"Call The Attorney"
Or
504 Is Not An Area Code

Recent complaints against three park districts for failing to provide programs for the handicapped may be a trend of such complaints. Park and recreation officials should review their practices pertinent to section 504, the authors urge.

By John N. McGovern and Jane Hodgkinson

In Patti Roth, Dave Phillips and Robin Hall, well known recreation professionals, were in a car accident and paralyzed from the waist down, would they be able to register for a program at your recreation facility? Could they even get in the door? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then perhaps you should be more aware of Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act.

Within the past year, three Illinois recreation agencies have had to learn firsthand of their responsibilities under the Act. First, the Rock Island Parks and Recreation Department was charged with failure to provide any recreation services by the parent of an autistic child. This parent cited the fact that programs were available for non-handicapped children, but not for her child. Her complaint to the Federal Government has subjected the City of Rock Island to a bureaucratic ordeal of many months, and is still unresolved.

Section 504, entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap," has been
referred to as the "civil rights act" for the handicapped.

The second complaint occurred less than six months later, and was filed against Parks and Recreation of Oak Park. In this instance, the parent of a physically handicapped son maintained that his son was being discriminated against by Oak Park's failure to provide appropriate programs, through the West Suburban Special Recreation Association. A previously established grievance procedure, and the ability of the West Suburban Special Recreation Association to provide appropriate recreation services, were the key factors in the satisfactory resolution of the complaint.

Less than one month later, a hearing impaired adult requested the services of an interpreter for her attendance at a Fox Valley Park District program, under Section 504 of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act. The District, which was unaware of its responsibility under the Act, suggested that she contact the Fox Valley Special Recreation Association. However, her insistence upon participation in a District program prompted the District staff and attorney to review their obligations under the law. This review led to the District advising the woman that she could register for the program, and that she would be referred to the Fox Valley Special Recreation Association if she felt she needed an interpreter for the program. The woman did elect to remain in the program, and successfully completed the cake decorating class without an interpreter.

Three complaints in less than six months in a state that has never had any recreation-related 504 complaints (to the authors' knowledge), is indicative of a trend. Handicapped individuals and their families are more knowledgeable of their rights under the Act, and are beginning to ask for them. Coincidentally, the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, an arm of the Federal Government, has recently completed a nationwide mailing outlining procedures to follow in filing a complaint against local agencies. The implications of this trend require a basic understanding of the law.

Section 504, entitled "Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Handicap", has been referred to as the "civil rights act" for the handicapped. It is a small part of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, passed by the Congress to coordinate rehabilitative services for handicapped persons. The act offers a broad definition of who is considered as handicapped. According to the law, a handicapped individual is any person who "has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more major life activities (caring for ones self, manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, breathing, speaking, learning and working), has a record of such an impairment, or is regarded as having such an impairment."¹

The key component of the Act is Program Accessibility. This is generally thought to mean architectural accessibility; consequently, many planners feel that they have satisfied their obligation to the handicapped by installing ramps, curb cuts and elevators. However, the Section, in Subpart C S 84.22 states that "A recipient (of federal funds) shall operate each program or activity to which this part applies so that the program or activity, when viewed in its entirety (authors' emphasis), is readily accessible to handicapped persons."²

This section also cites the methods that can be employed to comply with the law. These include redesign of

1. Federal Register. Vol. 42, No. 86, May 4, 1977," Nondiscrimmaiion on Basis of Handicap ", pg. 22678.

2. Ibid.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 8 November/December 1983

equipment, reassignment of programs to accessible buildings, assignment of aides to participants, home visits, delivery of services at alternate accessible sites and alteration of existing facilities so they are made accessible. Local agencies are not required to make structural changes when other methods"... are effective in achieving compliance."

The Act therefore holds that simply allowing a handicapped person into a program does not, in and of itself, constitute full accessibility. In order to comply with full accessibility, an agency must also make the service or the instruction given in the facility as accessible to the handicapped person as it is to the handicapped.

Is compliance with the aims of this act limited to local agencies that use federal funds? Harris Fawell, in a November, 1979 opinion to the Clarendon Hills Park District, says "no" while citing the potential of a suit by handicapped persons on purely constitutional grounds, i.e., for the denial of equal protection of the laws to a handicapped person relative to recreation services. Fawell, referring to the need for recreation by handicapped persons, says "... a suit, therefore, which could show that an Illinois Park District has totally failed to render recreational services for the handicapped while rendering such services for the non-handicapped, would place such District in a difficult position in terms of explaining to the Court why such action, or non-action, on its part was not a denial to such handicapped citizens of equal protection of the laws and/or a violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. This is especially true since 1975 in light of Illinois legislation which has now granted the right to Illinois park districts to levy up to .02% for the purposes of funding the district's share of the expenses of providing programs for its handicapped citizens."³

How then, can recreation agencies prepare themselves for compliance with the Act? There are several steps that should be taken, some of which are required by the law.

