Information and Guidance on the Americans with Disabilities Act 
Spring 1999  Vol. 3, No. 3

This Issue Highlights Information and Resources Regarding Children

What's Inside?

Feature Stories

• Supreme Court Rules on IDEA Requirements
• Department of Education Publishes IDEA Regulations

Access Board News
DOJ Update
Employment Update
Regional News
Publications
Frequently Asked Questions
Great Web Sites
Building Your Rolodex
Events/Announcements

FEATURE STORIES

SUPREME COURT RULES ON IDEA REQUIREMENTS

The Supreme Court ruled on March 3rd, 1999 that public schools must provide a wide array of medical care for disabled children attending classes, over protests that the decision would seriously strain the resources of many school districts.

In its 7-2 decision of the case Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F., the high court ruled that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires school districts to provide nursing services if such services are needed for a child with a disability to receive an education. The decision upholds the distinction outlined in Alamo Heights v. Tatro between required "related services" and excluded "medical services."

The case revolved around Garret Frey, a high school sophomore in Cedar Rapids. According to Justice John Paul Stevens, "Respondent Garret F. is a friendly, creative, and intelligent young man. When Garret was four years old, his spinal column was severed in a motorcycle accident. Though paralyzed from the neck down, his mental capacities were unaffected. He is able to speak, to control his motorized wheelchair through use of a puff and suck straw, and to operate a computer with a device that responds to head movements. Garret is currently a student in the Cedar Rapids Community School District, he attends regular classes in a typical school program, and his academic performance has been a success. Garret is, however, ventilator dependent, and therefore requires a responsible individual nearby to attend to certain physical needs while he is in school."

While at school, Garret needs help with catheterization and the suctioning of his tracheotomy tube. In kindergarten, an 18-year-old aunt accompanied him to school; then the family used insurance money and other resources to hire a nurse to assist him through fourth grade. In 1993, Garret's mother asked Cedar Rapids to pick up the nursing cost. The district refused, saying such services were not part of school health care, but rather "medical services," which are not covered by IDEA. School officials argued that Garret's care was so involved and expensive that it should be considered medical treatment.

Lower courts ruled against the district. In its appeal to the justices, the school district argued that it should be able to weigh its ability to provide the requested service and its costs, among other factors.

Spurning that appeal, Stevens relied on a 1984 ruling on the disabilities law that laid out a two-part standard for determining what is meant by "related services" and what care is excluded. Parents had to show that the care was essential to their child's ability to attend class and that it could be provided in school by a nurse or other qualified individual, but not a physician. On both counts, Stevens said, Garret met the test.

"This case is about whether meaningful access to the public schools will be assured, not the level of education that a school must finance once access is attained. It is undisputed that the services at issue must be provided if Garret is to remain in school," Stevens wrote for the court. "Under the statute, our precedent and the purposes of the IDEA, the district must fund such related services to help guarantee that students like Garrett are integrated into the public schools."

Citing federal law dating back to the 1970s that requires schools to provide "special education and related services" to disabled children, Stevens said the court concluded that schools must offer any assistance necessary to keep a student in school, short of a physician's care.

"Congress intended to open the door of public education to all qualified children and required participating states to educate handicapped children with non-handicapped children whenever possible," Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the court.

Lawyers for his mother, Charlotte Frey, and attorneys for the school district have disagreed over the cost of Frey's nursing. The school district's lawyers have estimated that cost as $30,000 to $40,000 per year in addition to the $10,000 to $12,000 now spent to provide Garret a teaching assistant and other services.

The Freys' lawyer, Douglas R. Oelschlaeger, has said the estimates are inflated, and that a registered nurse could take over the duties of the teacher associate and cost the school district about $18,000 a year."

School district lawyer Sue Luettjohann Seitz expressed dismay at the budget implications of the ruling in Cedar Rapids v. Garret F. "Special education has really come to the forefront in the last 10 years," she said, "and the nature of the claims are very different. Medically fragile children were not in school before."

Garret's lawyer insisted that: "This case is about meaningful access. It's about getting in the front door. It's about surviving at school. And it's about getting home at the end of the day."

