© COPYRIGHT
By
Helen Evelyn Edwards
2019
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
DEDICATION
To my father, who motivated me since I was a girl to get a master’s degree.
To my mother, who prayed every day for my sanity.
To my husband, who encouraged and supported me throughout the process.
To my God, who provides strength and wisdom in all things.
We did it.
ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT OF D.C. THEATRES: LOCAL ACCOMMODATION PRACTICES
FOR DEAF AND HARD-OF-HEARING AUDIENCES
BY
Helen Evelyn Edwards
ABSTRACT
The goal of this study is to encourage consistent access to accessible performances for audiences with hearing loss and highlight their value, with the ultimate hope of further closing the gap between the hearing and hearing-loss communities through the facilitative power of the arts. The thesis analyzes accommodation strategies for patrons with hearing loss specific to small and midsize organizations as defined by expenses according to Theatre Communications Group.
Information was collected regarding legislation, barriers to accommodation, and suggested practices from a variety of sources. To supplement the research, an audit was conducted to record offerings for the aforementioned target patrons within the Washington, D.C. area theatre landscape as defined by theatrewashington, in order to identify trends or additional real-world solutions to common barriers to accommodation facing smaller organizations. The culmination of the primary and secondary resources in addition to the research collected during the audit resulted in accommodation suggestions specific to small and midsize theaters.
ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This project would not have been complete without the guidance and support of many wonderful people. I am incredibly grateful for my Thesis Chair Sherburne Laughlin for her guidance, grace, and encouragement throughout the research process as well as during my time in the program overall. She helped me to see that I did have something of value to offer to our field and challenged me to work harder than I previously thought possible. I would also like to thank my second reader Ximena Varela for her positive energy and flexibility along the way. I’m also incredibly blessed my family and friends who loved and supported me throughout my time in the program; I truly could not have done it without you.
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...... II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... III
TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... IV
LIST OF TABLES ...... VI
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
METHODOLOGY ...... 6
DISABILITY DISCLAIMER ...... 9
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 11
DEAF AND HARD OF HEARING ...... 12
REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 ...... 20
AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) ...... 23
AUXILIARY AID AND SERVICE TECHNOLOGIES ...... 27
REAL WORLD ACCOMMODATION EFFORTS IN THEATERS ...... 39
BARRIERS TO ACCOMMODATION ...... 42
SUMMARY OF LITERATURE FINDINGS ...... 45
3. GENERAL ACCOMMODATION PRACTICES ...... 46
4. D.C. THEATER LANDSCAPE ...... 54
5. SUGGESTIONS SPECIFIC TO SMALL AND MIDSIZE THEATERS ...... 60
iv APPENDICES ...... 66
BIBLIGOGRAPHY ...... 82
v LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: D.C. Theatre Landscape by Group According to TCG ...... 55
Table 2: Accommodations Provided in the D.C. Theatre Landscape ...... 56
vi LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Budget Groups Defined by TCG ...... 5
Figure 2: Percentage of Population with Hearing Loss ...... 13
Figure 3: How Assistive Listening Systems Work ...... 29
Figure 4: 2010 Revised Regulations ALS Receiver Requirements ...... 31
Figure 5: Level of Difficulty Hearing by Age Group ...... 32
Figure 6: Auxiliary Aids and Services Checklist ...... 38
vii CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Access is an important aspect of an organization’s mission, maintenance, and potential for growth; the sooner nonprofit performing arts organizations realize this, specifically organizations with limited resources, the sooner they can tap into a largely ignored potential market. The goal of this study is to encourage consistent access to accessible performances for audiences with hearing loss and highlight their value, specifically in smaller organizations, with the ultimate hope of further closing the gap between the hearing and hearing-loss communities through the facilitative power of the arts.
The passing of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in July 1990 signified a shift in the way that access was perceived by both individuals and public/private entities. The Act itself was a product of the mounting energy from disabled individuals and allies alike pursuing justice with tenacity. Nearly thirty years later, the momentum for generating creative solutions and innovative change, particularly in the field of the performing arts, has slowed considerably.
Many of the same assistive listening devices introduced in the early years of the disability rights movement, circa the early 1950s, are still being utilized today by performing arts organizations.
With few new assistive listening technologies emerging, and a modern world defined by innovation, auxiliary technology does not align with current patron’s expectations.1
1. Betty R. Siegel. Phone Interview with author. November 15, 2019.
1 Despite many years since the law was passed, and the various resources published publicly to guide organizations towards compliance, the general lack of understanding or readiness to engage Deaf and Hard-of-hearing audiences is still prevalent in the field. Numerous materials, such as journal and newspaper articles,2 3 published papers,4 and guidebooks5 have reviewed the progress of commercial and local live theatre venues towards becoming more physically accessible spaces, specifically for wheelchairs.6 Very few of those materials clearly discuss general needs of Deaf and Hard-of-hearing (D/Hoh) patrons or strategies for the implementation of assistive technology and services. Still fewer of those materials have detailed successful practices to overcome common barriers to accommodation such as cost of various aids and services and lack of staff training. Many of the sources fail to communicate the added value of such potential patronage to an organization and in some cases, to the hearing world at large. The lack of publication on the subject hints at a continued systemic societal problem; the isolation of these perspectives from mainstream society results in misrepresentation, under recognition, and ultimately, disenfranchisement with regard to the arts. Accessibility is an ongoing civil rights issue that is only just starting to regain visibility.
2. Alexa Baracaia, “Disability Act Adds to Theatre Burden.” The Stage. (1999)
3. Amy Hersh, “Theatres Creating New Programs for Patrons with Disabilities.” Back Stage 33, no. 3 (1992)
4. David Keith Ruebhausen, “Art Made Accessible: Redefining Accessibility and Cross- Cultural Communication for the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing in the American Theatre Institution.” (Doctoral Thesis, University of Minnesota, 1996) 136-137.
5. National Endowment for the Arts et al., “Design for Accessibility; A Cultural Administrator’s Handbook.” (2000)
6. National Association of the Deaf, “Advocacy Letters for Theaters and Concert Halls.” (2019)
2 This research collected and documented widely applicable accommodation practices from the literature to accommodate D/Hoh audiences. This research should serve as a resource to address ambiguity around ADA compliance, innovative strategies to address common barriers to accommodation, and shine a light on the potential impact of accessibility in the future of the performing arts. This study focuses primarily on live theatre as a performing arts medium because of its expansive definition, history as an expressive art form, and use of both verbal and nonverbal communicative elements. Live theatre also has a number of assistive technologies and practices already implemented across the genre that can be compared across similarly sized organizations. Theatre is characterized by both community and connection with an audience, providing the perfect context in which to study effective accommodation strategy.
It is worth noting that the terms “theatre” and “theater” will be used frequently throughout this research. The term “theatre” refers to the genre or medium of performance, and the term “theater” refers to the performance space itself. This research analyzes various theatre companies who may or may not own a performing space as well as organizations that rent their performance space to local producing organizations. I will use the term “theaters” to describe the organizations analyzed as a whole, however will refer to theaters vs. theatre companies as the situation demands.
The scope of this study is limited to small and midsize live theaters both with and without their own performance space, that identify as being a part of the Washington, D.C. Metro Area, or the district proper in addition to the areas touched by the Metrorail lines. This area was selected primarily because of the large population numbers of people with identified hearing loss as well as the proximity to nationally recognized resources for the aforementioned communities.
According to the 2010 census, one of the most cited current resources for numbers regarding the
3 disabled population, 56.7 million Americans reported having a general disability, 18.7% of the entire population at the time, with 14.9 million members identifying specifically as having a disability that affects their sight, hearing, and communicative abilities.7 An estimated 7,000 D.C. residents identify as Deaf: approximately 2,000 of them are Gallaudet University students, the only liberal arts Deaf college in the world located in D.C.8 The larger metro area is also home to countless military personnel and a large retired population, both groups of which often go with undiagnosed hearing loss due to work related experiences or the general aging process.
The size of the organizations studied is based on the annual expenses break-down from the following Theatre Facts 2017 chart by the Theatre Communications Group:
7. Caitlin E. Bryson, “Advancing Toward Accessibility: Disability Accommodation in the Theatre.” (Master’s Thesis, California State University, 2016) 23.
8. Sean A. Maiwald, “The Country’s First Signing Starbucks Opens on H Street NE.” DCist, October 23, 2018, https://dcist.com/story/18/10/23/photos-the-countrys-first-signing-s/.
4
Figure 1: Budget Groups Defined by TCG9
This study focuses on expense groups 1, 2, and 3 respectively, comparing like organizations within budget size to see what practices and technologies are being utilized. Groups 4, 5, and 6 are generally large enough to afford their own performing arts spaces which means as public entities they are required to have accessibility features for the communities in which they reside or else they risk violating the law.
With a large local hearing loss community and competition from larger organizations with ample funding, small (groups 1 and 2) and mid-size (group 3) theaters should be moving towards a more consistent model of access around all performances to the best of their ability.
Karl Ruling, an arts writer and ally to the disabled community, describes the ADA as “a civil rights act,” in his article from late 1992, quoting Section 302;
“no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation."
9. Zannie Giraud Voss et al., “Theatre Facts 2017.” Theatre Communications Group, no. 18. (2017) 1, accessed 2018, http://www.tcg.org/pdfs/tools/TCG_TheatreFacts_2017.pdf.
5 Ruling draws a distinct line between “equal enjoyment” as idealized by the ADA and the
“separate but equal” practices currently occurring in performing arts organizations. Though modern technology and special event nights are more frequently available, these services are still made separate from the common experience, further “othering” these audience members.
“Othering,” in this paper, refers to making something or someone seem different from what is accepted or considered mainstream, i.e. something or someone other than what is generally considered the norm. This author is not suggesting doing away with any of these current practices as they are aspects of an established community practice, but instead hopes to discover what “equal enjoyment” could look like or may already look like in the D.C. Metro area.
Methodology
This thesis begins with a literature review on various topics related to accessibility; related laws and regulations, common accommodation technologies and protocols, and examples of successful practices. The perspective of this research is that of the organization as opposed to the individual. Many resources found in preliminary research provide individual advocacy resources; while a few of those are discussed in the literature review section of this paper, the intent of the review is to find sources and strategies to support the organization’s understanding and efforts towards reaching compliance. This research intends to demonstrate how the ADA affects theaters, theatre companies, and rental spaces; specifically, what does the ADA require of organizations with and without their own spaces, how is it currently enforced, and where does the law’s ambiguity affect its potency. This information comes from a review of various materials including the ADA itself as well as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that informed the creation of the Act. This thesis also reviews real world accounts of accommodation efforts,
6 barriers to accommodation, and ideal strategies suggested by recognized accessibility professionals. The ideal strategies are broken into two categories; general, which applies widely to organizations regardless of size and is informed mainly by secondary and tertiary sources, and those specific to smaller organizations informed by primary sources. Many of the ideal strategies can be applied to the administration of organizations across various performance mediums such as dance and music, however one must consider the audience discussed and their predisposition towards those mediums. Again, this study pertains specifically to administration of live theaters.
The literature review is followed by an audit of accommodation offerings in the D.C. theatre market. The study begins by building a visual understanding of the D.C. Metro theatre landscape via an interactive map. The D.C. Metro area is defined as Washington, D.C. proper and the areas connected by the Metro underground train lines; these areas in northern Virginia and southern Maryland are home to a number of people who commute to the district often for both business and leisure. Theatrewashington, a membership organization that promotes and supports D.C. theaters and theatre companies, provides a database of D.C. theaters accessible via their website. This nonprofit does not charge members to join the database, and the application is both freely available and conducive to both large and small organizations. The theaters analyzed in this local study come from the theatrewashington database, however, it should be acknowledged that those theaters part of the database that were incorporated in late 2018 or early
2019 are not included in this study because of the lack of information available. Using the database, this research placed location pins representing the various theatre organizations onto an interactive map of the D.C. Metro area; the map features various layers that users can toggle between to highlight research findings according to group number. The color of each pin corresponds with the annual expense group level (1-6) and features a special icon to denote
7 whether or not auxiliary aids or services are made available by the identified company. Theaters are marked either with a pin icon with a small white dot in the center or they are marked with a circular icon with a white star in the center. The white star icons indicate that the organization features accommodations for patrons with hearing loss. These star icons are color coordinated to reflect the budget size of the organization.
