1

Northern Illinois University JEDI Audit: Physical Accessibility to Campus Resources

Hannah Fisher, Fernando Gonzalez, Natalya Jarvis, & Mariah Osborne

Department of Counseling and Higher Education, Northern Illinois University

HESA 502: Equity, Diversity, and Social Justice in Higher Education

Dr. Jacqueline Mac

May 9, 2022
2

Abstract

Physical accessibility on campuses of higher education is a public need. While increased access

makes it possible for more students to take advantage of the opportunities available, movement

from compliance with federal guidelines to universal design can help foster a stronger sense of

belonging for all students. The assessment team graded four buildings on the campus of Northern

Illinois University, each of which was academically or culturally important. Using the standards

in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), guidelines and recommendations from the

Principles and Goals of Universal Design, and the Multicultural Change Intervention Matrix

(MCIM), researchers were able to assess the accessibility of these buildings’ doorways and

ramps for those with mobility limitations. The results helped identify areas for improvement,

track changes through building comparisons, and reveal areas for further study.

Keywords: Physical accessibility, college students with disabilities, campus climate

3

Northern Illinois University JEDI Audit: Physical Accessibility of Campus Resources

It is common knowledge that the American society only considers how to best serve one

experience – the neuro-typical, able-bodied, heterosexual, middle-class, white, male experience.

This is evident in every aspect of society – from something as abstract as the way modern

movies (especially action movies) are cast, filmed, and edited, to something more obvious as in

the way the infrastructure of cities and towns is designed. When only considering this one

perspective, this one experience of life, then, either intentionally or unwittingly, significant

amounts of the American population are left out of the equation. And the result of this is the

occurrence of inaccessibility in almost every facet of society.

When individuals are forced to struggle through their daily lives simply because they do

not fit this idealized experience, they can often feel like a second thought or “othered” from

society which can shatter their sense of belonging. This belonging is something that higher

education professionals are responsible for fostering in students; not only to benefit the

university with high rates of retention and graduation, but also to the benefit of the student so

they are able to have a well-rounded experience. Institutions of higher education are responsible

for creating an environment that does not cater to only one experience but is inclusive and

equitably serves their entire student populations.

This assessment team chose to audit the physical accessibility of specific buildings on

Northern Illinois University’s (NIU) campus: Swen Parson Hall (SPH), the Campus Life

Building (CLB), the Holmes Student Center (HSC), and the Founders’ Memorial Library (FML).

These buildings were chosen because they are the locations of important academic or social
4

services including the Financial Aid and Bursar’s offices, the Center for Student Assistance,

Counseling and Consultation Services, Writing Center, and student government offices.

Each building’s public entrances were assessed using a rubric based on requirements

from the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), best practices of Universal Design (Steinfeld

& Maisel, 2012), and the Multicultural Change Intervention Matrix (MCIM). This guide focuses

primarily on students who have mobility limitations, whether they need to use a mobility aid or

not. By evaluating each building’s entrances on their accessibility, it is possible to determine not

only what, if any, improvements must be made, but which changes are systemic, and which are

simplistic. For example, how a wheelchair ramp is integrated into building designs. Whether it

obviously looks like a ramp, or if it also serves as a walking path that any person would be

inclined to take, regardless of their abilities.

Literature Review

For institutions of higher education to better serve the population, guidelines were

established over time in the form of various laws to protect people with disabilities from

discrimination. These various laws include the Architectural Barriers Act and the Americans

with Disability Act. In addition, best practices such as the theory of Universal Design (Steinfeld

& Maisel, 2012) have been developed that further the goal of accessibility and equality in design.

According to Maisel (2017), Universal Design concentrates on improving functions for a larger

range of people, rather than meeting the minimum requirements of the previous laws. In short, it

is focused on a design which simplifies life for the whole population.

Emerging from the disability civil rights movement in the 1960s, early thinkers for the

theory of Univeral Design established principles which are still widely used today. The

principles of universal design include “equitable use, flexibility in use, simple and intuitive,
5

perceptible information, tolerance for error, low physical effort, and size and space for approach

and use” (Steinfeld & Maisel, 2012). In 2012, Steinfeld and Maisel established the Eight Goals

of Universal Design to build upon the established principles. These goals include “body fit,

comfort, awareness, understanding, understanding, wellness, social integration, personalization,

and cultural appropriateness” (Maisel, 2017, p.90). These goals are also seen as contributing

towards the sense of belonging on any building, community, or workplace. While these goals

may be seen by some as idealistic, unreachable, or unfeasible, it is necessary to invest in the

needs of students for the greater good. If there is no investment in helping those with mobility

issues overcome barriers, it will be difficult to build a sense of community while making students

of all abilities feel welcome. Rather, if there are needs of students that are not being met, it will

contribute to resentment and hostility by the students who are personally affected by it.

