PUBLIC POLICY PAPER ON THE DISABLED

AN UPDATED PAPER IS NOW AVAILABLE:  AFTER TALKING WITH LA'S, POLICY MAKERS, AND OTHERS, I FELT THE NEED TO UPDATE THIS POLICY PAPER.  CLICK BELOW PLEASE.  I LEFT THE OTHER VERSION ONLINE TOO.
UPDATED DISABLED AND VETERAN PUBLIC POLICY PAPER

The disabled in the United States (US) of American and Public Policy on this issue is an extensive topic and hotly debated.  The historical perspective of the debate and policy can lead one to pre-Roosevelt era actions and policy, but, for the most part, the focus of this public policy analysis is public policy from the 1960’s onward, while it will touch on a starting point of Social Security Administration and the Roosevelt Administration.   My hope is to make an analysis of the public policies on the disabled, the ironies thereat aimed, and some fallacies of disabled policies, as well as a discussion to determine if the current polices work and/or need to be reformed. 

This public policy analysis is limited to an analysis and/or discussion of the disabled in the US within the confines of the governmental structure and societal expectation and possible expressions of what policy should be.  The reason for the starting point in the Roosevelt Era is one of the most influential and hotly debated policies is the funding of the social security administration, and in particular disability insurance. Although the focus of the paper is not the pre-1930s era, it is mindful to note that colonial North America did incorporate some policies like the “poor laws”, from England and Europe, and the US did try to take care of the disabled, especially after the Civil War. The US government provided help through pensions for disabled soldiers therefrom (United States Social Security Administration n.d.).  However, military benefits and policies are considered separate from general welfare and policies.  The basis of the current public policy in the United States, a capitalistic (quasi-socialistic society) is Roosevelt’s actions in passing the Social Security Act, and some say that was based on letter writing campaigns to the president[1].   The problem back then that evolved over time with the passing of the Social Security Act was many feeble attempts were made to have a public policy to address the destitute, elderly, and with the passage of time that included the disabled, because efforts like pension plans did not successfully address the issue.[i]  The answer by Roosevelt was a social insurance program rather than a social welfare program, and that is how the Social Security Program began, with the stated purpose to providing for people like the widows and elderly (United States Social Security Administration n.d.). 

As a foundation of disability policy in the US you had the Social Security Act, but other legislation led to a broadening of the public policy leading to the integration of the disabled in US society.  Briefly, after the passage of the Social Security Act, you have various changes to that act to reform it and reach more people, and eventually led to Social Security Insurance (United States Social Security Administration n.d.).  Concurrently, other efforts were underway to foster disabled integration into society, and public policy to address their needs.  The Civil Rights Act of the 1960s (National Parks Service n.d.) helped to broaden the rights of the disabled.  Building codes and laws were passed to ensure buildings were accessible to the disabled. Legislation helped define the public policy on the disabled, and one of the most important pieces of legislation was the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 (United States Department of Justice n.d.).  That act was preceded by the (504) Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (United States Department of the Interior n.d.), that defined the inalienable rights of the disabled not to be discriminated against if a program received federal funding.  The ADA was a broadening of all the preceding legislation in that it was no-longer limited to programs that received federal funds, and in a comprehensive manner defined disability and how reasonable accommodation and access would be achieved to ensure the disabled would be able to participate in all aspects of North American life. 

Hence, the problem was that millions of US citizens were in need of assistance because of their lack of means, age, and disability, etc.  And, within the confines of the US government, the public policy evolved to address those needs, by initially providing a social insurance program, not a welfare program, that would help the widowed, elderly, and disabled be cared for when they could no-longer care for themselves. 

Briefly, I discussed the fact the program was in response to a government failure to provide for the needs of its citizens, and based on the social insurance model of economy policies.  Social security funds are used to as a safety net for the disabled and elderly and is termed insurance; but, some aspects of social security programs can be labeled as a welfare program[2]. The majority of the programs are viewed as contributory extensions of workers income to protect them when they get older and become disabled, because they pay into the system and receive credit correlating to wages earned. From a theoretical perspective, the Social Security Act, Civil Rights Act, American with Disabilities Act, are forms of progressivism with some very serious economic effects.  Our coursework dealt with the theories of capitalism, liberalism, socialism, and communism, and social insurance versus social welfare, and, whom pays for the welfare state, and these policies can are closely aligned to socialism and social insurance that broadened into welfare policies at times (Bandelj and Sowers 2010; Gwartney, et al 2010).