The red pins signify the theatres in Group 1; the black pins correspond with many of the red pins because they are the rental performance locations utilized by many of the theaters in
Group 1. Theatres in Group 2 are marked with yellow pins and theatres in Group 3 are marked with green pins. Groups 4-6 are generally recognized as public entities and are required to provide some form of accommodation by law without exception; for this reason, Groups 4-6 are represented with star icons only. Group 4 is marked by the color (light) blue; Group 5 is marked by the color navy (dark blue); and Group 6 is marked by the color purple. The final layer of the interactive map features brown pin icons; these are the organizations that did not yield enough public information to participate in the study. This could be for a number of reasons depending on the circumstances of the particular organization. Some of the theaters on this list are for-profit presenters and do not need to make financial information public; similarly, some of these organizations are religiously affiliated and do not need to share information. Most commonly these organizations are very new, very small, or on the brink of dissolving and information has not been made available. Images of the map can be found in the appendix of this thesis.
The research for the map reflects the perspective of an individual using basic research methods such as websites and Box Office communication protocols to inquire about accommodations offered. The findings regarding what offerings are available are recorded within the map’s individual theater descriptions. To access the descriptions, select any kind of icon and
8 see the description, as well as an address and additional contact information available via general web search. An example is provided by item I in the appendix of this thesis. The map was generated using Google maps for the reason of providing additional context surrounding various locations. For example, users can see the proximity of public transportation opportunities, monuments, areas of interest such as Gallaudet University, as well as the attractions surrounding their theater of interest. There is ample opportunity to further study population numbers of the
D/Hoh communities as well as to study potential geographic clusters around areas of interest.
The hope behind this research is that it can provide insight as to the huge opportunity an organization providing access to those with hearing loss in the district as well as provide a base for more extensive future research regarding popular residential or recreational areas for these communities. This research continues to build off of findings from the literature and the audit to discuss accommodation strategies specific to small and midsize theaters. These findings are further supplemented by findings from an interview with Betty Siegel, Director of VSA and
Accessibility at the Kennedy Center.
Disability Disclaimer
The researcher feels obligated to acknowledge that she identifies with the hearing community, has not personally experienced any form of hearing loss, and has minimal experience with hearing loss within her professional and personal relationships. She does not attempt to make personal statements or claims about either the Deaf or Hard-of-hearing communities or any of their subsects. She selected a number of materials generated by authors with and without hearing loss as well as by authors who are considered to be leaders in the field
9 of accessibility. Accessibility, as acknowledged frequently in the research, is an ongoing process- a journey rather than a destination. The extant research and data collection have been done to the best of the researcher’s ability, and within her own understanding and experience.
10 CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This section analyzes the literature in search of detailed accounts or conceptual solutions to accommodation for D/Hoh audiences. The review will focus mainly on the requirements set forth by the Americans with Disabilities Act for theaters, barriers to accommodation, available auxiliary technologies, and conceptual practices towards accommodation. The conceptual practices will be presented as findings from the review in response to the research question and explored in further detail in Chapter 3. This section briefly discusses historical context and background information regarding Deaf culture to provide a basis of understanding for the rest of this paper. Terminology and signage examples can be found in item J of the appendix. The review continues to then explore available auxiliary aids and services as well as associated protocols for providing such services; the review concludes by discussing real world testimonies and commonly cited barriers to accommodation.
A large number of the materials discussed in this section were generated by or focus on organizations here in the Washington, D.C. area. Many of the materials referenced experiences at the venues of a few of the district’s major players; namely the John F. Kennedy Center for the
Performing Arts and Arena Stage.10 The research collected reflects viewpoints, best practices, testimonies, challenges/opportunities, and value propositions for Deaf equity in the performing arts industry and mainstream society in general. The research also demonstrates the progression of preferred terminology; for example, terms such as “hearing impaired” that frequent the
10. Yuki Kurihara, “Accessibility in the Arts.” (Master’s Thesis, American University, 2004), 1-125.
11 research are now considered taboo when referring to or addressing members of the D/Hoh community. One source in particular from the ASL University resources, as provided by
Lifepint.com and backed by Dr. William Vicars, details a study guide in which updated terms chosen from within the community are listed and thoroughly explained for the benefit of potential allies and researchers. The researcher acknowledges that the terminology utilized within quotations, particularly from sources published before the turn of the century, may or may not reflect the preferences of the current community.
A noticeable gap in the research falls in the fundraising category. None of the sources explored in this section mention relevant funding sources or solutions to overcome the financial burden accessibility can pose on smaller organizations. There is opportunity, should one learn to communicate its value to gain support, to further explore sources of funding for accommodation.
Another gap is in the relevant solutions category, specifically for small organizations with limited resources for accommodation and communicating with disabled populations. While recent scholars have evaluated the efficacy of ADA legislation in creating change, few have detailed relevant strategies for administrators and organizations to become compliant using what assets they already have. However, the literature reflects faith in the ingenuity and creativity of the field to tackle these issues in the near future.
Deaf and Hard of Hearing
According to a study by Gallaudet University, the world’s only deaf liberal arts college, located in D.C., 13% of the total U.S. population, including individuals who identify as D/Hoh, claim to have hearing problems. Nearly 1.5% of the D.C. population, that is 7,094 residents including the nearly 2,000 students at Gallaudet University, identifies as having a hearing
12 disability, with 1.5% in Maryland and 2% in Virginia.11 Researchers and Deaf advocates alike claim that these numbers may not accurately reflect total numbers within the D.C. metro area as there are large numbers of military personnel with work-related hearing loss that transition in and out of the area too quickly to be recorded.
Figure 2: Percentage of Population with Hearing Loss12
The D/Hoh community is unlike any other minority group because of the range of identification and various subcultures that developed around the range of abilities. While D/Hoh
11. “Deaf Statistics.” The National Association of the Deaf. September 2018, http://libguides.gallaudet.edu/c.php?g=773916&p=5552995.
12. “Deaf Statistics.” 2018.
13 audiences are often lumped together, they are very different communities with varying experiences and needs:
“Hearing loss is divided into four major categories based on their level: mild, moderate, severe, and profound. Deaf refers to people have profound hearing loss, and they have little usable residual hearing... People who are hard of hearing have mild through severe hearing loss and have some usable residual hearing...Causes of deaf and hard-of- hearing are various: genetic factors, illness, medication, sudden or sustained exposure to loud noise, aging, and so on.”13
“Deaf” when used with an uppercase “D” refers to the Deaf community at large as a culture; “deaf” with a lowercase “d” refers to the lack of ability to hear.14 Specifically, Deaf refers to the inherited culture that comes from onset at birth as well as possible familial-shared experience as opposed to onset later in life. Identification within this community is extremely personal and usually indicative of details of their hearing experience: age of onset, degree of hearing, etc. And for that reason, the members of this community and their subsequent needs are unique. Different people may be able to hear lower frequencies compared to those who may only be able to hear high.15 Others may have been able to hear at some point and then lost the ability compared to those who may have little to no experience with sound and the hearing world as a result. Therefore, some members may identify with Deaf culture while others may identify with that of hearing culture at least partially (i.e. hard of hearing identification can vary significantly based on individual experience, age or method of onset, etc.) An individual may not identify as a
13. Kurihara, 21.
14. “Community and Culture: Frequently Asked Questions”. National Association of the Deaf, 2019, https://www.nad.org/resources/american-sign-language/community-and-culture- frequently-asked-questions/.
15. Vox. How Sign Language Innovators Are Bringing Music to the Deaf, performed by Amber Galloway Gallego (Los Angeles: Vox Video) Accessed August 15, 2018, YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuD2iNVMS_4.
14 part of either culture or may have an experience that prevents them from participating with the majority of the culture; an example of this would be someone who identifies as Deaf-Blind who would not use American Sign Language. Another example of the complexity of identification would be someone who is deaf in one ear and retains the ability to speak, with onset late in life.
How would they choose to identify? It is dependent upon the individual and their experience navigating the hearing world, i.e. being a part of it for a short time, or never partaking at all.
American Sign Language (ASL) is a beautiful and complex language that is considered one of the most important communication methods among those with hearing loss.16 According to one Deaf author,
“...all the [D]eaf culture- their folklore and art- is based on the beautiful language of ASL. Only in this context can the deaf be understood. That is why the profoundly deaf appreciate cultural institutions that provide sign language interpreters and train their staff in sign language. Because ASL is the native language of American deaf people, many relate to English as a second language. Therefore lipreading is a difficult and seldom mastered art and should not be relied on as a viable means of communicating with deaf people. Poor communication is the greatest barrier between deaf and hearing people, therefore it is important that each group give the largest variety of communication cues available (signing, speaking, facial and body gestures) to facilitate clear exchanges of information. This is called Total Communication and is the method most deaf people prefer.””17
It should be noted, however, that not everyone who experiences hearing loss understands or utilizes sign language for communication; refer back to our example of someone who identifies as Deaf-Blind. There are a number of different kinds of theaters that utilize sign language interpretation during a performance. Deaf Theatre is a form of theatre derived from deaf culture18
17. Kurihara, 22.
18. Eugene Bergman, “Arts Accessibility for the Deaf.” National Access Center, National Endowment for the Arts. (1981): 6, https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED213235.pdf.
19. Kurihara, 25.
15 that incorporates deaf actors using sign language to communicate dialogue throughout the performance. Whereas Deaf Theatre specifically targets deaf audiences, Sign Theatre appeals to both deaf and hearing audiences and uses both deaf and hearing actors. Both sign language and text are used, sometimes simultaneously where one actor follows another in a shared role, called
“shadowing.”19 20 Interpreted Theatre is theatre as a hearing person would think of it, catering to a hearing audience by using voice on stage perhaps with sign interpretation as an added feature to the performance. The difference in Deaf and Sign Theatre versus Interpreted Theatre is that
Interpreted Theatre does not consider the use of sign language in the context of the vision or execution of the production, the feature is supplementary. Interpreted Theatre brings certain challenges when it comes to providing accommodation. Professional interpreters can be expensive, unavailable, or perhaps may not be as effective as planned. Multiple sources mention the value of intentional placement of the interpreter during a performance. The lightning, distance to the action onstage, as well as distance from the D/Hoh audience members, all factor into the quality of the experience for the patron trying to indulge in the performance. The most common placement is “platform interpreting” where the interpreters “stand or sit on or off stage at either [the] left or right side.”21 The interpreter is illuminated (most often) by a focused, white light in order to ensure their signs are clearly seen. This method requires the least amount of pre- production planning and potential distraction for performers onstage. One form of this method is called “sightline” interpretation, where the interpreter is placed, as the name would suggest,
19. Kanta Kochhar-Lindgren, “Hearing Difference across Theatres: Experimental, Disability, and Deaf Performance.” Theatre Journal 58, no. 3 (2006): 417–36.
20. Kurihara, 27.
21. Kurihara, 27.
16 within the sightline of the audience member and the action on stage. The interpreter would
“stand or sit in front of or below the stage, or sit on the edge of the stage, thus the audience has a better view to both actions on stage and the interpreters.”22 This method is not always best, as having one interpreter covering multiple characters can be somewhat confusing.
There are two methods of placing interpreters onstage with the performers; zone interpretation and the earlier mentioned shadow interpretation. With the zone placement, interpreters have a specific area to cover on either the right or left side of the stage and interpret for each character that moves into their zone. Shadow interpretation requires an interpreter to follow a specific character with whom they stay with the entirety of the performance, hence the name shadow.23 These two forms require careful planning and consideration by production individuals to ensure the safety of the actors onstage as well as the clarity of interpretation.
Directors and production staff should account for additional payment and preparation time needed when considering these two forms. All forms of interpretation placement require ample preparation time and materials for the interpreters to ensure a carefully thought out translations.
Many authors echo that the earlier you can get interpreters involved in the “direction/intention of the production, they can interpret better.”24 Providing a clear artistic vision to the interpreter aids them in conveying the intended message to the audience.