You can read the Supreme Court's decision in Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garret F. at: http://www.wrightslaw.com/law/caselaw/case_Cedar_Rapids_SupCt_990303.htm

(Sources: "Disabled Pupils Win Right to Medical Aid" by Joan Biskupic, Washington Post, Thursday, March 4, 1999; Page A01. Also, Justice For All at: http://www.mailbot.com/justice)

Back to top

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION PUBLISHES IDEA REGULATIONS

On March 12th, 1999, the U.S. Department of Education published in the Federal Register final regulations to implement the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997. As a whole, these regulations merely interpret changes Congress made in the law with the 1997 Amendments.

Judith E. Heumann, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS), said, "We have prepared a user-friendly package of regulations. They are designed to help parents, teachers and school administrators understand the federal expectations for educating children with disabilities under the law. Fundamentally, we have protected the basic rights of children with disabilities to a free appropriate public education while ensuring that schools have the flexibility and tools necessary to offer a quality education in a safe environment."

In October 1997, the Department of Education published proposed regulations based on the 1997 amendments to the IDEA. Public comments were solicited, and almost 6,000 were submitted to the department. Nearly two-thirds of the regulatory package responds to the comments, while a quarter contains the actual text of the regulations and statute.

Among the highlights:

Students and the General Curriculum. IDEA establishes the Individualized Education Program (IEP) as the major tool in a student's involvement and progress in the general curriculum. The regulations offer guidance on the types of issues that the IEP should address to achieve the statutory requirements.

Student Assessment. Students with disabilities must be included in general state and district-wide assessment programs, according to IDEA '97. The regulations offer guidance about the participation of children with disabilities in these assessments.

Teacher Involvement. The 1997 amendments provide that each IEP team include at least one of the child's regular education teachers if the child is or may be participating in the regular education environment. The regulations clarify that attendance of regular education teachers at IEP meetings will be determined on a case by case basis in an effort to be less time consuming.

Graduation with a Diploma. The final regulations incorporate the department's long-standing policy that a student's right to a "free appropriate public education" is terminated upon graduation with a regular high school diploma, but not ended by any other kind of graduation certificate or diploma.

Student Discipline. IDEA '97 authorized schools to remove a student for up to 10 school days for minor disciplinary infractions and for up to 45 days for dangerous behavior involving weapons or drugs and gave schools the ability to ask a hearing officer to remove students who are serious threats to themselves or others. The final regulations incorporate the statutory changes and clarify that services do not need to be provided during the first 10 days in a school year that a child with a disability is removed from his or her regular placement. If a child is subsequently removed for up to 10 school days for other violations of school conduct codes, services must be provided to the extent necessary to enable the child to continue to appropriately progress in the general curriculum and appropriately advance toward the goals of the IEP.

The Department of Education concluded that neither the statutory requirements nor the non-statutory requirements of these regulations have a major cost impact on school districts. However, because several provisions do have a major impact on schools, the Office of Management and Budget determined that the regulation has been designated as a major rule. For example, the Department estimates that school districts will realize savings in excess of $100 million from changes made by the IDEA '97 that eliminate unnecessary evaluations, every three years, to determine whether a child still has a disability. These and other savings could be offset by increased costs associated with such changes as the requirement for the regular education teacher to participate in IEP meetings.

The Department of Education will provide specific and on-going technical assistance. For the next few months, those technical assistance efforts will be specific to the statute and accompanying regulations.

OSERS is also planning a wide range of dissemination and training activities. These activities will be designed to bring information about IDEA '97 changes to the grass roots level, and provide examples of how research-based best practices can be used to help effectively implement the law. OSERS will use state of the art technology to reach principals, special education administrators, and parents.

The Department recently funded four "IDEA Partnership Projects" with the intent of developing statutory and regulatory expertise among our key partners. These Projects focus on policymakers, local administrators, service providers and educators, and families and advocates. The Department will enlist these partnership projects in further information dissemination and technical assistance activities.

For further information about the IDEA '97 statute and implementing regulations, contact the Department of Education at 202-205-5465 or 202-205-5507, or visit the Department's website at: http:/www.ed.gov/offices/OSERS/IDEA.

