1
2009 Faculty/Staff Survey on Disability Prevalence,
Awareness and Accessibility at MU:
A Report to the Chancellor and Provost on Findings and Recommendations
by The Chancellor’s Committee for Persons with Disabilities
February 25, 2010
2
Executive Summary
The Committee’s Recommendation
The Committee’s charge is to advise the Provost on MU programs, services and policies that affect
disabled students, faculty, staff and visitors.
The Chancellor’s Committee for Persons with Disabilities (CCPD) used a mixed-method study to
investigate disability prevalence, awareness, and accessibility at MU. Quantitative and qualitative
findings identified attitudinal and physical barriers to access and acceptance on MU’s campus for
faculty and staff with disabilities. Currently, the University of Missouri lacks a mechanism by which
disability-related issues that are not individual-specific may be addressed. The CCPD has the expertise
to recognize and define such issues but lacks resources to rectify problems on campus or develop
needed policy. We recommend that the Provost work with the CCPD to establish a mechanism by
which the CCPD may raise disability-related concerns, track progress in promoting MU’s
welcoming climate, and facilitate movement of campus policy to promote disability awareness,
access, and inclusion.
The study
In March of 2009, the CCPD distributed a survey to MU faculty and staff. The survey consisted of
items covering demographic information (including faculty/staff status, gender, age, benefits
eligibility and duration of employment), information about training, knowledge, and awareness of
resources related to disability, observations of harassment and discrimination of persons with
disabilities, and workplace accessibility. Respondents were provided with opportunities to comment
and offer suggestions for ways to make MU a more welcoming and inclusive place for persons with
disabilities. A manuscript of findings is currently under review for journal publication and the CCPD
plans to further disseminate findings.
Key Findings
 Respondents (N = 1,144) were predominantly non-disabled (85%), female (64%), benefitseligible (93%), and staff (78% vs. 22% faculty).

15% of all respondents reported having a disability; among faculty, 11% (n=29) reported
having a disability and among staff, 15% (n=138) reported having a disability.

Most employees (77%) with a disability reported having self-disclosed to their supervisors;
among those employees who indicated that they had not self-identified, 49% reported that the
reason was concern about negative effects.

Only 20% of respondents with a disability felt that the University was effective in responding
to complaints and concerns about job problems or discrimination based on a disability.

While a large majority (84%) of employees with a disability reported feeling generally
accepted in the workplace, a substantial minority (13%) reported they did not feel accepted.
3

Thirty-nine percent of individuals with a disability had requested a workplace modification.
Over three-quarters of those requesting workplace modifications received them (78%). The
rate of receiving modification of job duties was lower (60%).

Within the total sample, 64 individuals (6%) endorsed having observed harassment or similar
unfair treatment of a coworker with a disability. Respondents with a disability reported having
observed harassment or similar unfair treatment of coworkers with disability more frequently
than respondents without disability (14% vs. 4%).

26% of respondents with a disability reported a personal experience of discrimination at work
and 20% reported a personal experience of harassment/unfair treatment at work because of
their disability. These rates are comparable with findings from the 2004 Survey of Americans
with Disabilities, in which 22% of employed people with disabilities reported encountering job
discrimination (N.O.D., 2004).

54% of employees with a disability rated campus accessibility as excellent or good (vs. 63%
for employees without disability) and 41% rated it as fair or poor (vs. 26% for employees
without disability).

54% of all respondents indicated that they had received training on workplace diversity issues;
yet, less than half (24%) reported receiving training on working with people with disabilities.
Specific Problem Areas Cited by Respondents
Physical barriers
Although the campus meets minimum requirements for accessibility, respondents reported
frustration with limitations in a number of buildings on campus (e.g., Jesse Hall, Memorial Union,
Ellis Library, Arts & Sciences, MU sports facilities/arenas and MU Bookstore).
Areas of concern:





Signage. Campus-wide problems were noted in signage and maps for accessible building
entrances, elevators, places to park, etc.
Bathrooms. Bathrooms in some campus buildings were noted as too small, lacking accessible
stalls, or were inconveniently located.
Doors. Noted to be too heavy; automated doors not turned on or swing in an uncoordinated
way so a person in a wheelchair cannot get in.
Parking. Distance from accessible parking to campus buildings and an unpleasant parking
management/process.
Sidewalks in need of repair and/or maintenance (e.g., snow/ice removal in winter). Also, need
to consider accessibility when campus construction requires re-routing.
4
Attitudinal barriers