College students with disabilities face many challenges on campus ranging from uneven

walkways, lack of accessibility ramps, and doorways with nonfunctioning automatic doors. For

students experiencing these barriers, it is important to address their issues. Otherwise, their

learning experience will be negatively impacted. As one student states, “If you can't even get to

class, then all your problems are kind of done with. You can't even get to the point where you

have other problems” (Scott, 2019, p.12).

In order to make campus more inclusive, institutions should encourage collaboration

amongst departments. Institutions can achieve greater collaboration when they plan and execute

events on campus. in this case, collaboration and Referrals across campus will become easier to

manage. When various offices are familiar with each other's work and know the services that are

provided, they can better serve students. According to Beyer, a student reported feeling his care

was streamlined and more intentional when college offices collaborate intentionally (2016).
6

Another article explored the various ways institutions can improve by involving students

in the process, especially those with disabilities. It is important to create a sense of belonging on

campus so that students feel respected and heard on campus, “but few have elicited direct

suggestions from students on improvements on how to meet their needs” (Mcguire et al,2003,

p.11). From this article, we can see that universities often neglect unintentionally or not, the

voices of those who are they are meant to serve. Furthermore, it was also suggested that

institutions provide ally training to Students who do not identify as having a disability. This

provides opportunities for the greater campus community to be educated and therefore increase

disability awareness on campus. “Also when new buildings are being built on campus the

automatic door opener buttons needs serious thought put into them when they are being placed.

I've had numerous issues with the buttons being totally unreachable” (Fleming, 2017, p.319).

One article used photovoice to convey messages about issues that students with

disabilities face as well as the potential solutions that can be implemented going forward.

Following the publication of the photos, various architectural changes were made on campus.

These changes in attitude include the treatment of people with disabilities on campus, changes in

language sensitivity, and peer advocacy (Agarwal et al, 2015, p.247). Universal design is

strongly encouraged to help campuses feel like home to everyone, regardless of physical ability.

If facilities are created to make everyone’s life easier, nobody will be forgotten. Furthermore, the

photos prompted the university to change the wording on the signage. In one instance, the words

“Automatic handicap door” was changed to read “ADA Access”. Students stated that this

impacted their sense of belonging on campus. After the change was made, students said that it

felt “much more inclusive to all by incorporating universal design” (Agarwal et al, 2015, p.248)
7

One area that is often forgotten when planning accessibility on campus is campus

recreation. Bruning states that students with disabilities have reported they “feel excluded,

uncomfortable, or unwelcome in collegiate campus recreation programs” (Bruning, 2020, p.43).

Therefore, campuses should work to make sure that these students have easy access and can use

the facilities in a manner which serves them best. This will increase the sense of belonging on

campus, not only for students with mobility issues but for the larger student population. There

will also be greater awareness of mobility issues experienced by students.

As student populations become increasingly more diverse, Institutions will need to

modify and adapt facilities, including classrooms. One study found that one way to include

universal design in the classroom is to provide both verbal and written assignments. When this is

done, students will have more options of how to participate in class. Institutions and educators

should use one Universal Design principle and incorporate it into the education slowly. The goal

is to implement the practice until it becomes comfortable. In terms of higher education, this can

be done by allowing students to choose which format they want their books and texts in.

Variability on college campuses will be manifested by removing barriers in order to give

students choice and autonomy.

Beck writes that it is useful for institutions of higher education to have an audit to see

how inclusive the facets of a disability service providers office is. The study highlighted the need

for training as well as campus renovations. “A key notion to retain seemed to be the idea that

environments and practices can equally enable or disable individuals” (Bruning, 2020, p.45).

Therefore, the focus must be on the environment and making sure it is accessible to all people

with all abilities This article also mentions that the solutions should be geared towards being

sustainable.
8

Method

Apparatus

The grading rubric was based on three categories, each of which focused on a different

aspect of accessibility and social justice. A total of twelve points was possible for each building

(see Appendix A).

