This article was downloaded by: [Washburn University]On: 30 October 2014, At: 10:35Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Arts Management, Law,and SocietyPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjam20

Stigma in the Arts: How PerceptualBarriers Influence Individuals’ withDisabilities Participation in ArtsOrganizationsErin Ludwig aa Corcoran Gallery of Art + College of Art and Design, Washington ,District of ColumbiaPublished online: 08 Nov 2012.

To cite this article: Erin Ludwig (2012) Stigma in the Arts: How Perceptual Barriers InfluenceIndividuals’ with Disabilities Participation in Arts Organizations, The Journal of Arts Management,Law, and Society, 42:3, 141-151, DOI: 10.1080/10632921.2012.729498

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10632921.2012.729498

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

THE JOURNAL OF ARTS MANAGEMENT, LAW, AND SOCIETY, 42: 141–151, 2012Copyright C© Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1063-2921 print / 1930-7799 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10632921.2012.729498

Stigma in the Arts: How Perceptual Barriers InfluenceIndividuals’ with Disabilities Participation in Arts

Organizations

Erin LudwigCorcoran Gallery of Art + College of Art and Design, Washington, District of Columbia

This article explores how individuals with disabilities are influenced by stigma when deciding whetheror not to patronize arts organizations. Survey research methodology was used to conduct the studyin New Jersey. Twenty-eight arts organizations in New Jersey responded to the first survey, andfifty individuals with disabilities responded to the second survey. Results from the survey to artsorganizations in New Jersey revealed that arts administrators did not believe attitudinal barriers(stigma) limited participation among individuals with disabilities in their own organizations. Thestudy suggests strategies that arts administrators can use to facilitate full accessibility, both structurallyand attitudinally.

Keywords accessibility, art audiences, barrier-free, disability, stigma

INTRODUCTION

In honor of a national initiative to promote the arts among individuals with disabilities, PresidentReagan stated (1984), “art flows from and nourishes the human spirit . . . For disabled people,the creative experience—whether as artists, audiences, educators, or students—is an essentialpart of leading a full and productive life.” When Reagan made that statement in the mid-1980s,the idea of accessibility in the arts was just gaining ground. Today, it would seem that accessfor disabled patrons is a given, an expectation buffered by strict legislation born out of thecivil rights movement. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 states that “no otherwisequalified handicapped individual in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of his handicap,be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discriminationunder any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”1 Similarly, Title III ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 claims that “no individual shall be discriminatedagainst on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.”2 However,growing research shows that providing accessibility for those with disabilities goes beyond simplymeeting the rules outlined by government. Now more than ever, that accessibility can contributeto, as Reagan said, leading a full and productive life.

Address correspondence to Ms. Erin Ludwig, Office of Special Events, Corcoran Gallery of Art + College of Art andDesign, 500 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20006. E-mail: eludwig@corcoran.org

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

35 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

142 LUDWIG

Data of this sort exists all over the country, but consider examples from one state in par-ticular. In New Jersey, the Matheny Institute for Research in Developmental Disabilities ad-ministers a program called Arts Access. Its mission is to “enable people with disabilities toaccess, experience, and create fine art” through workshops that explore painting, dance, writingand drama (Arts Access Program). Through these workshops, students have the opportunity tobuild self-esteem, enhance decision-making skills, and establish a sense of self-sufficiency thatis sometimes hard to find in the disabled community. In an interview with Keith Gartletts,the program’s Facilitation Coordinator, he explained that the students’ opportunity to “expressthemselves [has] been tremendously therapeutic and beneficial to them. Whether that be indance, painting, or drama . . . a tremendous amount of emotional relief [has] come out of theprogram.”3