Thus far, we mentioned some of the most significant policies implemented in the United States affecting the disabled.  The Social Security Act was implemented mostly to provide Disability Insurance, and out of that act, some social welfare programs were started like Social Security Insurance being provided to people whom did not pay into the system through their wages. Civil Rights legislation added to the rights of the disabled, local building law and codes enhanced disability rights, the feds implemented legislation to stop discrimination in federally funded programs and employment through the Rehabilitation Act, and, that last act was used for the foundation of the ADA.  Hence, throughout history you have a broadening of disability rights, that led to some ironies or what some might deem as an “about face” in public policy on the disabled. 

What did the ADA do, or what did it intend to do?  The ADA intended to be the legislation to outline a public policy of inclusion in all aspects of society and economic life in the US.  Inclusion being further defined as eliminating physical barriers to things like buildings and all types of structures.  Inclusion being access to programs and services and things like employment, expanding access to not just federal programs and services, but rather to everything possible.  It defined coherent policies like how employers would be required to make their places of employment accessible and hire disabled workers.  It defined whom was covered and deemed disabled.  To answer part of this question, I am providing the following citation:

Yet evidence suggests that employment levels of individuals with disabilities have declined rather than increased since the ADA's passage. Some commentators have suggested that the relationship is causal: because the ADA's employment protection provisions may increase accommodation and firing costs while doing little to protect workers from discrimination in hiring, the ADA may, paradoxically, be doing more harm than good for the employment prospects of workers with disabilities. (Picker n.d.)

While the causal relationship between the ADA and continued high unemployment rate among the disabled is hotly debated[ii], it is clear the unemployment among the disabled continues at a high rate.[3]             What is not debated and a consensus reached is that the ADA did eliminate the physical barriers in buildings and so forth.  

            What is wrong, and does public policy need to be changed?  Some argue that the ADA is now changing to view everyone as disabled[iii], versus the traditional definition of a disability[4]. Some propose that incentives need to be provided to get the disabled into the workforce, as the following citation shows: 

One new strategy that holds promise is to create a Disabled Workers Tax Credit (dwtc)—modeled on the Earned Income Tax Credit (eitc)—as proposed by Richard Burkhauser, Andrew Glenn, and D.C. Wittenburg (see “Readings”). dwtc would provide a wage subsidy for disabled workers to encourage them to remain in or reenter the workplace after becoming disabled. (DeLeire n.d.)

Perhaps a tax incentive is needed to get the disabled into the workforce. Let us consider an NPR article that I read, that did an analysis on public policy with regards to disability benefits and the relation to unemployment.  That article showed that when employment rises, the correlating claims in disability claims rises, and it shows clearly, in an analytical manner, that there is a need to revisit public policy on disability claims (Joffe-Walt 2014).   The following is a citation from that article:

 In the past three decades, the number of Americans who are on disability has skyrocketed. The rise has come even as medical advances have allowed many more people to remain on the job, and new laws have banned workplace discrimination against the disabled. Every month, 14 million people now get a disability check from the government.

The article addresses most of the concern about the public policy debate with relation to the disabled.  That debate is about costs and whom pays those cost. The central issue is can the US afford to keep so many disabled persons out of the workforce.  The debate is also about federal costs versus state costs.  The debate is also about whom gets to be a disabled person.  A related issue is that the public policy debate goes back to the original problems with the Social Security Act and debates on funding and the public policy of that act that is intertwined with the ADA and US Disability Policy.  Lastly, how can technology advance, as the NPR article states, but employment goes down, and disability claims go up [something is wrong here with public policy], when the technology is helping the disabled be integrated in society and live independently.

            I need to revisit some of the debate on Social Security Reform and funding.  This related debate is premised on an agreement that social security needs to be reformed by doing things like increasing funding 2016 and 2017 (Wilson 2001). Many of the programs are contributory in that funds are paid into the system by employees and employers (Kleiman and Barnett n.d.). The debate on this policy deals with whether contributions should be capped at certain wage levels, if raising caps negatively affects the economy, and is the tax unfair and regressive (Blahous 2011).  Some oppose eliminating the contribution-benefit connection to just a contributory system by everyone (flat rate contribution) (Blahous 2011).  This related public policy debate is about whom bears the burden of a tax on labour[iv]. Some debate on this issue is premised on the belief the US social security trust fund keeps being robbed by the general fund, and that is the origin of the problem (Vernon 2013) (Teal 2013). Others argue a quick fix to an inflated crisis may involve a slight increase in tax contribution, and/or slight decrease in benefits, or a combination of both actions (Vernon 2013). My favorite debate on this issue is the fund is being depleted because of too many disability claims by people whom are not disabled (Inquisitor 2014).