Back to top

ACCESS BOARD NEWS

ACCESS BOARD UPDATES STATE CONTACTS LIST

Now and then on its technical assistance line the Board gets a question about a design requirement that derives not from ADAAG but from a state access code. Occasionally, callers inquire about an apparent design conflict between ADAAG and a state code provision. In the course of such calls, the Board often refers callers to the appropriate state official for answers concerning a particular state code. So that its referrals are current, the Board recently completed an update of its list of state code contacts.

This information is available on the web site at http://www.access-board.gov/other/statecode.htm. So if you need to check with a state about its access requirements, the Board can help get you where you need to go. This can be important since, contrary to popular belief, the ADA's design requirements do not necessarily supersede or "trump" the requirements of state (or local) access codes; both may, and often do, apply. Where there is a difference between the two, one is advised to follow the more stringent provision.

(Source: Access Currents, Volume 5, No. 1 January/February 1999.)

Back to top

DOJ UPDATE

RECENT DOJ SETTLEMENTS INVOLVING CHILDREN

• United Skates of America, Columbus, Ohio -- The Department entered into an agreement resolving a complaint brought by an individual whose two children, both of whom are deaf/blind and have cerebral palsy, were allegedly denied access to the skating rink during a birthday party at a facility operated by United Skates of America in Indianapolis, Indiana. The complainant alleged that he was told by the manager that his children were not allowed on the skating rink floor, even with their father's assistance, and that the manager refused to set aside a time when the children, and other people with disabilities, could skate. United Skates agreed to adopt a policy of nondiscrimination that will allow complete access to the skating rink for a person with a disability unless, after the access has been allowed, an individualized assessment shows that participation by the individual would create a direct threat to the health and safety of others. In such cases, an offer will then be made to allow the individual to skate at a time when access would not present a direct threat to others. United Skates also agreed to distribute its nondiscrimination policy to appropriate personnel at each of its 13 rinks annually and to pay the complainant $1,000 in damages.

• Cumberland Child Care, Smyrna, Georgia -- The Department entered into an agreement with Cumberland Child Care resolving a complaint by parents alleging that their preschool child was prevented from bringing his asthma inhaler to class. The child care center had a policy barring children from bringing any medications with them to the center, including asthma inhalers. Because of this policy, the parents placed the child in another child care facility. In the settlement, Cumberland Child Care agreed to allow the child to bring the inhaler to class and agreed to administer emergency asthma treatment with the consent of the parents in accordance with the doctor's instructions. Cumberland also agreed to pay $1,500 in damages to the complainant.

(Source: Enforcing the ADA: A Status Report from the Department of Justice, October - December 1998.)

Back to top

EMPLOYMENT UPDATE

EEOC POLICY GUIDANCE ON JOB ACCOMMODATIONS

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has released a comprehensive policy guidance entitled "Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)." The guidance addresses the duty of employers to provide "reasonable accommodations" to applicants and employees with disabilities under Title I of the ADA.

"This guidance provides clear answers to the most frequently-asked questions concerning what reasonable accommodations are, when they must be provided, and when employers may refuse to provide them," said EEOC Chairwoman Ida L. Castro.

The following ADA issues are addressed in the guidance:

• The responsibility of individuals with disabilities to request reasonable accommodation
• Circumstances under which employers may ask for documentation showing the need for reasonable accommodation
• Reasonable accommodations to provide access to employer-sponsored training programs, services, and social functions
• Information on many types of reasonable accommodations, including job restructuring, unpaid leave, part-time schedules, modified workplace policies, and reassignment
• Changes that employers are not required to make to a job
• Instances in which employers may deny a request for a reasonable accommodation due to "undue hardship."

The guidance may be obtained through the EEOC's Publications Distribution Center's toll free telephone number (800-669-3362 or TTY 800-800-3302). The text of the document will be available on EEOC's web site (www.eeoc.gov). This publication is also available from the New England ADA & Accessible IT Center by calling 800-949-4232 V/TTY.

EEOC LAUNCHES EXPANSION OF MEDIATION PROGRAM

A new initiative launched by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to significantly expand its voluntary mediation program has won the endorsement of a broad range of agency stakeholders, including business and labor advocates, civil rights groups, and representatives of the employer and plaintiffs bar.