In 2005, arts administrators in New Jersey began the START program (a portmanteau of “state”and “art”), a study that investigated participation among patrons with disabilities in an attemptto gain a better understanding of the “current state of the arts” in New Jersey. The sponsor, theNew Jersey Arts Access Task Force, a cosponsored project of the New Jersey Theater Allianceand the State Council on the Arts, wanted to know what influenced patrons with disabilities toparticipate in the arts. The study found that these individuals claimed that participating in the artshelped them “create social bonds and express communal meanings,” which in turn allowed themto “overcome the isolation so often associated with disability” (Grubbs 2006). The results fromthe START program and Matheny’s Arts Access continue to illustrate that providing individualswith disabilities full access to the arts is an essential part of the creative experience and canbe fundamental in creating a healthy, balanced lifestyle. Despite evidence that the arts havenumerous benefits for individuals with disabilities and regardless of legislation that requires artsorganizations to have physically accessible facilities, the disabled community does not have highparticipation rates in cultural activities. For example, one regional theater in New Jersey citedthat individuals with disabilities accounted for only 2.7 percent of all their patrons in 2009.4

This data raises the question of whether structural or architectural barriers are the only factorsthat prevent individuals with disabilities, hereafter known as IWDs, from participating in artsorganizations. A far more overlooked factor is attitudinal barriers, such as the stigma surroundingdisabilities. In an attempt to cover this gap in research, this study evaluates how stigma influencesan IWD’s participation in arts activities. Of primary importance is determining whether or not artsorganizations acknowledge that stigma can prevent IWDs from participating in their programsand services. Ultimately the study identifies strategies that arts administrators can use to facilitatefull accessibility, both structurally and attitudinally.

DISABILITY IN AN ARTS CONTEXT

While no universal definition exists to account for every nuance of the term “disability,” a fewdescriptions have emerged that have endeavored to help administrators and other professionalsunderstand how to identify disabilities. According to the original text of the Rehabilitation Actof 1973, an individual has a disability if he or she “has a physical or mental disability which forsuch individual constitutes or results in a substantial handicap to employment.” This definition islimiting as it only refers to the impact on employment and not issues of discrimination in general.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

35 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

STIGMA IN THE ARTS 143

On the other hand, according to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), “disability” means,with respect to an individual,

A. a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities ofsuch individual;

B. a record of such an impairment; orC. being regarded as having such an impairment.

Hanna and Kammel (2007) provide an example for part C by including “people who havesevere facial or other disfigurements that are substantially limiting only because of the attitudesof others.” In this case, the ADA does consider disabilities that may be limiting because of thenegative attitudes of those living without disabilities. Whether or not there is yet an exact or evengenerally agreed-upon definition of disability, there is at least some consensus that the term isnot limited to physical impairments alone and can include learning disorders, neurological andcognitive disorders, and brain injury among others. As such, we can assume that the legislationthat provides for the rights of IWDs, specifically the Americans with Disabilities Act and theRehabilitation Act, is speaking to this broader definition.

DATA COLLECTION: PERCEIVED VS. ACTUAL ACCESSIBILITY

Basic accessibility is a given at most organizations—ramps, wheelchair accessible restrooms,Braille programs, and sign language interpretations are some of the most common accommoda-tions. Whether or not these basic accommodations address the underlying social needs of patronswith disabilities is a different issue. To address this, an electronic survey was sent to a nonprob-ability convenience sample of arts organizations in New Jersey. Nominal levels of measurementwere used, and descriptive, univariate statistics were derived. The primary goal was to determinewhether or not arts administrators are aware of attitudinal barriers within their own organizationsor the effect stigma can have on participation. The survey was distributed to arts organizationsacross the state with the help of ArtPride, a nonprofit organization that works to increase fundingand support for New Jersey arts. ArtPride sent an e-mail to its member list with a direct link to thesurvey. The number of organizations on the list was not disclosed; however, out of 48 individualswho clicked on the link and opened the survey to the first page, 28 completed the survey (N = 28).As Table 1 indicates, the largest number of respondents were theaters, but art education facilities,museums, dance companies, arts councils, and multidisciplinary and unclassified organizationsalso participated. They represent 16 different New Jersey counties and a wide range of artisticgenres from geographic regions across the state.