Higher administration is perceived as not actively promoting acceptance or visibility of
people with disabilities. This was contrasted to efforts made for other diversity groups. Note:
the NSF (2006) provides the following disability prevalence rates for science and engineering
doctorate holders employed in universities and 4-year colleges: 7% among presidents, provosts
and chancellors, and 9% among deans, department heads and chairs.
Need for increased awareness of disability in the workplace through faculty and staff
training.
Need for increased supervisor awareness of disability issues and accommodations in the
workplace.
Summary and CCPD Committee Comments
The data from our study provide insight about disability prevalence, experience and accessibility on
campus. Foremost, the study’s findings indicate that there is a substantial minority of employees
with disabilities whose presence is not adequately captured by voluntary employee selfidentification and whose experience of acceptance and accessibility on campus is not as positive as
their peers without disability.
Overall, the survey results mirror the experience of our committee members, suggesting that MU has
been only generally compliant in addressing broad accessibility concerns. The CCPD recognizes that
the University may be more flexible in responding to individual concerns, and, in some instances,
such as the student recreation complex, the University should be commended for approaching key
projects with an eye for inclusiveness. The University currently lacks, however, visible top
management commitment and policies that protect the rights and promote inclusion of employees with
disabilities.
At the time of this survey, the University had not included disability related harassment and
discrimination in its employee education protocols. This has since changed, but based on reported
incidences of harassment and unfair treatment there is a need to monitor the effects of these new
efforts.
The CCPD has the expertise to recognize and define such issues, but lacks resources to rectify
problems on campus or develop needed policy. A possible model to use, with some modifications, is
one both the Provost and the Chancellor endorsed in the recent past – Access Mizzou. In light of
survey findings, we will be sharing and discussing potential modification of the Access Mizzou plan
with both the Provost and the Chancellor, and requesting endorsements and support.
5
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
2
The Study
6
Rationale
6
Procedure
6
Findings
7
Prevalence of Disability Among Faculty and Staff
7
Campus Accessibility
8
Acceptance and Harassment
8
Awareness of Disability Issues and Resources
10
Specific Problem Areas
11
Physical barriers
11
Attitudinal barriers
13
Limitations of the Study
15
References
16
Appendix A: Tables
17
Table 1: Sample demographic data with comparison data.
17
Table 2: Sub-sample of persons identifying as a person with a disability.
18
Table 3: Awareness of disability with breakdown by gender
and employment status.
19
Table 4: Disability awareness and experience among employees
with and without disability.
Table 5: Awareness of campus-related disability resources.
Appendix B: Disability on Campus: Survey for Faculty and Staff
21
23
24
6
The Study
Rationale
In March of 2009, the CCPD conducted a survey of all faculty and staff. The objective of the survey
was to gather data on issues critical to the lives of faculty and staff with disabilities including:
disability prevalence, disability awareness, and accessibility on MU’s campus. The CCPD decided to
conduct a mixed methods study as data about such issues was lacking. Human Resource Services and
the ADA Coordinator have some data about employees who report having a disability at the time of
hire or after being hired if needing an accommodation. However, MU currently has no central
database with regard to faculty and staff who have disabilities, except for an annual report by
Institutional Research that collects data obtained at time of hire with less than 1% of faculty and staff
self-reported having a disability.
Procedure
The CCPD worked for one year to develop and pilot the survey prior to distributing it to faculty and
staff. The study was conducted in compliance with and under the auspices of the University’s Campus
Institutional Review Board. CCPD members include key personnel with knowledge about various
subject areas relating to accessibility and inclusion of people with disabilities (i.e., the University’s
ADA Coordinator and representatives from the Great Plains ADA Center, Disability Services, Human
Resource Services, Campus Facilities, the Adaptive Computing Technology Center, Residential Life,
Athletics, MU Libraries, as well as others who live with various disabilities). The survey (see
Appendix A) consisted of 47 items. Five items covered demographic information including employee
status (faculty or staff), gender, age, benefits eligibility and duration of employment. Twenty items
inquired about training, knowledge, and resources related to disability, chronic physical or mental
conditions for self and family, observations of harassment and discrimination of persons with
disabilities, and workplace accessibility. Additionally, nineteen items pertained only to employees
with a disability (i.e., endorsed “yes” to: “Do you consider yourself a person with a disability?” as
defined by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). Finally, three open-end questions
inquired about ways to make the University more welcoming and inclusive for persons with
disabilities.
The CCPD chair provided an interview for Mizzou Weekly which ran an article alerting readers to the
upcoming study. The study was formally announced one day after the newspaper story. The CCPD
chair requested that a mass email be sent to all faculty and staff, however, this request was denied as
the CCPD does not belong to a particular campus unit. Thus, the primary vehicle for delivering the
announcement was via a paid electronic advertisement in MU Info. The advertisement directed
interested participants to a website to complete an anonymous survey. An advertisement for the
survey also appeared in the University’s healthcare e-news. CCPD members sent additional e-mail
notices about the survey to personal contacts, ultimately reaching eleven colleges/schools, residential
life staff, extension, human resources, and members of the University’s ADA coordinator’s contact
list. All costs accrued for the study were paid for by CCPD members’ individual units as the CCPD
has no designated funding. As there were limited financial resources for the study, follow-up
advertisements were not possible.
Survey Monkey was used as the online survey platform and most participants completed the survey
online. Upon entering the website, participants were informed that the survey was voluntary,
7
anonymous, and would take approximately 10 minutes to complete. The survey was available to
participants for three weeks. Potential participants were directed to contact the study representative if
an alternate format was needed. Twenty-eight employees completed hard copies that were entered by
study staff into Survey Monkey.
Several respondents expressed gratitude that disability issues were being inquired about:
“This questionnaire itself shows a new commitment to quality for creating an appropriate
environment for persons with disabilities. Thank you!”
“I am glad to see this survey because it is the first time I've seen anyone here care about this
issue.”
“It is encouraging that MU seems to be trying to make things easier for those with challenges,
so I just appreciate that you all developed this survey! (along with all the other stuff you do)”
“I feel that MU has a great foundation to accommodate for people with disabilities; yet, we
can always keep attaining more information to better the specific needs of the campus. I feel
that one way is through surveying the campus population, as you are, and finding out what is
working and what isn't.”
Findings
Note: see Tables 1-5 in Appendix A for an in-depth presentation of all study finding. In addition to
survey responses, 383 respondents provided qualitative feedback; their quotes are in italics.
Prevalence of Disability among Faculty and Staff:

Respondents (N = 1,144) were predominantly non-disabled (85%), female (64%), benefitseligible (93%), and staff (78% vs. 22% faculty).

15% of respondents reported having a disability.

Among faculty, 11% (n=29) reported having a disability and among staff, 15% (n=138)
reported having a disability.

16% (N=114) of all female respondents and 13% (N=53) of all male respondents reported
having a disability

Higher rates of disability were found for non benefits-eligible employees (21%) vs. benefitseligible employees (14%).

Rate of disability was highest among those in the 51-66 year age bracket (21%; N=87).

Most employees with a disability reported having self-disclosed to their supervisors (77%).
Among those who indicated that they had not self-identified, 49% reported that the reason was
concern about negative effects.
8

Requests for accommodation appear to be common, though far from universal. Over threequarters of individuals requesting workplace modifications received them (78%).

