NEADS Logo - Home
Find us on: Facebook YouTube Twitter

Quick Question:
Is there funding available to pay for material production in alternate formats?


Upcoming Events

More Events

Link of the day

More Links

Donate Now to support NEADS! We need your support!
Donations are tax deductible and you will receive a charitable tax receipt for 100% of your gift.

Donate Now Through CanadaHelps.org!

Projects

Working Towards a Coordinated National Approach To Services, Accommodations And Policies For Post-Secondary Students With Disabilities

Chapter 1: Institutional Practices of Accessibility

Institutional respondents were asked a series of questions regarding key features of the institution: province, type of institution, sizes of student populations (part-time, full-time; total enrollment, students with disabilities served), source of budgets and staffing of service delivery units, types of disabilities accommodated, hours of operation, and planned accessibility program and policy modifications. This chapter reviews the primary findings from the responses to these questions, and provides comparisons of responses across provinces, size of student populations, the presence of a service delivery unit, type of institution and model of service delivery. The review combines findings from both numerically-coded and open-ended responses. In most cases, caution should be taken in interpreting differences in percentages, since the sample sizes are often very small (e.g. only two institutions in Nova Scotia responded). Moreover, no institutions from Prince Edward Island, the Yukon or Northwest Territories responded to the survey. On the other hand, a number of notable differences can be observed across certain categories. For instance, it seems a consistent pattern that larger institutions tend to report more inclusive and comprehensive services.

A. Student Populations

The responses from 70 institutions represented a broad range of student population sizes. The smallest estimated full-time student enrollment as of September 1997 was 200, and the largest was 50000. The mean estimated full-time student population for 66 of the 70 institutions (4 did not respond to this question) was 7505. The smallest estimated part-time student population for 53 of the 70 institutions (17 did not respond) was 10, and the largest was 60000 (the mean was 5459 part-time students).

It should be noted that the estimates of numbers of students with disabilities do not represent the total number of students with disabilities served at any given institution, since only those who identify themselves to a service office or administrative unit are known by the institution. Not all students with disabilities choose to identify themselves in this way (see Appendix One). Estimates of full and part-time overall student enrollments, on the other hand, are likely based on recorded enrollment figures. Estimates of full-time students with disabilities served ranged from 0 to 1200 (the mean was 163 full-time students with disabilities). The estimated numbers of part-time students with disabilities served ranged from 0 to 390 (the mean was 44 part-time students with disabilities).

For the purposes of cross-tabulation, the reported estimated student population sizes were grouped into categories with roughly equal numbers of institutions. The estimated full-time student populations were grouped into sizes of 200-2499, 2500-9999 and 10000-50000. The estimated part-time student populations were grouped into sizes of 10-499, 500-2499, 2500- 4999 and 5000-60000. The full-time students with disabilities populations were grouped into sizes of 0 - 9, 10 - 99, 100 - 199 and 200 - 1200, and the part-time students with disabilities populations were grouped into sizes of 0 - 9, 10 - 49 and 50 - 400. The sizes were then compared across provinces, the presence of a service delivery unit, type of institution and model of service delivery.

Table 1.1 Estimates of Numbers and Percentages of Full-Time Students (grouped) by Province. *

Full-Time Students (grouped)
Province 200-2499 2500-9999 10000-50000
Newfoundland     100% (1/1)
Nova Scotia 50% (1/2) 50% (1/2)  
New Brunswick 100% (1/1)    
Quebec 45.5% (10/22) 36.4% (8/22) 18.2% (4/22)
Ontario 6.7% (1/15) 60.0% (9/15) 33.3% (5/15)
Manitoba 66.7% (2/3)   33.3% (1/3)
Saskatchewan 66.7% (2/3) 33.3% (1/3)  
Alberta 44.4% (4/9) 22.2% (2/9) 33.3% (3/9)
British Columbia 33.3% (3/9) 33.3% (3/9) 33.3% (3/9)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Table 1.1 shows that the distribution of full-time student population sizes (grouped), among the 70 institutions that responded to the survey, are fairly consistent across provinces. (The pattern is similar for part-time student populations.) One clear difference is that the percentage of institutions with smaller (200-2499) full-time student populations is lower in Ontario than in other provinces. For instance, while 10122 (45.5%) institutions in Quebec reported full-time student populations of between 200 and 2499, only 1/15 (6.7%) institutions in Ontario reported this size of full-time student populations.

As shown in Table 1.2, institutions in Ontario were also more likely to report larger populations of students with disabilities. For example, while 11/13 (68.8%) institutions in Ontario reported serving full-time students with disabilities populations of between 200 and 1200, only 1/21 (4.8%) institutions in Quebec and none of the institutions in B.C. reported full-time students with disabilities populations of between 200 and 1200. Thus, institutions in Ontario tended to have larger student populations overall and served larger populations of students with disabilities. Respondents from institutions in Quebec were most numerous, reflecting to some extent the greater number of post-secondary institutions in the province (see Introduction). Student populations and the population of students with disabilities served at most institutions in Quebec were smaller than in other provinces.

Table 1.2 Estimated Numbers and Percentages of Full-Time Students with Disabilities Served (grouped) by Province, for All Institutions.*

Full-Time Students (grouped)
Province 0-9 10-99 100-199 200-1200
Newfoundland   100% (1/1)    
Nova Scotia   50% (1/2) 50% (1/2)  
New Brunswick 50% (1/2) 50% (1/2)    
Quebec 61.9% (13/21) 23.8% (5/21) 9.5% (2/21) 4.8% (1/21)
Ontario     31.6% (5/13) 68.8% (11/13)
Manitoba 33.3% (1/3) 33.3% (1/3)   33.3% (1/3)
Saskatchewan 25.0% (1/4) 50% (2/4)   25.0% (1/4)
Alberta 14.3% (1/7) 42.9% (3/7) 14.3% (1/7) 28.6% (2/7)
British Columbia   55.6% (5/9) 44.4% (4/9)  

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Table 1.3 Estimated Numbers and Percentages of Full-Time Students (grouped) by Type of Institution.*

Type of Institution
Full-Time Students University College Cégep Other
200-2499 8.7% (2/23) 47.6% (10/21) 55.6% (10/18) 50.0% (2/2)
2500-9999 26.1% (6/23) 38.1% (8/21) 44.4% (8/18) 50.0% (2/2)
10000-50000 65.2% (15/23) 14.3% (3/21)    
Total 100% (23/23) 100% (21/21) 100% (18/18) 100% (4/4)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.3, universities were more likely than colleges and Cegeps to report larger full-time student populations. While 15123 (65.2%) universities reported full-time student populations of between 10000 and 50000, only 3/21 (14.3%) colleges, and no Cegeps reported full-time student populations of between 10000 and 50000. Among those who identified the institutional type as 'other', one respondent indicated that the institution was a tradeslvocational institute, while all others were university-colleges. None of these reported large full-time student populations.

Table 1.4 Estimated Numbers and Percentages of Part-Time Students (grouped) by Type of Institution.

Type of Institution
Part-Time Students University College Cégep Other
10-499 5.3% (1/19) 35.3% (6/17) 61.5% (8/13) 25.0% (1/4)
500-2499 26.3% (5/19) 23.5% (4/17) 30.8% (4/13) 50.0% (2/4)
2500-4999 26.3% (5/19) 5.9% (1/17) 7.7% (1/13)  
5000-60000 42.1% (8/19) 35.3% (6/17)   25.0% (1/4)
Total 100% (19/19) 100% (17/17) 100% (13/13) 100% (4/4)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.4, universities were also more likely than colleges and Cegeps to report larger part-time student populations. While 8/l 9 (42.1 %) universities reported part-time student populations of between 5000 and 60000, 6/17 (35.3%) colleges and no Cegeps reported part-time student populations of between 5000 and 60000. However, colleges and other types of institutions were somewhat more likely to report large part-time student populations than they were to report large full-time populations.

Table1.5 Estimated Numbers and Percentages of Full-Time Students with Disabilities Served (grouped) by Type of Institution, for All Institutions. *

Type of Institution
Full-Time SWD University College Cégep Other
0 - 9   15.8% (3/19) 76.5% (13/17) 25.0% (1/4)
10 - 99 32.0% (8/25) 31.6% (6/19) 17.6% (3/17) 50.0% (2/4)
100 - 199 28.0% (7/25) 21.1% (4/19) 5.9% (1/17) 25% (1/4)
200 - 1200 40.0% (10/25) 31.6% (6/19)    

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.5, universities were more likely than colleges and Cegeps to report larger full-time students with disabilities populations. While 10125 (40.0%) universities reported serving full-time SWD populations of between 200 and 1200, 6/19 (31.6%) colleges and no Cegeps reported serving full-time SWD populations of between 200 and 1200.

It is noteworthy that although the majority of universities reported general student enrollments of between 10000 and 50000 (65.2%), a smaller proportion of universities served full-time SWD populations of between 200 and 1200 (40.0%). Colleges, on the other hand, tended to report smaller full-time student populations and only 14.3% of respondents indicated a total of between 10000 and 50000. However, 3 1.6% of colleges responding indicated they served large full-time SWD populations of between 200 and 1200.

Table1.6 Estimated Numbers and Percentages of Institutions With and Without at least One Separate Unit for Students with Disabilities by Full-Time Students (grouped). *

Separate Unit for Students with Disabilities
Full-Time Students Yes   No  
200 - 2499 16.2% 6/37 57.7% 15/26
2500 - 9999 37.9 14/37 38.5 10/26
10000 - 50000 45.9 17/37 3.8 1/26
Total 100% 37/37 100% 26/26

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.6, those institutions that reported having at least one separate unit that provided services for students with disabilities were more likely to report larger full-time student populations. A small percentage of institutions with full-time populations of between 200 and 2499 reported having a separate unit for SWD 16/37, 16.2% of all those with a separate unit, while 17/37 (45.9%) institutions that reported having a separate unit with services for SWD reported full-time student populations of between 10000 and 50000. A similar pattern was found with respect to part-time student populations.

Table 1.7 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions (Without a Separate Unit for SWD Only) With and Without a Separate Unit for Both SWD and Other Students by Full-Time Students (grouped). *

Separate Unit for SWD and Other Students
Full-time Students Yes   No  
200 - 2499 52.9% 9/17 66.7% 8/12
2500 - 9999 29.5 5/17 44.4 4/12
10000 - 50000 17.6 3/17    

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Among those institutions that reported they did not have a separate unit providing services for students with disabilities, 17 reported that they provided services to students with and without disabilities through a separate student service unit. As shown in Table 1.7, institutions that reported having a separate unit for services for both SWD and other students were less likely to report larger full-time student populations. Similarly, among those with no separate unit for student services, none reported large full-time student populations.

Thus the existence of a separate service unit providing facilities, equipment and services to students with disabilities is strongly conditioned by the size of the institution. While a small number of schools with total full-time populations of between 200-2499 have a separate service unit for students with disabilities, most provide services to students with disabilities through some other mechanism.

