants,

c. Facility employees, owners, and managers,

d. Everyone else?

Ultimately, the resolution of these questions should be informed by technical information but the decisions about where to draw the lines and define the specific standards should be made through a political process.