A somewhat greater rate of success in obtaining workplace modifications vs. modifications of
job duties was reported. However, interpretation of this finding must be considered cautiously,
as the study’s numbers are small and modifications are considered on a case-by-case basis.
Campus Accessibility

A majority of all respondents (62%) rated the campus as “good” or “excellent” in terms of
overall accessibility and 28% felt that accessibility on campus was only “fair” or “poor.”
“If more of an effort was made to make things accessible, we could advertise as a
friendly campus and attract some awesome students. I have a friend that is getting her
PhD from Berkeley and won't even think about applying at schools around here
because she sees how hard it is to get around the campus.”
“To become a more welcoming environment for people with disabilities MU should
become more accessible in every aspect possible (i.e., print materials, web pages,
accessible parking, accessible path of travel, doors, classrooms, etc.).”
“I think MU has done a lot to make things accessible, but *keeping* them accessible
requires attention from staff who aren't always thinking about these issues.”
“Provide acceptable access in all buildings. It took 5 years to get an accessible
entrance in one building. This building housed Brain Injury and Spinal Cord Injury
federally funding grant projects."

Respondents with a disability were more equivocal, with only 54% rating campus as
“excellent” or “good” and 41% rated it as “fair” or poor” in terms of overall accessibility.
“Well I can remember that there was one employee that had a severe disability. She
was not able to climb several flights of stairs. She confided in me that if she did not
arrive to work early (at least 30 minutes) she was unable to find parking in the garage
on basement level. At lunch time of course she generally could not leave or she would
lose her parking.”
“Parking on campus is very difficult. There are handicap spaces, but they are
frequently full. Attending employee classes that HR puts on at the Memorial Union are
nearly impossible for me to attend because by the time I get to the entrance of
Memorial Union I am worn out. Events at Jessie are difficult for the same reason.”
Acceptance and Harassment

While a large majority (84%) of employees with a disability reported feeling generally
accepted in the workplace, a substantial minority (13%) reported not feeling accepted. The
MU Campus Climate Assessment of 2002 findings were consistent, indicating that people with
9
disabilities viewed campus acceptance (of people with disabilities) less favorably than
respondents without disabilities.
“There is a common gripe among those around me about others with disabilities. I
find it distasteful and will not tell my coworkers about myself due to those
discriminations. I don't want anyone to feel like I am saying “poor me”. I have a
disability but am able to work. I put more effort into working but produce more work
and stay busy longer than those without disabilities. I think it is due to work ethics and
determination.”

A total of 64 individuals (6%) reported having observed harassment or similar unfair treatment
of a coworker with a disability. Respondents with a disability reported having observed
harassment or similar unfair treatment of coworkers with disability more frequently than
respondents without disability (14% vs. 4%).
“I know of one supervisor that has a person with disabilities working for them that
does not do a good job of accommodating the disability. I think the main problem is
the disability is mental and the supervisor does not understand how their actions affect
the performance of the employee.”

26% of respondents with a disability reported a personal experience of discrimination at work
and 20% reported a personal experience of harassment/unfair treatment at work because of
their disability. These rates are comparable with findings from the 2004 Survey of Americans
with Disabilities, in which 22% of employed people with disabilities reported encountering job
discrimination (N.O.D., 2004). The MU Campus Climate Assessment of 2002 reported how
harassment and discrimination against people with disabilities most often occurred in more
subtle and hidden ways than when other underrepresented groups are targeted.
"I'm currently seeking a new job because of the way my supervisor has treated me
because of my disability. He has downplayed my illness, asked personal questions that
aren't relevant to my work, offered unsolicited advice on my diagnosis and treatment,
and threatened to fire me if my performance declined. There are occasionally minor
situations that are a little disappointing, too, such as not being able to attend a
department holiday party because it was held off-campus in a location I couldn't get to
because of my driving limitations, but that's not a huge concern."
"I was so discriminated against after revealing my disability that I was literally pushed
out of my job. I am with MU, but not in the same position. The situation was so
stressful to my family that I was urged to just quit even though we could not afford it
because of the toll it was taking on me at home, mentally and time.”

Only 20% of respondents with a disability felt that the University was effective in responding
to complaints and concerns about job problems or discrimination based on a disability.
“A co-worker told me to "go home and get on disability"; I did ask for a meeting
10
between myself, my supervisor and the co-worker that made the atrocious remark,
because I did not want this woman to think her behavior was acceptable. She never
acknowledged that she had acted in an inappropriate manner and blew the whole thing
off, even as I told her how hurtful and discriminatory her remarks were. To my
knowledge, she was not disciplined in any way. This seems to suggest acceptance of
discrimination.”
"I was previously harassed endlessly by my new supervisor and finally I took my case
to the ADA representative on campus. Now I am simply ignored, but constantly
scrutinized by my supervisor. I don't expect it to end until I take early retirement which
I feel I'm being forced to do."
Awareness of Disability Issues and Resources

54% of all respondents indicated that they had received training on workplace diversity issues;
yet, less than half (24%) reported receiving training on working with people with disabilities.

Of 12 campus resources for disability, 67% of all respondents checked feeling knowledgeable
about 5 or fewer of the resources:
“I don't know anything about any of the services mentioned above in the survey, and I
don't believe that any of my coworkers are educated about working with people who
have disabilities. I definitely think that everyone on campus should be made more
aware of these services. Mass email seems to be effective; otherwise, I wouldn't have
taken the time to do this survey.”

A substantial minority of respondents reported not being familiar with the ADA (30%),
workplace disability issues (35%), and not knowing where to find information on rights/
responsibilities of employees with disability (37%), policy/guidelines (40%), or rights/
responsibilities if injured (43%).

76% percent of respondents indicated that they did not know how to request a job
accommodation based on a disability.