Table 1.8 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions With and Without a Separate Unit for SWD Only by Full-Time Students with Disabilities Served (grouped) for All Institutions. *

Separate Unit for Students with Disabilities
Full-time SWD Yes No
0 - 9 2.6% (1/39) 56.5% (13/23)
10 - 99 30.8% (12/39) 30.4% (7/23)
100 - 199 28.2% (11/39) 8.7% (2/23)
200 - 1200 38.5% (15/39) 4.3% (1/23)
Total 100% 39/39 100% 26/26

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Table 1.8 shows that institutions that reported having a separate unit for services for SWD were more likely to estimate larger populations of SWD served. While 15/39 (38.5%) institutions that reported having a separate unit for services for SWD estimated serving a full-time SWD population between 200 and 1200, only 1/23 (4.3%) institutions that reported not having a separate unit for services only for SWD estimated full-time SWD populations at between 200 and 1200. While 1/39 (2.6%) institutions that reported having a separate unit for services for SWD estimated full-time SWD served at between 0 and 9, 13/23 (56.5%) institutions that reported not having a separate unit for services for SWD estimated serving full-time SWD populations of between 0 and 9.

Table 1.9 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions (Without a Separate Unit for SWD Only) With and Without a Separate Unit for Both SWD and Other Students by Full-Time Students with Disabilities Served (grouped). *

Separate Unit for SWD and Other Students
Full-Time SWD Yes No
0 - 9 37.5% (6/16) 90.9% (10/11)
10 - 99 37.5% (6/16) 9.1% (1/11)
100 - 199 6.3% (1/16)  
200 - 1200 18.8% (3/16)  

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

A similarly large proportion of schools reporting that they did not have a separate unit for SWD as well as other students, were also less likely to report larger full-time SWD populations (see Table 1.9). While 3/16 (18.8%) institutions that reported having a separate unit for services for both SWD and other students also estimated serving a full-time SWD population of between 200 and 1200, no institutions that reported not having a separate unit for SWD as well as other students estimated a full-time SWD population of between 200 and 1200.

B. Model of Service Delivery

Chart 1.1 Percentage of Service Providers by Model of Service Delivery *

Chart 1.1

* Based on the 68 institutions that reported a model of service delivery

Institutions were asked to indicate the model of service delivery for students with disabilities at their educational institution (see Chart 1.1). Of the 68 institutions that responded to the question, 31 (46%) reported a centralized model of service delivery, 25 (37%) reported a partially centralized model of service delivery, 9 (13%) reported a decentralized model of service delivery, and 3 (4%) reported some other model of service delivery.

Differences were observed in the sizes of full-time student populations across model of service delivery - those institutions that reported a centralized or partially centralized model of service delivery were less likely to report smaller student populations. For instance, of the 30 institutions that reported a centralized model of service delivery, 12 (40.0%) reported full-time student populations of between 200 and 2499. On the other hand, of the 9 institutions that reported a decentralized model of service delivery, 8 (88.9%) reported full-time student populations of between 200 and 2499. None of the institutions that reported full-time student populations of between 10000 and 50000 reported a decentralized model of service delivery. Similar patterns were observed with respect to the size of part-time populations and numbers of students with disabilities served.

Overall, as shown in Table 1.10, institutions that reported having a centralized model of service delivery were less likely than those that reported a partially centralized model of service delivery to estimate a larger full-time SWD population. While 6/29 (20.7%) institutions that reported a centralized model of service delivery estimated serving a full-time SWD population of between 200 and 1200, 8/24 (33.3%) institutions that reported a partially centralized model of service delivery estimated serving a full-time SWD population between 200 and 1200. None of those institutions that reported a decentralized model of service delivery reported serving a full-time SWD population of between 200 and 1200.

Table 1.10 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions for Model of Service Delivery Type by Full-Time Students with Disabilities Served (grouped). *

Model of Service Delivery
Full-Time SWD Centralized Partially Centralized Decentralized
0 - 9 24.1% (7/29) 8.3% (2/24) 85.7% (6/7)
10 - 99 34.5% (10/29) 29.2% (7/24) 14.3% (1/7)
100 - 199 20.7% (6/29) 29.2% (7/24)  
200 - 1200 20.7% (6/29) 33.3% (8/24)  
Total 100% 29/29 100% 24/24 100% (7/7)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.11, this pattern is similar to that of part-time SWD populations. While 5/14 (35.7%) institutions that reported a centralized model of service delivery estimated serving a part-time SWD population between 50 and 400, 6/13 (46.2%) institutions that reported a partially centralized model of service delivery estimated serving a part-time SWD population between 50 and 400. None of those institutions that reported a decentralized model of service delivery reported a part-time SWD population of between 50 and 400.

Table 1.11 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions for Model of Service Delivery Type by Number of Part-Time Students with Disabilities Served (grouped). *

Model of Service Delivery
Part-time SWD Centralized Partially Centralized Decentralized
0 - 9 28.6% (4/14) 15.4% (2/13) 50.0% (2/4)
10 - 49 35.7% (5/14) 38.5% (5/13) 50.0% (2/4)
50 - 400 35.7% (5/14)

46.2% (6/13)

 
Total 100% 14/14 100% 13/13 100% (4/4)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Institutions were also asked to describe the model of service delivery for students with disabilities at their educational institution (see Appendix Two). Among those who indicated some other model of service delivery, two emphasized that their office coordinated rather than administered services:

† (Other) [The Centre] coordinates on-campus services for students with disabilities and those with short-term injuries/illnesses by working in partnership with university departments and disability-related community agencies. University, Atlantic Canada

† (Other) Services offered through various offices; some degree of coordination, but no central budget authority or funding. University, MB

One institution reported that they were attempting to change their model of service delivery:

† (Partially Centralized) Working to decentralize; i.e. Plant and Facilities issues should be dealt with directly by the Plant and Facilities office with our service as a resource. Financial aid decentralized. College, Quebec

C. Service Delivery Units

Institutional service providers were first asked if they provided ANY special facilities, equipment, policies or services for students with disabilities. If they responded YES, service providers were asked if they had a separate unit or units (eg. office or centre) that ONLY provided special facilities, equipment or services for students with disabilities. If NO, they were asked if they had a separate unit that provided services for SWD as well as other students. If they responded YES to having either a separate unit ONLY for SWD or a separate unit for SWD as well as other students, they were asked to give the title of the unit and to briefly describe its mandate.

Of the 70 institutions surveyed, 4 (5.2%) reported that they did not provide ANY special facilities, equipment, policies or services for students with disabilities. Of the 66 (94.3% of respondents) institutions that reported that they provided ANY special facilities, equipment, policies or services for SWD, 38/66 (57.6%) reported that they had a separate unit ONLY for SWD. Of those institutions that reported that they did NOT have a separate unit ONLY for SWD, 19/66 (27.1%) reported that they had a separate unit for SWD as well as other students. Thus, 9/66 (15.4%) offer services on an ad hoc basis or through some other administrative mechanism.

In providing the title and mandate of separate units ONLY for SWD, institutional respondents described a variety of specialized mandates and service provision practices (see Appendix Two). For instance a university in Saskatchewan described the equal access mandate of their Services for Students with Disabilities:

† Services for Students with Disabilities mission is to advocate for, and create, an accessible and welcoming campus, so that students with disabilities have equal opportunities to experience full, productive and successful academic lives. All types of students can register at the office - learning disabilities, ADD/HD, mobility impairments, hearing impairments, visual impairments, chronic illnesses and psychological disorders. University, SK

A college in Ontario provided their official policy statement regarding the mandate of their Disability Services Office, a separate unit providing services ONLY for SWD:

† Disability Services Office. [policy statement] Consistent with the provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code and Canadian Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, [The College] is committed to equal opportunity for students with disabilities. We acknowledge the unique requirements of individuals with disabilities and recognize the obligation to provide equal access to educational services, programs and facilities. To facilitate access, we endeavor to maximize the opportunities for special needs students in college programs, and in so doing, assist the student to meet the academic standards set out by [The College]. College, Ontario

On the other hand, another college in Ontario reported a separate unit that provided service for all students, and which had specialized services for SWD:

† Student Services includes special needs services, counseling, peer services and career centre. College, Ontario

Several institutions described in greater detail the services offered by a separate service unit that provided services ONLY for SWD. For example, a college in Saskatchewan and a university in Alberta described:

† The Learning Assistance Centre ('Room for Improvement') provides services for students on a drop-in basis. The centre provides accommodation services for students from [The College] Education Equity Group. These services include: tutoring on specific course content; remedial interventions for specific learning disabilities; developing organizational skills; arranging test accommodations - readers and scribes, quiet settings; general information in reading and math skills. The LAC houses cutting-edge assistive devices for those with learning and sensory impairments: Kurzweil Scanner; Kurzweil Voice; Dec-Talk Speech Synthesis; Zoomtext magnification; IBM Screen Reader; Braille Labeler; SARAW; Tape Materials; Accessible Word Processors. College, SK

† The Disability Resource Centre - mandate - to facilitate an accessible learning environment. Services include: campus accessibility, information and advocacy; academic accommodation letters, adaptive technology support; assistive services coordination; faculty prospective; student information; volunteer assistance. DRC also supports all students who provide documentation of disability i.e. cross-disability. University, A B

D. Service Delivery Unit Budgets

Institutional respondents were also asked to describe the source of the budgets of their separate service delivery units. They were asked first if the separate units (specifying first, second and third units) received their own operating budgets from the institution, and, if not, where they received their budgets. Of the 55 institutions that reported the source of the first service delivery unit's budget, 39 (70.9%) reported that the unit received its own operating budget from the institution. 13 (68.4%) of the 19 that reported the budget source for a second service delivery unit reported that the unit received its own operating budget from the institution, and 6 (75.0%) of the 8 that reported the budget source for a third service delivery unit reported that the unit received its own operating budget from the institution.

If the first, second or third unit did not receive its budget from the university, institutions were asked to identify the sources of the unit's budget (see Appendix Two).

Chart 1.2 Percentage of Service Providers by Source of Outside Funding *

Chart 1.2

*Based on the 26 institutions that reported source of funding

By far the most commonly reported non-university budget source was provincial government funding (see chart 1.2). Therefore, 18/26 (69%) institutions that reported an outside funding source for a separate service delivery unit reported provincial government funding. On the other hand, 1/26 (4%) reported funding from combined federal-provincial, government and student fee sources.

Differences were found in the presence and funding of a separate service delivery unit across provinces, type of institution, student population size, and model of service delivery. For instance, some differences were observed in terms of whether or not an institution reported having a unit for special services for SWD that received its own operating budget across the provinces. While 8/13 (61.5%) institutions in Quebec reported having a unit that received its own operating budget, 8/15 (53.3%) institutions in Ontario reported such a unit. On the other hand, while 819 (88.9%) institutions in Alberta reported having a unit that received its own operating budget, 8/10 (80.0%) institutions in British Columbia reported having a unit for special services for SWD that received its own operating budget.

Of those institutions that reported having a separate unit that offers specialized services for SWD only (54 institutions), there were no difference between universities and community colleges in whether or not the unit received its own operating budget. While 19/24 (79.2%) universities reported that the unit received its own operating budget, 15/19 (78.9%) community colleges reported that the unit received its own operating budget. On the other hand, only 419 (44.4%) Cgeps that reported having a separate unit that offers specialized services for SWD only also reported that the unit received its own operating budget.

