U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division T. 5/22/92 SBO:MAF:SK:ca:jfh DJ# 192-180-07238 Office of the Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20035 JUN 4 1992 The Honorable Hank Brown United States Senate 717 Senate Hart Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Brown: This responds to your letter requesting information about the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in order to respond to your constituent, Mark H. Schmidt. The ADA authorizes the Department to provide technical assistance to entities that are subject to the Act. This letter provides informal guidance to assist you in responding to Mr. Schmidt. However, this technical assistance does not constitute a determination by the Department of Justice of Mr. Schmidt's rights or responsibilities under the ADA and does not constitute a binding determination by the Department of Justice. Mr. Schmidt's letter concerns the paperwork burden of conducting the self-evaluation required by S 35.105 of the Department of Justice's regulation implementing title II of the ADA. He enclosed with his letter a guide for conducting the self-evaluation distributed by Colorado Counties, Inc. That guide was not produced by the Department of Justice, and the Department of Justice does not require that it, or any other particular guide, be used in completing the self-evaluation. Section 35.105 of the Department's regulation provides that: (a) A public entity shall, within one year of the effective date of this part, evaluate its current services, policies, and practices, and the effects thereof, that do not or may not meet the requirements of this part and, to the extent modification of any such services, policies, and practices is required, the public entity shall proceed to make the necessary modifications. cc: Records CRS Oneglia Friedlander Kaltenborn McDowney udd:kaltenborn.brown 01-00867 -2- (b) A public entity shall provide an opportunity to interested persons, including individuals with disabilities or organizations representing individuals with disabilities, to participate in the self-evaluation process by submitting comments. (c) A public entity that employs 50 or more persons shall, for at least three years following completion of the self-evaluation, maintain on file and make available for public inspection: (1) A list of the interested persons consulted; (2) A description of areas examined and any problems identified; and (3) A description of any modifications made. (d) If a public entity has already complied with the self-evaluation requirement of a regulation implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, then the requirements of this section shall apply only to those policies and practices that were not included in the previous self-evaluation. This requirement is intended to enable a public entity to identify and correct obstacles to participation in its services, programs, and activities by individuals with disabilities in order to avoid the necessity for administrative complaints or litigation. It is derived from the regulations implementing section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 for programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance, and is the same as the self-evaluation requirement imposed on Federal Executive agencies under regulations implementing section 504 for federally conducted programs, see, e.g., 28 CFR S 39.110 (Department of Justice). As explained in the preamble to the regulation, Experience has demonstrated the self-evaluation process to be a valuable means of establishing a working relationship with individuals with disabilities, which has promoted both effective and efficient implementation of section 504. The Department expects that it will likewise be useful to public entities newly covered by the ADA. 56 Fed. Reg. 35,701 (July 26, 1991). The requirement in the regulation is both simple and flexible. The Department has not issued detailed guidelines for conducting self-evaluations because it intends to allow public entities to tailor their 01-00868 -3- evaluations to their own programs and needs. However, pages 40- 43 of the enclosed Technical Assistance Manual contain some general guidance on self-evaluations. We have not reviewed the document enclosed with Mr. Schmidt's letter and have no opinion on its contents. I hope that this information is helpful to you in responding to your constituent. Sincerely, John R. Dunne Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division Enclosure 01-00869 Law Office of SCHMIDT AND SCHMIDT P.O. BOX 487, 716 MAIN STREET SPRINGFIELD, COLORADO 81073 (719) 523-6294 MARK H SCHMIDT March 25, 1992 HOWARD M. SCHMIDT 1909-1988 WARREN E. SCHMIDT 1924-1987 Honorable Hank Brown 717 Senate Hart Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Brown: One of the clients I represent is Baca County. I have become increasingly frustrated by the amount of time County officials and employees and I must devote to complying with Federal regulations. These include Fair Labor Standards Act, landfills, stormwater, alcohol and drug free workplace, wetlands and others. The most recent is Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. Baca County's population is approximately 4,500. The County employs about 100 full and part-time people. The economy here is heavily dependent on agriculture. We don't have a lot of the problems of more heavily populated parts of the country. Nor do we have some of the human resources that other larger units of government have. It is a considerable burden for us to keep up with the current Federal paperwork requirements. I have enclosed a copy of the March 19, 1992 memo from Allen E. Chapman, Loss Prevention Manager for CCI. This memo went out to all of the counties in Colorado. In it Mr. Chapman attempts to provide some guidance as to the requirement to conduct self-evaluations under ADA by January 26, 1993. I challenge any Congressman who voted for the ADA to conduct a similar evaluation of his own office. Even a cursory examination of the proposed checklist would reveal what a time-consuming and basically meaningless exercise this evaluation is. 01-00870 March 25, 1992 Page Two It seems to me that any time some pressure group (in this case that group is the disabled) seeks some assistance from Washington on a perceived problem the answer that comes from the Congress is more regulation, more paperwork, and more bureaucracy. We're literally drowning in paperwork and it affects this country's productivity. My simple wish is that Congress would show a little faith in state and local officials to deal with these issues without massive Federal rules, regulations and paperwork requirements. The idea that all problems can or should be solved in Washington has to end. Sincerely, Mark H. Schmidt MHS/nal Enclosure 01-00871