Fewer respondents with a disability felt their supervisor was knowledgeable about workplace
disability issues than those without a disability (54% vs. 65%). Supervisors and higher level
administration set the tone for disability awareness, a welcoming environment, and a
pleasant/proactive accommodation process:
“Supervisors should not be allowed to get away with intimidating people and
discriminating to the point they are making someone who already has a problem want
to just quit because going to work is such hell. I loved the job I did and I got wonderful
evaluations until I disclosed the disability because my boss was making it difficult for
me to make it to mandatory doctor appointments. Sadly, I couldn't continue there and
what is worse is that I know nothing has changed and I feel bad for the people who will
11
come after me. I wish MU would take this seriously.”
Specific Problem Areas
Specific problem areas regarding campus accessibility were identified from qualitative/written
responses from participants (383 participants provided comments). Problem areas included physical
barriers such as high profile buildings, signage, bathrooms, doors, parking, and sidewalks. Attitudinal
barriers were identified as needs for education and administrative standards.
Physical barriers:

Campus buildings (39 responses). To be a welcoming campus, buildings should be
accessible. This includes buildings that are critical either because of their campus function or
visibility. Examples of such buildings include: Jesse Hall, Memorial Union, Ellis Library, Arts
& Sciences, MU sports facilities/arenas, and the MU bookstore.
“Our buildings are badly designed and inaccessible. As an example, I have taught
several students in wheelchairs in the A&S building. Many of them have been unable to
reach the elevator button from their chairs, so that even though the building is
“accessible” the students cannot easily gain access unless another student or
faculty/person assists.”
“The library is almost completely inaccessible for anyone who is wheelchair bound.”
“All building main entrances need to be accessible to everyone-no stairs for the main
entrance (or any entrance, if possible). New bookstore is terrible-need an elevator to
get to anything.”
“Restrooms that have wheelchair friendly doorways; even in Jesse Hall, I have seen
people struggling with a door that opened the wrong way.”
“Wheelchair access to and inside buildings is pretty poor. Especially Jesse Hall.”

Signage Campus-wide, there needs to be better signage (9 responses) for accessibility
regarding entrances, elevators, places to park, etc. This includes up-to-date maps with
accessible entrances and parking identified.
“I have seen many persons in wheelchairs have difficulty navigating the sidewalks on
campus as well as having to go around a whole building to find an acceptable
entrance.”
“When I broke my ankle and was on crutches for a month, I had a very hard time
getting into some buildings with heavy doors. A sticker noting where the disability
entrance was for buildings I was not familiar with would have saved me many tiring,
awkward situations.”
"When I was trying to get my daughter around the campus the week she was in a wheel
12
chair we had trouble ""finding"" the handicapped entrances to buildings, ramps and
elevators. It would be nice and it would save time if there were signs that helped with
that."

Bathrooms (20 responses) are too small overall, accessible stalls are also too small, and often
are located in an inconvenient location (e.g., on a different floor with no elevator, toilets/sinks
that are too low/high).
“Easy access to handicapped bathroom is pretty poor. Having a stall with a
handicapped commode and bars does not a handicapped bathroom make. A plain
door and then a sharp turn can be very difficult to navigate in a wheel chair, walker or
crutches.
"I had knee surgery at the University Hospital outpatient I noticed the restroom in that
area has hand rails in the restroom but, they have a low toilet that is unacceptable. I
use a power chair and there is no way I can raise myself up from a low toilet seat even
with the hand rails at the appropriate height. I have been meaning to write a letter to
the hospital but haven't gotten that accomplished yet."
“I am in Ellis Fischel, one bathroom in the entire building can be used by someone in
a wheelchair. There needs to be at least one per floor that can be used by a person in
a wheelchair. An employee in our office is in a wheelchair and she has to go down one
floor and to the other side of the building to go to the bathroom."

Doors (74 responses) that are too heavy; automated doors that are not turned on or swing in an
uncoordinated way so a person in a wheelchair cannot get in:
“Bathroom doors & elevator doors are NOT wheelchair friendly. Some are heavy and
difficult to open when you are in a disabled condition; elevator doors open/close too
fast and catch you in the middle of egress and exit. Have the people who set the time
intervals sit in a wheelchair and see if they can get in or out of the door in the allotted
time!”
“There are disability access things in place that are not always used because of
people’s inattention or ignorance, such as doors with switches that open the door
which are not switched on so the door remains closed unless someone helps open it.
One situation I reported involved a heated wheelchair ramp that was a lovely way to
enter the building in the winter, but the snow plows shoveled snow and ice in front of it,
making it inaccessible (that problem was attended to after I reported it).”
“Do a better job of the automatic doors in all buildings (for example, in areas where
there are dual sets of doors, inner and outer, make sure they open together and in the
same direction when the button is activated)."

Parking (155 comments) problems in regard to how far it is from accessible parking to
campus buildings and an unpleasant parking management/process.
13
“Disability parking is terrible; nothing close to Jesse Hall; nothing close to Mizzou
Arena. Most disability parking is focused on wheelchair access NOT people with
difficulty walking! I used an electric golf cart to get to and from classes; which helped,
but this option is not available to everyone.”
“We may self-identify (I have arthritis which makes it hard to climb stairs and sharp
inclines) but MU acts as if we are all trying to get free parking spaces. I found the
folks at Transportation Services extremely rude regarding my request for a
handicapped space. Although I have a state hangtag, MU requires an additional
application, and still fines you if you park in a handicapped space without an MU tag.”
“Following knee surgery, I obtained a handicapped hangtag from the Dept of
Revenue. I then got another one from MU. Even with these, I was not allowed to use
the handicapped spaces directly outside my building; I had to use the handicapped
spaces in the Turner Garage and walk blocks rather than feet on crutches.”

