Main Navigation Menu

Photo of the Main building with GRCC banner to the right

Accessibility Indicators

The following six categories displaying both perceptual and measurable concepts of accessibility are reviewed annually. These Accessibility Indicators are designed to transparently display campus wide observation on our commitment to the development of an accessible campus for individuals of all abilities.The goal is to develop a scale to be used to determine our present status reflecting each indicator predicated on baseline data gathered from the 2013-2014 survey results.

The following link leads to the 2013-2014 Accessibility Indicators Report. Below you will find an abbreviated version of the results.

 

College Conversations: (80.1% Agreed Avg.)

  1. The GRCC mission, vision, and value statements are inclusive of all people, including those with disabilities. (80.1% Agreed)
  2. Disability is included in campus discussions of and training on diversity and special populations. (72.7% Agreed)

Administrative Empowerment: (51.2% Agreed Avg.)

  1. Policies, procedures, and practices are regularly reviewed for barrier removal and inclusivity of people with a diverse range of characteristics, including disability. (54.9% Agreed)
  2. Administrators, staff, faculty, and student leaders are trained and empowered to take action around disability and universal design issues. (54.1% Agreed)
  3. People with disabilities are visible (even if their disabilities are not) on campus including positions of power or authority (administrators, faculty, student leaders, etc.) (44.5% Agreed)

Student Services: (53.5% Agreed Avg.)

  1. There is a campus web accessibility policy that ensures consistent, well-organized and universally accessible electronic resources. (56.2% Agreed)
  2. The availability of accommodations in campus events or programs is advertised on brochures and websites. (47.4% Agreed)
  3. Disability Support Services provides accommodations in a timely and reasonable fashion to students requesting assistance. (56.9% Agreed)

Physical Spaces: (52.1% Agreed Avg.)

  1. Campus building and landscape architecture show clear consideration to access. (66.1% Agreed)
  2. Doors which do not contain automatic buttons are easily opened. (32.1% Agreed)
  3. Bathroom entrances are wide enough to be accessible. (51.3% Agreed)
  4. Wheelchair accessible ramps are provided in multiple locations to provide ease of access. (63.4% Agreed)
  5. All campus facilities are physically accessible. (47.2% Agreed)

Instruction: (50.9% Agreed Avg.)

  1. Principles of universal design are used to create course content in a way that minimizes the need for additional accommodation. (50.5% Agreed)
  2. Instructors use a variety of methods for teaching content and offer alternative ways to participate in class activities. (52.5% Agreed)
  3. The course syllabus statement encourages students to meet with the instructor to discuss accommodations and creates a supportive atmosphere. (74..4% Agreed)
  4. Disability issues are regularly included as a component of the curriculum. (36.3% Agreed)

Inclusion in all aspects of campus: (39.5% Agreed Avg.)

  1. Budgeting reflects the reality of the cost of accommodating current and prospective employees, students and visitors with disabilities. (29.5% Agreed)
  2. Measures of student success (i.e. retention, course completion, graduation, etc.) are the same for all student populations, including students with disabilities, and instructional research includes this data. (44.8% Agreed)
  3. Campus marketing, publications, and public relations include images and content related to disabilities. (43% Agreed)
  4. Campus publications and websites, including web-based courses, meet established accessibility standards. (42.2% Agreed)
  5. Hilly terrain or other natural campus elements cause barriers to mobility. (11.6% Disagreed)*
  6. Individuals are not denied access to services on the basis of ability or because services are not physically accessible. (61.4% Agreed)
  7. If services are not physically accessible, alternative methods are provided that are equivalent to the basic source. (44% Agreed)

*Question # 5 under Indicator 6 (Inclusion) was written in a negative context, therefore the measurement is not in affirming the statement, but disagreement. This is the only question measured differently into the scale than others surveyed.