The first grading criteria was whether the entrances and ramps were compliant with

current federal requirements as established in the Americans with Disabilities Act updated in

2010. This was a simple and objective process that was made easier through use of the “ADA

Checklist for Existing Facilities” (ADA National Network, 2016). An excerpt of this guide is

included in Appendix B. As the federal guidelines serve as the minimum for compliance, it was

important to begin with this assessment. If the relevant building’s entrances and ramps were all

compliant, each category was given two points. If at least half were compliant, one point was

awarded. If less than half were compliant, zero points were given.

The second grading category was based on the Eight Goals of Universal Design as

established by Steinfeld and Maisel (2012). A list of the Eight Goals and their accompanying

meanings is included in Appendix C. The Whole Building Design Guide (WBDG) best practices

on Universal Design (2022) also provided further guidance on application of Steinfeld and

Maisel’s goals. This criterion helped move beyond compliance with the law towards higher

accessibility standards as established by professionals in the field. Grading for compliance with

the Eight Goals followed the same pattern as the ADA guidelines. If all entrances and ramps

followed the goals, the building would receive two points per category. If at least half were
9

compliant, it would receive one point; and if less than half were compliant, zero points were

given.

The third section of the rubric was based on the “Multicultural Change Intervention

Matrix” (MCIM) as first established by Pope in 1992 and then further expanded by Pope et al. in

2019. Including this framework provided a theoretical basis for the assessment. It also made it

possible to track accessibility progress over time through comparison of the different buildings.

If the relevant building infrastructure represented Second Order Change (Pope et al., 2019), it

was awarded two points per category. If the infrastructure represented First Order Change

(2019), it was awarded one point per category. Finally, if the infrastructure did not address the

issue of accessibility, it was given zero points.

Procedure

Once the rubric had been developed, the team was able to manually assess the four

chosen buildings. Together, a group of three members assessed Swen Parson Hall, the Campus

Life Building, and the Holmes Student Center, in that order, on April 22, 2022. The Founders’

Memorial Library was assessed the following day by two of the three grading members.

Researchers approached each entrance and ramp, then checked for compliance with ADA

guidelines according to the checklist. Some of these steps included measuring the width of the

doorways when open at 90 degrees, the height of the handle from the ground, the width of ramp

handrails, and the height of any ledges before the entry.

As the team went around the building and checked the entrances for compliance, they

took notes on each one. These notes served as the basis for grading the second and third rubric

sections. The team documented any issues they deemed relevant including, but not limited to, the

reasons an entrance was not compliant when applicable, if it was wheelchair accessible, the
10

design of the handles, the signage on accessible entrances, and where the entrance led. Grading

on the Eight Goals and the MCIM was done for each building after it had been assessed for ADA

compliance.

When grading along the Eight Goals, the team went down the list and subjectively

determined which categories were applicable and, of those, which ones the infrastructure

followed. For example, the handles of the Holmes’ Student Center did not follow the goal

“Comfort” because they require grip strength in the hand and could not be opened easily. The

team would take such notes into account when determining the score for the building. Another

example was that the two wheelchair accessible entrances to Swen Parson Hall were located in

the back of the building and did not enter into the main portions of the facility. Because of this,

the team determined that it did not adhere to the goal of “Social Integration.”

After the determination based on the Eight Goals was complete, the team assessed the

building’s infrastructure according to the MCIM. This considered the two previous sections and

the notes taken during the assessment. This was also decided subjectively by the team. For

example, Swen Parson Hall was given 1 point both for doorways and ramps because the

infrastructure represented First Order Change. The team came to this conclusion because they

agreed that accessibility measures did not show systemic change but only addressed the

immediate issue.

Limitations

The limitations to this study are mostly focused on the scope of the project. Measuring

the complete accessibility of even one particular building is a monumental task and was far

outside the bounds of this effort. Other areas of accessibility that were not directly measured

include parking, path of access, or the inside of the buildings. In addition, the focus on
11

accessibility for those with mobility issues does not include those with other disabilities such as

vision. This emphasis also highlights the present researcher bias as none of the team faces such

challenges. While the inclusion of the Eight Goals of Universal Design helps offset this, there

will inevitably be areas where blind spots are present. The number of buildings measured is

another limitation. Residence halls, classrooms, and other important campus locations were not

included. Although these limitations result in a very narrow study, the resulting data and

recommendations remain important to the goal of accessibility and social justice on NIU’s

campus.