Sidewalks (40 responses) in need of repair and/or maintenance (e.g., snow/ice removal in
winter). Also, accessibility should be considered when construction requires re-routing (e.g.,
the construction crew may make an asphalt grade to get onto a curb that works for a car but not
a wheelchair).
“Educate employees to know when handicap access is being compromised and
empower individual employees to make changes that will benefit full access.
Absolutely make sure that ramps and sidewalks from parking garages to building are
cleared of all snow and ice!!!!”
Attitudinal barriers:

Higher administration should actively promote an atmosphere of acceptance which
includes acceptance of people with disabilities. Higher administration can set a positive
tone/expectation for acceptance and accommodation of people with disabilities, similar to
efforts made for other diversity groups.
“Placing qualified people with disabilities in positions of leadership is such a great
way to demonstrate our commitment to diversity and help move our community
forward.”
“It all begins at the top. A positive statement, hiring, representation on
Councils/Curators, bringing national speakers, promoting events, acknowledging the
achievements of persons with disabilities, inclusive universal design.”
“We should be taught to celebrate differences and not shun them. One thing that MU
could do was to place obviously handicapped people in brochures and other
publications. RARELY does it happen. I understand that the University wants to
14
portray a healthy, happy place; but I feel that can also be accomplished having
disabled peoples pictured.”

Need for increased awareness of disability in the workplace through faculty and staff
training:
I think HRS needs to do workplace training on ""unseen disabilities"". I think it would
be very helpful to know how to handle them, any rights or laws that are in place and
include student employees. Thank you for doing this survey, this has really been
bothering me!"
We have Wellness, Environmental, Fitness, Health, Technology e-mail newsletters.
Why not a weekly or Quarterly Newsletter on Disability at MU?"
Provide education about people with disabilities (e.g., how they are to be treated,
accommodations) to MU faculty, administrators, students and staff."
"Perhaps a campus training like the sexual harassment training we underwent this past
year, on disability issues."
Feature stories on accomplishments of people with disabilities employed at MU,
presentations by people with disabilities who are employed at MU, more training for
employees an working with/hiring people with disabilities"
"Make the number of employees with disabilities more visible. Is suspect there are
MANY people with disabilities working at MU and I don't know that. If I knew how
many people with disabilities are successfully working at MU, that would change my
perception. Maybe have a ""disabled employee of the month"" campaign?"
"When a new employee is hired, I think it would be helpful to have a whole training
hour or section just on disability and how it works. Then, I think it would be helpful to
have periodic updates or reminders to all of the staff about what happens if you are to
become disabled during your time as a University employee. Maybe this already
happens and I just haven't seen in yet because I'm fairly new, but I don't remember this
being discussed in much detail during training."