Regardless of specific placement type, your D/Hoh audience members should be sitting close to the stage, and the interpreter, to ensure the best view for clear understanding. Eugene
22. Kurihara, 27.
23. Kurihara, 27.
24. Kurihara, 27.
17 Bergman, former Deaf actor and Professor of English at Gallaudet University, wrote the following in 1981 about audience placement;
“...front seating is necessary to reduce the distance between the interpreter and the deaf audience. Interpreters should be positioned higher than the audience so that the signers can be seen from the waist up. For lectures, interpreters should stand next to the lecturer. For plays, several considerations prevail, depending on the theater configuration, set design, and seating. A deaf consultant should be brought in to work out the positioning before the show opens. You must avoid a ‘ping pong’ effect where the deaf people swivel their heads from side to side, and you must ensure that the interpreter is adequately [lit].”25 The most commonly used form of sign language, especially in the context of performing arts accommodation, is ASL, although there are many forms of sign language both around the world and within our own country. As with any language, ASL has its own grammatical structure and rules that are different from that of written and spoken English. As a result, interpretation of a written script into ASL for an audience may be more difficult than simply translating what is on the page. Glenna Cooper, educator and Deaf advocate, provides hands-on suggestions for interpretation moving forward that could be applied towards crafting real-world solutions between local administrators and the served D/Hoh community. Cooper begins by explaining the intricacies of movement vs. meaning and how they work together to convey information differently than the English language does. Visual artist and Deaf advocate Christine
Sun Kim demonstrates the linguistic nuances of ASL through visual art via the metaphor of music.26 Kim explains how English works one word, or note, at a time in a linear fashion whereas ASL gestures and expressions work as a chord worth of information, where one small change can affect the meaning. These intricacies are culturally derived and can best be learned from those who identify with the culture. Cooper claims that collaborative teams of interpreters
25. Bergman, 20.
26. Christine Sun Kim, The Enchanting Music of Sign Language. (2015, TEDx) Accessed August 15, 2018, Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Euof4PnjDk.
18 working together in real time, representative of both hearing and Deaf cultures/nuances/behaviors, will be the most effective strategy for bona fide understanding moving forward.27
A theme amongst the more recent literature is the call for equity of opportunity for Deaf performers as well as audiences. Bergman claims that;
“making the arts accessible to the deaf provides an effective shortcut to the assimilation of the deaf minority into a community’s culture. Participation in arts activities by mixed def and hearing audiences not only contributes to the quality of everyone’s life, but also helps break down the stereotyped images of deaf individuals in the public mind. No less important in the consideration of deaf people as a sizeable and previously untapped resource for cultural programs...The federal mandate of equal opportunity for the handicapped is universal, and professionals in the arts are well equipped to respond creatively to the social and communication challenges confronting this new civil rights movement.”28 29
Ruling mentions in his work that so long as an organization is acting in “good faith” to provide
“equal enjoyment” for differently abled patrons, they are in line with the law, but other authors and referenced leaders claim that minimal effort is not enough.30 This is echoed by Amber
Galloway Gallego, an ASL live music interpreter credited with being an innovator in the field.
Gallego utilized creativity and attention to detail to create a more equitable experience to the music she was interpreting, compared to the standard interpretation practice which she claimed
27. Glenna Cooper, Protecting and Interpreting Deaf Culture (2017; Tulsa, OK: 2017) YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io7z5PftOU4.
28. Bergman, 7.
29. Note that the term “handicapped”, while deemed acceptable in 1981 when this article was written, is now considered offensive as will be discussed later in this section.
30. Karl G Ruling, “The Americans with Disabilities Act: A Revolution,” Theatre Crafts 26, no. 5 (1992).
19 was lacking energy and excitement.31 Dr. David Ruebhausen, a scholar from the University of
Minnesota, takes this concept a step further in his thesis and goes as far as to list production details in need of adjustment to ensure full access to patrons and interpreters: one suggestion goes as far as to keep in mind sleeve flexibility and shoulder movement in costume design concept to ensure hands can be easily seen and unhindered during performance.32 Dr.
Ruebhausen claims "accessibility means building a bridge between two different cultures with drastically different communication methods and psychologies” (12); lack of care towards accessibility reflects on a perceived importance by the organization of the marginalized patrons and should be addressed.
These testimonies and suggestions, whether from administrators, performers, patrons, or interpreters alike, are powerful in eliciting sympathy and value of perspective from a culture that is underrepresented and ignored, but do not directly relate to the subject of encouraging local organizations to foster further opportunity for D/Hoh patrons. They do however enhance the value of connection and potential for intrinsic growth between individuals of varying perspectives/abilities to an organization’s served community.
Rehabilitation Act of 1973
The majority of the legislation cited originated in the 1980s-90s, with multiple sources acting as reviews and updates of progress and or lack thereof spanning from the early 2000s to
31. Vox. How Sign Language Innovators Are Bringing Music to the Deaf, 2018.
32. Ruebhausen, 138.
20 the current year. The Rehabilitation Act, which later led to the creation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act in 1990, laid the foundation for accessibility rights;
“The Rehabilitation Act prohibited federal government agencies and organizations that received federal funds from discriminating against qualified individuals with disabilities. The Act originally consisted of four sections: Sections 501 and 503 required affirmative action and prohibited employment discrimination by federal agencies and federal government contractors and subcontractors respectively; Section 502 established the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, which is now known as the Access Board; and Section 504 prohibited discrimination in any program or activity that was conducted by federal agencies or received federal financial support. In 1998, Section 508 was added to the Rehabilitation Act. Section 508 required federal agencies to make any electronic or information technology accessible to people with disabilities, when the federal agencies developed, used, maintained, or procured the technology, or when private businesses provided the technology to the federal agencies. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 made a significant provision in Section 504: “No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States… shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency…” While the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) required architectural barriers to be removed, the Rehabilitation Act mandated the removal of barriers not only in architecture but also in programs and activities. In other words, the Act acknowledged that to remove architectural barriers was only one of the ways to make programs and activities accessible to people with disabilities.”33
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, spurred by the actions of disability rights activists in the late sixties and early seventies, prohibited what were considered discriminatory actions against disabled people. It is worth reiterating that the term “handicap” is now considered offensive and should be retired from one’s vocabulary. When discussing the term and its context, one student author weighed in with the following;
“The problem is societal and has a history that extends to the beginning of the human race. Throughout history, disabled people have with few exceptions been feared, misunderstood, neglected, and often abused. Finally, however, modern science and the highly developed state of current civilization have led to the realization that disabled people are not inherently handicapped. Rather, handicaps are situations that result from interactions between disabilities and environments. A physically disabled person, for example, is handicapped when attempting to get on a bus. The handicap is removed when
33. Kurihara, 4-5.
21 the bus is equipped with a lift, and the disabled person can then use a service that should be available to all citizens.”34
According to this statement, a person is not considered “impaired” (another now offensive term that should be removed from one’s vocabulary) or “disabled” until their ability is limited by an environmental factor. It is worth noting that these factors may be obvious, such as the bus example, but some may not be. An environmental factor could be the social atmosphere and scrutiny of less-forgiving hearing individuals for example. It is necessary to uncover and unpack these environmental factors with those that are hindered by them, i.e. in this case the D/Hoh community members.
The NEA enforced regulations specified by Section 504 of the act with its direct and indirect grantees as recipients of federally sourced funds; this applies to everyone from grassroots organizations to States Arts Agencies that receive funding.35 Two sources from the
Arts Management Program at American University discussed Section 504 regulations and their effect on local organizations, namely the Kennedy Center and Arena Stage; Celinda Hadden discussed Section 504 regulations in depth as well as interviewed various organizations regarding compliance and current offerings, Yuki Kurihara reviewed progress made in the accessibility field since Hadden’s thesis and the ADA became law. According to Hadden, “many factors impede compliance, including societal factors, such as the attitudes of nondisabled people towards disabled people; indifference on the part of disabled people; and practical considerations
34. Celinda M. Hadden, “The Nea Section 504 Regulations: A Survey of Organizations Representing Disabled People Regarding Accessibility at Three Washington, D.C. Performing Arts Institutions,” (Master’s Thesis, American University, 1985) http://search.proquest.com/docview/303339810/citation/4637DC7EF8A246D3PQ/24.
35. Kurihara, 14.
22 such as the lack of funding for the development and implementation of compliance measures.”36
Though specifically referring to Section 504 in this quote, numerous predecessors have voiced similar criticisms about the Americans with Disabilities Act. Yuki Kurihara’s thesis from 2004 continues Hadden’s research forward in reviewing the efficacy of the ADA in affecting change in experience for differently abled patrons at the Kennedy Center, Arena Stage, and the
Smithsonian Institute, building onto Hadden’s findings from the Kennedy Center, Arena Stage, and Wolf Trap in the mid-80s. While Kurihara’s findings were compelling, considerably more recent, and the parameters of her research were similar to the direction of this study, they lacked relevancy in that the players analyzed were larger organizations with greater reach and funding opportunity. It should be mentioned that the Kennedy Center was and still is considered to be a nation leader in cutting edge accessibility practice.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The ADA reinforced the regulations set by the Rehabilitation Act and proposed additional stipulations; many authors claim that one of the main differences between previous legislation and the ADA was the extension to private entities:
The ADA of 1990 was basically an extension of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, but it was a more comprehensive law, because it covered private entities whether or not received federal support. The ADA shared the same definition of a person with disabilities as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The ADA defined such a person as an individual with: (A) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (B) a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment. Under this definition, the law covered people having both physical and mental impairment, such as mobility, vision, hearing,
36. Kurihara, 14.
23 speech, learning, and neuromuscular impairment, emotional illness, mental retardation, drug addiction, alcoholism, AIDS, 21 HIV disease, heart disease, and diabetes.”37
The ADA is broken into five sections in which discrimination is prohibited: Title I is
Employment, Title II is Public Entities, Title III is Public Accommodations, Title IV is
Telecommunications, and Title V is Miscellaneous Provisions.38 Most arts organizations usually fall under Titles II or III;
“Title II covered public entities, such as any state or local government, departments, agencies, or other instrumentality of a state or local government, while Title III covered any private entity, other than public entities covered by Title II, that owned, leased, leased to, or operated a public accommodation. Under Title III, a public accommodation was defined as a private entity whose operations affect commerce, and twelve categories were stated in the ADA. Cultural and arts organizations, such as a theatre, concert hall, a museum, a library, a gallery, a park, a zoo, an amusement park, among others, generally fall into one of these twelve categories. There was no limitation in size of entities or the number of employees.”39
Both Titles II and III prohibit discrimination against people solely based on their disability and demanded equal access be provided to the best of the organization’s ability; a common thread throughout the Act. Organizations can provide alternative offerings to better accommodate various abilities however that does not exempt them from making regular programming reasonably accessible. Title III is most often reference for the design of both buildings and the programs themselves. Tedd Knapp, an architect writing for The Film Journal in September 1991, details the slow progress of the ADA in eliciting change from public organizations. Knapp acknowledges the financial difficulty of altering spaces quickly and claims that the current task at hand is to remove all immediate barriers to entry in public spaces to remain compliant
37. Kurihara, 6-7.
38. Ruling, 26.
39. Kurihara, 7.
24 according to the proposed schedule;40 i.e. organizations were required to make any and all changes that were “readily achievable”41 considering the financial and physical state. Karl
Ruling reinforces Knapp’s ideas regarding incremental progress as success in an article written a few months later reviewing ADA implementation as well as detailing what he predicts the lasting effects on the industry will be.
Ruling claims the ADA more than legislation regarding construction, it “is a law about feelings. Removing physical barriers is the means to an end; it is not the end itself”. Ruling references Martin S. Doucette’s notion that “attitudinal barriers” are also present and must be addressed to ensure “equal enjoyment” according to the goals of the ADA.42 Ruling’s notions represent a shift in thinking at this time about what needed to be changed conceptually and in real world practice in order to comply with the law and the citizens served. He proposed that the
ADA would change the relationship between a theater and its audience; a concept echoed in later articles by Betty Siegel, Director of VSA and Accessibility at the Kennedy Center. Siegel has well over three decades worth of experience in Accessibility services in Washington D.C. and is still considered one of the major leaders of accessibility innovation today. According to various authors, the ADA encouraged organizations to view accessibility beyond mobility and into programming.43
40. Ted Knapp, “Disabilities Act Requirements Affect Design of New Theatres,” The Film Journal 94, no. 8 (1996). 22.
41. Knapp, 26.
42. Ruling, 1.
43. Kurihara, 81.
25 The Act mentions certain situations in which an organization may be exempt from compliance; mainly in the face of altering the concept of the work or putting the organization in financial distress.
