Service Quality Improvement Council

Minutes
February 9, 2000

Present: Katie Bauer, Sue Crockford-Peters, Suzanne Eggleston, Emily Horning, Fred Martz, Danuta Nitecki (acting Chair), Sandy Peterson, Rich Richie, Andy Shimp, Martha Smalley, Joan Swanekamp

Absent: Kenny Marone, Paul Stuehrenberg

Guests: Denise Hersey, Kalee Sprague, Kim Tran

The meeting commenced at 3:05 p.m.

I. Task Force on Services for Persons with Disabilities. Introductions of Service Quality Improvement Council [SQIC] members were made to guests Kalee Sprague [Task Force Chair/Library Systems], Denise Hersey [SSL], and Kim Tran [Southeast Asia Collection]. Kalee provided a brief history of the group's mission, followed by a progress report of the work done to date since SQIC charged the Task Force in August 1999 with

• projecting the anticipated needs of YUL readers with disabilities

• evaluating what assistive technologies and services are available that might meet such needs

• identifying service quality gaps within the library system where our expectations are not met for the university and library's commitment to providing access without discrimination by disability.

The recommendations proposed by the Task Force were based on a variety of factors, including

• findings garnered from literature searches of other major libraries

• participation in conferences concerned with the needs of readers with disabilities

• discussions with Resource Office on Disabilities staff

• surveys of registered users of the Resource Office and of library public service staff who have assisted patrons with disabilities

• and interviews with students with disabilities.

For a more detailed account of Task Force activities, Kalee invited SQIC to visit the Task Force on Services for Persons with Disabilities webpage at

http://www.library.yale.edu/~ksprague/ada/

Statistics on the number of persons with recorded varieties of disabilities within the Yale student community were distributed to SQIC. Students with orthopedic, visual, hearing, learning/attention deficit, and "other" disabilities - major depression, repetitive strain injury, thoracic outlet syndrome, narcolepsy, anxiety disorder, sleep disorder, head injury, multiple sclerosis, postural tachycardia syndrome, chronic fatigue syndrome, bilateral radial nerve palsy, allergies, hypoglycemia, osteoarthritis, asthma, manic-depressive/bipolar disease, intestinal problems, anorexia/bulimia, peripheral neuropathy, systemic lupus, migraines, Lyme disease - were included in the sample of 190 cases. According to the statistics, mobility and sight disabilities affect the largest portion of students with disabilities at Yale. The numbers reflect only those students who had voluntarily approached the Resource Office on Disabilities for assistance. Kalee warned that the numbers should not be viewed as representative of the entire student community of persons with disabilities. Danuta commented that the largest growing population of persons with disabilities on campus falls under the learning disabilities category.

Kalee pointed out that there is no centralized policy in place requiring assisted technology at Yale. Danuta, who serves on the Advisory Committee on Resources for Students and Employees with Disabilities, noted that the absence of a university-wide policy reflects the expectation that departments address needs on a case-by-case basis.

Kalee provided the following list of assistive equipment in place in the YUL libraries at this time:

• The Art & Architecture Library is wheelchair accessible.

• CCL offers elevator access.

• CCTV was recently installed in the L&B Room of SML.

• YUL has an emergency alert system that includes flashing lights for the hearing impaired.

Danuta mentioned that there is only one public workstation (located in Dunham Lab) designed to be accessible to users with disabilities (hydraulic table and voice input mechanism installed).

The library Front Door offers a page on services for people with disabilities at

http://www.library.yale.edu/htmldocs/disabled.htm

However, it fails to mention specific service policies and details on the physical layout of library facilities.

The Task Force endorsed a systematic approach to enhancing access to library patrons with disabilities. Such an approach would entail

• ensuring that webpages are accessible to persons with disabilities

• codifying what public service staff are doing/should do in written, published policies

• installing special equipment to assist a broad population of on-line patrons with disabilities

• charging relevant existing committees (i.e., WAG and SQIC) with taking responsibility for disability access issues, in combination with a network of disabilities resource staff (see bullet 1 under Task Force recommendations below)

• circulating information on technical support - where to go in case of problems with assistive equipment

• evaluating periodically the effectiveness of the library's accessibility policy on service quality

The Task Force referred the evaluation of the library's accessibility policy to the SQIC Assessment Group. The Task Force will provide the Assessment Group with suggestions on the evaluation process. It has yet to be decided whether to rate our services against ADA standards or our own service expectations.

