The sample is not random, so no generalizations about the state of assistive technology services can be made. However, conclusions can be made about this limited sample of colleges in Washington state.

Two-thirds of the responses were from public colleges, and the remaining one-third responses were from private colleges. While half of the surveyed public colleges provide an AT lab to students with disabilities, none of the surveyed private colleges have an AT lab on campus. About 85% of the responding colleges have satellite AT on campus.

The most commonly available assistive computer hardware and software among this sample (reported by 70% or more of responding colleges) are: screen magnification, speech-to-text, and screen reading software, digital book readers, digital audio recorders, ergonomic keyboards, and headphones. Some of the least available assistive computer hardware and software among this sample (reported by 30% or less of responding colleges) are: math and/or science support software, braille keyboards, refreshable braille displays. The most commonly used hardware or software, as reported by 27% of responding colleges, is speech-to-text software.

Almost half of responding colleges reported their website to be accessible, while six reported partial accessibility. Olympic College shared their proactive plan to address website accessibility:

“We conducted a review of technology access by an independent consultant in 2014. Some access issues were identified and recommendations made, which the college is addressing. The entire site has thousands of pages, and dozens of content providers.”

Shoreline Community College, the only college to discuss website accessibility evaluation tools, reported their website to be inaccessible due to its failure on WAVE. Washington State University was the only college to give no response.

After application of the initial algorithm to assess website inaccessibility, all colleges who had reported their website to be accessible were demoted to partial accessibility. Only one college website was not listed as partially accessible: Shoreline Community College, whose college website was reported to be inaccessible.

After application of the second algorithm to assess website inaccessibility, it was deemed necessary to promote Shoreline Community College’s website to partial accessibility, due to its low score compared to other colleges who had reported their website to be fully accessible. The lowest-scored website is the main website for Eastern Washington University, which had only one Error in WAVE, and only one Known Error in AChecker, both representing the same accessibility barrier; the universal search bar is missing a form label. The four highest-scored websites, Saint Martin’s University, Washington State University, Cornish College of the Arts and Pacific Lutheran University all reported their websites to be accessible. While neither of these algorithms determine the degree of web inaccessibility, the second algorithm does demonstrate the number of elements that must be changed before web accessibility is possible. These results show all of the responding colleges must make changes to their main website before it can be reviewed for possible accessibility.

The degree of inaccuracy in the review of website accessibility led to further investigation of the accuracy of data presented. When comparing the responses received to the information provided on the given AT services department website, inconsistencies were revealed. 13% of responders gave an office name different from the one on the given website. 20% of responders gave a phone number different from the one on the given website. 33% of responders gave an address different from the one on the given website. 40% of responders gave a location different from the one on the given website. These results reveal the barriers prospective students with disabilities may face when attempting to contact the AT services department at some of the responding colleges.

One third of the responding colleges gave feedback regarding the most commonly requested assistive computer hardware or software that is not available at their institution. Another third of the responding colleges said there was nothing that had ever been requested that was not available at their institution. Of the remaining five responders, two said they didn’t know one way or another. The final three gave no response.

One third of the responding colleges did not give an answer regarding whether they had ever received a complaint from a student about AT services on campus. One responding college said they didn’t know one way or another. Three responding colleges said they had never received a complaint. The remaining 40% of responding colleges reported having received a complaint. Shoreline Community College shared an example of past resolution of complaints:

“We have received complaints about timeliness in response. In reaction, we restructured our accommodation request meetings to provide more completion in one sitting.”

In some cases, responding colleges demonstrated a desire to provide reactionary accommodations, rather than to proactively seek to meet student needs. For example, Centralia College responded,

“Remember that accommodations are provided on a case by case basis and few colleges have the resources to maintain multitudes of software and hardware to anticipate needs. We will provide resources as needed and as called for by the disabilities as they are presented.”

This demonstrates the burden placed on post-secondary institutions by legally mandating AT services without providing federal funding.

Responses like, “We do not provide AT ‘just because,’” from Green River College, raise concerns about the level of service provided to students with disabilities, and the level of compassion shown for students who rely on assistive technology. Students with disabilities request AT services because they need support, and are entitled to receive it from those who have been hired to uphold the legal mandate that no student should be denied their right to an education on the basis of disability. Pacific Lutheran University shared their best practices:

”We’re always looking for new methods of assisting students. We welcome new technology and ideas from our colleagues and peers. I’m so glad there is a concerted effort to look at AT, new developments and products, and the best way to reach students.”

These findings cannot be used to extrapolate to a larger sample size, due to the lack of random sampling. However, the responses from this limited sample suggest further research is needed into the oversight of legally mandated assistive technology services in post-secondary institutions.