“While the ADA stipulates that no discrimination may occur regarding an audience member’s eligibility to participate, an exception may be made if the theatre can prove that meeting these specifications would fundamentally alter the work. For example, if a site-specific theatre piece requires the audience to ascend stairs, run with performers, or crawl through a small space, it is possible that the company would not be able to accommodate patrons with certain physical disabilities without vastly changing the performance. In some cases, if addressed properly during the production process, these types of concerns can often be resolved by preemptively adjusting the work in progress, removing the need to exclude any potential audience members. However, in other situations, modifying the work in this way would fundamentally change the artistic vision of the piece; in these cases, accessibility would not be required under the law. The ADA also allows theatres to decline certain methods of accommodation, if it can be proven that implementation would cause undue burden on the company. It is possible that a small company would not have the funds to purchase expensive technological systems required for some accommodations, or that a company located in a small town may not have access to the trained personnel required for other methods. In these cases, it is permissible for companies not to offer certain methods of accommodation, although they should be encouraged to substitute other methods that provide accessibility to the affected groups whenever available.” 44
In this way the ambiguity around implementation of the ADA is purposeful; it provides space for creative solutions and innovations for specific circumstances.
Title II of the ADA requires the presence of an Accessibility Coordinator in public entities who is responsible for the oversight and implementation of accessibility within the organization. Both an individual coordinator and or a team of staff members devoted to accessibility work well, as long as one person has an established power in order to make decisions in response to specific situations.45
44. Bryson, 20.
45. Kurihara, 15.
26 Non-compliance with the ADA can result in lawsuits upwards of thousands of dollars;
“If a company discriminates against patrons with disabilities by not following the regulations set down in the ADA, it runs the risk of incurring a lawsuit. Suits against public accommodations can be brought either by individuals or by the Department of Justice. If found to be discriminatory, the company can face a number of consequences, including a mandate to change or adapt the discriminatory issue, a requirement to pay attorney’s fees for the plaintiff, an assessment of damages for the person or people with disabilities who were affected, or a civil fine of up to $75,000 for a first violation or $150,000 for a subsequent violation.” 46
It is imperative to organizations, especially those small in size or budget, to thoroughly understand what obligations they need to meet under the ADA and 2010 Revised regulations in order to best serve their differently abled populations as well as to avoid punitive legal action.
Auxiliary Aid and Service Technologies
The ADA requires entities to have both physically accessible design as well as auxiliary aids and services. Examples of auxiliary aids and services include assistive technologies such as listening headsets and induction loops, qualified interpreters, captioning technologies, and many more. When it comes to providing accommodation; “both public and private entities must provide auxiliary aids and services to people with vision, hearing or speech impairments when such services [are] necessary to obtain an effective communication with them.”47 Requirements for “barrier-free design” or physically accessible spaces are detailed under the Uniform Federal
Accessibility Standards (UFAS) and the ADA Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG).
Auxiliary aids and services however do not have specified regulations within the original Act,
46. Bryson, 15.
47. Bryson, 15.
27 providing space for interpretation and room for emerging technologies. Revised design standards and regulations for Titles II and III were published by the Department of Justice in September
2010; regulations for Assistive Listening Systems (ALS) were clarified in the revision. ALSs
“essentially are amplifiers that bring sound directly into the ear. They separate sounds, particularly speech, that a person wants to hear from background noise. They improve what is known as the ‘speech to noise ratio.’”48 This chart published in a guidebook by the VSA and
Accessibility Office at the Kennedy Center helps to visualize how these systems work:
48. National Association of the Deaf, “Assistive Listening Systems and Devices,” National Association of the Deaf. (2019) https://www.nad.org/resources/technology/assistive- listening/assistive-listening-systems-and-devices/.
28
Figure 3: How Assistive Listening Systems Work
There are many different forms of ALSs, as well as their respective Assistive Listening
Devices (ALDs), all of which can benefit those with and without hearing loss. The ALSs primarily use inductive loop, infrared, and FM radio wave technologies to help deliver amplified sound to a personal receiver or ALD; this can be a personal device like a hearing aid as well as an induction loop receiver loaned out from the venue itself. The various types of systems and receivers are explained in great detail in a guidebook published by Betty Siegel, Director of VSA and Accessibility at the Kennedy Center in 2012, together with additional resources that can help consumers, installers, and providers make choices before installation.
There are a number of factors to consider for an organization when considering which type of system (Loop, FM, Infrared, etc.) and which supporting devices to purchase; namely one should consider the size of the space, the presence of other technologies or materials that could
29 potentially interfere with the ALDs, how close other performance spaces and similar systems may be, among many other factors.49 This decision will greatly affect the patron experience as well as the organization’s budget if an inadequate system is implemented for the performing space in question. According to the 2010 Revised Regulations tip sheet published by the NEA’s
Office of Accessibility, “ALSs are required where audible communication is integral to the use of the space but are not required where audio amplification is not provided.” These systems can be implemented in both public and private spaces, and each type has different advantages and disadvantages. A thorough knowledge of the space and its common amplification uses is integral to making the best decision when choosing a system to install. According to the tip sheet, additional requirements include hearing aid compatibility, technical requirements, and the minimum number of receivers required by capacity of the space in question. In order to be considered hearing aid compatible, 25% of the installed receivers must be able to interface with personal hearing aids or cochlear implants via an induction neck loop.50 In order to meet the technical requirements, all receivers must have “a ⅛ inch (3.5 mm) standard monojack” and all systems “must be capable of providing sound pressure levels of 110 dB minimum and 118 dB maximum with a dynamic volume control range of 50 dB; the signal-to-noise ratio for internally generated noise must be 18 dB minimum; and the peak clipping must not exceed 18 dB of clipping relative to the peaks of speech.”51 The tip sheet includes a chart that helps users
49. Betty Siegel, “Assistive Listening Devices for People with Hearing Loss,” Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts (July 2012) http://education.kennedy- center.org/education/accessibility/lead/2012_KC_ALD_Booklet.pdf.
50. National Endowment for the Arts Office of Accessibility. “2010 Revised Regulations of the Americans with Disabilities Act Titles II and III,” National Endowment for the Arts, (2010) https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/NEA-ADA-TipSheet-v2.pdf.
51. National Endowment for the Arts Office of Accessibility. 5.
30 calculate the number of necessary receivers and the subsequent minimum number of hearing-aid compatible receivers necessary to meet compliance:
Figure 4: 2010 Revised Regulations ALS Receiver Requirements52
According to an ALD guidebook published by VSA and the Accessibility Office at the Kennedy
Center in July 2012, nearly “17% or 36 million adults in the United States report some degree of hearing loss.”53 ALSs and ALDs can benefit more than D/Hoh patrons when installed correctly and intentionally based on the performance space. The chart below from the 2001 Survey of
Income and Program Participation (SIPP) demonstrates how difficulty with hearing increases with age, meaning patrons ages 45 and older could benefit from additional auxiliary aids and services whether or not they use hearing aids.
52. National Endowment for the Arts Office of Accessibility. 6.
53. Siegel, 7.
31
Figure 5: Level of Difficulty Hearing by Age Group54
Integral to the success of an ALS and ALD in the patron experience beyond the initial choice of system is the proper maintenance of the technology as well as staff training. Various authors, both deaf and hearing, comment on the importance of checking devices for functionality and adequate battery life prior to a performance. Devices should also be cleaned and properly stored when not being used.55 These seemingly minor maintenance tasks can make the difference between a positive and negative experience for a patron during a performance.
54. Ross E. Mitchell, 2006. “How Many Deaf People Are There in the United States? Estimates From the Survey of Income and Program Participation.” The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 11, no. 1 (2006)112–19. https://academic.oup.com/jdsde/article/11/1/112/410800/.
55. Siegel,15.
32 In addition to the care of the devices, procedures need to be in place regarding the distribution of devices as well as patron interactions. The VSA Auxiliary Aid guidebook suggests holding onto personal property such as a personal identification card or a credit card at the box office in exchange for a device to ensure that it is returned at the conclusion of the performance.56 Box office personnel should test equipment regularly and have a working knowledge of how to troubleshoot the devices. The guidebook also mentions the value of communicating how to use the receivers to patrons. A device is no good to a patron if the patron, and perhaps the staff member, don’t know how to use it, or if it is misused. The importance of staff training has been stressed many times over by numerous authors; educating staff about terminology and what is considered in/appropriate to different communities can greatly benefit an organization’s image. Box Office staff, front of house staff, and volunteers/ushers should all have a strong understanding of the ALSs in place and ALDs provided in order to answer questions. Whoever distributes the devices should be available before a performance to provide the requested devices and information regarding proper use, during intermission to troubleshoot any issues with devices, and at the conclusion of the performance to collect used devices for cleaning and maintenance.57 The guidebook provides additional protocol suggestions for interacting with D/Hoh patrons using information from various sources.
Captions are another auxiliary service that can effectively communicate information using text language within peripheral view of the main viewing attraction. The concept of using text to follow along with the actions of a performance is not new. English supertitles, also known as surtitles, that help opera patrons follow performances in other languages are similar in concept
56. Siegel, 19.
57. Siegel, 19.
33 to captions and have been present for decades in the performance world. Captions however, are a relatively new technology, with the first recorded use during a live performance in 1996 at the
Paper Mill Playhouse in New Jersey, and then showing up on Broadway the following year.58
Similar to the subtitles that appear at the bottom of a TV screen, captions use scrolling text to help convey information that is normally communicated via sound. The difference between subtitles and captions are that the latter include descriptions of sounds and audio elements
(music, noises, explosions, etc.) other than dialogue whereas subtitles usually only capture speech.59
When it comes to the performing arts, both live and recorded programs such as theater or film, captions fall into the categories of offline and online. Offline captions are usually generated as part of a work, such as those generated for films. Online captions are divided into live-display and real time captions, the difference being live-display captions are prepared in advance from the script or video content and displayed along with the live performance whereas real time captioning occurs in the moment with a trained specialist (usually someone with experience as a stenographer or has CART certification) typing on a steno machine while watching or listening to a performance.60
Generally speaking, captioning equipment is more affordable to the film industry than the performing arts. Films’ recorded nature is conducive to captions, as compared to the live nature of most theater performances. In 2004, “captioning for a live performance range[d] from $700 to
58. Kurihara, 34.
59. Kurihara, 30.
60. Kurihara, 30.
34 $2,000 depending on the length and complexity of the performance.”61 However, the technology to provide captions during a live performance need not be expensive, only clear and reliable; the hardware needed to project captions, such as TV monitors or a projection screen, can easily be found already in most live theater production spaces. Many of these devices are easy to use and can be operated by staff members.
A popular captioning technology currently on the rise within the D.C. theatre community is GalaPro, short for Gala Prompter. Built for one’s personal mobile device, this application provides audio description, captions, and language dubbing live alongside the production being viewed.62 It was devised by an international company to provide supertitles for opera performances on mobile phones and has expanded to take Broadway and other major presenting theater venues by storm. The application is free to download for the patron and operates on a separate WIFI network during the performance, supposedly helping to deter patrons from opening other applications. Supposedly, the technology can follow the action on stage even if an actor skips a line.63 The technology uses live-display captions entered prior to the performance using scripted materials but listens in real time to the pacing of the show to provide adjustments as unscripted moments occur throughout the performance. Signature Theatre and Arena Stage were among the first D.C. based organizations to utilize the technology during their 2019-2020
61. Kurihara, 30.
62. Billy McEntee, “All Access App.” American Theatre Magazine (2018), 44, https://www.americantheatre.org/2018/04/16/galapro-app-provides-all-access-experience-for- theatregoers/.
63. McEntee, 45.
35 seasons.64 This past month, Ford’s Theatre also announced they world premiere the use of
GalaPro during their current season, however they have yet to release many details about specific availability dates.
During a panel on accessibility during the 2019 Emerging Arts Leaders Symposium
(EALS) produced and hosted by American University Arts Management students, Signature
Theatre’s Front of House Operations Manager Dominic Mota announced their plan to implement the technology during their premiere of Grand Hotel; Betty Siegel of the Kennedy Center chimed in with a brief warning about accessibility technologies. Siegel mentioned keeping a wide berth from emerging technologies until she can see and better understand how they function in a real-world scenario. Further, she mentioned that technologies can come and go and often it is difficult to predict which technologies will be adopted by the communities they serve. As mentioned above, these technologies can be very expensive, and it may not be conducive for a theater to purchase such technology until they know it will be utilized by their community members.65
Other authors echo similar sentiments about emerging technologies and warn arts administrators and theatre organizations from making assumptions about the preferences of their community. In his article, McEntee interviews a number of sources who voice their preference of traditional live captioning and sign interpretation. Both Beth Prevor from the Shubert
Accessibility Advisory Committee and JW Guido, artistic director of New York Deaf Theatre
64. Kristen Page-Kirby, “Arena Stage, Signature Theatre Debut Accessible Captioning Technology.” The Washington Post, sec. Theater & Dance. (2019), https://www.washingtonpost.com/express/2019/03/08/arena-stage-signature-theatre-debut- accessible-captioning-technology/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.12d55c70f4ef.