Findings

Based on the results, NIU resource buildings scored relatively high, with all scores being

above 50 percent and clustered around 90 percent satisfaction. The lowest score was Swen

Parson with 6/12 (50%). The Holmes Student Center (10/12, 83.35%) and the Founders’

Memorial Library (11/12, 91.7%) received much higher scores, and the Campus Life Building

(12/12, 100%) received a perfect score. Appendix D shows the scores, number of public

entrances, and year built for each building evaluated, along with trends for each category.

Trends in Physical Accessibility Findings

Two primary trends arose that feature correlations between categories: 1) Buildings with

fewer entrances scored higher and 2) buildings constructed more recently scored higher than

older ones. These trends help disaggregate the data and provide evidence for making changes

through future renovations to improve accessibility.

Trend 1: Higher scores correlate to fewer entrances

While the scores were positive overall, the data may be slightly skewed based on the

number of entrances for each building. Swen Parson Hall had nine entrances to evaluate while
12

the Founders’ Memorial Library and Campus Life Building had two. For each of these buildings,

two entrances were compliant with the ADA which is all the latter’s sample size compared to the

minority of Swen Parson Hall’s.

The unevenness in sample size may skew the scores but the messaging remains the same.

While Swen Parson Hall had more data collected, it also had poorer examples of physical

accessibility. It was the only building to score a one in the MCIM section, while the others

scored twos. The accessible entrances were also on the opposite side of the building from the

resource centers with a lack of signage to direct students to those resources. Swen Parson Hall

was also the only building in which no main entrances were for students with all abilities, though

one was technically ADA compliant. With this evidence, the low score for Swen Parson is

justified despite the larger sample size since other factors were included in decision-making.

Trend 2: Higher scores correlate to younger buildings

Another trend relates to the year built. ADA regulations have become more rigorous and

prevalent over the years as more students with diverse abilities attend higher education

institutions. This means that the standards for accessibility when building the CLB in 1994 were

different than when constructing Swen Parson Hall in 1952. Still, the age of Swen Parson should

not be an excuse for the building to be inaccessible. Renovations are key in managing

accessibility on campus.

Due to renovations in 2020, the Holmes Student Center, originally built in the 1960s,

scored well for accessibility. During this renovation, the main entrance on the south side was

updated to be more accessible and integrated into the landscape. This entrance is fully ADA

compliant, is surrounded by an easily accessible outdoor social setting, and provides direct

access to indoor eateries, resources, and social spaces (ACUI, 2020). This is one example of how
13

an older building converted first order changes into second order changes. By supplying

resources to Swen Parson Hall, which is currently already under construction for a new roof, the

building could improve accessibility using universal design tactics. While it would take extra

effort to update the building, renovations could impact this trend in future research since year of

renovation could take precedent over the year built, depending on what changes were made. If

renovations to increase access do occur in the future, some important factors to keep in mind are

the meaning of accessibility and how that relates to student belonging on campus.

Themes

Through analyzing the data and trends, key themes were salient. There was a disconnect

between ADA compliant structures and what the evaluators viewed as accessible. There were

also questions about how this data can be used to understand the interaction between

accessibility to campus resources and sense of belonging amongst students with diverse abilities.

Theme 1: Accessibility vs. Compliance

While this audit uses ADA as the foundational standard for which data are evaluated, the

process of collecting raises questions about the progressiveness and holistic nature of the

standard. Since the ADA primarily focuses on individual aspects of construction, such as the

width of ramps and time it takes for a door to close, the larger picture of movement across

campus and ease is limited.

While many of the entrances for each building were compliant with the ADA, few were

accessible to all types of students with diverse abilities when further data considered. For

instance, the middle doors of the west main entrance of Swen Parson Hall (see Figure E1.) are

ADA compliant. However, there are stairs downward immediately after the entrance making it

inaccessible for most students using mobility devices like wheelchairs, scooters, canes, or
14

crutches. A similar example is found at the HSC (see Figure E2.), where entrances were ADA

compliant but still difficult to access with ease. There were often sets of two or three doorways

inside the entrance. A student with a manual wheelchair may have difficulty navigating that

space, especially when accessibility buttons are not required for compliance.