Need for increased supervisor awareness of disability issues and accommodations in the
workplace
“Retrain your supervisors at all levels, about what disabilities are, and how some can
become worse if accommodations are not made while the disability is small.”
"I think that when an employee is given ADA accommodations, their supervisor needs
to be trained in how to accommodate that person. The supervisor needs to learn about
the disability, what some of the hardships might be, and the best course of action for
that person. I think that often supervisors are told they have to accommodate a person
and left high and dry. They need to be given the tools to help their employee succeed."
15
“It's been my experience that nothing will ever change within the confines of MU. I've
watched a co-worker be refused various opportunities because she has MS. In the 10
years I've been with MU this person has repeatedly applied for administrative positions
she is more than qualified for, but has been turned down every single time. She has full
brain functions, but is unable to walk without a cane so there is no good reason to
prohibit her from bettering herself.”
Limitations of the Study
Interpretations of our study data are limited by low response rate which was likely due to several
factors. The CCPD lacked resources to conduct the study; thus, CCPD members asked their individual
units to provide support. Consequently, most problematic was the fact that notification for the study
occurred primarily through one-shot advertisements in on-campus publications, most of which were
electronic publications. Finally, not all employees on campus have regular access to computers and
the Internet in their workstations and while many of these employees were provided the opportunity to
complete the survey in hardcopy, this aspect of the study was difficult to monitor. Note, the response
rate for this survey was comparable to the Campus Climate Assessment of 2002 for both faculty (n =
254 vs. 462, respectively) and staff (n=890 vs. 808, respectively).
The study sample may have been influenced by self-selection bias. The effect of such bias would most
likely be a disproportionately large number of individuals with disability represented in the study,
resulting in an inflated estimate of disability prevalence. Only one estimate for disability among
faculty in higher education was found in a search of the literature; the National Science Foundation
(NSF) (2006) reported that 7% of faculty holding science or engineering doctoral degrees (research
and teaching faculty) have disabilities (NSF, 2006). This is lower than our faculty sample, in which
11% reported having a disability. Given U.S. census data (Bernstein, 2008; U.S. Census, 2003) it can
be estimated that 11% of the general workforce has a disability. This is also lower than our staff
sample, where 15% reported having a disability. Despite possible respondent bias, the findings are
significant in underscoring the need for additional work in order to more fully understand the needs
and barriers experienced by employees with disability.
It would be of benefit to replicate the study, but with strong institutional support for widespread
promotion. If additional resources are provided, the survey may be repeated with modifications based
on respondent feedback including strategies for increasing survey visibility and response rate.
Expanding the scope, to include questions regarding technology and procurement, would be justified
based on other concerns identified by the committee.
16
References
Bernstein, R. (2008). Number of Americans with a Disability Reaches 54.4 Million. U.S. Census
Bureau News, US Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20233. Released December 18,
2008. Retrieved November 12, 2009, from http://www.census.gov/ Press-Release
/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/ 013041.html.
National Science Foundation (NSF). Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and
Engineering website. NSF, Division of Science Resources Statistics, Survey of Doctorate
Recipients, 2006. Table H-24. S&E doctorate holders employed in universities and 4-year
colleges, by type of academic position, sex, race/ethnicity, and disability status: 2006.
Retrieved November 12, 2009, from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ wmpd/start.htm.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2003). Disability Status: 2000: Census 2000 Brief. Retrieved November 12,
2009, from http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/c2kbr-17.pdf.
17
APPENDIX A: Tables
Table 1: Sample demographic data with comparison data
MU Employees*
Survey respondents
N (%)
N (%)
Survey respondents
identifying as PWD
n (%)
Gender**
Males
Females
N
6,981 (42%)
9,712 (58%)
16,693**
731 (64%)
413 (36%)
1,144
53 (64%)
114 (36%)
167
Employee status
Faculty
Staff
N
4,409 (26%)
12,285 (74%)
16,694
254 (22%)
890 (78%)
1,144
29 (17%)
138 (83%)
167
Age
< 30
31-50
51-66
67+
N
3,662 (22%)
7,759 (46%)
4,867 (29%)
406 (2%)
16,694
174 (15%)
533 (47%)
418 (36%)
19 (2%)
1,144
13 (7.8%)
65 (39%)
87 (52%)
8 (1.2%)
167
Benefit eligible
Yes
No
N
12,946 (78%)
3,748 (22%)
16,694
1062 (93%)
82 (7%)
1,144
Length of employment*
< 1 year
1-3 years
4-10 years
10-25 years
25+ years
N
1,706 (13%)
3,534 (27%)
3,486 (27%)
3,297 (25%)
923 (7%)
12,946
92 (8%)
233 (20%)
342 (30%)
361 (32%)
116 (10%)
1,144
150 (90%)
17 (10%)
167
6 (4%)
28 (17%)
54 (32%)
60 (36%)
19 (11%)
167
*Data obtained from the MU Office of Institutional Research, HR Census file for 11/01/2008 including data for
Columbia campus, Extension, and University Hospitals and Clinics, and excludes student titles. For MU
employees, length of employment is calculated for "benefits eligible" employees only, and is based on benefits
start date.
**1 “unknown” regarding gender
18
Table 2: Sub-sample of persons identifying as a person with a disability (N = 167)
N / %
Types of disability
Mobility
66 (40%)
Health-related
46 (28%)
Arthritis
42 (25%)
Other
28 (17%)
Hearing
24 (14%)
LD/ADD/ADHD
16 (10%)
Mental Illness / Psychological
12 (7%)
Vision
9 (5%)
Brain injury
6 (3%)
Employees with disability who self-identified to supervisor
128 (77%)
Reasons reported for not having identified to supervisor (N = 39)*
Concern about negative effects
19 (49%)
Don’t need accommodation
18 (46%)
Don’t want anyone to know
10 (26%)
Other
8 (20%)
Don’t know protocol
5 (13%)
Workplace modification:
Number reporting belief that job performance would improve with a
workplace modification?
72 (43%)
Number reporting having requested a modification of work place based
on disability
65 (39%)
Of those requesting modification (N = 65), number reporting having
received the workplace modification.
51 (78%)
Modification of job duties:
Number reporting belief that job performance would improve if job duties
were modified?
44 (26%)
Number reporting having requested a modification of job duties based on
your disability
30 (18%)
Of those requesting modification (N = 30), number reporting having