1. Provision of Special Recreation Services — The best way to prevent complaints about the unavailability of services is to provide special recreation programs. This can be done by the District itself, or through a special recreation association. Districts who elect to operate their own programs may be less able to serve all populations, and therefore subject to a higher probability of complaints.

How can recreation agencies prepare themselves for compliance with the 1973 Rehabilitation Act?
There are several steps that should be taken, some of which are required by the law.

2. Review of Existing Services and Facilities — This analysis should include a review of all existing programs, and should determine whether each program, when viewed in its entirety, is accessible. This review should identify the architectural and programmatic barriers to participation, and alternate plans should be cited that note how and when accessibility will be achieved. Special recreation associations, as well as park districts and municipal programs may be cited for non-compliance with this review.

3. Develop a Policy Statement — The governing board of each community recreation program should prepare a policy statement that affirms its intention of providing accessible recreation and leisure services. This statement should be proclaimed in program brochures and similar materials.

4. Establish a Grievance Procedure — All park and recreation agencies, including special recreation associations, should adopt grievance procedures for the equitable resolution of complaints alleging discrimination against the handicapped. An agent or representative of the agency should also be appointed as the "504 Coordinator", and in that role would be responsible for receipt of all questions or complaints.

5. Establish an Advisory Board — Agencies may wish to enlist the aid of any existing consumer advisory groups for the points mentioned above. These groups may often be of significant help in this area. Handicapped persons, or others familiar with the handicapped, may be able to suggest inexpensive methods to eliminate barriers.

These five steps are not all inclusive, but should reduce the likelihood of a complaint against your program.

Many community recreation agencies have already taken several of these steps, and should be commended. However, other agencies have yet to complete their plans or even acknowledge the need for the existence of such plans. In a recent study,⁴ the most often cited reason for this inaction was the belief that there were not enough handicapped persons in the community to justify special recreation programs. Section 504 does not require the creation of new programs solely for the benefit of the handicapped. It does require though, that existing programs must be accessible. If you haven't had a handicapped person in a program, perhaps you should determine why.

Recreation agency policy-makers strive to provide programs for the entire community. Activities are available for all ages, and in a variety of program areas. Compliance with Section 504 assists in this overall effort to serve your community. However, as in any situation, a continuous review of the effect of current practices is necessary. Compliance today does not ensure compliance tomorrow.

3. Fawell, Harris, legal opinion of 11/12/79 to the Clarendon Hills Park District.

4. Janes. Susan K.. "A Survey and Analysis of Recreation and Leisure Services Provided to the Handicapped hy Illinois Park Districts and Recreation Departments", unpublished Master's Thesis, August. 1982. Southern Illinois Univeristy, Carbondale.

AUTHORS' NOTE: Since this article was written we have received the following pertinent memo from the Department of Conservation: "Recipients of Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds are required to be in compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. On July 7, 1982, the United States Department of the Interior published in the Federal Register, its final rule effectuating Section 504. This rule requires all recipients of federal financial assistance from the Department to review and, if necessary, modify their programs and activities so that they are readily accessible to and useable by handicapped persons. In particular, the rule sets forth compliance requirements, enforcement procedures, standards for determining which persons are handicapped, and guidance for determining what practices are discriminatory."

(Continued on page 21)

Illinois Parks and Recreation November/December 1983

ABOUT THE AUTHORS: Jane Hodgkinson is Executive Director of the Western DuPage Special Recreation Association in Wheaton. She is past Director of the Illinois Therapeutic Recreation Section and past Chairman of the Board of Illinois Special Olympics. Ms. Hodgkinson holds B.S. and M.S. degrees from Southern Illinois University in Recreation. Western DuPage Special Recreation Association received the 1982 National Gold Medal Award for Excellence in Community Recreation Programming for the Handicapped (class II). She is a member of B.O.L.T.

John McGovern is Director of the West Suburban Special Recreation Association in Elmwood Park. He is currently Director of Illinois Therapeutic Recreation Section and on the IPRA Board of Directors. John received B.S. and M.S. degrees in Recreation Administration from the University of New Mexico. He is a member of B.O.L.T.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 21 November/December 1983