It was also found that the larger institutions were more likely to report having a unit for SWD that received its own separate budget. While 10115 (66.7%) institutions that reported a full-time student population size of between 200 and 2499 reported having a unit with a separate budget, 1011 8 (55.6%) institutions that reported a full-time student population size of between 2500 and 9999, and 15/18 (83.3%) institutions that reported a full-time student population size of between 10000 and 50000 reported having a unit with a separate budget. Similar patterns are found across size of reported part-time student populations.

Only a small difference was found between whether or not an institution reported having a unit that received its own operating budget across model of service delivery type. While 18/28 (64.3%) institutions that reported having a centralized model of service delivery also reported having a unit for SWD with a separate budget, 15/21 (71.4%) institutions that reported having a partially centralized model of service delivery, and 313 (100.0%) reporting a decentralized model of service delivery also reported having a unit for SWD with a separate budget.

E. Service Delivery Unit Staffing

Institutional respondents were asked to report the full and part-time staffing levels of service delivery units. Of the 42 institutions that reported full-time staff, 9/70 (21%) reported one full-time staff member, and 11/70 (26%) reported two full-time staff members. The most fulltime staff reported in a service delivery unit was 26 (see chart 1.3). On average, 42 institutions reported 4.4 full-time staff in the first separate service delivery unit. As well, 13 institutions reported, on average, 2.5 full-time staff in the second separate service delivery unit.

Chart 1.3 Percentage of Service Providers by Number of Full-Time Staff in (1st) Service Delivery Unit *

Chart 1.3

Based on the 68 lnstirutmns that reported a first service dellvery unit

Chart 1.4 Percentage of Service Providers by Number of Casual Staff in (1st) Service Delivery Unit *

Chart 1.4

Based on the 18 lnstitutlons that reported casual staff

Institutions were also asked to report the use of casual staff (eg. hourly tutors) in the separate service delivery unit. The most often reported number of casual staff was 5 - ie. 4/18 (22%) institutions that reported using casual staff in a separate service delivery unit, reported using 5 casual staff members. The highest number of reported casual staff was 150 (see chart 1.4). The average number reported by the 18 institutions was 3 1.9 casual staff members.

Institutions were also asked to report the use of casual part-time staff in the separate service delivery unit. The most often reported number of casual part-time staff was 2 - ie. 10132 (31%) institutions reported using 2 casual part-time staff members. The highest number of reported casual part-time staff was 20. (see chart 1.5). The average number of part-time casual staff was 3.3.

Institutions also reported on the numbers of regular part-time staff in the separate service delivery unit. Of the 15 institutions that reported regular part-time staff, 6 (40%) reported using one regular part-time staff member. The highest reported number of regular part-time staff was 35 (see chart 1.6). The average number of regular part-time staff among those institutions that reported regular part-time staff was 5.6.

Chart 1.5 Percentage of Service Providers by Number of Casual Part-Time Staff in (1st) Service Delivery Unit *

Chart 1.5

Based on the 32 lnstitutlons that reported casual part-time staff

Chart 1.6 Percentage of Service Providers by Number of Regular Part-Time Staff in (1st) Service Delivery Unit *

Chart 1.6

Based on the 15 lnstltutlons that reported regular part-time staff

F. Volunteers

Institutions were asked to report whether their service delivery units coordinated the work of volunteers, and if there were any particular programs or services for which the assistance of volunteers was sought. Some institutions had more than one service delivery unit coordinating the work of volunteers. Of the 53 institutions that reported having a separate service delivery unit (first unit reported), 29 (54.7%) reported that the first unit also coordinated the work of volunteers. Of the 19 institutions that reported having a second service delivery unit, 8 (42.1%) also reported that the unit coordinated the work of volunteers. In total, 33 separate institutions (or 47.1% of all respondents - 33/70) reported that they had at least one particular program or service for which the assistance of volunteers was sought. If respondents reported a unit(s) that coordinated the work of volunteers, institutions were then asked to report the numbers of volunteers that worked under the direction of the unit(s). Of the 35 institutions that reported the number of volunteers, these ranged from 1 to 350 (the average was 3 7).

Some differences were found in terms of whether an institution reported a service delivery unit that provides services for SWD only or a unit that provides these services as well as others to the general student population. While 25/36 (69.4%) institutions that reported they had a separate unit for SWD only also reported using volunteers in the (first reported) unit, only 4/17 (23.5%) institutions that reported they provided services through a general student services unit also reported using volunteers in the (first reported) unit.

Table 1.12 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions with Particular Programs or Services that Seek the Use of Volunteers by Province. *

Particular Programs or Services that Use Volunteers
Province Yes No
Newfoundland 100% (1/1)  
Nova Scotia 100% (2/2)  
New Brunswick 100% (1/1)  
Quebec 41.7% (5/12) 53.8% (7/12)
Ontario 86.7% (13/15) 13.3% (2/15)
Manitoba 33.3% (1/3) 66.7% (2/3)
Saskatchewan 66.7% (2/3) 33.3% (1/3)
Alberta 50.0% (4/8) 50.0% (4/8)
British Columbia 40.0% (4/10) 60.0% (6/10)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.12, some differences were found in terms o if the use of volunteers in service delivery units across provinces. The bulk of institutions in Ontario reported using volunteers, (86.7%, 13115) and in the Maritime provinces all responding institutions reported using volunteers. In the other provinces, the use of volunteers was somewhat less common.

Some differences were found in terms of whether an institution reported the use of volunteers in a service delivery unit that provides services for SWD across type of institution. Universities and university-colleges (among those listing themselves as other) were more likely to use volunteers. While 17/24 (70.8%) universities reported that they used volunteers in the (first reported) service delivery unit, 7/17 (41.2%) community colleges, 218 (25.0%) Cegeps and 314 (75.0%) other types of institutions reported that they used volunteers in the (first reported) service delivery unit.

Differences were also found in terms of whether or not an institution reported the use of volunteers in a service delivery unit that provides services for SWD across size of full-time student population. While 4/15 (26.7%) institutions that reported full-time student populations of between 200 and 2499 reported using volunteers in the (first reported) service delivery unit, 9/17 (52.9%) institutions that reported full-time student populations of between 2500 and 9999, and 13/17 (76.5%) institutions that reported full-time student populations of between 10000 and 50000 reported using volunteers in the (first reported) service delivery unit.

Somewhat stronger differences were found in terms of whether or not an institution reported the use of volunteers in a service delivery unit that provides services for SWD across size of the groups of full-time SWD served. While 216 (33.3%) institutions that reported serving full-time SWD populations of between 0 and 9 reported using volunteers in the (first reported) service delivery unit, 5/17 (29.4%) institutions that reported serving full-time SWD populations of between 10 and 99, 711 1 (63.6%) institutions that reported serving full-time SWD populations of between 100 and 199, and 1411 5 (93.3%) institutions that reported serving full-time SWD populations of between 200 and 1200 reported using volunteers in the (first reported) service delivery unit.

Institutions were then asked to report ANY programs or services for which the assistance of volunteers was sought. Differences were found in terms of whether or not an institution reported any particular programs or services for which the assistance of volunteers is sought across type of institution. While 18/22 (81.8%) universities reported that they had any particular programs or services for which the assistance of volunteers is sought, 9/13 (69.2%) community colleges, 3/7 (42.9%) Cegeps and 314 (75.0%) among other types of institutions reported that they had particular programs or services for which the assistance of volunteers was sought.

Differences were found in terms of whether or not an institution reported any particular programs or services for which the assistance of volunteers was sought across whether or not an institution reported having a separate unit ONLY for services for SWD. While 27/33 (81.8%) institutions that reported they had a separate unit only for services for SWD also reported that they had particular programs or services for which the assistance of volunteers was sought, 6/13 (46.2%) institutions that reported they did NOT have a separate unit only for services for SWD reported that they had programs or services for which the assistance of volunteers was sought.

Table 1.13 Numbers and Percentages of Full-Time Students (grouped) by Particular Programs or Services that Seek Volunteers. *

Particular Programs or Services that Seek Volunteers
Full-Time Students Yes No
200 - 2499 50.0% (5/10) 50.0% (5/10)
2500 - 9999 86.7% (13/15) 13.3% (2/15)
10000 - 50000 76.5% (13/17) 23.5% (4/17)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Overall, larger institutions tended to report more often that they had particular programs or services that sought the use of volunteers (see Table 1.13). While 5/10 (50.0%) institutions that reported student populations of between 200 and 2499 full-time students reported a particular program or service that sought the use of volunteers, 13/15 (86.7%) institutions that reported between 2500 and 9999 full-time students, and 13/17 (76.5%) institutions that reported between 10000 and 50000 full-time students reported particular programs or services that sought the use of volunteers.

Table 1.14 Numbers and Percentages of Particular Programs or Services that Seek Volunteers by Number of Full-Time Students with Disabilities Served (grouped). *

Full-Time Students with Disabilities (grouped)
Particular Volunteer Program 0 - 9 10 - 99 100 - 199 200 - 1200
Yes 50.0% (3/6) 72.7% (8/11) 66.7% (8/12) 93.3% (14/15)
No 50.0% (3/6) 27.3% (3/11) 33.3% (4/12) 6.7% (1/15)
Total 100% (6/6) 100% (11/11) 100% (12/12) 100% (15/15)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Similarly, as shown in Table 1.14, those institutions that reported serving larger full-time SWD populations tended to report more often that they had particular programs or services that sought the use of volunteers. While 316 (50.0%) institutions that reported between 0 and 9 SWD reported that had particular program or service that sought the use of volunteers, 811 1 (72.7%) institutions that reported between 10 and 99 SWD, 8/12 (66.7%) institutions that reported between 100 and 199 SWD, and 14/15 (93.3%) institutions that reported between 200 and 1200 SWD reported that they had particular programs or services that sought the use of volunteers.

Institutions were also asked to list the programs and/or services that sought the use of volunteers (see Appendix Two). Institutions described various services using volunteer work, volunteer training, and ways of recruiting volunteers:

† 1) Volunteer students with disabilities speak to other students; 2) occasionally volunteers act as classroom buddies for fire evacuation, to open non-automatic doors; 3) volunteer notetakers; 4) volunteers to assist with computer software/hardware problem. University, MB

† Volunteers are trained and used as peer tutors for students with L.D. University, Atlantic Canada Service de lecture pour les manuels de classe, pairage occasionnel pour recherche a la bibliotheque ou ecrire les reponses aux examens. Maintenant, les services sont de plus en plus payes par le Ministere de l'education. Universiti, QC

† We ask professors to assist in finding volunteer notetakers (fellow classmates). Each term, there are normally 1 or 2 volunteers interested in tutoring, or reading to blind students. University, A tlantic Canada

Thus organized volunteer programs are more common in large institutions and especially in those institutions where the population of SWD served is also large. They are also somewhat more common in universities and in institutions in Ontario and the Maritime provinces.

G. Funding by an Outside Soume

Institutional respondents were also asked if they had any services (eg. sign language/oral interpretation) that were funded by an outside source (eg. government). Of the 57 institutions that responded, 50 (87.7%) reported that they offered services that were funded by an outside source.