65. Siegel, Betty, and Dominic Mota. 2019. Accessibility Panel at Symposium. March 3, 2019, https://www.ealsatau.org/past-symposiums.
36 acknowledge that while GalaPro awards flexibility for those who many not be able to attend the performances with designated captioning or interpretation, the technology will never replace the sense of social comfort and community that these designated performances provide. Prevor goes on to say trust from community members is necessary for the success of the technology, and that the freedom the technology provides can be scary or uncomfortable.66 Other sources voice concern about the mobile phone technology breaking social theater norms and tempting other patrons to use their phones inappropriately during performances. Overall, sources agree that the technology is a step in the right direction for providing more offerings for the D/Hoh community but, like any big change, needs to be introduced slowly and with intention.
Findings from a Ticket Policy survey in 2002 of different performing arts professionals originally from Accommodating Patrons with Disabilities demonstrates trends in accommodation offerings;
66. McEntee, 45.
37
Figure 6: Auxiliary Aids and Services Checklist 67 68
According to the above findings, assistive listening devices and sign/oral language interpretation were among the most common auxiliary aids provided by the organizations surveyed nearly 20 years ago. The majority of organizations required at least 2 weeks in order to meet accommodation requests from patrons. Public entities must respect the requests of their patrons to the best of their abilities, assuming that the request does not “fundamentally alter” or present
67. Kurihara, 49.
68. Jennifer K. Skulski et al., “Accommodating Patrons with Disabilities: A Survey of Ticket and Accommodation Policies for Performance Venues, Theaters, and Sports Arenas.” National Center on Accessibility. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/3106/Ticket_Policy_Study_Full_Repo rt.pdf?sequence=2.
38 an “undue burden,” whereas private entities can choose alternative means if they could provide effective communication.69
Real World Accommodation Efforts in Theaters
As mentioned in earlier sections, there are nearly 54 million people living in the U.S. with disabilities, with 36 million of them identifying as D/Hoh. According to Siegel, “providing access is not only a mandate of federal law, but also an asset to be valued in welcoming new patrons and keeping audiences as their lives change.”70 However, Caitlin Bryson, a scholar from
Long Beach, California, finds that “if theaters are unaware of the varied accommodation methods and resources available to them, they will be led to offer only the bare minimum required by law and therefore miss the chance to engage and connect with individuals with disabilities, who offer a large potential audience base.”71
Paula DeJohn, writer for Hearing Loss Magazine in Bethesda, MD, detailed in 2014 the testimony of Bernard Steinberg, a patron who attended a performance with his spouse at a local
Denver theater company (Su Teatro); the organization failed to accommodate him during a performance in their brand then new building. Steinberg, a lawyer and local leader amongst the
D/Hoh community, approached the Executive Artistic Director seeking answers and ultimately decided to pursue legal action to initiate the transition of the building and performances spaces to meet ADA requirements. The organization admits that compliance was low on their list after
69. Skulski, 9.
70. Siegel, 3.
71. Bryson, 1.
39 recently purchasing their brand-new building and that the Board wasn’t motivated to make changes until Steinberg began insisting that changes were necessary. With the help of Steinberg and some of his associates, the theater became compliant and within two years served their hard- of-hearing patrons utilizing a new assistive listening system. This story of unlikely friendship and small theater success serves to reinforce the common belief that implementation is complex and therefore slow to cultivate.72
One source specific to movie theaters from Steven John Fellman of GKG Law presents useful information for that is easily applicable to live theater practices. Fellman discusses real world challenges such as inadequate training regimens, equipment failures, ineffective maintenance procedures, and requests (or patrons) that can be difficult to satisfy. He claims that theater managers should utilize common sense in all situations, train staff to assist patrons with disabilities, and understand organization policies and procedures to anticipate and mitigate problems as they arise.73
Numerous authors agree that one of the most important and successful real-world accommodation methods is staff training. As mentioned in earlier sections, staff knowledge of how to communicate with patrons with varying needs as well as basic knowledge and care for the organization’s auxiliary aids makes a difference in the experience, and therefore, comfort, of the patron. Skulski, Bloomer, and Chait’s Ticket Policy study in 2002 found that 48% of the 114 professionals surveyed across the nation:
72. Paula DeJohn, “Accessibility Drama Has Happy Ending.” Hearing Loss Magazine (2014).
73. Steven John Fellman, “A Theatre Managers Guide to the ADA.” PowerPoint Presentation, 2013.
40 “...reported providing staff training or staff resource materials on interfacing with patrons with disabilities. Respondents with staff training reported either utilizing an annual or semi-annual training program where ADA and disability awareness were included in the curriculum. Respondents also reported training specific to ticket agents and audience services staff. Only one respondent reported inclusion of sensitivity training and ADA policies in their new employee orientation training, while another respondent state information on accommodations was included in their staff manual.”74
Fellman stresses the importance of patron-facing staff members understanding the policies and procedures of the organization as well as how to communicate that information effectively. He suggests having pre-made handouts with instructions for patrons detailing how to use the technology in assistive devices. Adequate signage and, in a pinch, having a notepad and writing utensil nearby greatly helps with communication with D/Hoh patrons. Fellman also suggests having clear procedures for any ADA infractions or reported problems, which should be well known by all staff members regardless of whether they are generally customer-facing or not.75
As mentioned in the Auxiliary Aid section of this review, various Deaf-identifying arts administrators warn against making assumptions about the needs and desires of the theater community’s D/Hoh patrons. Inviting one’s community into the conversation of what services to offer and which technologies to purchase is essential to the success of the organization in providing the best accommodation. For example, Arena Stage invited individuals from the
D/Hoh communities to create an advisory committee which gave suggestions on shows to be selected for the season and interpreted.76 Arena Stage was the first theater in the D.C. area to have a sign master as a result of a conversation that originated in the committee:
“The sign master, sometimes called a sign consultant or sign advisor, [is] a deaf person who [acts] as a director in providing sign language interpretation. The sign master
74. Skulski, 28.
75. Fellman, 5.
76. Kurihara, 52.
41 should have knowledge of sign language, and preferably love theatre, because she or he determines sign language interpreters and a style of interpretation.”77
Arena Stage also prints a sign-interpreted series brochure in addition to their season brochure that is sent out twice a year to current patrons and various schools and community organizations such as Gallaudet University. Creative solutions such as those brainstormed via the committee and implemented by Arena Stage are effective in large part because of the involvement of patrons who have ample experience and preference with accommodation strategies.
Barriers to Accommodation
The research reflects multiple named barriers to successful accommodation practice. The majority of these barriers can be summed up into two categories: financial and educational/awareness. Though many organizations are becoming more aware that needs exist for their differently abled community members, very few seek to educate themselves regarding those needs. Even fewer of those organizations make servicing these needs a financial priority, although their mission or value statements would suggest a strong motivation otherwise
The most commonly identified barrier is cost. The ADA upholds in Title II that, when it came to public entities such as nonprofit organizations, the only situational exceptions to compliance are changes that fundamentally alter the integrity of a program/performance and those that would result in an “undue financial and administrative burden”78 to the organization.
Kurihara describes the escalating cost of providing ASL interpretation during performances as an
77. Kurihara, 55.
78. United States Congress, “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.” Federal Government of the United States, (1990), https://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm.
42 example of a barrier; as mentioned in an earlier section of this paper, accurate interpretation requires many hours of preparation and planning on the part of the organization and the interpreters themselves. Kurihara describes the escalating cost of providing ASL interpretation during performances as an example of a barrier; as mentioned in an earlier section of this paper, accurate interpretation requires many hours of preparation and planning on the part of the organization and the interpreters themselves. According to Kurihara, sign interpreters can cost a performing arts organization $300-$1300 per performance depending on the circumstances surrounding the performance, the city, the time of year, and the amount of preparatory time spent by the interpreter with the script and in rehearsals prior to performance.79 She additionally discusses how accessibility often falls low on the list of budget priorities within organizations, as demonstrated by the earlier example of the Su Teatro theatre company.
Marketing falls into both the financial burden and awareness categories as many organizations fail to reach their community members with materials that reflect accommodation offerings. Materials and strategies should be informed by the community members the organization intends to reach, however, the process of collecting information from individuals that identify with this community can be difficult or result in inauthentic responses. Not to mention the nature of identification within both the D/Hoh communities is extremely individual and personal, making it difficult to research and represent all of the potential patron perspectives.
Many hard-of-hearing individuals do not identify with this community and or may have undiagnosed hearing loss and could benefit from the auxiliary aid services an organization has to
79. Kurihara, 28-29.
43 offer. Mentioning, even briefly, auxiliary aids and services within mainstream marketing materials is an easy way to increase awareness of the organization’s offerings.
Consistency of offerings proves to be a challenge for organizations and patrons alike. The research reflects greater consistency with physical access accommodation offerings rather than auxiliary aids and services. In the aforementioned Ticket and Accommodation Policy Study;
“...100% of respondents reported providing wheelchair accessible seating, [while] only 55% reported the provision of sign language interpreters, 32% provided large print programs and only 24% provided audio description. The ADA and Section 504 require the provision of both physical access and program access. The accessible seat is as important to wheelchair users as the audio describer is to the person who is visually impaired. Both of these provisions enable people with disabilities the opportunity to benefit from the program.”
It is permissible for an organization to select certain offerings or technologies based on the specific needs of their community as opposed to providing all available technologies at the expense of the organization. Again, it is important to consult the community served to understand what their needs are and the best course of action, in this case most effective aids and services, to meet those needs. While technologies such as GalaPro expand offerings, they do not replace services such as ASL interpretation, open captioning, or assistive listening devices. As earlier mentioned in this paper, there are community rituals built around some of these offerings, specifically around ASL interpreted performances, meaning that elimination of these offerings can have social repercussions on these communities.
The consistency of the quality of these offerings is just as important. For example, if knowledge varies among staff members regarding how to operate or troubleshoot assistive aid technologies, the quality of the experience of the patron is at stake. Variances exist in knowledge and understanding of offerings available across different departments within an organization as well as across individual employees. It is crucial to the experience of the patron and the success
44 of the offering that all customer-facing staff have a base awareness of the policies and protocols in place regarding accommodation, a general understanding of the technologies, and sensitivity training to interact with intention and respect.
Many authors credit a general lack of awareness and understanding on the part of organizations for inconsistencies in offerings, and in some cases, in negative patron experiences that could have been avoided. Providing all patron-facing staff members with sensitivity training and knowledge of auxiliary aids and services provided by the organization is the most commonly suggested accommodation practice in the literature. It is important to acknowledge that needs and abilities vary widely with individuals though they may identify within the same communities. Training does not need to be exhaustive to still be successful in providing
“effective communication.”80
Summary of Literature Findings
Despite the growing need for access on a local and nation-wide scale with wide coverage for the expanding definition of “disability,” there seems to be confusion around implications for performing arts organizations in real world practice. The consensus amongst multiple scholars, administrators, and architects alike is that the legislation, though it continues to be revised, is unclear in its implementation. Additionally, while accessibility is recognized as important by many patrons, artists, and administrators, it remains a low priority to local organizations due to the financial complexities of providing a range of services.
80. United States Congress. 28.
45 CHAPTER 3
GENERAL ACCOMMODATION PRACTICES
Education and communication are crucial in the field of accessibility;81 organizations cannot serve their patrons to the best of their abilities without proper knowledge and understanding of the needs of their community, which must come from the community itself. In order for accommodations to be successful in providing an equitable experience, communication has to be clear and authentic. Effective communication is the basic standard of accessibility and should be continually evaluated for clarity.82 Smaller organizations face numerous challenges when approaching accessibility, often citing many of the aforementioned barriers to accommodation as excuses for not providing clear communication, effective services, or having adequate technology.83
However, with how freely information is available via innovations in technology such as the internet and from various advocacy organizations, especially within the D.C. area, lack of understanding or awareness is hardly an excuse. The Deaf community has, in recent years, gained visibility in mainstream movies and television shows. Celebrities such as Niall DeMarco, a Deaf model, actor, activist, and winner of cycle 22 of America’s Next Top Model, are illuminating inequities in the field and assumptions regarding the Deaf community.84 Lauren
81. Hadden, 36.
82. Siegel, Phone Interview.
83. Siegel, Phone Interview.
84. Nyle DiMarco, “Nyle DiMarco- About.” Personal Site and Blog. http://www.nyledimarco.com/about
46 Ridloff, a Deaf actress, will make history in 2020 when she joins Marvel’s cast of “The Eternals” to play the first Deaf superhero character.85 Studies regarding age related hearing loss are growing in popularity as the “boomer” population continues to approach retirement age. With so many informational resources available to these organizations at little to no cost, and the rise of visibility regarding hearing loss, lack of awareness is truly an excuse to keep accessibility a low institutional priority.