received modification of job duties.
18 (60%)
*Note, some respondents reported more than one reason for not self-identifying to supervisor
19
Table 3: Awareness of disability with breakdown by gender and employment status
Gender
Employment status
All
respondents
Female
Male
Faculty
Staff
1,144
731 (64%)
413 (36%)
254 (22%)
890 (78%)
Rate overall accessibility
Excellent or good
Fair or poor
Don’t know / not answered
706 (62%)
325 (28%)
113 (10%)
411 (56%)
241 (56%)
79 (11%)
295 (71%)
84 (20%)
34 (8.2%)
153 (60%)
73 (29%)
28 (11%)
553 (62%)
252 (28%)
85 (10%)
Received training about working with PWD
No
Yes
Don’t know / not answered
866 (76%)
278 (24%)
0 (0%)
563 (77%)
168 (23%)
0 (0%)
303 (73%)
110 (27%)
0 (0%)
163 (64%)
91 (36%)
0 (0%)
703 (79%)
187 (21%)
0 (0%)
Received workplace diversity training
No
Yes
Don’t know / not answered
529 (46%)
615 (54%)
0 (0%)
375 (51%)
356 (49%)
0 (0%)
154 (37%)
259 (63%)
0 (0%)
109 (43%)
145 (57%)
0 (0%)
420 (47%)
470 (53%)
0 (0%)
Believe employees with disability accepted
No
Yes
Don’t know / not answered
37 (6%)
877 (77%)
200 (17%)
50 (7%)
528 (72%)
153 (21%)
17 (4%)
349 (85%)
47 (11%)
14 (5%)
185 (73%)
55 (22%)
53 (6%)
692 (78%)
145 (16%)
You are knowledgeable disability issues?
No
Yes
Don’t know / not answered
403 (35%)
740 (65%)
1 (.1%)
279 (38%)
451 (62%)
1 (.1%)
124 (30%)
289 (70%)
0 (0%)
70 (28%)
184 (72%)
0 (0%)
333 (37%)
556 (63%)
1 (.1%)
Your supervisor is knowledgeable about
disability issues?
No
Yes
Don’t know / not answered
130 (11%)
724 (63%)
290 (25%)
101 (14%)
442 (60%)
188 (26%)
29 (7%)
282 (68%)
102 (25%)
33 (13%)
162 (64%)
59 (23%)
97 (11%)
562 (63%)
231 (26%)
Aware of ADA
No
Yes
Don’t know / not answered
343 (30%)
801 (70%)
0 (0%)
203 (28%)
528 (72%)
0 (0%)
140 (34%)
273 (66%)
0 (0%)
54 (21%)
200 (79%)
0 (0%)
289 (32%)
601 (68%)
0 (0%)
Know where to find rights and
responsibilities of employees with disability?
No
Yes
Don’t know / not answered
420 (37%)
724 (63%)
0 (0%)
253 (35%)
478 (65%)
0 (0%)
167 (40%)
246 (60%)
0 (0%)
82 (32%)
172 (68%)
0 (0%)
420 (37%)
724 (63%)
0 (0%)
N
20
Know where to find policies/guidelines on
job accommodations?
No
Yes
Don’t know / not answered
455 (40%)
688 (60%)
1 (.1%)
281 (38%)
450 (62%)
0 (0%)
174 (42%)
238 (58%)
1 (.2%)
102 (40%)
152 (60%)
0 (0%)
353 (40%)
536 (60%)
1 (.1%)
Know how to request a job accommodation
based on disability?
No
Yes
Don’t know / not answered
804 (70%)
339 (30%)
1 (.1%)
515 (70%)
216 (30%)
0 (0%)
289 (70%)
123 (30%)
1 (.2%)
171 (67%)
83 (33%)
0 (0%)
633 (71%)
256 (29%)
1 (.1%)
Know rights and responsibilities if injured on
the job?
No
Yes
Don’t know / not answered
493 (43%)
650 (57%)
1 (.1%)
309 (42%)
422 (58%)
0 (0%)
184 (45%)
228 (55%)
1 (.1%)
132 (52%)
122 (48%)
0 (0%)
361 (41%)
528 (59%)
1 (.1%)
Abbreviations: ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act; PWD = people with disability
21
Table 4: Disability awareness and experience among employees with and without a disability
Employees
with disability
N = 167
Employees
without
disability
N = 977
Rate overall accessibility of the campus:
Excellent or good
Fair or poor
Don’t know / no opinion
90 (54%)
68 (41%)
9 (5%)
616 (63%)
257 (26%)
104 (11%)
Believe employees with disability generally accepted
No
Yes
Don’t know / not answered
26 (15%)
113 (68%)
28 (17%)
41 (4%)
764 (78%)
172 (18%)
Believe you are knowledgeable about workplace disability issues?
No
Yes
Other / not answered
41 (25%)
126 (75%)
0 (0%)
362 (37%)
614 (63%)
1 (.1%)
Believe supervisor is knowledgeable about workplace disability issues?
No
Yes
Don’t know / not answered
48 (29%)
90 (54%)
29 (17%)
82 (8%)
634 (65%)
261 (27%)
Aware of the employment provisions of ADA
No
Yes
Other / not answered
38 (23%)
129 (77%)
0 (0%)
305 (31%)
672 (69%)
0 (0%)
Know where to find rights and responsibilities of employees with
disability?
No
Yes
Other / not answered
58 (35%)
109 (65%)
0 (0%)
362 (37%)
615 (63%)
0 (0%)
Know where to find policies/guidelines on job accommodations?
No
Yes
Other / not answered
69 (41%)
98 (59%)
0 (0%)
386 (40%)
590 (60%)
1 (.1%)
Know how to request a job accommodation based on disability?
No
Yes
Other / not answered
108 (65%)
59 (35%)
0 (0%)
696 (71%)
280 (29%)
1 (.1%)
Know rights and responsibilities if injured on the job?
No
Yes
Other / not answered
68 (41%)
99 (59%)
0 (0%)
425 (44%)
551 (56%)
1 (.1%)
22
Have you observed any harassment or similar unfair treatment of
coworkers with disabilities?
No
Yes
Don’t know / not answered
136 (81%)
23 (14%)
8 (5%)
As a person with a disability, do you feel that you are generally accepted
in the workplace?
No
Yes
Don’t know / not answered
22 (13%)
140 (84%)
5 (3%)
Have you experienced any discrimination at work based on disability?
No
Yes
Don’t know / not answered
118 (71%)
43 (26%)
6 (3%)
Have you ever experienced any harassment or similar unfair treatment at
work because you have a disability?
No
Yes
Don’t know / not answered
126 (75%)
33 (20%)
8 (5%)
Do you believe that [school] does an effective job of responding to
complaints and concerns about job problems or discrimination based on a
disability?
No
Yes
Don’t know / not answered
25 (15%)
34 (20%)
108 (65%)
Abbreviations: ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act
905 (93%)
41 (4%)
31 (3%)
23
Table 5: Awareness of campus-related disability resources*
Resource
Respondents endorsing
familiarity with resource
N (%)
Human Resources
889 (78%)
Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
649 (57%)
Environmental Health and Safety
608 (53%)
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator
453 (40%)
Campus Mediation Service
431 (38%)
Office of Disability Services
379 (33%)
Chancellor's Diversity Initiative
329 (29%)
Adaptive Computing Technology (ACT) Center
218 (19%)
Chancellor's Committee for Persons with Disability
176 (15%)
Assessment and Consultation Clinic (ACC)
104 (9%)
Great Plains ADA / IT Center
79 (7%)
MU Equity Office
53 (5%)
*There was no appreciable difference between the mean number disability resources on campus known to
employees with disability (mean number of items checked = 3.9) and those without a disability (mean number
of items checked = 3.8).
24
APPENDIX B: Disability on Campus: Survey for Faculty and Staff
The Chancellor’s Committee for Persons with Disabilities survey is below. Please respond to all appropriate
questions and when you have completed the survey, scroll down to the bottom of the last page and click on the
DONE button to save your information or it will not update the survey file.
The survey is voluntary and will take approximately 10 minutes to complete. By completing the survey you are
giving consent to participate in the study. No names or any other identifying information will be attached or
included with the survey results. All information is anonymous and confidential.
We are using guidance from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to define disability
for this survey. The recent ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA), which became effective January 1, 2009,