"Voluntary mediation not only furthers EEOC's noble mission of eradicating employment discrimination, but also benefits employers and charging parties by resolving disputes quickly and to the satisfaction of both parties," EEOC Chairwoman Ida L. Castro said during the kick-off program: Mediation: A National Call To Action.

In proclaiming EEOC's "National Call To Action," Chairwoman Castro announced:

• The unveiling of a new user-friendly mediation section on EEOC's Internet home page (www.eeoc.gov) containing mediation fact sheets, brochures, and a district office contact list
• Issuance of new mediation educational and outreach material, including brochures, facts sheets, and question and answer (Q&A) documents in English, Spanish and other foreign languages
• Production and dissemination of promotional and educational videos to the employer community and charging parties

Mediation is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution offered by EEOC early in the process to facilitate resolution without lengthy investigations or litigation. The decision to mediate is completely voluntary for the charging party and the employer, and the mediation process is strictly confidential at every stage. During a mediation session, a neutral third party facilitator helps the opposing sides to reach a negotiated resolution of workplace disputes.

The Commission plans to establish a nationwide mediation program in fiscal year 1999, utilizing up to $13 million in new budget funds requested by the President and authorized by Congress for that purpose. The EEOC will use the new funds to hire mediation coordinators at every district office in the country, hire a core of internal and external mediators, and increase public education, training, and outreach on the mediation process.

Back to top
 

REGIONAL NEWS

Keep Current With Late Breaking ADA News
The New England ADA & Accessible IT Center is starting three email lists to provide updates on regulations, technical assistance materials and important court cases. One list is for people who want to know about architectural and design news, the second is for employment updates and the third is for people who want all ADA news (architectural, employment, transportation, effective communication, etc.). To sign up for a list, please email us as follows:

adaptive@adaptiveenvironments.org
Subject: Email list
In the body of the message specify your interest: Architectural, Employment or All

Vermont Communications Access Efforts
The Deaf Independence Program has worked diligently with the Disability Law Project to make Vermont more accessible for Deaf and hard of hearing people. The State of Vermont will be installing TTY payphones at all rest areas in Vermont. It is also intended that all State Police Barracks will have TTY phones and Regional State Offices will have TTY payphones. This work should be completed by July 1999. Governor Howard Dean has also taken steps to ensure that all state government meetings are held at accessible locations. Training for all state agencies occurs May 19th. For more information, contact Keri Darling at Vermont Center for Independent Living (802) 229-0501 voice/tty.

Connecticut Youth Leadership Forum
Connecticut's first Youth Leadership Forum for Students with Disabilities will be held from August 2nd to 5th to provide leadership training for 30 high school juniors and seniors. Plans call for the forum to become an annual event. For additional information, contact Karen Halliday at (860) 638-4242.

MOD To Conduct Community Access Monitor Trainings
Since 1985, over 10,000 people nationwide have been trained by the Massachusetts Office on Disability (MOD) to be Community Access Monitors. Trainings detail how to survey buildings in communities for accessibility and how to work for compliance in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, as well as other pertinent state and local laws. Participants receive a workbook containing information on access regulations and are provided with a step-by-step process for conducting assessments and encouraging voluntary compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Architectural, communication, programmatic, and policy barriers prevent people from participating fully in society. People with disabilities cannot always assume they can use common public places, such as stores, banks, offices, and restaurants, or participate in ordinary life activities such as working, getting an education, visiting friends, or attending community events. By being highly effective advocates, Community Access Monitors have played an essential role in encouraging access improvements.

The following is the list of 1999 trainings:

• May 19 & 20 Natick, MA
• June 23 & 24 Everett, MA
• September 8 & 9 Newburyport, MA
• October 20 & 21 Northampton, MA
• November (TBA) Canton, MA

For more information, contact MOD at (617) 727-7440 (v/tty) or (800) 322-2020 in-state (v/tty).

Rhode Island ILC Initiates Access Campaign
Ocean State Center for Independent Living Center (OSCIL) has recently kicked off a "yard stick rule" campaign. They have 250 yard sticks with the quote "yard stick for access -- it's the law -- keep all aisles at 36 inches" printed on it. They will be bringing to the attention of department stores the importance of aisle access throughout their stores. This is a simple tool for clerks to use when going on their shift to check aisle widths. OSCIL is available to make presentations and provide further information, call (401) 738-1013 (voice) or (401) 738-1015 (tty).