            Now to the ironies and fallacies, by comparing and analyzing the polices.  The ADA is a public policy of inclusion that for many has led to the exclusion of the disabled in the labor force.  The Social Security Act is a policy designed to care for the disabled and works in a counterproductive manner at times.  ADA says you can work, while SSA and SSI says stay home and collect a check.  The policies seemingly are at odds with one another, and both seem in need of reform. As pointed out Social Security needs fund, part of the reason it needs funds is more and more people are collecting and drawing a check, and, many argue those people that are collecting need to be in the workforce, and that the ADA should be that instrument to have them in the workforce.  I am hoping here that you seem the circular logic and the problem (it is clearly ironic and a fallacy).  

            Finally, getting back to the ADA, the unfunded mandate.  Like many other pieces of legislation, the ADA is an unfunded mandate.  I was listening recently to the debates on “public policy and immigration” in an attempt, as the radio commentator stated, to ascertain the intent of congress and would President Obama get away with a claim that by issuing an executive order that he was acting to enforce the intentions of congress, because, they deliberating did not fund the ability of the federal government to deport everyone whom needs to be deported.  Herein lies a corollary argument, with all the pomp of the ADA, did congress really intend for the disabled to be included in the workforce, or did something else happen to cause this policy to veer off intended purposes.  I think, as others argue, that the ADA is simply an unfunded mandate:

Congress passed the ADA with grand promises about the employment of people with disabilities. We conclude that the EEOC simply cannot keep those promises without the resources to do a reasonable investigation of every charge that is not obviously groundless. The ultimate responsibility, and the onus for action, lie on Congress, which has given the EEOC a broad mandate to process employment cases and enforce fair employment laws without ever giving it the resources it would need to do the job properly. (Moss 2009)

Based on empirical and budgetary analysis, the ADA has been deemed an unfunded mandate.[v]  Public policy on the disabled has always faced a funding issue.  Some of the other unfunded mandates were legislation like the Rehabilitation Act.   I am closing this section with a reflection on personal experience.  I am a disabled person since birth.  I started college around 1987, at Brooklyn College.  The campus was not accessible and did not make its programs accessible.  We filed Office of Civil Rights complaints to no avail.  The only thing that worked was an alliance between the Student Organization For Every Disability United for Progress (SOFEDUP) and the Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Administration (EPVA).  At the end of my studies (about six years), the campus was totally accessible (for the most part), and it was through legal action, not just filing complaints.  Up North, I live in North Carolina, you had more accessible programs, and less accessible buildings.  Down South, in North Carolina, we have more buildings accessible, but, despite all the public policy, employment inclusion is just about non-existent.  At my last job, I was told by a coworker, “they will never hire a disabled person again because of what you put them through”.  What I put them through was just asking to use a wheelchair accessible visitor entrance to get in and out of work versus the inaccessible employee entrance, and, because they chose not to do so, I was injured and it cost them several hundred thousands of dollars.  I am part of a local wheelchair basketball team, Triangle Thunder, and the majority still face unemployment and the stigma and prejudices the ADA was supposed to eliminate.  When I came to North Carolina, I found that many disabled people came here to live, and then quickly left because of the lack of mandated ADA services and inclusive policies, and that continues to be a problem.  It has been four years since I last worked because the disabled continue to be considered unemployable.   From my personal experiences, to includes those experiences working with employers here in North Carolina, the ADA and compliance therewith continues to be an issue (I have lived and worked NC since 2001). 