Amy Hersh, a journalist for Backstage, paraphrases a collection of notable solutions in a magazine article from 1992. She details the successful creation of an advisory council by Gary
Steuer, an arts manager, made up of differently abled patrons for the National Actors Theatre.
The council sought to generate solutions for other patrons by those who utilize the solutions themselves. John McEwen from Paper Mill Playhouse, another leader in accessibility and innovation, claims that “the message we have to get out to theatres and museums is that this is audience development.”86 McEwen’s approach relates to an idea belonging to Betty Siegel in
“Making theaters accessible” by Davis: “She [Siegel] argues that community expectations, rather than mere legal compliance, should be the standard by which performance venues are judged."87
In a blog post, JW Guido of the New York Deaf Theatre discusses accessibility suggestions from his perspective as a Deaf identifying performer. Guido’s suggestions include
85. Bailee Abell, “Marvel Casts Lauren Ridloff as Makkari, the First Deaf Super Hero in ‘The Eternals.’” Insidethemagic.Com, (July 2019), https://insidethemagic.net/2019/07/marvel- deaf-super-hero-ba1/.
86. Hersh, 1.
87. Deryl Davis, “Making Theaters Accessible.” Stage Directions 16, no. 1 (January 2003).
47 providing ASL interpretation and open captioning at performances, selecting performance content that has dynamic visual content versus verbal content such as dance or mime art forms, and utilizing Deaf artists within productions on a more regular basis. From the perspective of a presenting or producing organization, Siegel takes issue with a few of Guido’s suggestions.
Siegel warns that content suggestions can infringe on an organization’s pursuit of its mission.
Requesting an organization to operate outside of the scope of its mission and vision is not the same as requesting access, and the artistic integrity of a program, as well as the organization, must be respected according to the ADA.88
One source from the realm of museums details “nine building blocks to accessibility” from the perspective of a visual arts organization; though the content was generated by an organization in an admittedly different sector of the arts field, the content is easily applicable to the administration of any performing arts organization and will be addressed more thoroughly below. The nine strategies are as follows:
1) “Include a statement of commitment to accessibility in an organization’s policy or mission statement.” 2) “Appoint an accessibility coordinator.” 3) “Establish an accessibility advisory committee.” 4) “Train staff.” 5) “Assess existing facilities and current programs and activities.” 6) “Plan for accessibility.” 7) “Promote accessibility in the organization.” 8) “Establish a grievance procedure.” 9) “Conduct an ongoing assessment of accessibility.”89
Many of the above strategies are informed by requirements in Titles II & III of the ADA. The suggestions made by this source are similarly echoed by various modern authors, reinforcing
88. Siegel, Phone Interview.
89. American Association of Museums, “Everyone’s Welcome.” American Association of Museums, (1998), https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED437754.pdf.
48 how little has changed since the implementation of the ADA. Interestingly, the strategies do not appear as immediate line item costs for an organization; these strategies mainly require time and effort on the behalf of the organization. Though time is a valuable resource and does show up on the budget under billable hours, generally speaking the nine strategies do not immediately rule out any organization due to budget size- meaning these strategies are widely applicable across budget Groups 1-6.
A number of the materials from the research suggested having a welcome statement, also referred to as an inclusion statement, that reinforces the organization’s commitment to accessibility as well as current offerings and established procedures. With the rise of organizational awareness and readiness to address diversity, equity, and inclusion in the field of the arts, inclusion statements are somewhat common practice, however, few specifically mention accessibility. The generation of an inclusion statement by its very nature jump starts awareness on all levels of an organization, from the board to the volunteers. The public statement can also catalyze the development of trust.
According to Title II for state and local governments, “if a public entity has 50 or more employees, it is required to designate at least one responsible employee to coordinate ADA compliance.”90 The NEA Section 504 regulations similarly require of their funding recipients at least one employee designated to coordinate implementation of the standards dictated by the regulations. Accessibility Coordinators are held responsible for the accessibility status of their organizations; for this reason, Coordinators should ideally be active in every department and every leadership level within the organization, from the Board members to volunteers. Some
90. Department of Justice, “ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments.” Department of Justice. (2006) https://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap2toolkit.htm.
49 authors mention that the responsibilities of coordinating access can be shared by a team so long as one member is designated as the leader or responsible party. Materials from the NEA suggest that when drafting the job description of the Accessibility Coordinator, leaders should include staff and board compliance duties to ensure that the position is effective.91
Advisory Committees can be very helpful in increasing understanding within your organization and developing trust within your target market. These committees are comprised of members with disabilities that help to evaluate and generate policies and procedures for accessibility offerings. The Accessibility Coordinator is responsible for implementing the suggestions of the committee and convening with them regularly to conduct ongoing assessments. According to Kurihara, “accessibility cannot be achieved without full support of the entire organization: the board, the director, staff members, artists, volunteers and audience members:” both Coordinators and Committees are most effective in their roles when the entire organization is aware and on board with providing accessibility. Building block 7 also emphasizes the importance of internal exposure to accessibility; by making normalizing accessibility within the workplace, staff and board members can shift their mindset to more regularly consider access in their day to day experience.
Staff training is easily the most cited accommodation practice suggestion amongst the research. The majority of sources that provided best practice suggestions mentioned the value of staff understanding in relation to the patron experience. As mentioned in earlier sections, staff must be aware and committed to the organization’s accessibility policy/procedures in order to provide at the very least effective communication. While it is important for all staff members to
91. National Endowment for the Arts, “Step 3: Designate an Accessibility Coordinator for Your Organization.” National Endowment for the Arts. https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/Step3.pdf.
50 know the institution’s position on accessibility, it is incredibly important for patron-facing staff such as Box Office staff, ushers, and volunteers. People in these roles should have a basic understanding of; the organization’s accessibility statement and accommodation offerings; protocols for using the technology, i.e. where to pick up assistive listening devices and whether or not the patron should leave an ID to be held by Box Office staff and returned in exchange for the return of the device; a basic understanding of the technologies themselves and how to troubleshoot should issues arise during a performance, i.e. knowing how to change the batteries in a device and or the ability to explain how to use one of the assistive devices; and sensitivity regarding how to interact with patrons of varying abilities. The technology in modern personal mobile devices are extremely helpful in navigating conversations with people of different abilities. In one past workplace scenario that took place before I started learning ASL, I utilized the written note feature to write messages and handed the device back and forth between myself and a Deaf customer to communicate. Not only was I able to provide the service she was looking for, the experience of figuring out how best to communicate established a rapport and trust on behalf of the customer that was significantly more personal and impactful than other interactions
I had within that position. Beyond providing the best patron experience possible, it is important for staff to understand the functionality of the assistive technologies available in order to perform routine maintenance and aid with ongoing evaluations as mentioned in building block number 5.
Perhaps one of the most effective methods in providing access is to plan for it at the inception of a program. Utilizing the many people and resources listed in various sections above, planning ahead for accommodation needs both internally and externally can result in a streamlined access experience for both the patron and the organization. Forethought about potential situations can better inform grievance procedures (building block 8) and staff response
51 when trouble arises. Planning ahead also gives the organization an opportunity to add a research element to their offerings, collecting data that can help better evaluate effectiveness for future programs (building block 9).
The research discusses legal obligation and marketing angles in order to add value to the concept of accessibility, however few recognize that accessibility can inherently be part of enacting a nonprofit mission. Siegel mentions that generally nonprofit mission statements express the desire of the organization to serve everyone, and personally challenged this author during an interview to find a mission statement that was exclusive. This author has yet to find any that aren’t at the very least generally inclusive in their wording. Accessibility is often seen as a lower priority within an organization, especially those of smaller size and fewer available resources, because of the cost. The Department of Justice acknowledges that factors to accessibility solutions are time, resources, and cost, and often it is the priority of these factors that informs the solution.92 Siegel mentions that organizations need to learn to prioritize accessibility similar to the way they would prioritize other maintenance needs, reinforcing the mindset that access is not a novelty but a necessity.
Ben Cameron, program director at the Doris Duke Foundation, claims that survival of the performing arts hinders on an added altruistic factor.93 The arts have always been a safe space for marginalized groups to unpack ideas and experiences in a way that can elicit change. The act of giving priority to other programs or strategies instead of patrons who are unable to enjoy your organization’s work goes against the altruistic nature of nonprofits, i.e. the inclusivity of a mission, and subsequently implies that those patrons are of lesser value to you and the
92. Kurihara, 38.
93. Ben Cameron, Ben Cameron: The True Power of the Performing Arts, (TEDx) Accessed August 2018, Youtube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py1RrSdVt5A&t=512s.
52 community you are building. With creativity, empathy, and collaborative work with the community served, an organization can become a national innovator in beginning to provide real world solutions to grass roots organizations.
.
53 CHAPTER 4
D.C. THEATER LANDSCAPE
Theatrewashington’s directory currently lists over 98 different theatre organizations that vary in size, mission, and location. The organizations listed comprise what theatrewashington defines as Washington, D.C.’s theatre landscape: although admittedly the organizations listed span from northern Virginia to southern and eastern Maryland. This could be due to the varying contact and business addresses used by smaller organizations to benefit from lower tax rates in areas outside of the district. For this reason, this author labelled findings as “D.C./Metro Area” theaters to accommodate the expansive geographic range demonstrated on my interactive map.
Only 87 of the 98 theaters listed seemingly still operate as of November 2019; organizations that no longer perform or are no longer incorporated in the district as of this time were removed from the study. For the organizations removed, the contact and website materials listed on the directory are no longer effective, and general searching yielded little to no recent activity or active contact information. A few of the theaters listed within the directory were only recently ruled as nonprofit organizations according to the IRS, either in late 2018 or early 2019, and because of that, didn’t have enough financial data, organizational activity, or in most cases a finished website to justify being included in the map at this time. General internet searching resulted in a number of additional companies who are brand new to the district’s theatre scene and are not yet registered with theatrewashingtion’s directory; these companies yielded hardly any information and for that reason are also not included in the findings below. This researcher would like to acknowledge that there are more likely many more theaters that self-identify as being part of the D.C./Metro area, however, for the purposes of this paper, the scope is limited to
54 those theaters mentioned in the directory for the reasons discussed in the methodology section of
this paper. Presence in the directory also by the nature of being successfully listed after
submitting an application implies some level of organization and active intent on the part of the
theater leadership. More information regarding the application process for the directory can be
found on the theatrewashington website.
Of the total 87 theatres currently serving Washington, DC, 56 theatres provided enough
up to date public information to sort them into categories based on total expenses as determined
by the Theatre Communications Group. The results were as follows:
TCG EXPENSE GROUP COLOR BUDGET SIZE NUMBER OF (MAP) THEATRES
GROUP 1 $499,999 or less 31
GROUP 2 $500,000 - $999,999 7
GROUP 3 $1 million - $2,999,999 6
GROUP 4 $3 million - $4,999,999 2
GROUP 5 $5 million - $9,999,999 2
GROUP 6 $10 million or more 8
RENTAL SPACES - 16
OUTLIERS (NOT ENOUGH - 31 FINANCIAL DATA)
Table 1: D.C. Theatre Landscape by Group According to TCG
The theatre landscape is overwhelmingly saturated with companies that fall into Group 1.
These theatre companies have budgets of $499,999 or less and usually rent space locally. The 17
rental spaces listed within the performance space layer on the interactive map are those
55 mentioned by the organizations that fall into Groups 1-3. It is not an exhaustive list of all of the potential rental performance spaces in Washington, D.C., solely those where performances take place for the smaller organizations listed. It is important to reiterate that the focus of the research within this paper is on small (Groups 1 & 2) and midsize (Group 3) theatre organizations. While organizations like the Kennedy Center provides rental space within their traditional building as well as the new REACH campus that opened this past September 2019, they will not be featured on the Performance Space layer of the interactive map.
The audit revealed that 27.6% of the theatres researched provided any type of accommodation for patrons with hearing loss within the D.C./Metro area. Twenty-four of those listed within the directory reported having at least one auxiliary aid or service provided.