ADA compliance still excludes students with a range of diverse abilities. For example,

accessibility buttons or sensors on doors are not required for them to be compliant with ADA.

There is, however, a section on the height of door handles, weight of doors, and ability to grip

handles effectively to open a door. The focus on using door handles does not address students

who have difficulty moving their arms, gripping with their hands, or have minimal upper body

strength. While buttons would still require body movement, they would be less exclusionary than

pulling a door open. Automatic sensors are the most inclusive way since they do not require

physical contact with the entrance to access it. While the ADA is one of the best and most widely

used standards for today, it still could use improvements to be more inclusive and accessible.

Theme 2: Sense of Belonging Based on Physical Accessibility

These accessibility concerns not only interfere with physical access to campus resources, but

also to students’ sense of belonging at the institution. According to Vaccaro, Daly-Cano, &

Newman’s (2015) research on students with differing abilities and sense of belonging, students’

levels of confidence, academic performance, and ability to self-advocate rely on belonging and

social relationships. While their research did not focus on the physical accessibility aspect,

students’ inclusion in activities, and access to support services and supportive relationships, were

indicators of a sense of belonging (p. 677). To experience these relationships, resources, and

events, students must be able to access them physically.

15

An example of how barriers to access can influence feelings of exclusion is the main

entrances of Swen Parson Hall (see Figure E3). These are clearly main entrances based on their

grandeur compared to others. The east main entrance is not ADA compliant, and the west

entrance is not accessible for all abilities. Furthermore, the accessible entrances are hidden on the

west side of the building with no signage labeling how to get to them from other parts of the

building. These entrances exclude students with diverse abilities from main spaces that other

students utilize and create difficulty for accessing valuable financial resource centers inside. By

hindering access to resources and interaction with peers, students may not feel welcome. They

may feel like they are cast aside and only allowed in private spaces or are not supposed to be

seen.

Contrastingly, the HSC south main entrance (see Figure E4) centers an accessible entrance in

a social hub of the institution—surrounded by seating and tables that are enjoyed by students in

the spring and fall months for eating, studying, and socializing. The ramp to access this is close

to parking and bus drop-off locations. It is also wide and part of a natural path for students to

enter the area, no matter students’ abilities. There is signage from other exterior parts of the

building to guide where accessible entrances are located (see Figure E5.). Inside the entrance are

the primary social and study spots on campus. Based on the environmental and social integration

of this entrance, students with diverse abilities are centered and prioritized in the public, social

spaces that other students occupy. This helps students form supportive social relationships and a

sense of belonging since they can enter spaces in which socialization occurs (Vaccaro, Daly-

Cano, & Newman, 2015, p. 680).

Another positive example of physical access influencing belonging is the ramp to the main

entrance of the CLB (see Figure E6). Like the ramp at HSC, this one looks like a natural walking
16

path connected to the sidewalk. The integration of this ramp into the landscape signals that

accessibility structures can and should be a norm rather than an exception. While these structures

should be easy to use for students with diverse abilities, they do not need to be obvious in their

construction. By being more integrated into the landscape, accessibility structures become a part

of every student’s movement through campus. When this occurs, it offers students with diverse

abilities easier access to other students as they can travel across campus together without having

to split up or stop a conversation for them to use different access points. This helps all students

feel like they are inherently part of the community since the structures they use are the same as

other students.

Overall, access to physical spaces can influence student perspectives of their belonging in

those spaces. When there are issues of exclusion and narrow thinking with the standard for

accessibility, these struggles with belonging occur more frequently (Vaccaro, Daly-Cano, &

Newman, 2015, p. 621). To move forward, improvements must be made with the standard,

institutional practice, and in research.

Recommendations

Utilizing the knowledge from the findings, NIU, policies, and research have

improvements and further learning to do. Localized practices for NIU include prioritizing

resources toward upgrading building accessibility, especially since the institution is advocating

for students to be in-person for classes again. Beyond creating and renovating accessibility

structures, NIU should improve signage and distance between entrances and support services.