            What is the solution?  The solution is to admit the public policy is partially working first.  The ADA did some of the things it set out to do.  Physically accessibility has increased dramatically.  The Social Security Act did what it intended to do, it provided a safety net for the disabled.  Other pieces of legislation did what they were supposed to do, during their era (Rehabilitation Act and Civil Rights Act, etc).  But, what is agreed is that reform is needed, but most people will not agree on exactly what that reform should be.  I am persuaded, as discussed herein, a tax credit is needed to employ the disabled.  But again, as noted in our textbook, whom should fund the reforms and should the state be involved in the economy.  The answer is the state needs to be involved in that the policy as it stands now is resulting in too many people staying home and collecting a check and living in poverty thereby.  Taxpayers are better than taxpayer funds recipients, meaning that in the overall scheme of things it is better to have people employed than collecting a government check.  The tax credit is more of an affirmation action item like that was needed during the 60s, when Black were to supposed to be included in the workforce, but needed government action to foster that inclusion.  Government action is needed to get people off the welfare rolls and into the workforce.  And, I concur with the premise that it is unusual to find a the rise in people being disabled and qualifying for disability benefits tied to the unemployment rate.   The answer is a look at policies in a comprehensive manner, not the ADA and Social Security Act separately, and try to approach the problem by making comprehensive reforms, otherwise, you have to make reforms to each piece of legislation separately, and that might not work so effectively.  We need to fund the unfunded mandate.  Funding the ADA may help the disabled get jobs and off the welfare rolls.  A tax incentive may do the same. 

            What is the Christian Perspective in all this? The Christian Perspective is to make sure we do not have sluggards, Just look at how The Holy  Bible views the sluggard:

Pro_6:6  Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise:

Pro_6:9  How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? when wilt thou arise out of thy sleep?

Pro_10:26  As vinegar to the teeth, and as smoke to the eyes, so is the sluggard to them that send him.

Pro_13:4  The soul of the sluggard desireth, and hath nothing: but the soul of the diligent shall be made fat.

Pro_20:4  The sluggard will not plow by reason of the cold; therefore shall he beg in harvest, and have nothing.

Pro_26:16  The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason.

I am not sure if the “disabled people” whom become disabled when unemployment rises are sluggard or just trying to survive.  If they are not, then are “We the people” the body of Christ, rather, meeting the scriptural mandate to (from the Holy Bible, King James Version):

Eze_18:7  And hath not oppressed any, but hath restored to the debtor his pledge, hath spoiled none by violence, hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment;

Eze_18:16  Neither hath oppressed any, hath not withholden the pledge, neither hath spoiled by violence, but hath given his bread to the hungry, and hath covered the naked with a garment,

Mat_15:31  Insomuch that the multitude wondered, when they saw the dumb to speak, the maimed to be whole, the lame to walk, and the blind to see: and they glorified the God of Israel.

Luk_7:22  Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.

We need to make sure we are taking care of the poor, widowed, elderly and disabled.  That should be the function of government too.  And, it is a questions and comment made by one of the authors of our books about the size and purpose of governemnt: “but whether it works – whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.” (Bandelj and Sowers 2010, Kindle Location 3409)

            In closing, the despite all the public policy objectives, the disabled continue to live on the fringes of society.  All the education and training in the world will not suffice for a comprehensive policy designed to get the disabled to work.  But I am thankful because we do not have those constant pictures I have in my mind of people needing wheelchair and not being able to afford them.  We do not have people slithering on the floor because they cannot get a wheelchair.  In all its failures, the US government has done a lot for the disabled.  Hence, I think we need to be thankful first, because we could be like other “backward” countries that continue to just warehouse[vi] the disabled.  My biggest concern though is for the disabled veterans, not people like myself ( was born with cerebral palsy).  I think we need to help those people, but I chose not make the focus of this policy paper on disabled veterans, again, because they are still considered, as always has been, the focus of separate military/government policies, but, are also intertwined in the North American Disabled Experience.  Through my participation in the National Wheelchair Basketball Association, a lot of our team members are disabled veterans whom are looking for acceptance and a place to fit in again in AMERICANA after having their lives devastated. While advocating proposed changes to public policy regarding the disabled in the United States, I am hopeful that the inclusion of personal experienced helped you to see that I am not just an advocate of policy changes strictly from a budgetary perspective or a perspective on a subject to which I have no personal experience therewith.  I worked and lived in New York.  I worked and lived in North Carolina.  I worked and lived as a disabled person.  Hence, the public policy on the disabled affected me personally.  Hence, advocating for change is not impersonal.  I attended churches in New York that were not wheelchair accessible.  I “peed on my pant” thereat because I could not find an accessible restroom. Thank God that here in North
Carolina I can wheel into almost any community church and community center.  Be Thankful and pray, it can be worse.  I can use just about any bathroom I want.  But, I am still poor.  Hence, public policy needs to change to help me have that piece of the “American Pie” I heard about.  This is not just a theoretical issue for me.  It is very personal.  As a client would you support a tax incentive to hire the disabled?  Or do you want to continue to pay money to keep people home.  Do you support more funding for the ADA to help get the disabled into the workforce? Either increase the incentives, or enact affirmative action legislation for the employment of the disabled, to include veterans.