ACCOMMODATIONS PROVIDED GROUPS 1-3 TOTAL
Assistive Listening Services and Devices 6 16
ASL Interpretation 8 16 *includes both previously scheduled performances with interpretation and opportunities to request interpretation at least 2 weeks prior to performance
Open Captions 3 13
Closed Captions 1 4
Seating 5 7
TTY or VRS Box Office Capability/Training 1 3
Script Loan Program 0 2
Table 2: Accommodations Provided in the D.C. Theatre Landscape
56 As seen in the table above, and in the supplementary bar graph provided within the appendices, Assistive Listening Systems and Devices, ASL Interpretation, and Open Captions are the most widely available accommodation services in the theaters audited. In some cases, specifically in Groups 4-6 that own their own performance spaces, these accommodation features are required by law with little exception. It is worth noting, however, that the trend is mirrored in
Groups 1-3 as well, with ASL Interpretation as the most common accommodation strategy and
Assistive Listening Services and Devices as the second most common strategy.
It is worth noting that providing ideal seating arrangements, an inventory management strategy that can be reasonably perceived as “low cost,” has only been utilized by 7 theaters out of 24, with 5 of those 7 theaters identifying as small. Seating, as mentioned in the research, has a substantial effect on the patron experience; while it may not be reasonable to expect an organization to reserve box seating or front row seating for the off chance a patron may request it, it highlights an opportunity to build trust with patrons with hearing loss. Organizations can use existing marketing materials or avenues to communicate that seating is subject to availability and that Box Office staff are ready and willing to help patrons find seating to suit their needs. This strategy requires no additional cost or inventory management on the part of the organization and yet effectively reinforces that differently abled patrons are welcome.
Two of the theatre companies listed feature programming that is accessible to patrons with hearing loss by the nature of their mission and artistic form. Similar to how Oreo cookies, which were not intended to cater to vegan consumers, have become a popular snack food within the vegan community by the happy accident of the lack of animal products used in production,94
94. Aruka Sanchir, “25 Accidentally Vegan Snacks You Can Find At Virtually Any Convenience Store.” Blog. VegNews. 2018. https://vegnews.com/2018/7/25-accidentally-vegan- snacks-that-you-can-find-at-a-convenience-store
57 both Dog & Pony DC and Faction of Fools theatre companies service D/Hoh patrons through integrity to their mission. Dog & Pony DC, a small company committed to social change and reevaluating how nonprofit theatre is generated for the benefit of the intended community served, actively seeks to include audience members of varying abilities and experience into their produced works. Their recent accessibility initiative featured a play called “Sense-Able” in which audience members were invited to participate in an experiential theatre performance catering to the user’s senses of smell, taste, and touch. Though this kind of performance is admittedly exclusive to people with disabilities related to those senses, the work was inherently friendly towards patrons with hearing and vision loss. Some art forms may cater well to patrons with hearing loss, such as dance or mime performances that hardly feature dialogue to understand the action of the performance, while simultaneously generating unintended consequences for patrons with other disabilities. It is also worth reinforcing that an organization is bound by service to its mission; if the mission does not justify the inclusion or suggestion of additional art forms, the organization is not required to act outside of the scope of their mission.
Faction of Fools Theatre Company is a traditional Commedia dell’Arte troupe that rehearses and performs on the Gallaudet University campus. Though the organization does not identify as a Deaf or hearing company, nor seemingly promotes a social justice initiative as part of their mission; the nature of the art form happens to cater well to audiences and artists with hearing loss due to the emphasis on gesture. This company utilizes local Deaf talent on stage and off, including students at Gallaudet University, and provides workshops and performances to both hearing and D/Hoh identifying audiences. The company provides ASL interpretation of all spoken elements of a performance, however, it is worth noting that the art form itself does not always rely heavily on dialogue in the way the conventional modern play does.
58 As earlier mentioned in the literature review, a number of theatres within the D.C. market recently introduced the GalaPro closed captioning technology; Signature Theatre, Arena Stage, and most recently, Ford’s Theatre Society. GALA Hispanic Theatre uses closed captioning technology in the form of supertitles during all of their performances; similar to the Oreo cookies previously mentioned, the nature of the bilingual element of their mission lends well to accommodation for D/Hoh patrons.
As earlier mentioned in the literature review, a number of theaters within the D.C. market recently introduced the GalaPro closed captioning technology: Signature Theatre, Arena Stage, and most recently, Ford’s Theatre Society. GALA Hispanic Theatre uses closed captioning technology in the form of supertitles projected onto a screen during all of their performances; similar to the Oreo cookies example previously mentioned, the nature of the bilingual element of their mission lends well to accommodation for D/Hoh patrons.
Interestingly, various organizations featured a “plan your visit” or “accessibility” page on their websites, however they defined “access” as the physical location of the entrance to the performance space, detailing specific walking or driving directions to the venue. In these cases, organizations additionally defined accommodation services as places to eat or visit nearby before performances. Many individuals and organizations alike use the word “access” liberally in respect to geographic location, socio-economic capability, or availability. The varying uses of the term are valid, however, can be confusing to a patron seeking accommodation services in relation to a disability.
59 CHAPTER 5
SUGGESTIONS SPECIFIC TO SMALL-MID SIZE THEATRES
An extremely well recognized and respected arts administrator within the United States,
Betty R. Siegel is a leader in the field of access in the arts. Siegel, the current Director of the
VSA and Accessibility Education at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C. has had nearly four decades of experience in the field, measurably expanding offerings and awareness everywhere she has been employed. Armed with a law degree, unwavering passion for access, and her extensive experience at organizations such as Arena Stage and the Kennedy Center, she is arguably one of the most invaluable education resources for this subject across the country.
As the Accessibility Manager at Arena Stage from 1983 until late 1991, Siegel developed relationships with and expanded offerings for the Deaf and Hard-of-hearing communities within the D.C. area. Up until the point where Siegel arrived, the organization did not “actively promote” performances with accommodations to these markets. Decades later, due largely in part to the lasting impressions of Siegel’s work, Arena Stage is considered one of the district’s leaders in access. Upon arriving at the Kennedy Center in 1999, Siegel claimed that the Kennedy
Center needed to give more attention to what she called “core accommodation” and prioritized the development of “a basic foundation of accessibility” within the organization.95 In her 2004 thesis Kurihara was able to illuminate progress initiated by Siegel;
“According to Hadden’s research, four performance spaces at the Kennedy Center were physically accessible in 1985, but program accessibility was not fully achieved. Although assistive listening devices and Audio Description were available, listening devices were provided at only three of the four performance spaces and the number of Audio Described performances was very limited. Half price tickets called Specially Priced
95. Kurihara, 39.
60 Tickets (SPTs) were available, which is still available today. She fashioned the organization’s accessibility policy, and provided basic accommodations, such as Braille and large print playbills, sign language interpretation, Audio Description, captioning, and other assistive devices and services.” 96
Additional sources highlight Siegel’s innovative approach to accessibility, encouraging the
Kennedy Center to move towards providing access upon request more frequently, giving differently abled patrons more choices.97 Under Siegel’s leadership, the Kennedy Center developed a number of educational materials and staff training procedures that have since been made available to the public via the VSA and Office of Accessibility website. According to
Kurihara, “the institutional commitment to accessibility and educating staff members seem to be the major forces that improved the Kennedy Center’s accessibility to today’s level.”98
Many published articles and academic papers have featured conceptual practices and suggestions regarding accessibility from Siegel. Amongst the most frequently cited suggestions are making access an institutional priority, making time to thoroughly understand legal obligations when it comes to programs and physical spaces, as well as utilizing one’s available resources to provide effective accommodations. In past materials as well as her interview with the author in November 2019, Siegel emphasized the importance of building an authentic relationship to the disabled communities an organization aims to serve. Siegel claims that
“[people with disabilities] don’t trust an institution. They trust people;” relationships built with intention and respect over time yield trust and perspective that is incomparable.99 As mentioned
96. Kurihara, 56.
97. Kurihara, 58.
98. Kurihara, 64.
99. Siegel, Phone Interview.
61 in an earlier section, lack of awareness is more of an excuse than a barrier. While organizations continue to scratch their heads wondering why differently abled audiences don’t attend their programs, Siegel reinforces the value of building relationships. Arts organizations have been providing accommodation in various forms for more than three decades; target markets may not be aware of specific offerings at particular venues; however, they are generally aware that the offerings exist and yet hardly pursue them.100 And what reasons have organizations given them to attend these programs? Countless examples over time have demonstrated that if you build it, it doesn’t guarantee that they will come; unless they have a personal connection or relationship that further entices patrons to attend a performance, in conjunction with their initial interest in the production or art form of course- an important factor that shouldn’t be overlooked- they may not find strong enough reasons to attend.
Something else that shouldn’t be overlooked is that needs vary, even within communities.
Different people with different disabilities are different; the claim may seem simplistic, but it reinforces the idea that needs for different groups of patrons with disabilities vary widely even within the same circles, and by developing open channels of communication to engage with these community members, an organization receives the opportunity to build understanding and, hopefully, make informed choices regarding offerings that have a better chance of being utilized by the intended community members. “Accessibility will always be a process, because it needs to change as people change;” investing in relationships help organizations keep their finger on the pulse of changes within community preferences, terminology, emerging technologies, and additional factors.101
100. Kurihara, 71.
101. Kurihara, 73.
62 Many small organizations admittedly do not have many funds set aside for expensive systems and provision of frequent auxiliary services. The research reflects that accessibility is often a lower budget and institutional priority for smaller organizations because of the perceived complexities and costs associated. In these cases, Siegel suggests that organizations begin to view access not as an addition expense with low potential return on investment, but as a vital maintenance element for the health of the organization. “Normalizing access is the name of the game;” the more visibility regarding access both onstage and within the organization aids the more it becomes second nature for everyone involved, both staff and patrons. Including line items for access within project budgets and adding updated informational materials to staff training manuals and retreat agendas are not financial expensive or technologically complex but do require proper attention from staff and leadership. Earlier mentioned factors to solutions as proposed by the Department of Justice include cost, time, and resources. Smaller organizations with generally fewer staff members and smaller resource pools may find that financial expense is not always the biggest hindrance with accessibility; in some cases, the time needed to research and develop relationships can prove a larger cost. Smaller organizations need to be realistic regarding what resources they have available in order to produce accommodations.
None of these strategies will prove successful however if everyone is not supportive of the initiative within the organization. Having leadership, both executive staff and the Board, participating and actively supporting protocols and procedures can often make the difference between a successful accommodation. Access managers need to have the authority to make decisions quickly in response to issues that can occur during a performance or other patron experience. If leadership is not supportive of the manager than the internal controls of the
63 organization become additional barriers. If customer facing staff are unsupportive or unaware as we discussed heavily in the earlier sections, they can prove a detriment to the patron experience.
In conclusion, small organizations do have the ability to utilize creativity and innovation to confront common barriers to accommodation. Though generally smaller organizations have fewer resources (money, people, stuff, and time) than their larger counterparts for providing accommodation, by prioritizing access as a necessity versus a novelty they can better plan to provide accommodations. By communicating with the communities via genuine formed relationships by organization staff (generally an Access manager or the marketing team considering they have communication channels already established), organizations can better inform their plans by utilizing technologies and services preferred by their constituents, increasing the probability that the services will be used in upcoming performances. Everyone within the organization must be aware and supportive of an access initiative in order for it to be successful; the more access is normalized within the institutional structure and the performances themselves, the chance for attitudinal barriers on behalf of patrons or staff decreases. The best way for an organization to start the process of becoming accessible is to research the available materials online and provided by the various resources analyzed in this paper and learn to communicate the value of access. Motivations for access are often legal, financial (potential markets), and altruistic (social justice); depending on whom your organization is engaging, discussing the value from these various viewpoints can strengthen your overall case. For example, when speaking to the Executive Director or Board, discussing the legal implications of access and the benefit of avoiding potential liabilities caters to the fiduciary duties of those positions. Communicating the potential for growth and audience development to marketing and development staff can also better support the argument for developing an access initiative.
64 Access inherently belongs in the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion dialogue that many organizations are already imploring; making human relations staff or whomever may be in charge of staff training aware of access can better integrate accommodation conversation into the institutional structure. Smaller organizations do have the tools to pursue access however need to shift their thinking and resources to reflect access as an institutional priority.