When making changes, NIU should keep the limits of ADA compliance in mind and advocate

for improvements to the legislature. To inform NIU’s practices, there must be further research

locally and broadly into the needs of students with diverse abilities and sense of belonging.
17

Recommendations for Practice

Like all units and projects in higher education, accessibility is an area that requires

funding and resources to continue and progress. Prioritizing money, students, facilities

personnel, and other resources toward upgrading accessibility structures and integration can help

increase student belonging and, therefore, performance and retention. Some projects can be

simple and done by volunteers, like creating and hanging directive signs in buildings. Other

projects may be larger like increasing the number of ramps or moving resource departments

toward accessible entrances. Despite the type of project, these changes should be informed by the

principles of universal design and work toward systematic change for students with diverse

abilities.

Increasing signage in and outside of buildings also needs to be made a priority. This

signage includes, but is not limited to, directions to and markings of accessible entrances and

exits, directions on how to access services from those locations on exterior and interior walls,

and maps. Of all the buildings evaluated, only one building had clear exterior signage that

directed students towards accessible entrances, and none had clear signage to direct students to

where they needed to go once inside. This is especially important in Swen Parson Hall where the

only accessible entrance opens to a hallway with no clear path to the services that are on the

opposite side of the building. Leaving students in a random hallway with no direction or aid is

completely unacceptable and needs to be amended immediately.

Building off the previous point, the final recommendation for practice is that student services

should be placed near accessible entrances, especially when the building is older. As noted

above, in Swen Parson Hall (the oldest building we measured) the only accessible entrance is

located on the opposite side of the building from the services offered in this building, forcing
18

differently abled students to trek across the building, with no signage, to find the support they

need. This can cause a lot of confusion and complications for the students that should be avoided

when possible.

Recommendations for Policy

Further complications and confusion occur from the complexities of policies and

legislature. Moving forward, policies must be improved to be more inclusive of all types of

abilities and more holistic in its development. When using ADA at the local level, institutions

should try to make all entrances accessible—not just ADA compliant. As mentioned previously,

there is a distinct difference between compliance and accessibility, and that difference

determines who can physically use these entrances. Accessible entrances are accessible to all and

make lives simpler for all people regardless of their abilities. It is also important to note that

anyone could become physically impaired, even if temporarily. Making accessible entrances

more prevalent and intuitive can make a stressful change a little less frustrating to endure.

Recommendations for Research

When conducting research for this project, the assessment team noticed important gaps in

the current literature that need to be addressed. First, students with diverse abilities, particularly

those with mobility limitations, must be included in research about their sense of belonging,

connection to physical access, and needs. While this audit did not include interviews or surveys

of students needs and opinions, it is still important to include their voices in research that directly

affects their lives.

Another gap in research is that faculty and staff are not generally focused on or included.

Though it is important to focus on the student experience to aid in their development, it is

equally important to consider the experience of differently abled faculty and staff members. To
19

bring in competitive candidates for hire, the university must be accommodating and welcoming

to all individuals. Without accessibility needs being met, higher education institutions and their

students will miss out on outstanding individuals.

Overall, if institutions want people on their campuses, then people need to be able to

access campus comfortably, safely, and confidently. Increasing accessibility may increase

enrollment, retention, and graduation rates since students not only feel included but like they

belong on campus (Vaccaro, Daly-Cano, & Newman, 2015, p. 672). It may also aid in hiring and

retaining faculty and staff since they feel supported in their work, too.
20

References

ACUI. (2020, February 5). 2020 Renovation & construction showcase: Holmes Student Center,

Northern Illinois University. ACUI. https://www.acui.org/resources/bulletin/bulletin-

detail/2020/02/04/2020-renovation-construction-showcase-holmes-student-center-

northern-illinois-university

Agarwal, N., Moya, E. M., Yasui, N. Y., & Seymour, C. (2015). Participatory Action Research

with College Students with Disabilities: Photovoice for an Inclusive Campus. Journal of

Postsecondary Education and Disability, 28(2), 243–250.

Beyer, A.N., Moore, C.D., & Totino, J. (2016). From Assessment to Action: Identifying Progress

toward Enhanced Accessibility and Campus Climate (Practice Brief). The Journal of

Postsecondary Education and Disability, 29, 199-206.

Bruning, A. M., Cardinal, B. J., & Kennedy, W. (2020). Inclusivity of collegiate campus

recreation programs in region VI of NIRSA: a content analysis of websites. Journal of

Kinesiology & Wellness, 9, 43-49.

Fleming, A. R., Oertle, K. M., & Plotner, A. J. (2017). Student Voices: Recommendations for

Improving Postsecondary Experiences of Students with Disabilities. Journal of

Postsecondary Education and Disability, 30(4), 309–326.