The Task Force chose to avoid addressing issues pertaining to physical access because of their breadth and complexity. It was decided by the Task Force to leave this undertaking to the university Advisory Committee. According to Danuta, the Advisory Committee intends to coordinate facility renovations with the needs of persons with disabilities, and is working to create an on-line map that provides details on accessibility to Yale buildings.

The Task Force recommended the following public services for patrons with disabilities:

• establish a network of public services staff (based on the Expert Users model) with expertise in service policies and hardware for users with disabilities

• articulate service policies for patrons with disabilities on
  

• finding and using library materials

• reference assistance

• service to patron proxies
  

• provide sensitivity training to public services staff appointed to assist patrons with disabilities; training options include sessions sponsored by LHR or outside organizations

• publicize library services for patrons with disabilities through
  

• web pages stating library policies

• flyers at service points within the libraries and at transportation points throughout the university

• use of the library listserv to update staff on accessibility policies and assistive equipment

• accessibility tours

Kalee mentioned that Sally Esposito, former Coordinator of the Resource Office on Disabilities, had expressed interest in using the library program on services to patrons with disabilities as a model for other university departments. In addition, Denise related the largely positive response to the Task Force's recommendations received at visits to Circulation Support Group and Reference Services Group meetings.

Danuta suggested that this service issue be viewed in terms of general reader expectations; focus should be placed on services that are different from those we would normally offer to all patrons in packaging services for patrons with disabilities, and not on those services that all readers should expect. Kalee suggested the alternate approach in standardizing services - i.e., not excluding services offered to all patrons.

Concern was raised regarding the difficulty of identifying patrons with less obvious disabilities, such as attention deficit and learning disabilities. Martha Smalley asked whether library staff should wait for these patrons to identify themselves. Sue Crockford-Peters added that staff may find it hard to gauge the level of a patron's needs. She also pointed out the limitations of the present Expert Users arrangement as a model for the network of experts on assisting patrons with disabilities proposed by the Task Force. The Expert Users model may not adequately address the desirability of having services to patrons with disabilities handled at the appropriate staff level and by staff genuinely interested in this issue. Danuta suggested using the name "resource person," rather than "expert user." Kalee advised that the "resource person" have expertise in a broader set of issues than simply knowledge about assistive technologies. She estimated that designated staff would need to devote one day of work per year to this assignment.

Joan Swanekamp recommended that faculty and emeritus populations receive special consideration with regard to this service issue. Danuta again asked that the discussion refer to YUL service goals for all patrons - how does special consideration for faculty/emeritus fit into the library's general service standards? A distinction needs to be established between normal versus special services.

Suzanne Eggleston raised the question of how to prevent gratuitous use of library services. Kalee suggested responding to requests on a delay basis. Danuta prescribed the policy of performing requests (if possible) when in doubt. A review of on-going relationships with patrons can be performed at a later time to establish service parameters. Fred Martz posited the possibility of creating a password-protected website accessible only to patrons with disabilities. Denise reminded SQIC that no reliable list of all library patrons with disabilities exists.

Martha Smalley asked whether there is a system in place at the university level that pairs persons with disabilities with individuals who help in the use of non-assisted technologies. Kalee confirmed that such a program is offered through the Resource Office on Disabilities.

Sue recommended that the library's service animal policy be reviewed and that appropriate training be given to staff on this issue.

Finally, Danuta suggested looking into the "grey areas" of service to patrons with disabilities - patrons with headaches, phobias, allergies, mental illness, etc. This issue may be tied in to the Staffing Issues Group's work on developing a "problem patron" policy.

The Task Force on Services for Persons with Disabilities will revise and reissue their proposal.

II. Staff service quality awards. Sandy Peterson was asked to reissue the last version of the proposal (as well as the nomination form and budget assessment) issued by the Staffing Issues Group, and to present a roll-out plan to SQIC at the next meeting on 2-23-00.

III. Announcements, questions, future agenda items. Fred Martz announced that Systems is going public with the online public shelf list. He asked for 4-6 public service-oriented volunteers (preferably from one of the outside libraries) to test the new product. The testing process will require one-day per week for one month. Fred will schedule the initial meeting with programmers for sometime during the following week. Danuta requested SQIC members to forward names of volunteers to Fred.

The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.