Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act | Federal Communications Commission

https://www.fcc.gov/general/section-508-rehabilitation-act

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act - 29 U.S.C. § 798

SECTION 508 - ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(a) Requirements for Federal Departments and Agencies:

(1) Accessibility:

(A) Development, procurement, maintenance, or use of electronic and information technology: When developing, procuring, maintaining, or using electronic and information technology, each Federal department or agency, including the United States Postal Service, shall ensure, unless an undue burden would be imposed on the department or agency, that the electronic and information technology allows, regardless of the type of medium of the technology—

(i) individuals with disabilities who are Federal employees to have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access to and use of the information and data by Federal employees who are not individuals with disabilities; and

(ii) individuals with disabilities who are members of the public seeking information or services from a Federal department or agency to have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access to and use of the information and data by such members of the public who are not individuals with disabilities.

(B) Alternative means efforts: When development, procurement, maintenance, or use of electronic and information technology that meets the standards published by the Access Board under paragraph (2) would impose an undue burden, the Federal department or agency shall provide individuals with disabilities covered by paragraph (1) with the information and data involved by an alternative means of access that allows the individual to use the information and data.

(2) Electronic and information technology standards:

(A) In general: Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (referred to in this section as the `Access Board'), after consultation with the Secretary of Education, the Administrator of General Services, the Secretary of Commerce, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, the Secretary of Defense, and the head of any other Federal department or agency that the Access Board determines to be appropriate, including consultation on relevant research findings, and after consultation with the electronic and information technology industry and appropriate public or nonprofit agencies or organizations, including organizations representing individuals with disabilities, shall issue and publish standards setting forth—

(i) for purposes of this section, a definition of electronic and information technology that is consistent with the definition of information technology specified in section 5002(3) of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1401(3)); and

(ii) the technical and functional performance criteria necessary to implement the requirements set forth in paragraph (1).

(B) Review and amendment: The Access Board shall periodically review and, as appropriate, amend the standards required under subparagraph (A) to reflect technological advances or changes in electronic and information technology.

(3)Incorporation of standards: Not later than 6 months after the Access Board publishes the standards required under paragraph (2), the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council shall revise the Federal Acquisition Regulation and each Federal department or agency shall revise the Federal procurement policies and directives under the control of the department or agency to incorporate those standards. Not later than 6 months after the Access Board revises any standards required under paragraph (2), the Council shall revise the Federal Acquisition Regulation and each appropriate Federal department or agency shall revise the procurement policies and directives, as necessary, to incorporate the revisions.

(4) Acquisition planning: In the event that a Federal department or agency determines that compliance with the standards issued by the Access Board under paragraph (2) relating to procurement imposes an undue burden, the documentation by the department or agency supporting the procurement shall explain why compliance creates an undue burden.

(5) Exemption for national security systems: This section shall not apply to national security systems, as that term is defined in section 5142 of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 (40 U.S.C. 1452).

(6) Construction:

(A) Equipment: In a case in which the Federal Government provides access to the public to information or data through electronic and information technology, nothing in this section shall be construed to require a Federal department or agency—

(i) to make equipment owned by the Federal Government available for access and use by individuals with disabilities covered by paragraph (1) at a location other than that where the electronic and information technology is provided to the public; or

(ii) to purchase equipment for access and use by individuals with disabilities covered by paragraph (1) at a location other than that where the electronic and information technology is provided to the public.

(B) Software and peripheral devices: Except as required to comply with standards issued by the Access Board under paragraph (2), nothing in paragraph (1) requires the installation of specific accessibility-related software or the attachment of a specific accessibility-related peripheral device at a workstation of a Federal employee who is not an individual with a disability.

(b) Technical Assistance: The Administrator of General Services and the Access Board shall provide technical assistance to individuals and Federal departments and agencies concerning the requirements of this section.

(c) Agency Evaluations: Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, the head of each Federal department or agency shall evaluate the extent to which the electronic and information technology of the department or agency is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities described in subsection (a)(1), compared to the access to and use of the technology by individuals described in such subsection who are not individuals with disabilities, and submit a report containing the evaluation to the Attorney General.

(d) Reports:

(1) Interim report: Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, the Attorney General shall prepare and submit to the President a report containing information on and recommendations regarding the extent to which the electronic and information technology of the Federal Government is accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities described in subsection (a)(1).

(2) Biennial reports: Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, and every 2 years thereafter, the Attorney General shall prepare and submit to the President and Congress a report containing information on and recommendations regarding the state of Federal department and agency compliance with the requirements of this section, including actions regarding individual complaints under subsection (f).

(e) Cooperation: Each head of a Federal department or agency (including the Access Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the General Services Administration) shall provide to the Attorney General such information as the Attorney General determines is necessary to conduct the evaluations under subsection (c) and prepare the reports under subsection (d).

