Amisha Agrawal¹, Varun Nimmagadda², Mori Ono³, Daniel Wang⁴, Serena Yang⁵, Brooke Ellison⁶

¹Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, ²University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, ³Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, ⁴Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02138, ⁵Dougherty Valley High School, San Ramon, CA 94582, ⁶Center for Compassionate Care, Medical Humanities, and Bioethics, Health Science Center, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794

*Editors: Lillian Sun, Junsang Yoon, Jessica Guo

 

Recent technological advances, such as the development of new materials and composites with improved durability, strength, and flexibility, have opened up new doors for assisting those with disabilities.^[1] As the U.S. population ages, the need for assistive technology steadily increases.^[1] Equal accessibility to these technologies is necessary to serve those in need, which is an essential role of the U.S Government. However, several obstacles are currently present.

 

A major obstacle to accessing assistive technology is that it must often be paid for by the individual, which can result in a severe financial burden.^[2] Many federally mandated methods of accessing the technology are constrained by budgets and require a medical professional to justify a medical need for it. This limits the choices for people with disabilities, whose quality of life could be improved with assistive technology, even if it is not medically necessary. Other options such as Veterans Administration are available, though they may be directed for specific purposes and have various requirements that must be met.

 

Another issue is the failure to implement and enforce accessibility guidelines, which is often a responsibility at the local level. For example, federal laws such as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act require that all school districts provide assistive devices to all disabled students, but there is no consistent standard for enforcement.^{[3, 4]} While faculty at the University of California at Berkeley could have used university resources to ensure their massive open online courses (MOOCs) met accessibility standards, none of the MOOCs reviewed by the Department of Justice were found to be fully accessible.^[5]

 

An additional aspect of accessibility is the availability of services that connect Americans to assistive technology. Several state governments increase accessibility by offering support programs and resources for assistive technology on e-government sites. Unfortunately, studies conclude that it is somewhat difficult to find specific information on certain support services for both intellectual and developmental disabilities, as well as to receive a response from state representatives when inquiring for further resource information.^[6] Therefore, the ease and convenience of these resources can be questioned if the state’s ability to relay information through their e-government web pages is inadequate.

 

In the future, state and local policies should align with federal laws in setting the standard for making technology accessible to people with disabilities. Federal and state policies for providing assistive technology should be fully funded and accommodate not just medical needs for the technology, but also to help people with disabilities live a high-quality life. As for state webpages and the resources displayed for attaining assistive technology, there should be a call for increased readability, quicker response times from the representatives of these organizations, and a more concise presentation of available services. In addition, students with disabilities should be represented in committees so their needs can be heard.

 

References

[1] Feiman, Marc P. “Public Funding and Support of Assistive Technologies for Persons with Disabilities.” 2006. PDF file.

[2] Wallace, Joseph. “Assistive Technology Funding in the United States.” NeuroRehabilitation, vol. 28, no. 3, 2011, pp. 295–302., doi:10.3233/nre-2011-0657.

[3] Cooper, R. “Technology for disabilities. Interview by Ron Davis.” BMJ (Clinical research ed.) vol. 319,7220 (1999): 1290. doi:10.1136/bmj.319.7220.1290

[4] “Protecting Students With Disabilities.” Home, 10 Jan. 2020, www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html.

[5] Southern Regional Education Board. Expanding Accessibility to Digital Spaces Through Improved Policy and Practice . Mar. 2017, www.sreb.org/sites/main/files/file-attachments/2017_edtech_polbrief_final_5-3.pdf?1493823503.

[6] Fisher, Kathleen M, et al. “Identifying State Resources and Support Programs on E-Government Websites for Persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.” Nurs Res Pract, vol. 2015, 2015, pp. 127638–6., doi:10.1155/2015/127638.