changes the definition of disability by broadening it, so that more people will be protected. The EEOC has
issued a notice – http://www.eeoc.gov/ada/ amendments_notice.html - with some details. We urge you to visit
this site if you have more specific questions. The new law “retains the ADA’s basic definition of ‘disability’ as
an impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a record of such an impairment, or
being regarded as having such an impairment” but defines some of these terms in more detail. Perhaps most
importantly, the law “emphasizes that the definition of ‘disability’ should be interpreted broadly.
If you have any questions regarding the survey, please contact XXX, Chair of the Chancellor’s Persons with
Disabilities Committee, at XXX@XXX.edu.
Thank you for your help. Please respond by March 18, 2009.
DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
1.
Please check the answer that best fits your situation
Faculty
Staff
2.
Gender
Female
Male
3.
Age
30 or younger
31-50
51-66
67 or older
4.
Are you a benefit-eligible employee?
Yes
No
5.
Duration of employment at MU?
Less than a year
1-3 years
4-10 years
10-25 years
More than 25 years
ABOUT THE XX CLIMATE
Please check the answer that best fits your situation.
25
6.
How would you rate the overall accessibility of the campus for people with disabilities
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Don’t know/ no opinion
7.
Have you received any training about working with people with disabilities at MU?
Yes
No
8.
Have you received any workplace diversity training at MU?
Yes
No
9.
Do you believe employees with disabilities are generally accepted in the workplace at MU?
Yes
No
Don’t know/ no opinion
10.
Do you believe that you are fairly knowledgeable about workplace disabilities issues?
Yes
No
11.
Do you believe that your director/ supervisor is knowledgeable about disability issues?
Yes
No
Don’t know/ no opinion
12.
Are you aware of the employment provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?
Yes
No
13.
Do you know where to find information about the rights and responsibilities of employees with
disabilities at MU?
Yes
No
14.
Do you know where to find MU’s policies and guidelines on job accommodations for faculty and staff
with disabilities?
Yes
No
15.
Do you know how to request a job accommodation based on a disability?
Yes
No
16.
Do you know what your rights and responsibilities are if you are injured on the job?
Yes
No
26
17.
From the following list of MU units, please check the ones you are knowledge about (check as many
as apply):
ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Coordinator
Assessment and Consultation Clinic
Adaptive Computing Technology Center
Campus Mediation Services
Chancellor’s Diversity Initiative
Committee on Persons with Disabilities
Employee Assistance Program/Counseling Center
Environmental Health and Safety
Equity Office
Great Plains ADA Center
Human Resources Services
Office of Disability Services
18.
Does the availability of accessible parking affect the way you do your job?
Yes
No
19.
Does the availability of accessible transportation affect the way you do your job?
Yes
No
20.
Do you consider yourself a person with a disability?
Yes
No
IF YOU HAVE ANSWERED “YES” TO QUESTION 20, THEN CONTINUE ON TO QUESTION 21
THROUGH 39. HOWEVER, IF YOU ANSWERED “NO” TO QUESTION 20, PLEASE SKIP TO
QUESTION 40.
21.
Have you told (self-identified) to your supervisor that you have a disability?
Yes
No
22.
If you answered “yes” to question 20, but have not yet told your supervisor you have a disability,
please explain why (check as many as apply):
I do not want anyone to know
I do not know the protocol for how to self identify
I do not need accommodations
I am concerned if I do it will negatively affect me
Not applicable as I have self-identified to MU
Other (please specify)
23.
If you answered “yes” to question 20, please select one or more of the following that most accurately
categorizes your disability:
Vision loss
Hearing loss
Mobility limitation
Health related limitation
27
Learning disability, attention deficit disorder or similar condition
Mental illness
Psychological disorder
Brain injury
Arthritis
Not applicable as the disability does not limit my ability to learn to work
Other (please specify)
24.
As a person with a disability, do you feel that you are generally accepted in the workplace at MU?
Yes
No
25.
Have you experienced any discrimination at work at MU based on disability?
Yes
No
26.
Do you know how to file a complaint at MU about job discrimination based on disability?
Yes
No
27.
Do you believe that MU does an effective job of responding to complaints and concerns about job
problems or discrimination based on a disability?
Yes
No
28.
Don’t know Do you believe that your job performance would improve if you received a workplace
modification (for example, an ergonomic keyboard or chair) based on your disability?
Yes
No
29.
Have you ever asked for a modification of your workplace based on a disability?
Yes
No
30.
If the answer to question 29 is “yes”, did you receive the modification?
Yes
No
31.
Do you believe that your job performance would improve if your job duties were modified based on a
disability?
Yes
No
32.
Have you ever asked for a modification of your MU job duties based on your disability?
Yes
No
If the answer to question 32 is “yes”, did you receive the modification?
Yes
No
33.
34.
Have you experienced any harassment or similar unfair treatment at work because you have a
disability?
28
Yes
No
35.
Do you have any coworkers with disabilities?
Yes
No
36.
Have you observed any harassment or similar unfair treatment of coworkers with disabilities?
Yes
No
37.
Would you use a campus transportation service (e.g. campus shuttle)?
Yes
No
38.
If you answered “yes” to the prior question, what would be the average number of times you might use
it per week?
39.
40.
Does helping a member of your family with a physical or mental condition occasionally require you to
miss work or otherwise adversely affect your work?
Yes
No
Not applicable
IF YOU COMPLETED THE QUESTIONS 21 THROUGH 39, PLEASE SKIP TO QUESTION 45 AND
CONTINUE TO THE END OF THE SURVEY
41.
Are you being treated for any chronic medical condition? (For example, high blood pressure, diabetes,
arthritis, etc.)
Yes
No
42.
Do you have any physical or mental conditions that limit you at work, even though you do not consider
them disabilities?
Yes
No
43.
Do you have any coworkers with disabilities?
Yes
No
44.
Have you observed any harassment or similar unfair treatment of employees with disabilities at MU?
Yes
No
45.
Does helping a member of your family with a physical or mental condition occasionally require you to
miss work or otherwise adversely affect your work?
Yes
No
Not applicable
29
46.
Please tell us about you think MU could do to become a more welcoming environment for people with
disabilities.
47.
Please tell us about experiences you have had or observed at MU that you think are relevant to how
disability issues affect the work lives of faculty and staff.
48.
Other comments or suggestions?