(f) Enforcement:

(1) General:

(A) Complaints: Effective 2 years after the date of enactment of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, any individual with a disability may file a complaint alleging that a Federal department or agency fails to comply with subsection (a)(1) in providing electronic and information technology.

(B) Application: This subsection shall apply only to electronic and information technology that is procured by a Federal department or agency not less than 2 years after the date of enactment of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998.

(2) Administrative complaints: Complaints filed under paragraph (1) shall be filed with the Federal department or agency alleged to be in noncompliance. The Federal department or agency receiving the complaint shall apply the complaint procedures established to implement section 504 for resolving allegations of discrimination in a federally conducted program or activity.

(3) Civil actions: The remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in sections 505(a)(2) and 505(b) shall be the remedies, procedures, and rights available to any individual with a disability filing a complaint under paragraph (1).

(g) Application to Other Federal Laws: This section shall not be construed to limit any right, remedy, or procedure otherwise available under any provision of Federal law (including sections 501 through 505) that provides greater or equal protection for the rights of individuals with disabilities than this section.

Elyssa D. Durant

Policy & Research Analyst

On this day last year

January 1, 2019

On this day last year, I knew something was wrong but I didn't know how serious my condition was.

I could barely walk, didn't have the strength to turn on the kitchen faucet or lift my arms to brush my hair. 

I was overcome with debilitating, all encompassing, excruciating pain.

E

--

Elyssa Durant Research and Policy Analyst

Healthcare Anniversary

December 30, 2018

Letter to my family, 

‪Today is a somber day for me of me of sorts. It was exactly one year ago when I woke up unable to walk or even turn on the faculty or lift a pillow or even lift a cup or pour a glass of juice for myself. I couldn't get any of my

meds open so I asked a neighbor to open them and I wound up spilling them all over the counter and floor because I couldn't pick them up with my fingers. I tried to slide them into my hands from the counter. ‬I was so terrified because I had no idea what was wrong with me. 

‪My ex was the first to notice because I couldn't respond coherently to his messages. I couldn't type at all. ‬

‪But today is a day to celebrate how far I've come. So I opened some  non alcoholic 🍾 but put it in a plastic cup since I don't have a single glass left since I managed to drop them all. ‬I dropped every single last one the same way I dropped the Starbucks when you met me in Miami. 

I'm not sad, just reflective. I missed an entire year of my life but I've gained so much. I wish it had happened 10 or 15 years earlier because I had no idea how much you and grandma loved me and saved me from a future of complete disability and 40 or 50 years in a nursing home which Karen tried to force me into. 

Thank you so very much for being there. For intervening and getting me the care I needed and finding me such a wonderful surgeons and providing all the aftercare I needed to make it this far. 

Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I had no idea how much I was loved. 

Liz 

--

Sent from Gmail Mobile

The Atlantic: Does It Matter Where You Go to College?

Does It Matter Where You Go to College?
The Atlantic

Research suggests that elite colleges don't really help rich white guys. But they can have a big effect if you're not rich, not white, or not a guy. Read the full storyo

I'm 

Shared from Apple News

Elyssa D. Durant

Policy & Research Analyst

Does It Matter Where You Go to College? - The Atlantic

Apparently not.  Trump did go to Wharton and he by far the most illiterate person on Twitter 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/12/does-it-matter-where-you-go-college/577816/

Does It Matter Where You Go to College?

Research suggests that elite colleges don't really help rich white guys. But they can have a big effect if you're not rich, not white, or not a guy.

Derek ThompsonDec 11, 2018

Staff writer at The Atlantic

Graduating students listen during the 365th Commencement Exercises at Harvard University on May 26, 2016.Brian Snyder / Reuters

This year, more than 2 million Americans will apply to college. Most will aim for nearby schools without global brands or billion-dollar endowments. But for the tens of thousands of families applying to America's most elite institutions, the admissions process is a high-cost, high-stress gantlet.

American parents now spend almost half a billion dollars each year on "independent education consultants," and that's not counting the cost of test prep or flights and hotels for campus visits. These collegiate sweepstakes leave a trail of frazzled parents and emotionally wrecked teens already burdened with rising anxiety, which raises a big question: Does it really matter whether you attend an elite college?

The seemingly obvious answer is, Of course it matters! How could it not? Ivy League and equivalent institutions provide more than world-class instruction. They confer a lifetime of assistance from prodigiously connected alumni and a message to all future employers that you're a rarified talent. College isn't just an education; it's a network, a signal, and an identity. Elite schools seem disproportionately responsible for minting the American elite. About 45 percent of America's billionaires and more than half of Forbes's list of the most powerful people attended schools where incoming freshmen average in the top first percentile of SAT scores.