Back to top

PUBLICATIONS

• The ADA: A Guide for People with Disabilities, Their Families, and Advocates - $8 Self-Evaluation Guide for Public Elementary and Secondary Schools - $21 Title II Action Guide for State and Local Governments - $24
• ADA National Access for Public Schools Project's Q&A sheets:
  • Nondiscrimination and Effective Communication
  • Employment Program Accessibility
  • Private Schools
  • Transportation
  • General and Miscellaneous
• Child Care Settings and the ADA Commonly Asked Questions About Child Care Centers and the ADA $1 ADAAG for Buildings and Facilities: Children's Elements Guidelines $2 ADAAG for Buildings and Facilities: Proposed Rule for Play Areas $1
• ADAAG Manual: A Guide to the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines. New from the US Access Board, 143 pages clarifies the complexities of the ADAAG, lots of helpful drawings. Cost is $10
• EEOC: Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) $3

(These publications are available from our Center by calling 800-949-4232 V/TTY.)

• 1998 Update MAAB vs. ADAAG: At-A-Glance Guide – A pocket guide to the differences between the ADA Accessibility Guidelines and the Massachusetts Architectural Access Board's Rules and Regulations. $39.95
• ADA/MAAB Architectural Barrier Removal Requirements: Existing Facilities and Alterations – A one-page summary integrating state and federal requirements for removing barriers from existing buildings. (Free)

(For nformation about these publications, contact Katherine McGuinness and Associates at (617) 556-2870 or email: kmcguinness@tamsconsultants.com.)

Back to top

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

CHILD CARE CENTERS AND THE ADA

Q: Does the Americans with Disabilities Act -- or "ADA" -- apply to child care centers?

A: Yes. Privately-run child care centers -- like other public accommodations such as private schools, recreation centers, restaurants, hotels, movie theaters, and banks -- must comply with title III of the ADA. Child care services provided by government agencies, such as Head Start, summer programs, and extended school day programs, must comply with title II of the ADA. Both titles apply to a child care center's interactions with the children, parents, guardians, and potential customers that it serves.

Q: Which child care centers are covered by title III?

A: Almost all child care providers, regardless of size or number of employees, must comply with title III of the ADA. Even small, home-based centers that may not have to follow some State laws are covered by title III.

The exception is child care centers that are actually run by religious entities such as churches, mosques, or synagogues. Activities controlled by religious organizations are not covered by title III. Private child care centers that are operating on the premises of a religious organization, however, are generally not exempt from title III.

Q: How do I decide whether a child with a disability belongs in my program?

A: Child care centers cannot just assume that a child's disabilities are too severe for the child to be integrated successfully into the center's child care program. The center must make an individualized assessment about whether it can meet the particular needs of the child without fundamentally altering its program. In making this assessment, the caregiver must not react to unfounded preconceptions or stereotypes about what children with disabilities can or cannot do, or how much assistance they may require.

Q: My insurance company says it will raise our rates if we accept children with disabilities. Do I still have to admit them into my program?

A: Yes. Higher insurance rates are not a valid reason for excluding children with disabilities from a child care program. The extra cost should be treated as overhead and divided equally among all paying customers.

Q: Our center specializes in "group child care." Can we reject a child just because she needs individualized attention?

A: No. Most children will need individualized attention occasionally. If a child who needs one-to-one attention due to a disability can be integrated without fundamentally altering a child care program, the child cannot be excluded solely because the child needs one-to-one care.

Q: One of the children in my center hits and bites other children. His parents are now saying that I can't expel him because his bad behavior is due to a disability. What can I do?

A: The first thing the provider should do is try to work with the parents to see if there are reasonable ways of curbing the child's bad behavior. He may need extra naps, "time out," or changes in his diet or medication. If reasonable efforts have been made and the child continues to bite and hit children or staff, he may be expelled from the program even if he has a disability.

Children who pose a direct threat -- a substantial risk of serious harm to the health and safety of others -- do not have to be admitted into a program. The determination that a child poses a direct threat may not be based on generalizations or stereotypes about the effects of a particular disability; it must be based on an individualized assessment that considers the particular activity and the actual abilities and disabilities of the individual.

