Gap #1: Training
The members of a museum’s staff who deal with the public the most are those who work at the entrance of museums, gallery guards, docents and other education staff. I have discovered a gap in the training of these staff members in the matter of accommodating individuals with different abilities. According to the Director of Education at an Illinois university museum, museum staff and docents have received little or no training in working with visitors who are disabled during her time of employment at her current university museum and at her previous art museum of
employment (S.Prajapati, personal communication, October 29, 2008). It is hard to imagine how welcome visitors with disabilities feel when visiting institutions that are not prepared to communicate with and provide accommodations for them. For instance, there is a woman in Massachusetts who frequents museums and has a hearing dog; she constantly deals with explaining the presence of her dog to the staff at entrances of museums, throughout galleries to the guards, and to members of the public while in galleries (Cassedy, 1993). This situation is created when members of the entire museum staff are not oriented on disability accommodations available at the museum. Coming across so much resistance during museum visits can discourage visitors from attending museums.Gap #2: Marketing & Advertisements
An additional gap I have noticed between art museums and accessibility practices is the lack of targeted marketing geared towards members of the Deaf community. Art museums that have difficulties attracting Deaf audiences to scheduled programs may have flaws in their methods of marketing these programs. Just as art museums have different marketing strategies for school programs, community programs, family programs and adult programs, these institutions should also consider making advertisements that are targeted towards members of the Deaf community. People with disabilities are a growing demographic that businesses such as art museums gloss over as potential visitors, customers, audience members, etc. According to Solutions Marketing Group, a marketing company that specializes in consumers with disabilities, people with disabilities in the United States have $220 billion in discretionary income (2008). Although I could not find statistics specific to the Deaf community, the reader can imagine that even a 1% portion of $220 billion is a considerable chunk of income. Additionally, considering the fact that anyone can become or develop a disability at any point, preparing and advertising educational programs for people with disabilities is not something that is so irrelevant to any service provider looking to increase revenue and attendance.
Gap #3: ADA Enforcement
Since the ADA was passed in 1990, books and other resources have been printed about making private and public cultural institutions accessible to people with disabilities. If this is the case, why are there still issues with providing accommodations to museum goers with disabilities nineteen years afterwards? I believe that the largest gap between art museums and providing accessibility for visitors with disabilities is the level of enforcement of the ADA. According to the ADA, institutions are excused from providing an accommodation for patrons with disabilities if the accommodation causes an undue burden financially (Jasper, 2008). This burden is loosely defined, which is perfectly understandable since each institution’s ability to provide accommodations may differ. Nonetheless, this room left for interpretation should not be used as a way for institutions to wiggle out of their responsibility towards providing equal experiences for visitors with disabilities. Also, within the ADA, there is no method of enforcement that makes service providers directly responsible for minimizing barriers for people with disabilities. However, there are two other methods of enforcement stated by the Americans with Disabilities Act; one method is reporting discrimination instances to the Department of Justice, and the other method is filing an individual lawsuit with the U.S. District Court. If one files a complaint to the Department of Justice, the complaint is assessed through an investigation, leading to a settlement of the situation. If it cannot be settled, then the complaint will be taken to court on behalf of the government (Jasper, 2008). One of the main problems with these two types of enforcement of the ADA is that the court cases may take a long time to settle. In addition, these methods of enforcement fail to put the responsibility of compliance on the institutions; it is the person with a disability who is held accountable for reporting an institution that does not comply with ADA laws. These two types of enforcement do not directly motivate art museums or any other institution to prevent accessibility barriers. As a result, different terms of enforcement and accountability need to be established in order for institutions such as art museums to become more proactive in changing their accessibility practices. Concerned citizens and members of the Deaf community can play a role in improving ADA enforcement.
References
Cassedy, S. (1993, January/February). The hearing dog’s tale: Campaign to raise awareness in the museum community about hearing dogs and the laws pertaining to them. Museum News, 72, 14-16.
Jasper, M.C. (2008). Americans with disabilities act. (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Solutions Marketing Group. (2007). Disability facts. Retrieved on November 15, 2008. http://disability-marketing.com/facts/.
No comments:
Post a Comment