I.                  Works Cited

Bandelj, Nina, and Elizabeth Sowers. "Economy and State: A Sociological Perspective." In Economy and State: A Sociological Perspective, by Nina Bandelj, & Elizabeth Sowers. Malden: Polity Press (Kindle Edition), 2010.

Blahous, Charles. Economics 21. April 12, 2011. http://economics21.org/commentary/why-raising-social-securitys-tax-cap-wouldnt-eliminate-its-shortfall (accessed November 27, 2014).

DeLeire, Thomas. "CATO Institute." CATO Institute. n.d. http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/regulation/2000/4/deleire.pdf (accessed December 03, 2014).

González-Páramo, Jose M., and Angel Melguizo. VOX CEPR's Policy Portal. February 06, 2013. http://www.voxeu.org/article/who-really-pays-social-security-contributions-and-labour-taxes (accessed November 27, 2014).

Gwartney, James D., Richard L. Stroup, Dwight R. Lee, and Tawni H. Ferrarini. Common Sense Economics: What Everyone Should Know About Wealth and Properity. New York: Saint Martins Press, 2010.

Inquisitor. February 15, 2014. http://www.inquisitr.com/1135477/socialsecurity-gov-social-security-running-out-of-disability-money-in-2016/ (accessed November 27, 2014).

Julien, William M. DIsabled World. 09 12, 2010. http://www.disabled-world.com/disability/ada/employment-disparity.php#sthash.dk811bh5.dpuf (accessed December 03, 2014).

Kleiman, Lawrence S., and Tim Barnett. Reference for Business. n.d. http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Em-Exp/Employee-Benefits.html#ixzz3KK0Tr6WD (accessed November 27, 2014).

Klein, Karen E. BloomberBusinessweek. April 11, 2011. http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/apr2011/sb20110427_112884.htm (accessed December 05, 2014).

Miller, Carol Marbin, and Katie Savchuk. Miami Herald. July 22, 2013. http://miamiherald.typepad.com/nakedpolitics/2013/07/feds-sue-florida-over-warehousing-of-children-in-nursing-homes.html (accessed December 05, 2014).

Moss, Kathryn and Burris, Scott and Ullman, Michael Darren and Johnsen, Matthew and Swanson, Jeffrey W. "Social Science Research Network." Social Science Research Network. July 21, 2009. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=932059 (accessed December 01, 2014).

National Parks Service. n.d. http://www.nps.gov/subjects/civilrights/1964-civil-rights-act.htm (accessed December 02, 2014).

Picker, Les. the National Bureau of Economic Research. n.d. http://www.nber.org/digest/nov04/w10528.html (accessed December 02, 2014).

Teal, Gary. Forbes. August 28, 2013. http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2013/08/28/how-accurate-is-the-concern-that-social-security-money-will-one-day-run-out/ (accessed November 27, 2014).

United States Commission on Civil Rights. n.d. http://www.usccr.gov/pubs/ada/ch2.htm (accessed December 06, 2014).

"United States Department of Justice." ADA.goov. n.d. http://www.ada.gov/ (accessed December 02, 2014).

"United States Department of the Interior." Bureau of Reclaimation. n.d. http://www.usbr.gov/cro/pdfsplus/rehabact.pdf (accessed December 02, 2014).

"United States Mayors." USMAYORS.org. June 2005. http://www.usmayors.org/73rdAnnualMeeting/mandates2005.pdf (accessed 12 01, 2014).

United States Social Security Administration. n.d. http://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html (accessed 12 02, 2014).

Vernon, Steve. CBS News Money Watch. November 4, 2013. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/will-social-security-run-out-of-money/ (accessed November 27, 2014).

Wilson, D. Mark. The Heritage Foundation. October 17, 2001. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2001/10/removing-social-securitys-tax-cap-on-wages (accessed November 27, 2014).