Maisel, J. L (2017, October 30). Beyond accessibility to Universal Design . WBDG. Retrieved

April 23, 2022, from https://www.wbdg.org/design-objectives/accessible/beyond-

accessibility-universal-design

McGuire, J. M., Scott, S. S., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Universal Design for Instruction: The

paradigm, Its principles, and products for enhancing instructional access. Journal of

Postsecondary Education and Disability, 17(1), 11–21.

21

Pope, L., Reynolds, A. L., Mueller, J. A change is gonna come”: Paradigm shifts to dismantle

oppressive structures. Journal of College Student Development 60(6). 659-673.

https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2019.0061

Steinfeld, Edward., and Jordana L. Maisel. Universal Design Creating Inclusive Environments /

Edward Steinfeld, Jordana L. Maisel. Hoboken, N.J: John Wiley & Sons, 2012. Print.

Vaccaro, A., Daly-Cano, M., & Newman, B. M. (2015). A sense of belonging among college

students with disabilities: An emergent theoretical model. Journal of College Student

Development, 56(7), 670-686. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2015.0072

22

Appendix A

Building:
Rubric (Total Possible Points: 12)
Number of Public Entrances:
Category Possible Points Score
0 points 1 point 2 points
Federal ADA
Guidelines
Doorways Building does Building
Building
not adhere to adheres to ADA
adheres to ADA
ADA guidelines guidelines in at
Ramps guidelines in all
in over half of least half of
public entrances
public entrances public entrances
Additional
Guidelines
Doorways Building does
Building reaches
not reach Building reaches
additional
additional additional
recommendatio
recommendatio recommendatio
Ramps ns in at least
ns in over half ns in all public
half of public
of public entrances
entrances
entrances
MCIM
Doorways Infrastructure
Infrastructure
represents First
represents
Order Change
Second Order
(e.g. does not
Infrastructure Change (e.g.
alter the
does not creates or
fundamental
Ramps address the furthers
system.
issue intentional and
Responds
enduring
to/rectifies
systemic
immediate
change)
problem)
Total Score: /12
Additional Comments:

Appendix A. Sample building grading rubric

23
24

Appendix B

Appendix B. Excerpt from the ADA Checklist for Existing Facilities.

25

Appendix C

The Eight Goals of Universal Design

1. “Body fit. Accommodating a wide a range of body sizes and abilities

2. Comfort. Keeping demands within desirable limits of body function
3. Awareness. Insuring that critical information for use is easily perceived
4. Understanding. Making methods of operation and use intuitive, clear, and unambiguous
5. Wellness. Contributing to health promotion, avoidance of disease, and prevention of
injury
6. Social integration. Treating all groups with dignity and respect
7. Personalization. Incorporating opportunities for choice and the expression of individual
preferences
8. Cultural appropriateness. Respecting and reinforcing cultural values and the social,
economic and environmental context of any design project” (Steinfeld & Maisel, 2012)
26

Appendix D
Findings Table

This appendix shows a summative table of the results, including overall scores with the
fraction and percentage, number of entrances for the buildings, and the year the buildings were
built. Observational trends are listed at the bottom for each category.

# of Public
Buildings Overall Score Year Built
Entrances

Campus Life Building 12/12 (100%) 2 1994

Founders Memorial 11/12 (91.7%) 2 1977

Library

Holmes Student Center 10/12 (83.3%) 7 1968 (re.

2020)

Swen Parson 6/12 (50%) 9 1952

Trend:  Decrease in Increase in Increase in

score entrances age
27

Appendix E
Images of NIU Buildings Evaluated

These images show examples of accessible and inaccessible entrances and spaces across NIU’s
campus.

Figure E1. This is the West main entrance of Swen Parson Hall. The middle doors are compliant
but there are interior stairs downward directly after doors.
28

Figure E2. Handles that are difficult to grip on heavy doors at the HSC. There is another set of
the same doors just after, with another (currently held open) just after that. 

Figure E3. The East and original main entrance of Swen Parson. Not accessible.
29

Figure E4. The main entrance of the HSC is surrounded by social area.

Figure E5. The HSC signage to address where wheelchair accessible entrances are located.
 
30

Figure E6. The ramp to the accessible main entrance of the CLB is integrated into the footpath.