Only small differences were found in terms of whether or not an institution offered services that were funded by an outside source across type of institution. While 18/22 (81.8%) universities reported that they offered services that were funded by an outside source, 17/19 (89.5%) community colleges, 10111 (90.9%) Cegeps, and 5/5 (100.0%) among other institutional types (i.e. university-colleges and trades vocational institutes) reported that they offered services that were funded by an outside source.

Table 1.15 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions with Services Funded by an Outside Source by Province. *

Services Funded by an Outside Source
Province Yes No
Newfoundland   100.0% (1/1)
Nova Scotia 100.0% (2/2)  
New Brunswick   100% (1/1)
Quebec 93.3% (14/15) 6.7% (1/15)
Ontario 85.7% (12/14) 14.3% (2/14)
Manitoba 66.7% (2/3) 33.3% (1/3)
Saskatchewan 100.0% (3/3)  
Alberta 88.9% (8/9) 11.1% (1/9)
British Columbia 100.0% (9/9)  

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Similarly, only small differences in whether an institution reported services for SWD that had been funded by an outside source existed across the provinces (see Table 1.15). While 14/15 (93.3%) institutions in Quebec reported that they offered services that were funded by an outside source, 12114 (85.7%) institutions in Ontario, and 819 (88.9%) institutions in Alberta reported that they offered services that were funded by an outside source.

Small differences were also found in terms of whether or not an institution offered services that were funded by an outside source across size of full-time student population (grouped). While 14117 (82.4%) of institutions reporting full-time student populations of between 200 and 2499 reported that they offered services that were funded by an outside source, 17/20 (85.0%) institutions reporting full-time student populations of between 2500 and 9999, and 1611 7 (94.1 %) institutions reporting full-time student populations of between 10000 and 50000 reported that they offered services that were funded by an outside source.

Institutions were also asked to describe the source of outside funding (see Appendix Two). These descriptions were mostly of government sources. For example, a number of institutions reported on provincial funding of interpreters:

† During 97198, the federal government through HRDC cost-shared the interpretation costs for a student. The province gives the post-secondary institutes a yearly grant for interpreting costs - the institute is supposed to cary it over if it is not used so the fund will grow. College, BC

† Interpreters can be billed to Department of Education; also, notetaking, paper, etc for students who are VR-sponsored. If students are not sponsored - the university covers the cost; resources are NOT unlimited. University, Atlantic Canada

† Allocation pour besoins particuliers versees par le Ministere de 17education a chacun des etudiants. Le bureau d'acceuil des etudiants handicapes paie les interpretes et les etudiants remboursant le Bureau d'Acceuil. University, QC

One college in Alberta also reported on institutional access to SOG funds:

† Through the Special Opportunities Grants (SOG) Program, some funds have been directed to the college's Learner Services Department to contract a tutor for a learning disabled student. The SOG program is NEW - I expect that more of this may arise. (Money is normally given to the student but can be given to the institution in certain cases.) College, AB

Cegeps in Quebec reported on regionally-based programs in which larger Cegeps provide resources to smaller ones within their region:

† Gouvernement du Quebec par l'entremise du [Cegep ...I qui gere le service pour I'ensemble de la partie OUEST du Quebec. Collige, QC

† Nous sommes rattaches au [Cegep ...I et finances par la D.E.C. (Direction des etudes collegiale). Cegep, QC

† SAIDE: Service d'aide a 17integration des eleves. [Cegep ...I services finances par le government. Cegep, QC

H. Sharing Facilities & Services

Institutions were also asked to report whether or not they shared any facilities, equipment or services for SWD with other post-secondary institutions. Of the 70 institutions that responded to the survey, 33 (47.1%) reported that they shared facilities, equipment or services for SWD with other post-secondary institutions.

As shown in Table 1.16, some differences were found in terms of whether or not an institution reported sharing facilities or services with other institutions across provinces. While 6/14 (42.9%) institutions in Quebec reported sharing facilities or services with another institution, 3/10 (30.0%) institutions in British Columbia, 219 (22.2%) of institutions in Alberta, and only 2/15 (13.3%) institutions in Ontario reported sharing facilities or services with another institution.

Table 1.16 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions that Share Facilities or Services by Province. *

Share Facilities or Services
Province Yes No
Newfoundland   100% (1/1)
Nova Scotia 50.0% (1/2) 50.0% (1/2)
New Brunswick   100% (1/1)
Quebec 42.9% (6/14) 57.1% (8/14)
Ontario 13.3% (2/15) 86.7% (13/15)
Manitoba 33.3% (1/3) 66.7% (2/3)
Saskatchewan   100% (3/3)
Alberta 22.2% (2/9) 77.8% (7/9)
British Columbia 30.0% (3/10) 70.0% (7/10)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Some differences were also found in terms of whether or not an institution reported sharing facilities or services with other institutions across type of institution. Given that larger Cegeps in Quebec are often mandated to provide resources to smaller Cegeps in their region, as might be expected, the sharing of facilities and services was somewhat more common among Cegeps. While 7/24 (29.2%) of universities, 411 9 (21.1%) community colleges, and none of those among 'other' types of institutions reported sharing facilities or services with other institutions, 4110 (40.0%) Cegeps reported such arrangements,.

Differences were also found in terms of whether or not an institution reported sharing facilities or services with other institutions across size of full-time student populations. While 2/16 (12.5%) institutions that reported student populations of between 200 and 2499 full-time students reported sharing facilities or services with other institutions, 6/20 (30.0%) institutions that reported between 2500 and 9999 full-time students, and 6118 (33.3%) institutions that reported between 10000 and 50000 full-time students reported sharing facilities or services with other institutions.

Similar differences were also found in terms of whether or not an institution reported sharing facilities or services with other institutions across size of full-time SWD populations. While 118 (12.5%) institutions that reported between 0 and 9 SWD served reported sharing facilities or services with other institutions, 5/13 (27.8%) institutions that reported between 10 and 99 SWD, 4113 (30.8%) institutions that reported between 100 and 199 SWD, and 3/15 (20.0%) institutions that reported between 200 and 1200 SWD reported sharing facilities or services with other institutions.

Differences were also found in terms of whether or not an institution reported sharing facilities or services with other institutions across model of service delivery type. While 6/29 (20.7%) of institutions that reported a centralized model of service delivery also reported sharing facilities or services with other institutions, 8/23 (34.8%) of institutions that reported a partially centralized model of service delivery also reported sharing facilities or services with other institutions.

Institutions were also asked to describe the facilities, services or equipment that were shared with other post-secondary institutions. These descriptions included local, municipal service and equipment-sharing programs (see Appendix Two). For instance:

† Interpreters are shared by 3 post-secondary institutions around [the city]. However, these interpreters simply contract out services and work for themselves (self-employed - hourly rate). College, ON

† We are discussing sharing with [two other schools in the province]. College, AB

as well as provincial and regional-based programs:

† Adult Services Project coordinates loans of specialized equipment to all BC college institutes e.g. computers. College, BC

† [The Centre] has provided interpreters, counselling, exam accommodation and assistive devices to students attending other universities. University, Atlantic Canada

I. Disability Accommodation

Institutional respondents were asked to report which types of disabilities could be accommodated by their institutions. Of the 70 institutions that responded to the survey, 64 (91.4%) reported that they could accommodate blindness/visual impairment, 63 (90.0%) could accommodate mobility impairment, 66 (94.3%) could accommodate learning disabilities, 53 (75.7%) could accommodate mental health disability, 55 (78.6%) could accommodate deafness/hard of hearing, 56 (80.0%) could accommodate speech impairment, 47 (67.1%) could accommodate medical disability, and 17 (24.3%) reported that they could accommodate some other type of disability (for open-ended descriptions of these, provided by three institutions, see Appendix Two).

Table 1.17 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions that Accommodate Disability Types by Province. *

Disability Type
Province Blind/Visual Mobility Learning Mental Health Deaf/Hard of Hearing Speech Medical Other
NF 100%
(1/1)
100%
(1/1)
100%
(1/1)
100%
(1/1)
100%
(1/1)
100%
(1/1)
100%
(1/1)
100%
(1/1)
NS 100%
(1/1)
100%
(2/3)
100%
(2/2)
100%
(2/2)
100%
(2/2)
100%
(2/2)
50.0%
(1/2)
0%
(2/2)
NB 50.0%
(1/2)
50.0%
(1/2)
50.0%
(1/2)
50.0%
(1/2)
50.0%
(1/2)
0%
(0/2)
0%
(0/2)
0%
(0/2)
QC 86.4%
(19/22)
77.3%
(17/24)
86.4%
(19/22)
40.9%
(9/22)
40.9%
(9/22)
50.0%
(11/22)
18.2%
(4/18)
9.1%
(2/22)
ON 100%
(16/16)
100%
(16/16)
100%
(16/16)
93.8%
(15/16)
100%
(16/16)
100%
(16/16)
100%
(16/16)
37.5%
(6/10)
MB 100%
(3/3)
100%
(3/3)
100%
(3/3)
100%
(3/3)
100%
(3/3)
100%
(3/3)
100%
(3/3)
33.3%
(1/3)
SK 100%
(4/4)
100%
(4/4)
100%
(4/4)
100%
(4/4)
100%
(4/4)
100%
(4/4)
100%
(4/4)
50.0%
(2/4)
AB 77.8%
(7/9)
100%
(9/9)
100%
(9/9)
77.8%
7/9)
88.9%
(8/9)
100%
(9/9)
88.9%
(8/9)
11.1%
(1/9)
BC 100%
(11/11)
90.9%
(10/11)
100%
(11/11)
100%
(11/11)
100%
(11/11)
90.9%
(9/10)
90.9%
(10/11)
60.0%
(3/5)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.17, a lower proportion of institutions in Quebec and New Brunswick reported that they could accommodate students with each disability than other provinces (note, however, that only two institutions from New Brunswick are included in the sample). For instance, while 16/16 (100%) institutions in Ontario, 1111 1 (100%) institutions in BC, and 819 (88.9%) institutions in Alberta reported that they could accommodate those who are deaf/hard of hearing, 9/22 (40.9%) institutions in Quebec reported that they could accommodate students with this type of disability.

Similarly, while 16/16 (100%) institutions in Ontario, 1011 1 (90.9%) institutions in BC, and 8/9 (88.9%) institutions in Alberta reported that they could accommodate students with medical disabilities, only 4/18 (18.2%) institutions in Quebec reported that they could accommodate students with medical disabilities.

Table 1.18 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions that Accommodate Disability Types by Institution Type. *

Disability Type
Institution Type Blind/Visual Mobility Learning Mental Health Deaf/Hard of Hearing Speech Medical Other
University 96.0%
(24/25)
92.0%
(23/25)
96.0%
(24/25)
88.0%
(22/25)
92.0%
(23/25)
96.0%
(24/25)
76.0%
(19/25)
20.0%
(5/25)
College 95.5%
(21/22)
100.0%
(22/22)
100%
(22/22)
90.9%
(20/22)
95.5%
(21/22)
90.9%
(20/22)
95.5%
(21/22)
31.8%
(7/22)
Cégep 83.3%
(15/18)
72.2%
(13/18)
83.3%
(15/18)
38.9%
(7/18)
33.3%
(6/18)
38.9%
(7/18)
16.7%
(3/18)
11.1%
(2/18)
Other 80.0%
(4/5)
100%
(5/5)
100%
(5/5)
80.0%
(4/5)
100%
(5/5)
100%
(5/5)
80.0%
(4/5)
60.0%
(3/5)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

On the other hand, as shown in Table 1.18, the differences between disability accommodation at institutions in Quebec and other provinces is due in large part to the different accommodation practices at Cegeps. For instance, while 23/25 (92.0%) universities and 21122 (95.5%) colleges reported that they could accommodate students who are deafhard of hearing, only 6118 (33.3%) Cegeps reported that they could accommodate students who are deaf/hard of hearing. Cegeps were also less likely to accommodate those with mental health conditions, speech impairments or medical conditions.