Endnotes

---

[1] A woman in South Carolina scrawls a note to a man in Washington whom she addresses as "Dear Mr. President." "I'm 72 years old and have no one to take care of me." Another letter comes to the White House from Virginia. "I'm a 60 year-old widow greatly in need of medical aid, food and fuel, I pray that you would have pity on me." Letters such as these came by the thousands from old folks across the country to the President, to Mrs. Roosevelt, to almost every one in Washington whose name was familiar to them. (United States Social Security Administration n.d.)

[2] In addition to the program we know think of as Social Security, it included unemployment insurance, old-age assistance, aid to dependent children and grants to the states to provide various forms of medical care. (United States Social Security Administration n.d.)

[3] Unfortunately, current unemployment statistics indicate that these laws do not go far enough. Unemployment rates among those with disabilities remain disproportionately high; a recent study by the National Organization on Disability indicates that only 21 percent of working-age people with disabilities are employed. Many people with disabilities who are fully capable of working are simply unable to find employment. - See more at: http://www.disabled-world.com/disability/ada/employment-disparity.php#sthash.dk811bh5.dpuf  (Julien 2010)

[4] As originally enacted, the ADA defines someone with a disability as one who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. Individuals also may be protected by the ADA if they are regarded as having a disability, such as HIV, or having a record of a disability, such as alcoholism. (Klein 2011)

---

[i] Even before the Depression hit, the States had been forced to deal with the problems of economic security in a wage-based, industrial economy. Workers Compensation programs were established at the state level before Social Security, and there were state welfare programs for the elderly in place before Social Security. Prior to Social Security, the main strategy for providing economic security to the elderly, in the face of the demographic changes discussed above, was to provide various forms of old-age "pensions." These were welfare programs, eligibility for which was based on proof of financial need. By 1934, most states had such "pension" plans. (United States Social Security Administration n.d.)

[ii] Dr. Bound believes that even though the decline in the employment rate of individuals with disabilities was contemporaneous with the enactment of the ADA, there were a variety of other plausible reasons for that decline, and therefore, it would be unwise to jump to the conclusion that these aggregate statistics reflect the effects of the ADA. (United States Commission on Civil Rights n.d.)

[iii] These new regulations list certain impairments that the EEOC says will virtually always be found to be a disability. What are those conditions? They include deafness, blindness, autism, cancer, cerebral palsy, diabetes, epilepsy, and major depression. It's not a per se list, stating that every one of these conditions will always be considered a disability, but it went nearly that far. (Klein 2011)

[iv] In spite of its policy relevance, academics and policymakers cannot agree on who bears the brunt of a tax on labour. ……… Behind this broad consensus lies surprisingly wide-ranging economic rationales. For some, reducing labour taxes is a means to reduce labour costs, favouring labour demand (European Commission 1994, OECD1994). For others, tax cuts would increase home pay, thereby increasing labour supply (Prescott 2004, Coenen et al. 2008). And for emerging economies, especially in Latin America, some authors have focused on tax cuts’ positive effects on formality (Levy 2008, Pages 2010).(González-Páramo and Melguizo 2013).

[v] For each unfunded federal mandate, cities were asked for information on the recurring annual

costs of that mandate for the most recent fiscal year for which information was available, and for any onetime,

non-recurring costs associated with that mandate during the same fiscal year.

Following are costs reported in these categories, the numbers of cities reporting them, city and

per capita average costs, and examples of some of the highest and lowest costs reported. For many of the

mandates, the costs reported by a single city account for a substantial proportion of the total costs reported

by all cities.

Americans with Disabilities Act

Recurring Annual Costs – 38 Cities

·  Total – $24,445,506

·  Average/City – $643,303

·  Average Per Capita – $2.66

One-time, Non-recurring Costs – 20 Cities

·  Total – $10,116,734

·  Average/City – $505,837

·  Average Per Capita – $4.06

Annual ADA costs reported were as high as Detroit’s $6.5 million, based on previous years’ costs, which

included the City’s para-transit costs, and as low as Suffolk’s $10,000 for maintenance of existing

infrastructure such as ramps, handrails, door openers, hand bars, and other building appliances. (United States Mayors 2005)

[vi] Florida healthcare regulators have acted with “deliberate indifference to the suffering” of frail and disabled children by offering parents no “meaningful” choice but to warehouse their children in nursing homes along with elders, the U.S. Department of Justice says in a lawsuit against the state filed Monday morning. (Miller and Savchuk 2013)