65 APPENDICES
A. Public Access Link to D.C. Theatre Landscape Interactive Map: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Pqlg6tNN811ePjPyX7XYgF96nS4KL-Hu&usp=sharing
B. Image of Interactive Map- All Layers Selected
66 C. Image of Interactive Map- Layer 1 Selected Only
D. Image of Interactive Map- Layer 2 Selected Only
67 E. Image of Interactive Map- Layer 3 Selected Only [Theatres with D/Hoh Accommodations]
F. Image of Interactive Map- Layer 4 Selected Only
68 G. Image of Interactive Map- Layer 5 Selected Only
H. Image of Interactive Map- Layer 6 Selected Only
69
I. Image of Interactive Map- Example of Selected Organization
70 [CAPSTONE PRESENTATION HANDOUT] Accessibility Audit of D.C. Area Theatres: Local Accommodation Practices for Deaf and Hard-of-hearing Audiences
Presenter: Helen Evelyn Edwards
Warm Up Questions Before the Presentation:
How much do I know about access?
How much do I know about hearing loss?
What do I know about the Deaf community/culture?
How much do I know about accommodation? The Americans with Disabilities Act?
Do I know anyone with hearing loss?
Can I articulate why access is important in the performing arts?
71 How Many Do YOU Know? Follow along with the presentation and fill in the significance of these universal signs/icons related to hearing loss.
INTERNATIONAL ICON (II) FOR HEARING LOSS ACCOMMODATION
(II) FOR ASSISTIVE LISTENING DEVICES AVAILABLE
(II) FOR SIGN LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION AVAILABLE
(II) FOR OPEN CAPTIONS AVAILABLE
(II) FOR CLOSED CAPTIONS AVAILABLE
72 (II) FOR TELEPHONE TYPEWRITER OR TTY SERVICES
(II) FOR ADDITIONAL AMPLIFICATION PHONE
Budget Groups by Total Annual Expenses according to TCG’s 2017 Theatre Facts Report
Research Question: What are local accommodation practices for Deaf and Hard-of-hearing audiences in live, small to midsize theatres in the D.C. Metro Area?
Thesis Statement: There is ample opportunity for small and midsize organizations to target patrons with hearing loss as they are currently largely unaccommodated by the majority of theatre organizations in the D.C. Metro area.
73 Terminology
ALDs/ALSs: Assistive Listening Devices and Assistive Listening Systems. These are auxiliary aids that benefit those with hearing loss. There are many varieties of ALDs/ALDs. See resources produced from the VSA for detailed definitions. Deaf vs. deaf: Capital “D” Deaf refers to the identity within the Deaf community while little “d” deaf refers to the condition of profound hearing loss. • There are 4 categories of hearing loss: mild, moderate, severe, and profound. Generally speaking, those who identify within the Deaf community have severe to profound hearing loss. Disability: A physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities, a person who has record of such an impairment, or a person who is perceived by others as having such an impairment. (Definition from the ADA)
Statistics • 56.7 Million Adults identify as having a general disability o 14.9 Million Adults identify as having a disability that specifically affects their sight, hearing, and/or communicative ability • Estimated 7,000 Deaf-identifying D.C. residents o Nearly 2,000 of those included in the above statistic identify as students of Gallaudet University • Hard-of-hearing numbers are difficult to record o Many go on with undiagnosed hearing loss o Unknown number of military personnel in the DMV with work related hearing loss • This could be you... the disability population is the only minority group you can join at any time
•
Percentage Increases with Age
74
Auxiliary Aids and Services Types of ALSs
• Hardwire System • Radio Frequency (RF) System • Infrared System (IR) • Induction Loop System
Types of Receivers
• Pendant Receiver • Stethoscope Receiver
Types of Coupling Devices
• Monaural Earbuds • Binaural Earbuds • Induction Neck loops and Silhouettes • Personal Hearing Aids • Personal Audio Cables and Cochlear Patch Cords
Types of Auxiliary Services
• ASL Interpreted Performances
• Open Captioned Performances: Captions that are generated during the performance either using a form of speech-to-text technology or using CART services
• Closed Captioned Performances: Captions that are generated prior to a performance and are shared via projection onto a screen of some variety or utilization of closed captioning technology such as the GalaPro application for mobile devices.
• Script Loan Services: Making a script available upon request before the performance takes place so that the patron has context to the action of the performance.
• Seating: In some cases, close seating is necessary to reach the low bar of “effective communication” with ASL interpretation. This is when an organization designates certain sections for ideal view of the interpreter.
75 How ALSs and ALDs work:
2010 Revised Regulations: ALS requirements as specified in the Revised Guidelines as clarified by the NEA:
76 Americans with Disabilities Act
• Law passed in 1990
o Enactment due to the motivation and momentum generated by the disabled community and their allies- the Disability Rights Movement began in the late 1960s and early 1970s, around the same time that accommodation technologies began to emerge
• Titles II (Public Entities) & III (Private Entities) cited most often in respect to non- profits and the performing arts
o Physical spaces must be physically accessible- if you own a space, you are responsible for the capabilities of the space. If you rent the space to a presented program, they are responsible for programmatic access. It is important to have clear expectations and boundaries within your rental contract if you have spaces available to rent
o Access Coordinators, an individual responsible for pursuit of compliance, is required for organizations with more than 50 employees (can also be a team so long as one person is designated as the Coordinator)
• Two main exemptions to compliance;
o Accommodation would fundamentally alter the artistic vision and nature of the program (ex. A site specific performance would not be forced to perform in an indoor location because of a physical mobility issue)
o Accommodation would create an “undue financial burden” on the organization with respect to their current resources
Common Barriers to Accommodation
• Common Barriers o Lack of Resources ($) o Lack of Consistency o Lack of Communication § Importance of Marketing- what are your offerings? o Lack of Understanding/Awareness o Quality of Services § Staff Training § Maintenance of Technology
Conceptual or “Ideal” Practices Suggested by the Research
77
o Include a statement of commitment to accessibility in an organization’s policy or mission statement o Appoint an accessibility coordinator o Establish an accessibility advisory committee o TRAIN YOUR STAFF o Access existing facilities and current programs and activities o Plan for accessibility o Promote accessibility internally o Establish procedures- grievance and otherwise o Conduct an ongoing assessment of accessibility
Accommodation Suggestions specific to Small/Mid-Size Organizations
• There are other resources besides financial o Successful accommodation requires time and effort on the part of the staff. These don’t show up immediately as billable hours- can you realistically afford this? • Promote Access Internally o Everyone must be on board- from the Board to the Ushers • Start to view Access as part of Maintenance • Learn to Communicate the value of Access
D.C. Theatre Landscape and Accessibility Audit Results
Table 1 NUMBER OF THEATRES TCG EXPENSE GROUP
GROUP 1 31
GROUP 2 7
GROUP 3 6
GROUP 4 2
GROUP 5 2
GROUP 6 8
RENTAL SPACES 16
OUTLIERS (NOT ENOUGH FINANCIAL DATA) 31
Table 2
78 GROUPS TOTAL ACCOMMODATIONS PROVIDED 1-3
Assistive Listening Services and Devices 6 16
ASL Interpretation 8 16 *includes both previously scheduled performances with interpretation and opportunities to request interpretation at least 2 weeks prior to performance
Open Captions 3 13
Closed Captions 1 4
Seating 5 7
TTY or VRS Box Office Capability/Training 1 3
Script Loan Program 0 2
79
80
LINK TO INTERACTIVE MAP: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Pqlg6tNN811ePjPyX7XYgF96nS4KL-Hu&usp=sharing
81 BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Access Made Easy.” VSA. n.d. https://www.kennedy-
center.org/education/vsa/resources/arts_access_made_easy.pdf.
“Advocacy Letters for Theaters and Concert Halls.” National Association of the Deaf. n.d.
Art Works. “Brief Accessibility Check-List.” National Endowment for the Arts,
(2014), https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/BriefChecklist-Oct2014.pdf.
“Assistive Listening Devices for People with Hearing Loss.” Kennedy Center for the Performing
Arts, (2012), http://education.kennedy-
center.org/education/accessibility/lead/2012_KC_ALD_Booklet.pdf.
Barton-Farcas, Stephanie. “Against Sameness in Theatre.” HowlRound, (October 25,
2015), https://howlround.com/against-sameness-theatre.
Bergman, Eugene. “Arts Accessibility for the Deaf.” National Access Center, National
Endowment for the Arts. (1981) https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED213235.pdf.
Bryson, Caitlin E. “Advancing Toward Accessibility: Disability Accommodation in the
Theatre.” (Master’s Thesis, California State University, 2016), 1-73.
82 Cameron, Ben. 2014. “Ben Cameron: The True Power of the Performing Arts.” TEDx,
2014, https://ed.ted.com/lessons/the-true-power-of-the-performing-arts-ben-
cameron#review.
“Community and Culture- Frequently Asked Questions.” National Association of the Deaf.
(2019), https://www.nad.org/resources/american-sign-language/community-and-culture-
frequently-asked-questions/.
“Deaf and Hard of Hearing Population Northern Virginia Metropolitan Area Planning District
8.” Northern Virginia Resource Center for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Persons, (2010).
DeJohn, Paula. “Accessibility Drama Has Happy Ending.” Hearing Loss Magazine, (2014).
Department of Justice. “ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Governments.”
Department of Justice, (2006), https://www.ada.gov/pcatoolkit/chap2toolkit.htm.
Fellman, Steven John. “A Theatre Managers Guide to the ADA.” PowerPoint Presentation, 2013.
Guido, JW, and Annie Wiegand. “5 Ways to Make Theatre More Accessible to Deaf
Audiences.” Show-Score, (March 21, 2017), Blog, https://www.show-score.com/blog/5-
ways-to-make-theater-accessible-to-deaf-audiences.
83 Kurihara, Yuki. “Accessibility in the Arts.” (Master’s Thesis, American University, 2004), 1-
125.
McEntee, Billy. “All Access App.” American Theatre Magazine (April 16,
2018), https://www.americantheatre.org/2018/04/16/galapro-app-provides-all-access-
experience-for-theatregoers/.
National Endowment for the Arts Office of Accessibility. “2010 Revised Regulations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act Titles II and III.” National Endowment for the Arts,
(2010), https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/NEA-ADA-TipSheet-v2.pdf.
Page-Kirby, Kristen. “Arena Stage, Signature Theatre Debut Accessible Captioning
Technology.” sec. Theater & Dance., The Washington Post, (March 7,
2019), https://www.washingtonpost.com/express/2019/03/08/arena-stage-signature-theatre-
debut-accessible-captioning-technology/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.12d55c70f4ef.
Ruebhausen, David Keith, “Art Made Accessible: Redefining Accessibility and Cross-Cultural
Communication for the Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing in the American Theatre Institution.”
(Doctoral Thesis, University of Minnesota, 1996).
Samuels, Robert. “D.C.’s H Street Embedded with Deaf Culture.” Washington Post, (July 15,
2013), https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dcs-h-street-embedded-with-deaf-
culture/2013/07/15/efd54732-e3f3-11e2-a11e-c2ea876a8f30_story.html.
84
Sanchir, Aruka, “25 Accidentally Vegan Snacks You Can Find At Virtually Any Convenience
Store.” VegNews. (2018), Blog, https://vegnews.com/2018/7/25-accidentally-vegan-snacks-
that-you-can-find-at-a-convenience-store.
Siegel, Betty, and Dominic Mota. Accessibility Panel at Symposium. March 3,
2019. https://www.ealsatau.org/past-symposiums.
Skulski, Jennifer K., Ray Bloomer, and Jeffrey Chait. “Accommodating Patrons with
Disabilities: A Survey of Ticket and Accommodation Policies for Performance Venues,
Theaters, and Sports Arenas.” National Center on Accessibility,
(2002), https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstream/handle/2022/3106/Ticket_Policy_Stud
y_Full_Report.pdf?sequence=2.
TED. Ben Cameron: The True Power of the Performing Arts. Accessed August 15, 2018.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py1RrSdVt5A&t=512s.
TED. Protecting and Interpreting Deaf Culture | Glenna Cooper | TEDxTulsaCC, 2017.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io7z5PftOU4.
TED. The Enchanting Music of Sign Language | Christine Sun Kim. Accessed August 15, 2018.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Euof4PnjDk.
85 United States Congress. “Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.” Federal Government of the
United States, (1990), https://www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm.
Zendle, Miriam. “Being Heard.” The Stage, (March 3, 2011), Performing Arts Periodicals
Database.
86