Table 1.19 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions that Accommodate Disability Types by Institutions With and Without at least One Separate Unit Only for SWD. *

Separate Unit for SWD
Disability Type Yes No
Blind/Visual 94.9% (37/39) 92.9% (26/28)
Mobility 94.9% (37/39) 85.7% (24/28)
Learning 94.9% (37/39) 100% (28/28)
Mental Health 84.6% (33/39) 67.9% (19/28)
Deaf/Hard of hearing 89.7% (35/39) 71.4% (20/28)
Speech 92.3% (36/39) 71.4% (20/28)
Medical 79.5% (31/39) 57.1% (16/28)
Other 35.8% (14/39) 7.1% (2/26)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.19, some differences were also found in disability accommodation across whether or not an institution reported having at least one separate unit for services only for SWD. While 31/39 (79.5%) institutions that reported having a separate unit only for services for SWD reported that they could accommodate medical disabilities, 16/28 (57.1%) institutions that reported not having a separate unit for services for SWD only also reported that they could accommodate medical disabilities.

As shown in Table 1.20, institutions reporting larger full-time student populations were more likely to report that they accommodated various disability types. For instance, while 13/24 (54.2%) institutions that reported full-time student populations of between 200 and 2499 also reported that they could accommodate mental health disabilities, 20124 (83.3%) institutions that reported full-time student populations of between 2500 and 9999, and 16/18 (88.9%) institutions that reported full-time student populations of between 10000 and 50000 also reported that they could accommodate mental health disabilities.

Table 1.20 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions that Accommodate Disability Types by Full-Time Student Population (grouped). *

Disability Type
Full-Time Student Population Blind/Visual Mobility Learning Mental Health Deaf/Hard of Hearing Speech Medical Other
200 - 2499 75.0%
(18/24)
75.0%
(18/24)
83.3%
(20/24)
54.2%
(13/24)
66.7%
(16/24)
58.3%
(14/24)
58.3%
(14/24)
12.5%
(3/24)
2500 - 9999 100%
(24/24)
95.8%
(23/24)
100%
(24/24)
83.3%
(20/24)
75.0%
(18/24)
83.3%
(20/24)
58.3%
(14/24)
41.7%
(10/24)
10000 - 50000 100%
(18/18)
100%
(18/18)
100%
(18/18)
88.9%
(16/18)
94.4%
(17/18)
100%
(18/18)
83.3%
(18/18)
16.7%
(3/18)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Similarly, as shown in Table 1.21, institutions reporting that they served a larger number of full-time students with disabilities were more likely to report that they could accommodate the various disability types. While 5/17 (29.4%) institutions that reported serving full-time SWD populations of between 0 and 9 also reported that they could accommodate medical disabilities, (52.6%) institutions that reported serving full-time SWD populations of between 10 and 99, 12/13 (92.3%) institutions that reported serving full-time SWD populations of between 100 and 199, and 1611 6 (100%) institutions that reported serving fulltime SWD populations of between 200 and 1200 also reported that they could accommodate medical disabilities

Table 1.21 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions that Accommodate Disability Types by Numbers of Full-Time SWD Served (grouped). *

Disability Type
Full-Time SWD Population Blind/Visual Mobility Learning Mental Health Deaf/Hard of Hearing Speech Medical Other
0 - 9 76.5%
(13/17)
70.6%
(12/17)
82.4%
(14/17)
35.3%
(6/17)
41.2%
(7/17)
35.3%
(6/17)
29.4%
(5/17)
5.9%
(1/17)
10 - 99 89.5%
(17/19)
89.5%
(17/19)
94.7%
(18/19)
73.7%
(14/19)
78.9%
(15/19)
89.5%
(17/19)
52.6%
(10/19)
26.3%
(5/19)
100 - 199 100.0%
(13/13)
100.0%
(13/13)
100.0%
(13/13)
92.3%
(12/13)
100.0%
(13/13)
100.0%
(13/13)
92.3%
(12/13)
30.8%
(4/13)
200 - 1200 100.0%
(16/16)
100.0%
(16/16)
100.0%
(16/16)
100.0%
(16/16)
100.0%
(16/16)
100.0%
(16/16)
100.0%
(16/16)
37.5%
(6/16)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Only small differences were also found across models of service delivery (see Table 1.22). For instance, while 18/25 (72.0%) institutions that reported a partially centralized model of service delivery also reported that they could accommodate medical disabilities, 21131 (67.7%) institutions that reported a centralized model of service delivery, and 519 (55.6%) institutions that reported a decentralized model of service delivery also reported that they could accommodate medical disabilities.

Table 1.22 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions that Accommodate Disability Types by Model of Service Delivery. *

Model of Service Delivery
Part-Time SWD Centralized Partially Centralized Decentralized
Blind/Visual 93.5% (29/31) 92.0% (23/25) 77.8% (7/9)
Mobility 93.5% (29/31) 96.0% (24/25) 66.7% (6/9)
Learning 96.8% (30/31) 96.0% (24/25) 77.8% (7/9)
Mental Health 77.4% (24/31) 80.0% (20/25) 55.6% (5/9)
Deaf/Hard of Hearing 74.2% (23/31) 92.0% (23/25) 66.7% (6/9)
Speech 83.9% (26/31) 88.0% (22/25) 55.6% (5/9)
Medical 67.7% (21/31) 72.0% (18/25) 55.6% (5/9)
Other 19.4% (6/31) 32.0% (8/25) 11.1% (1/9)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

J. Disability Documentation Requirements

Institutions were asked if students who requested services were required to provide documentation related to their disability. Of the 70 institutions that responded to the survey, 64 (91.4%) reported that they required disability documentation.

Table 1.23 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions that Require Disability Documentation by Institution Type. *

Require Disability Documentation
Institution Type Yes No
University 96.0% (24/25) 4.0% (1/25)
College 86.4% (19/22) 13.6% (4/25)
Cégep 88.9% (16/18) 11.1% (2/18)
Other 100% (5/5)  

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.23, only small differences were found in whether an institution required disability documentation across the types of post-secondary institutions. While 24/25 (96.0%) universities reported that they required disability documentation, 19/22 (86.4%) colleges, and 16/18 (88.9%) of Cegeps reported that they required disability documentation.

Similarly, only small differences were found across whether or not the institution had a separate service delivery unit only for SWD. While 97.4% (38139) of those institutions that reported having a separate unit only for services for SWD also reported that they required disability documentation, 89.3% (25128) of those institutions that reported NOT having a separate unit only for services for SWD also reported that they required disability documentation.

Table 1.24 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions that Require and Do Not Require Disability Documentation by Numbers of Full-Time SWD Served (grouped). *

Require Disability Documentation
Full-Time SWD Yes No
0 - 9 76.5% (13/17) 23.5% (4/17)
10 - 99 89.5% (17/19) 10.5% (2/19)
100 - 199 100% (13/13)  
200 - 1200 100% (16/16)  

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.24, institutions serving larger SWD populations were somewhat more likely to report that they required disability documentation. While 1311 7 (76.5%) institutions that reported serving full-time SWD populations of between 0 and 9 also reported that they required disability documentation, 17/19 (89.5%) institutions that reported serving full-time SWD populations of between 10 and 99, 13/13 (100%) institutions that reported serving fulltime SWD populations of between 100 and 199, and 16/16 (100%) institutions that reported serving full-time SWD populations of between 200 and 1200 also reported that they required disability documentation. Some differences were also found across model of service delivery. While 96.8% (30131) of institutions that reported a centralized model of service delivery also reported that they required disability documentation related to their disability, 96.0% (24125) of institutions that reported a partially centralized model, 66.7% (619) of institutions that reported a decentralized model, and 100% (313) of those institutions that reported some other model of service delivery also reported that they required disability documentation related to their disability.

Institutional respondents were also asked to describe the cases in which documentation was required, and what types of documentation were requested. Overall, institutions reported that documentation was required in most or all cases when a student requests service or accommodation (see Appendix Two). For instance:

† Documentation is requested whenever academic accommodations are requested. Documentation is also required to access grants/equipment loans from provincial program. University, BC

An Ontario university included a copy of their official policy on disability documentation:

† [copy of policy attached] Documentation of the nature of the student's disability will be requested to facilitate the provision of appropriate, comprehensive and individualized accommodations for the student, as well as to provide evidence of the disability from an outside party. The students' physician, psychiatrist or registered psychologist will be asked to identify the diagnosis, etiology, nature of resulting impairments and signature and credentials will appear on the documentation. Such information will be treated as confidential and governed by the policy pertaining to confidential information and the Privacy and Access to Information Act. University, ON

Institutions also reported that medical documentation was used to establish the specific accommodation needs of the student:

† 1) Documentation is required of all students; 2) a) clinical diagnosis, name of certifying professional, date of testing; b) effect of disability; how the disability affects the student; c) recommendations on how to facilitate student's daily functioning and prognosis (duration of disability); d) any other information student or certifying practitioner deems relevant. University, MB Documentation should be a report or summary by qualified professional in the field of the disability; not a family member. The documentation should be typed on letterhead stationary, dated and signed. It should have been written within the last 3 yrs. (LD specifically). It should name the disability, state treatment (if applicable) and describe how the disability and/or treatment (if applicable) impacts the student's functioning in an academic setting, describe longevity, severity or expected progression or stability of the disability. College, AB

† All requests for alternative academic accommodations must be based on documented need. It must be obtained from medical doctors, audiologists, psychologists, or other professionals who have specified training or expertise in the diagnosis of conditions for which the accommodation is being requested. It should outline the nature of the disability with a detailed explanation of the functional impact of the disability on the pursuit of post-secondary education. When possible, the documentation should give explicit recommendations for remedial and/or coping strategies. University, Atlantic Canada

K. Summer and Evenings/Weekend Hours

Institutions were asked whether or not access to facilities, equipment or services for SWD decreased in the summer months. Of the 70 institutions that responded to the survey, 40 (58.0%) reported that services decreased in the summer months.

Table 1.25 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions in which Access to Facilities, Equipment or Services for SWD Decrease in Summer Months by Numbers of Full-Time SWD Population Served (grouped). *

Services for SWD Decrease in Summer Months
Full-Time SWD Yes No
0 - 9 41.2% (7/17) 58.8% (10/17)
10 - 99 66.7% (12/18) 33.3% (6/18)
100 - 199 46.2% (6/13) 53.8% (7/13)
200 - 1200 68.8% (11/16) 31.3% (5/16)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Some differences were found in whether an institution reported that services for SWD decreased in summer months (see Table 1.25). However, the differences did not follow a consistent pattern related to the size of full-time SWD population - it is equally reasonable to interpret that access to facilities, equipment or services increase AND decrease according to size of full-time SWD population. This is possibly due to the fact that smaller institutions are less likely to have facilities, equipment or services to decrease in the first place.