Q: Our center has a policy that we will not give medication to any child. Can I refuse to give medication to a child with a disability?

A: No. In some circumstances, it may be necessary to give medication to a child with a disability in order to make a program accessible to that child. While some state laws may differ, generally speaking, as long as reasonable care is used in following the doctors' and parents' or guardians written instructions about administering medication, centers should not be held liable for any resulting problems.

Q: We diaper young children, but we have a policy that we will not accept children more than three years of age who need diapering. Can we reject children older than three who need diapering because of a disability?

A: Generally, no. Centers that provide personal services such as diapering or toileting assistance for young children must reasonably modify their policies and provide diapering services for older children who need it due to a disability. Generally speaking, centers that diaper infants should diaper older children with disabilities when they would not have to leave other children unattended to do so.

Centers must also provide diapering services to young children with disabilities who may need it more often than others their age.

Some children will need assistance in transferring to and from the toilet because of mobility or coordination problems. Centers should not consider this type of assistance to be a "personal service."

Q: Can we exclude children with HIV or AIDS from our program?

A: No. Centers cannot exclude a child solely because he has HIV or AIDS. According to the vast weight of scientific authority, HIV/AIDS cannot be easily transmitted during the types of incidental contact that take place in child care centers. Children with HIV or AIDS generally can be safely integrated into all activities of a child care program.

Q: What about children with diabetes? Do we have to admit them to our program? If we do, do we have to test their blood sugar levels?

A: Generally, yes. Children with diabetes can usually be integrated into a child care program without fundamentally altering it, so they should not be excluded from the program on the basis of their diabetes. Providers should obtain written authorization from the child's parents or guardians and physician and follow their directions for simple diabetes-related care.

Q: Do we have to help children take off and put on their leg braces and provide similar types of assistance to children with mobility impairments?

A: Generally, yes. Some children with mobility impairments may need assistance in taking off and putting on leg or foot braces during the child care day. As long as doing so would not be so time consuming that other children would have to be left unattended, or so complicated that it can only done by licensed health care professionals, it would be a reasonable modification to provide such assistance. (Source: Excerpted from "Commonly Asked Questions About Child Care Centers And The Americans With Disabilities Act," U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section.)

Back to top

GREAT WEB SITES

NICHCY, National Information Center for Children and Youth with Disabilities
http://www.nichcy.org/  P.O. Box 1492 Washington, DC 20013-1492 (800) 695-0285 V/TTY; (202) 884-8200 V/TTY E-mail: nichcy@aed.org Established by Congress, NICHCY is an information and referral center that provides information on disabilities and disability-related issues as well as referrals to a wide network of specialists from agencies and organizations across the country. The focus is on education and children and youth, ages birth to 22 years.

HEATH Resource Center, The National Clearinghouse on Postsecondary Education for Individuals with Disabilities
http://www.acenet.edu  One Dupont Circle, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 939-9320 V/TTY E-mail: heath@ace.nche.edu HEATH provides information on educational support services, policies, procedures, adaptations, transition, and opportunities at American campuses, vocational-training schools, adult education programs, independent living centers, and other training entities after high school for individuals with disabilities.

Educational Resources Information Center Clearinghouse on Disabilities and Gifted Education (ERIC)
http://ericec.org  1920 Association Drive Reston, VA 20191-1589 (800) 328-0272 V; (703) 264-9449 TTY E-mail: ericec@cec.sped.org ERIC is a national information system on education, with a large database of education materials. ERIC EC, one of 16 ERIC clearinghouses, selects and abstracts the best of the professional literature on disabilities and gifted information for inclusion in the ERIC database. It publishes and disseminates information, serves as a resource center for the general public, and promotes the dissemination of research.

DB-LINK, The National Information Clearinghouse on Children Who Are Deaf-Blind
http://www.tr.wou.edu/dblink  345 N. Monmouth Avenue Monmouth, OR 97361 (800) 438-9376 V; (800) 854-7013 TTY E-mail:dblink@tr.wou.edu DB-LINK identifies, coordinates, and disseminates information related to children and youth who are deaf-blind. Parents, service providers, administrators, and others interested in services are invited to contact DB-LINK for information. DB-LINK is a collaborative effort including the American Association of the Deaf-Blind, American Foundation for the Blind, Helen Keller National Center, Perkins School for the Blind, Hospital, and Teaching Research.