Read: The absurdity of college admissions

But what appears obvious may not be true. In November 2002, the Quarterly Journal of Economics published a landmark paper by the economists Stacy Dale and Alan Krueger that reached a startling conclusion. For most students, the salary boost from going to a super-selective school is "generally indistinguishable from zero" after adjusting for student characteristics, such as test scores. In other words, if Mike and Drew have the same SAT scores and apply to the same colleges, but Mike gets into Harvard and Drew doesn't, they can still expect to earn the same income throughout their careers. Despite Harvard's international fame and energetic alumni outreach, somebody like Mike would not experience an observable "Harvard effect." Dale and Krueger even found that the average SAT scores of all the schools a student applies to is a more powerful predictor of success than the school that student actually attends.

This finding suggests that the talents and ambitions of individual students are worth more than the resources and renown of elite schools. Or, less academically, the person you're becoming at 18 is a better predictor of your future success than the school you graduate from at 22.  The takeaway here: Stress out about your habits and chill out about college.

That's kind of inspiring. It also implies that all the angst and time devoted to the infamous admissions process is a wasteful pageant for the vast majority of its participants. Could that really be true? Or were Dale and Krueger off somehow?

This month, economists from Virginia Tech, Tulane, and the University of Virginia published a new study that reexamines the data in the Dale-Krueger study. Among men, the new study found no relationship between college selectivity and long-term earnings. But for women, "attending a school with a 100-point higher average SAT score" increased earnings by 14 percent and reduced marriage by 4 percent. That is a huge effect. Has one of the most famous papers in education economics been debunked?

Read: The best ways to fix college admissions are probably illegal

Not quite, says Amalia Miller, a co-author and an economist at the University of Virginia. "The difference we found is that college selectivity does seem to matter, especially for married women, by raising earnings almost entirely through the channel of increased labor force participation," she says.

If you're not an economist, that might sound complicated. But it's pretty simple. For the vast majority of women, the benefit of going to an elite college isn't higher per-hour wages. It's more hours of work. Women who graduate from elite schools delay marriage, delay having kids, and stay in the workforce longer than similar women who graduate from less-selective schools.

This finding complicates the trendy "opting out" theory, which says that women who graduate from top schools are particularly likely to drop out of the labor force after they have children. In fact, the only gender-specific effect of attending elite colleges is that female graduates are more career-focused.

Selective schools also seem to make a difference in the lives of minorities and students whose parents have no college education. A 2017 study led by the economist Raj Chetty found that lower-income students at an elite school such as Columbia University have a "much higher chance of reaching the [top 1 percent] of the earnings distribution" than those at an excellent public university, such as SUNY Stony Brook in Long Island.

Why would elite institutions be so good at improving upward mobility for minorities, but not for their whiter, richer peers? After all, they're listening to the same professors, sitting in the same chairs, and taking the same tests. But remember, college isn't just about instruction. It's also about alumni networks and signaling effects. Kids from rich families often rely on help from their parents to obtain selective internships and high-paying entry-level jobs. For kids without plugged-in parents, elite colleges are the plug that connect these students to the most dynamic industries and jobs: In loco rich parentis.

Read: The dueling deities of Harvard

The simplest answer to the question "Do elite colleges matter?" is: It depends on who you are. In the big picture, elite colleges don't seem to do much extra for rich white guys. But if you're not rich, not white, or not a guy, the elite-college effect is huge. It increases earnings for minorities and low-income students, and it encourages women to delay marriage and work more, even though it doesn't raise their per-hour wages.

---

These findings send three different messages to three different parties.

First, to high-strung affluent parents, well-compensated counselors, and other members of the elite-admissions industrial complex: Just relax, okay? You are inflicting on American teenagers a ludicrous amount of pointless anxiety. Even if you subscribe to the dubious idea that young people ought to maximize for vocational prestige and income, the research suggests that elite colleges are not critical to achieving those ends. In the aggregate, individual characteristics swamp institutional characteristics. It's more important to be hardworking and curious than to receive a certain thick envelope.

Second, to academics researching the benefits of college: Keep working. The robust debate over the benefits of attending an elite college lives concentrically within a larger conversation about whether college is worth it in the first place. It's critical—to not only the country's economic future, but hundreds of millions of individual Americans' futures—that we learn more about how and why college matters, so that it can help the right people.

Third, to admissions officers of elite colleges: Do better. America's most selective colleges can, it seems, change the lives of minorities and low-income students. But they're still bastions of privilege. They enroll more students from the top 1 percent of the income scale than the entire bottom 60 percent. In this way, elite institutions are like factories of social mobility being used as storage facilities for privilege; they have the potential to use their space to manufacture opportunity at scale, but mostly they clear out real estate for the already rich, who are going to be fine, anyway. In America today, high-income parents are desperate to find the right colleges for their kids. It should be the opposite: The highest-income colleges should be desperate to find the right kids for their seats.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Derek Thompson is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he writes about economics, labor markets, and the media. He is the author of Hit Makers.

Twitter

Elyssa D. Durant

Policy & Research Analyst