As shown in Table 1.25, while 7/17 (41.2%) institutions that reported between 0 and 9 fulltime SWD also reported that services for SWD decreased in summer months, a similar proportion (6/13 - 46.2%) of institutions that reported between 100 and 199 full-time SWD also reported that services for SWD decreased in summer months.

As shown in Table 1.26, a similarly inconsistent pattern was found across size of full-time student population. While 13/23 (56.5%) of institutions that reported between 200 and 2499 full-time students also reported that services for SWD decreased in summer months, a lesser proportion (11124 - 45.8%) of institutions that reported between 2500 and 9999 also reported that services for SWD decreased in the summer months.

Table 1.26 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions in which Access to Facilities, Equipment or Services for SWD Decrease in Summer Months by Full-Time Student Population (grouped). *

Services for SWD Decrease in Summer Months
Full-Time Student Population Yes No
200 - 2499 56.5% (13/23) 43.5% (10/13)
2500 - 9999 45.8% (11/24) 54.2% (13/24)
10000 - 50000 83.3% (15/18) 16.7% (3/18)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Table 1.27 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions in which Access to Facilities, Equipment or Services for SWD Decrease in Summer Months by Model of Service Delivery. *

Services for SWD Decrease in Summer Months
Model of Service Delivery Yes No
Centralized 64.5% (20/31) 35.5% (11/31)
Partially Centralized 50.0% (12/24) 50.0% (12/24)
Decentralized 66.7% (6/9) 33.3% (3/9)
Other 66.7% (2/3) 33.3% (1/3)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.27, no important differences were found across model of service delivery type. While 619 (66.7%) institutions that reported a decentralized model of service delivery also reported that access to facilities, equipment or services decreased in summer months, 20131 (64.5%) institutions that reported a centralized model of service delivery, and 12124 (50.0%) institutions that reported a partially centralized model of service delivery also reported that access to facilities, equipment or services decreased in summer months.

Some minor differences existed in terms of whether or not an institution reported that facilities, equipment or services for SWD decreased in summer months across type of institution. While 60.0% (1 5125) of universities reported that facilities, equipment or services for SWD decreased in summer months, 66.7% (14121) of community colleges, 44.4% (8118) of Cegeps and 60.0% (315) of other types of institutions reported that facilities, equipment or services for SWD decreased in summer months.

Similarly, while 64.1% (25/39) of institutions that reported a separate unit for services for SWD also reported that facilities, equipment or services for SWD decreased in summer months, 51.9% (14127) of institutions that reported they did not have a separate unit for services for SWD also reported that facilities, equipment or services for SWD decreased in summer months. Institutional respondents were also asked, if access to facilities, equipment or services for SWD decreased in summer months, to describe the decrease, or what facilities, equipment or services were affected (see Appendix Two). Some institutions described full or almost full decreases in services:

† We don't offer summer semester. College, BC

† All - most important programs end, BUT orientation specific in August. College, ON

† Generally no classes offered. Support Services not available unless pre-arranged. College, BC

Other institutions reported that services were reduced due to decreased enrollment:

† Reduced by two-thirds in summer for all services. Students tend to take summer schools in May-June - down about 25% in July. University, QC

† Fewer students translates to all-round decrease in equipment, facilities or service use. They are all used, just less often. The service shifts to other needs for prospective students, residence admissions, planning, etc. University, ON

† About 11'3 as busy as 'regular' terms (all facilities, equipment and services available). University, ON

Still others reported minimal reductions in access to facilities, equipment or services for SWD in summer months:

† Seulement le transport adapte n'est pas disponible. Universite, QC

† While we offer our support services year round, we only run our reading, writing, and academic skills classes which are offered through our program for students with learning disabilities from Sept.-April. Those students in the PSLD, however, still receive the other services such as exam accommodations and faculty liaison over the summer. All other services and equipment are available year round. University, AB

† Local adapte ouvert seulement du lundi au vendredi comme la Bibliotheque Generale de l'universite. Bureau d7Acceuil ferme durant une ou deux semaines en juillet. Universite, QC

† The services provided through [The Centre] are not reduced. For example, the centre opens on evenings and weekends to accommodate students writing tests and exams. The library operates on reduced hours during the summer months (May to August). Most staff offices closed at 4:30 p.m. rather than 5:00 p.m. from June to August. All students are affected. University, A tlantic Canada

Institutions were also asked to report whether or not access to facilities, equipment or services for SWD decreased in the evenings and on weekends. Of the 70 institutions that responded to the survey, 49 (70.0%) reported that access to facilities, equipment or services for SWD decreased in the evenings and on weekends.

Table 1.28 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions in which Access to Facilities, Equipment or Services for SWD Decrease on Evenings and Weekends by Numbers of Full-Time SWD Served (grouped). *

Services for SWD Decrease on Evenings and Weekends
Full-Time SWD Yes No
0 - 9 35..3% (6/17) 64.7% (11/17)
10 - 99 77.8% (14/18) 22.2% (4/18)
100 - 199 92.3% (12/13) 7.7% (1/13)
200 - 1200 87.5% (14/16) 12.5% (2/16)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.28, institutions that reported larger full-time SWD populations were more likely to report that access to facilities, equipment or services for SWD decreased on evenings and weekends. Again, this is possibly due to the fact that smaller institutions are less likely to have facilities, equipment or services to decrease in the first place. While 6/17 (35.3%) institutions that reported serving full-time SWD populations of between 0 and 9 also reported that access to facilities, equipment or services decreased on evenings and weekends, 14/16 (87.5%) institutions that reported serving full-time SWD populations of between 200 and 1200 also reported these decreases.

Table 1.29 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions in which Access to Facilities, Equipment or Services for SWD Decrease on Evenings and Weekends by Full-Time Student Population (grouped). *

Access to Facilities, Equipment or Services for SWD Decrease on Evenings and Weekends
Full-Time Student Population Yes No
200 - 2499 52.2% (12/23) 47.8% (11/23)
2500 - 9999 79.2% (19/24) 20.8% (5/24)
10000 - 50000 94.4% (17/18) 5.6% (1/18)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.29, a similar pattern was found with regard to size of full-time student populations. While 12/23 (52.2%) institutions that reported full-time student populations of between 200 and 2499 also reported that access to facilities, equipment or services decreased on evenings and weekends, 17/18 (94.45%) institutions that reported full-time student populations of between 10000 and 50000 also reported these decreases. Some differences in access to facilities, equipment or services on evenings and weekends were found across type of institution. While 84.0% (21125) universities reported that access to facilities, equipment or services for students with disabilities decreased in the evenings and on weekends, 90.5% (19121) of community colleges, 44.4% (8118) of Cegeps, and 20.0% (1/5) of other types of institutions reported that access to facilities, equipment or services for students with disabilities decreased in the evenings and on weekends.

Differences were also found across whether or not institutions reported having a separate unit for services only for SWD. While 84.6% (33139) of those institutions that reported a separate unit for services only for SWD also reported that facilities, equipment or services for SWD decreased in evenings and on weekends, 55.6% of those institutions that reported NOT having a separate unit for services for SWD also reported that facilities, equipment or services for SWD decreased in evenings and on weekends.

Institutional respondents were also asked, if access to facilities, equipment or services for SWD decreased on evenings and weekends, to describe the decrease, or what facilities, equipment or services were affected. Most institutions reported large or full reduction in access to facilities, equipment or services on evenings and weekends (see Appendix Two). For instance:

† Office closes at 5:00 pm, Resource Centre Room in library is open till 11:OO pm and on week-ends (no personnel available outside regular business hrs). University, BC

† Les services ferment les soirs et les fins de semaine. Collkge, QC

† Disability Services isn't open. College, BC

† Le college est ferme les fins de semaines, cours aux adultes le soir. Aucun enseignant regulier le soir. Collkge, QC

† Most offices and classrooms are closed on weekends - no staff. College, SK

† Open only 1 evening per week and not on weekends'. College, ON

Other institutions indicated that access to facilities, equipment or services was reduced on evenings and weekends, but that SWD could make special arrangements for access during these times:

† Les etudiants ne peuvent pas rencontrer le conseiller de services en dehors de heurs d'ouverture du bureau a moins d'arrangements speciaux. Universite, QC

† Most services are available during 8:30 - 4:30, exceptions are arrangements made for evening classes, exam accommodations which may take place evenings on weekends, and access to adaptive technology lab is only available evenings (Mondays- Thursdays). University, A B

† Prior notice will allow for arrangements. College, SK

† School has few students after 7 p.m. If a need arises, security guards will open facilities upon receipt of memo by me. College, QC

Others reported that access to services related to examinations was not reduced during scheduled examination times:

† Adapted bus does not run on evenings and weekends. Library computer labs available during library opening hours. Office closed evenings and weekends except for exams. University, QC

† The office's services are not available past 4:30 or on weekends, EXCEPT for exams which may be scheduled during these times. University, SK

† Test/lexams are invigilated only until 9 pm weekdays and 3 pm Saturdays. No test/lexam accommodations on Sundays. Disability Services (D) office hours are Mon- Fri 8:30 - 4:30 (except as noted for tests/exams). TTY is only available during D office hours and library hours. University, MB

L. Student Groups and Representation

Respondents were asked to report whether or not they were aware of an independent group organized by and for students with disabilities at their institution. Of the 70 institutions that responded to the survey, 15 (21.4%) institutions reported that there was an independent student group.

Table 1.30 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions with and without Independent Group Organized by and for Students with Disabilities by Institution Type. *

Independent Group Organized by and for Students with Disabilities
Institution Type Yes No
University 40.0% (10/25) 60.0% (15/25)
College 4.5% (1/22) 95.5% (21/22)
Cégep 11.1% (2/18) 88.9% (16/18)
Other 40.0% (2/5) 60.0% (3/5)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Sharp differences were found across type of post-secondary institution (see Table 1.30). While 40.0% (10125) of universities reported awareness of an independent group organized by and for students with disabilities, 4.5% (1122) of community colleges, 11.1% (2118) of Cegeps, and 40.0% (215) among 'other' types of institutions reported awareness of an independent group organized by and for students with disabilities.

Sharp differences were also found across size of full-time student population (see Table 1.31). While 7/18 (38.9%) institutions that reported full-time student populations of between 10000 and 50000 also reported an independent student group organized by and for SWD, 7124 (29.8%) institutions that reported full-time student populations of between 2500 and 9999, and no institutions that reported full-time student populations of between 200 and 2499 reported an independent student group organized by and for SWD.