Internet Resources for Special Children (IRSC)
http://www.irsc.org/  The IRSC web site is dedicated to communicating information relating to the needs of children with disABILITIES on a global basis in order to: Provide valuable information for parents, family members, caregivers, friends, educators, and medical professionals who interact with children who have disABILITIES; Improve the environment for children with disABILITIES; Create positive changes and enhance public awareness and knowledge of children with disABILITIES; and Act as a central starting point for information and resources.

Back to top

BUILDING YOUR ROLODEX

PARENT TRAINING AND INFORMATION PROJECTS

Connecticut:

Nancy Prescott, Director Connecticut Parent Advocacy Center (CPAC) 338 Main Street Niantic, CT 06357 (860) 739-3089; (800) 445-2722 (In CT) E-mail: cpac@cpacinc.org URL: www.cpacinc.org

Maine:

Janice LaChance, Director Maine Parent Federation/SPIN P.O. Box 2067 Augusta, ME 04338-2067 (207) 582--2504; (800) 870-7746 (In ME) E-mail: jlachance@mpf.org URL: http://www.mpf.org

Massachusetts:

Richard Robison, Executive Director Federation for Children with Special Needs 95 Berkeley Street, Suite 104 Boston, MA 02116 (617) 482-2915 (V/TTY); (800) 331-0688 (617) 695-2939 (In MA) E-mail: fcsninfo@fcsn.org URL: http://www.fcsn.org/

New Hampshire:

Judith Raskin, Director Parent Information Center (PIC) P.O. Box 2405 Concord, NH 03302-2405 (603) 224-6299; (603) 224-7005 (V/TTY) (800) 232-0986 (In NH) or (800) 947-7005 (In NH) E-mail: picnh@aol.com URL: http://taalliance.org/ptis/nhpic

Rhode Island:

Elizabeth Priestly, Executive Director RI Parent Info Network (RIPIN) 175 Main Street Pawtucket, RI 02860 (401) 727-4144; (800) 464-3399 (In RI) E-mail: ripin@ripin.org URL: http://www.ripin.org

Vermont:

Connie Curtin, Director VT Parent Information Center Chace Mill 1 Mill St., Suite A7 Burlington, VT 05401 (802) 658-5315 (V/TTY); (800) 639-7170 (In VT) E-mail: vpic@together.net URL: http://www.together.net/~vpic

Back to top

EVENTS/ANNOUNCEMENTS

Designing for the 21st Century Second International Conference on Universal Design
June 14-18, 2000 Providence Convention Center, Providence, RI
Sponsored by Adaptive Environments
More Details at http://www.adaptiveenvironments.org/21century

"Coming of Age in the 21st Century: Building a Better World for Children"
Association of Youth Museums Annual Conference May 21-23, 1999 New York, N.Y.
Details: 202-898-1080 e-mail: aymdc@aol.com

Access Expo of Northern New England '99
September 14, 1999, Center of NH Holiday Inn, Manchester, NH
Hosted jointly by Alpha One, GSILF, MaineCite Project, NH Assistive Technology Partnership Project, and Vermont Assistive Technology Project
Contact: David Robar at (800) 826-3700 V/TTY

"Re-defining Special Education for the 21st Century"
New York CEC Federation Conference
November 4-6, 1999 Long Island Marriott, Uniondale, NY.
Contact: National Center for Disability Services at (516) 465-1601 or e-mail: cmichaels@ncds.org

Next Issue: Look for the summer issue of Access New England highlighting Outdoor Recreation.

Attention Subscribers! Are you interested in receiving our newsletter via e-mail? Send us a message at adaptive@adaptiveenvironments.org and we'll drop Access New England directly into your e-mail letterbox. Moved recently? Changed your name? No longer interested in receiving our newsletter? Let us know so we can keep our mailing list up-to-date and effective. Call us at 800-949-4232 V/TTY or drop us a line at 374 Congress Street, Suite 301, Boston, MA 02210. Questions about the ADA? Call us at 800-949-4232 V/TTY for answers and guidance.

Back to Top

Back to Previous Page