Table 1.31 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions with and without Independent Group Organized by and for Students with Disabilities by Full-Time Student Population (grouped). *

Independent Group Organized by and for Students with Disabilities
Full-Time Student Population Yes No
200 - 2499   100% (24/24)
2500 - 9999 29.8% (7/24) 70.8% (17/24)
10000 - 50000 38.9% (7/18) 61.1% (11/18)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Table 1.32 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions with and without Independent Group Organized by and for Students with Disabilities by Numbers of Full-Time SWD Served (grouped). *

Independent Group Organized by and for SWD
Full-Time SWD Yes No
0 - 9 5.9% (1/17) 94.1% (16/17)
10 - 99 15.8% (3/19) 84.2% (16/19)
100 - 199 53.8% (7/13) 46.2% (6/13)
200 - 1200 25.0% (4/16) 75.0% (12/16)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.32, institutions that reported sewing larger full-time SWD populations were more likely to report an independent group organized by and for SWD, but the relationship was not linear. While 1/17 (5.9%) institutions that reported serving between 0 and 9 full-time SWD also reported an independent group organized by and for SWD, 4/16 (25.0%) institutions that reported serving between 200 and 1200 full-time SWD also reported an independent group organized by and for SWD. Among those institutions that reported serving SWD populations of between 100 and 199, more than half (7113 or 38.8%) reported an independent group for SWD.

Institutions were also asked whether their institution had a committee dealing with issues of accessibility. Of the 70 institutions that responded to the survey, 28 (40.0%) reported that they had a committee dealing with issues of accessibility.

Table 1.33 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions with Accessibility Committee by Province. *

Accessibility Committee
Province Yes No
Newfoundland 100% (1/1)  
Nova Scotia   100% (2/2)
New Brunswick 50% (1/2) 50% (1/2)
Quebec 18.2% (4/22) 81.8% (18/22)
Ontario 66.7% (10/15) 33.3% (5/15)
Manitoba   100% (3/3)
Saskatchewan 75.0% (3/4) 25.0% (1/4)
Alberta 33.3% (3/9) 66.7% (6/9)
British Columbia 54.5% (6/11) 45.5% (5/11)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.33, some differences in whether an institution had a committee dealing with issues of accessibility were found across the provinces. Accessibility committees were more common among institutions in Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia. None of the institutions in Nova Scotia or Manitoba (where there were very few schools responding) and only 18.2% (4122) of institutions in Quebec reported an accessibility committee.

Some differences were also found across whether or not an institution reported having a separate unit only for services for SWD. While 57.9% (22138) of those institutions with a separate unit for services for students with disabilities only reported having a committee dealing with issues of accessibility, only 17.9% (5128) of those institutions without a separate unit for services for students with disabilities only reported having a committee dealing with issues of accessibility.

Table 1.34 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions with and without an Accessibility Committee by Full-Time Student Population (grouped). *

Accessibility Committee
Full-Time Student Population Yes No
200 - 2499 29.2% (7/24) 70.8% (17/24)
2500 - 9999 34.8% (8/23) 15/23)
10000 - 50000 55.6% (10/18) 44.4% (8/18)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Overall, institutions that reported larger full-time student populations were somewhat more likely to report having an accessibility committee (see Table 1.34). While 7/24 (29.2%) institutions that reported full-time student populations of between 200 and 2499 also reported having an accessibility committee, 8123 (34.8%) institutions reporting between 2500 and 9999 full-time students, and 10/18 (55.6%) institutions reporting between 10000 and 50000 fulltime students also reported having an accessibility committee.

Table 1.35 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions with and without an Accessibility Committee by Numbers of Full-Time SWD Served (grouped). *

Accessibility Committee
Full-Time SWD Population Yes No
0 - 9 5.9% (1/17) 94.1% (16/17)
10 - 99 31.6% (6/19) 68.4% (13/19)
100 - 199 69.2% (9/13) 30.8% (4/13)
200 - 1200 66.7% (10/15) 33.3% (5/15)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Institutions that reported serving larger full-time SWD populations were somewhat more likely to report having an accessibility committee (see Table 1.35). While 1/17 (5.9%) institutions that reported serving full-time SWD populations of between 0 and 9 also reported having an accessibility committee, 6/19 (31.6%) institutions that reported serving between 10 and 99 full-time SWD reported an accessibility committee. However, there was little difference in the higher category ranges where 9/13 (69.2%) institutions that reported between 100 and 199 full-time SWD, and 10115 (66.7%) institutions reporting between 200 and 1200 full-time SWD also reported having an accessibility committee.

Table 1.36 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions with and without an Accessibility Committee by Model of Service Delivery. *

Accessibility Committee
Model of Service Delivery Yes No
Centralized 16.1% (5/31) 83.9% (26/31)
Partially Centralized 36.0% (9/25) 64.0% (16/25)
Decentralized   100% (9/9)
Other 33.3% (1/3) 66.7% (2/3)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Some differences were also found across model of service delivery (see Table 1.36). While 5/31 (16.1%) institutions that reported a centralized model of service delivery also reported that they had an accessibility committee, 9125 (36.0%) institutions that reported a partially centralized model of service delivery, and no institutions that reported a decentralized model of service delivery also reported having an accessibility committee.

Respondents were also asked, if they reported having an accessibility committee, whether or not the committee had representation from SWD. Of the 28 institutions that reported having an accessibility committee, 24 (85.7%) reported that the committee had representation from SWD.

Table 1.37 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions with SWD Representation on Accessibility Committee by Numbers of Full-Time SWD Served (grouped). *

SWD Representation Accessibility Committee
Full-Time SWD Population Yes No
10 - 99 55.6% (5/9) 44.4% (4/9)
100 - 199 88.9% (8/9) 11.1% (1/9)
200 - 1200 83.3% (10/12) 16.7% (2/12)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.37, 519 (55.6%) institutions th at reported serving a full-time SWD population of between 10 and 99 also reported SWD representation on an accessibility committee, 819 (88.9%) institutions that reported a full-time SWD population of between 100 and 199, and 1011 2 (83.3%) institutions that reported a full-time SWD population of between 200 and 1200 also reported having SWD representation on an accessibility committee.

Some differences were also found across model of service delivery. While 62.5% (10116) of institutions that had a centralized model of service delivery reported that they had SWD representation on a committee dealing with issues of delivery, 92.3% (12113) of institutions that had a partially centralized model of service delivery, and 100% (517) of institutions with some other model of service delivery reported that they had SWD representation on a committee dealing with issues of accessibility.

Respondents were also asked whether the main students' organization at their institution had any positions that focused on issues related to students with disabilities. Of the 69 institutions that responded to the question, 11 (15.7%) reported that the main students' organization had a position that focused on issues related to students with disabilities.

Table 1.38 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions where Student Organization has SWD Position by Full-Time Student Population (grouped). *

Student Organization has SWD Position
Full-Time Student Population Yes No Don't Know
200 - 2499 8.3% (2/23) 87.5% (21/23) 4.2% (1/23)
2500 - 9999 13.0% (3/18) 65.2% (15/23) 21.7% (5/23)
10000 - 50000 27.8% (5/18) 55.6% (10/18) 16.7% (3/18)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.38, 2/23 (8.3%) institutions that reported between 200 and 2499 fulltime students also reported that the main student organization had a position that focused on issues related to SWD, 3/18 (13.0%) of institutions that reported between 2500 and 9999 fulltime students, and 5/18 (27.8%) of institutions that reported between 10000 and 50000 fulltime students also reported that the main student organization had a position that focused on issues related to SWD.

Table 1.39 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions where Student Organization has SWD Position by Numbers of Full-Time SWD Served (grouped). *

Student Organization has SWD Position
Full-Time SWD Population Yes No Don't Know
0 - 9 5.9% (1/17) 94.1% (16/17)  
10 - 99 11.1% (2/18) 77.8% (14/18) 11.1% (2/18)
100 - 199 23.1% (3/13) 53.8% (7/13) 23.1% (3/13)
200 - 1200 31.3% (5/16) 43.8% (7/16) 25.0% (4/16)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

A similar pattern was found with respect to the numbers of full-time SWD served (see Table 1.39). While 1/17 (5.9%) of institutions that reported between 0 and 9 full-time SWD also reported that the main student organization had a position that focused on issues related to SWD, 211 8 (1 1.1%) institutions that reported between 10 and 99, 3113 (23.1%) institutions that reported between 100 and 199 full-time SWD, and 5/16 (31.3%) institutions that reported between 200 and 1200 full-time SWD also reported that the main student organization had a position that focused on issues related to SWD.

Differences were also found across type of institution. While 24.0% (6125) of universities reported that the student organization had a position that focused on issues related to SWD, 9.1% (2122) of community colleges, 5.9% (1117) of Cegeps, and 40.0% of other types of institutions reported that the student organization had a position that focused on issues related to SWD.

M. Planning Program and Accessibility Modifications

Institutional respondents were also asked to report whether they were aware of any modifications (as of January lst, 1998) to programs, policies, andlor physical accessibility that would improve the accessibility of their institution.

Table 1.40 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions Planning Modifications to Programs, Policies and Physical Accessibility by Province. *

Planning Modifications
Accessibilitly
Province
Programs Policy Physical
Newfoundland 100% (1/1) 100% (1/1) 100% (1/1)
Nova Scotia 50.0% (1/2) 0% (0/2) 0% (0/2)
New Brunswick 0% (0/2) 0% (0/2) 50.0% (1/2)
Quebec 18.2% (4/22) 5.0% (1/20) 28.6% (6/21)
Ontario 37.5% (6/16) 20.0% (3/15) 75.0% (12/16)
Manitoba 0% (0/3) 33.3% (1/3) 33.3% (1/3)
Saskatchewan 0% (0/3) 25% (1/4) 25% (1/4)
Alberta 62.5% (5/8) 87.5% (7/8) 37.5% (3/8)
British Columbia 22.2% (2/9) 60.0% (6/10) 70.0% (7/10)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.40, differences were found in the proportions of institutions that were planning modifications to programs, policies or features of physical accessibility. Institutions in most provinces were more often planning modifications in physical accessibility than in the two other specific areas. However, this was not the case in Alberta, where a large majority of those responding indicated they were planning modifications in policy (87.5%, 718) and 62.5% (518) of institutions indicated they planned modifications in programs.

Some differences were found across whether or not an institution reported having a separate unit for services for SWD only. While 40.5% (15137) of institutions that reported having a separate unit for services for SWD only also reported that they were planning program modifications, 11.5% (3126) of institutions that reported no separate unit for services for SWD only, also reported that they were planning program modifications.

Similarly, while 37.8% (14137) of institutions that reported having a separate unit for services for SWD only also reported that they were planning policy modifications, 23.1% (6126) of institutions that reported no separate unit for services for SWD only also reported that they were planning policy modifications.

Table 1.41 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions Planning Modifications to Programs, Policies and Physical Accessibility by Type of Institution. *

Planning Modifications
Accessibility
Type of Institution
Programs Policy Physical
University 54.2% (13/24) 48.0% (12/25) 72.0% (18/25)
College 21.2% (4/19) 42.1% (8/19) 50.0% (10/20)
Cégep 11.1% (2/18) 0% (0/16) 11.8% (2/17)
Other 0% (0/5) 0% (0/5) 40% (2/5)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.41, differences were also found across type of institution - overall, universities were more likely than colleges or Cegeps to report planning modifications. While 13/24 (54.2%) universities that responded to the question reported that they were planning modifications to programs, 411 9 (21.2%) colleges, and 211 8 (1 1.1%) Cegeps reported that they were planning modifications to programs that would improve accessibility. Similarly, while 18/25 (72.0%) universities that responded to the question reported plans to modify physical accessibility, 10120 (50.0%) colleges, and 2/17 (1 1.8%) Cegeps reported that they had plans to modify physical accessibility that would improve accessibility at their institution.

As shown in Table 1.42, institutions that reported a partially centralized model of service delivery were overall more likely to report modifications to programs, policies, or physical accessibility. For instance, while 14/24 (58.3%) institutions with a partially centralized model of service delivery that responded to the question reported that they were planning modifications to physical accessibility, 1313 1 (41.9%) institutions reporting a centralized model of service delivery, and 117 (14.3%) institutions reporting a decentralized model of service delivery also reported that they were planning modifications to physical accessibility.

Table 1.42 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions Planning Modifications to Programs, Policies and Physical Accessibility by Model of Service Delivery. *

Planning Modifications
Model of Service Delivery Programs Policy Physical Accessibility
Centralized 23.3% (7/30) 26.7% (8/30) 41.9% (13/31)
Partially Centralized 41.7% (10/24) 39.1% (9/23) 58.3% (14/24)
Decentralized 12.5% (1/8) 14.3% (1/7) 14.3% (1/7)
Other 33.3% (1/3) 33.3% (1/3) 66.7% (2/3)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Table 1.43 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions Planning Modifications to Programs, Policies, and Physical Accessibility by Full-Time Student Population (grouped). *

Planning Modifications
Accessibility
Full-Time Students
Programs Policy Physical
200 - 2499 9.1% (2/22) 22.7% (5/22) 22.7% (5/22)
2500 - 9999 16.7% (4/24) 13.0% (3/23) 41.7% (10/24)
10000 - 50000 66.7% (12/18) 64.7% (11/17) 77.8% (14/18)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Generally, as shown in Table 1.43, institutions that reported larger full-time student populations were more likely to report planning modifications to programs, polices and physical accessibility. For instance, while 5/22 (22.7%) institutions that reported between 200 and 2499 full-time students reported that they were planning modifications to physical accessibility, 14/18 (77.8%) of institutions that reported between 10000 and 50000 full-time students also reported that they were planning modifications to physical accessibility.

Table 1.44 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions Planning Modifications to Programs, Policies and Physical Accessibility by Numbers of Full-Time SWD Served (grouped). *

Planning Modifications
Full-Time Students Programs Policy Physical Accessibility
0 - 9 11.8% (2/17) 6.3% (1/16) 12.5% (2/16)
10 - 99 22.2% (4/18) 35.3% (6/17) 33.3% (6/18)
100 - 199 30.8% (4/13) 30.8% (4/13) 76.9% (10/13)
200 - 1200 60.0% (9/15) 46.7% (7/15) 75.0% (12/16)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

A similar pattern was found with respect to numbers of full-time SWD served (see Table 1.44). Institutions that reported serving larger full-time SWD populations were more likely to report planning modifications to programs, polices and physical accessibility. For instance, while 2/17 (1 1.8%) institutions that reported between 0 and 9 full-time SWD (and who responded to the question) reported that they were planning modifications to programs, 4/18 (22.2%) institutions reported serving between 10 and 99 full-time SWD, 4/13 (30.8%) institutions that reported serving between 100 and 199 full-time SWD, and 9/15 (60.0%) institutions that reported serving between 200 and 1200 full-time SWD also reported that they were planning modifications to programs.

Institutional respondents were also asked to describe any plans to modify programs, policies or physical accessibility. A range of plans to modify programs were described (see Appendix Two), for instance:

† Fusion du Bureau d'Acceui1 des etudiants handicapes avec le service d'orientation et de counseling pour ameliorer l'encadrement scolaire (Depuis ler Juin 1998). 2. Prevision d'achats de materiel informatique adapte. Universiti, QC

† We have put in a proposal for a transition year program and new model for service delivery and assessment. It may be approved in the spring. College, ON

† Initiating Learning Strategies Program. Convening an advisory committee to special services. University, ON

As well, a number of plans to modify policies were described:

† Better assessment and self-identification; policy for students with disabilities. College, A B

† Inclusion of students with learning disabilities within the provincial funding formula. University, QC

† The Employment Equity Plan of the university includes recommendations to increase the number of students and staff with disabilities recruited to the university and improving the retention of those students and staff with awareness programs and through reasonable measures. University, A B

† We are in the process of writing and having approved the operating guidelines to implement our policy regarding the services for students with disabilities. We are also organizing our unit philosophically with respect to the type of service we provide. College, AB

Similarly, institutions described a number of plans to modify physical accessibility:

† Every year [The University] spends close to $100,000 specifically on physical accessibility including installation of visual alarms, appropriate signage and paint for partially sighted individuals, and the usual barrier free design up-grades. University, AB

† An enhanced on-campus transportation system for persons with mobility difficulties; development of an institutional policy on academic accommodations for students with disabilities; and development of workshops for faculty members on teaching students with various disabilities - planned for the 1998 winter session. University, A tlantic Canada

† We have an ongoing programme of renovation - new elevators, new library - improved access to other buildings. University, QC - Installation de boutons en braille dans 2 ascenseurs. - Prevision d'un trace jaune pour personnes aveugles dans le pavilion des services. - Construction de cuisine dans residences - avec comptoirs adaptes etc. University - Quebec

Also, however, some institutions indicated that they were conducting research in order to assess and develop planned modifications that would improve accessibility:

† Completion of a student satisfaction survey, completion of a faculty satisfaction survey, passage of an academic accommodations policy, expansion of our adaptive technology resources, expansion of our programming for students with learning disabilities, expansion of psycho-educational group activities. Unzversiv, AB We have completed an access audit 2 years ago which resulted in a 5 year plan to address issues identified in audit. University, BC

N. Written Materials About Services

Institutions were asked to describe how SWD were made aware of services and accommodations available to them. As reflected in the responses (see Appendix Two), institutions reported that SWD were made aware of services and accommodations through a broad range of methods. For instance:

† Information in course calendar; information provided to resource counsellors in high schools or in-take workers at agencies for persons with disabilities; guest speaking at classrooms, high schools, community events; office brochures; on-campus service, Learning Assistance Centre, instructors, advisors, etc. University, MB

† Orientation for new students - general; orientation for students with identified disabilities specific and more detailed; newsletters to all students registered with Access Centre; postings at the Access Centre; presentations at LDA as requested; mailings to prospective new students who identify themselves as individuals with a disability; meetings between students and Access Centre counsellors; Access Centre student kit - binder with lots of information given to all students who are newly registered with the Access Centre. University, ON

† There is a place on the "Application for Admission" form where students can indicate they would like to be contacted by the Access Coordinator for Service to Students with Disabilities - this is voluntary; brochure; class presentations regarding services available to all students in Student Services Department. College, BC

† There is a question asking students to self-identify on the application form. The services for students with disabilities is mentioned in the calendar and several incollege publications. We are developing a Handbook and will hold an orientation session. We also communicate with high schools, as well as community and disability-related agencies. College, AB

Institutions were then asked specifically if they had written materials about services and accommodations that were made available to students. Of the 70 institutions that responded to the survey, 41 (58.6%) reported that they provided written materials.

Table 1.45 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions that Provide Written Materials about Services by Institution Type. *

Provide Written Materials about Services
Institution Type Yes No
University 92.0% (23/25) 8.0% (2/25)
College 82.4% (14/17) 17.6% (3/17)
Cégep 20.0% (2/10) 80% (8/10)
Other 100% (2/2)  

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.45, 23/25 (92.0%) universities reported that they provided written materials about services, and 14/17 (82.4%) colleges reported providing written materials. However, only 2/10 (20.0%) Cegeps reported that they provided written materials about services.

Table 1.46 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions that Provide Written Materials about Services by Province. *

Provide Written Materials about Services
Province Yes No
Newfoundland 100% (1/1)  
Nova Scotia 50% (1/2) 50% (1/2)
New Brunswick 50% (1/2) 50% (1/2)
Quebec 47.4% (9/19) 52.6% (10/19)
Ontario 100% (15/15)  
Manitoba 100% (3/3)  
Saskatchewan 75.0% (3/4) 25.0% (1/4)
Alberta 77.8% (7/9) 22.2% (2/9)
British Columbia 72.7% (8/11) 27.3% (3/11)

* Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.46, differences were found across provinces. While 9/19 (47.4%) institutions in Quebec reported that they provided written materials about services, 1511 5 (100%) institutions in Ontario reported that they provided written materials about services.

Differences were also found across whether or not an institution reported having a separate unit for services for SWD only. While 34/37 (91.9%) institutions that reported having a separate unit for services for students with disabilities only also reported having written materials about services and accommodations available to students with disabilities, 13/26 (50.0%) institutions that reported not having a separate unit for services for students with disabilities only also reported having written materials about services and accommodations available to students with disabilities.

Table 1.47 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions that Provide Written Materials about Services by Full-Time Student Population (grouped). *

Provide Written Material about Services
Full-Time Student Population Yes No
200 - 2499 52.2% (12/23) 47.8% (11/23)
2500 - 9999 71.4% (15/21) 28.6% (6/21)
10000 - 50000 100% (18/18)  

*Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

As shown in Table 1.47, institutions with larger populations were more likely to report that they provided written materials about services. While 12/23 (52.2%) institutions that reported between 200 and 2499 full-time students, 15/21 (71.4%) institutions that reported between 2500 and 9999 full-time students, and 18/18 (100%) institutions that reported between 10000 and 50000 full-time students also reported that they provided written materials about services.

Table1.48 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions that Provide Written Materials about Services by Numbers of Full-Time SWD Served (grouped). *

Provide Written Materials about Services
Full-Time SWD Population Yes No
0 - 9 33.3% (5/15) 66.7% (10/15)
10 - 99 66.7% (12/18) 33.3% (6/18)
100 - 199 100% (12/12)  
200 - 1200 100% (16/16)  

*Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

A similar pattern was found in terms of the numbers of full-time SWD served (see Table 1.48). Among institutions that reported serving between 0 and 9 full-time SWD, 5/15 (33.3%) also reported providing written materials about services, and 12/18 (66.7%) institutions that reported between 10 and 99 full-time SWD reported that they provided written materials. However, there was no difference between institutions that reported serving between 100 and 199 SWD, and those serving between 200 and 1200: 12/12 (1 00%) institutions that reported between 100 and 199 full-time SWD, and 16/16 (100%) institutions that reported full-time SWD populations of between 200 and 1200 also reported providing written materials about services.

Table1.49 Numbers and Percentages of Institutions that Provide Written Materials about Services by Model of Service Delivery. *

Provide Written Materials about Services
Model of Service Delivery Yes No
Centralized 73.3% (22/30) 26.7% (8/30)
Partially Centralized 81.8% (18/22) 18.8% (4/22)
Decentralized 55.6% (5/9) 44.4% (4/9)
Other 66.7% (2/3) 33.3% (1/3)

*Calculated from service provider responses (n=70).

Only small differences were found across model of service delivery type (see Table 1.49). While 22/30 (73.3%) institutions that reported a centralized model of service delivery reported that they provided written materials, 18/22 (81.8%) institutions that reported a partially centralized model of service delivery, 519 (55.6%) institutions that reported a decentralized model of service delivery also reported that they provided written materials about services.


Top

All contents copyright ©, 1999-2018, National Educational 
Association of Disabled Students. All rights reserved.