Among other questions, the survey asks arts administrators if they have written policies onaccessibility and if they consult other organizations for guidance on accessibility issues. Thesurvey also allows respondents to express their perceptions regarding attitudinal barriers andwhether or not they think stigmatization exists within their organizations. Initially, responsesindicated that the accessibility and marketability of arts organizations was extremely high. Ninety-three percent of respondents answered that they did have a written policy on accessibility forindividuals with disabilities (disability was defined as “any person who has a physical or mentalimpairment which substantially limits one or more major life activity”). Seventy-eight percentof respondents said that their organization did consult other groups or policies, such as the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

35 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

144 LUDWIG

TABLE 1Genres of Arts Organizations Responding to Survey

Genre N = 28

Theater n = 9Dance Company n = 1Museum n = 2Arts Council n = 1Multidisciplinary n = 3Arts Education n = 5Other n = 7

ADA or local accessibility groups, for information or guidance on accessibility issues. Finally,more than half of respondents indicated that they did make use of advisory councils like thosesuggested in the National Endowment for the Arts’ publication, Design for Accessibility: ACultural Administrator’s Handbook (Bird and Mathis 2003). These advisory councils are typicallycomprised of staff and individuals with disabilities as a way of complying with Section 504regulations and are responsible for assessing and improving an organization’s overall accessibility.

Respondents were highly optimistic about the lack of stigma in their organizations. Eighty-sixpercent did not think an individual with a disability would feel uncomfortable attending an eventat their arts organization. Other data suggests that arts administrators are less realistic about theeffects of stigma on participation within their own organizations. For example, when asked ifthey thought stigma deters individuals with disabilities from participating or attending eventsat arts organizations, 29 percent answered “Yes, but not at my arts organization.” Furthermore,54 percent agreed with the statement “At all types of art organizations, I believe stigma mayprevent people with disabilities from attending cultural events.” In general, administrators wereoptimistic about the quality of the accommodations they provided even though they acknowledgedthat stigma might be an issue, albeit not within their own organizations.

However, data from a second survey sent to a nonprobability convenience sample of IWDsacross the state of New Jersey suggested otherwise. The second survey was distributed with thehelp of multiple partners in New Jersey including the New Jersey Center for Tourette Syndrome,the Hunterdon and Mercer county chapters of the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI),and Project Freedom, a nonprofit dedicated to developing and operating barrier-free housing.These research partners distributed the survey to their member distribution lists, and out of 104individuals who clicked on the link and opened the survey to the first page, 50 actually completedthe survey (N = 50). Individuals who responded to the second survey represent 13 of 21 NewJersey counties and reported both traditionally stigmatized and more common physical disabil-ities, including hearing impairment, wheelchair use, learning disorders, neurological disorders,brain injury, and autism. Also, a considerable number of parents of children with disabilitiesresponded to the survey (n = 26). Since parents are often responsible for decisions regardingextracurricular activities such as participation in cultural events, this subsample was not excludedeven though these individuals may not have disabilities themselves. As with the survey to arts or-ganizations, nominal levels of measurement were used, and descriptive, univariate statistics werederived.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

35 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

STIGMA IN THE ARTS 145

TABLE 2Types of Disabilities Disclosed by Respondents

Disabilities N = 50

Physical impairment n = 2Hearing impairment n = 3Learning n = 3Developmental n = 2Neurological n = 5Brain Injury n = 2Autism n = 1Parent of child with disability n = 26Other n = 6

Results showed that nearly half of respondents agreed that arts organizations make reasonableaccommodations for individuals with disabilities and that they felt welcomed by the staff atarts organizations. At the same time, however, a nearly equal number of respondents made someindication that their disability made attending arts organizations uncomfortable or difficult. Nearlyhalf of all those who took the survey said they agreed or completely agreed with the idea thatstigma was sometimes harder to overcome than physical or program-related barriers. Also, asFigure 1 illustrates, even though half of the organizations surveyed said they had an advisorycouncil in place, when asked if they had ever heard of advisory councils, 98 percent of IWDsresponded “no.” The fact that IWDs are largely unaware that advisory councils exist has thepotential to negatively influence their expectation of accessibility at an organization.

BRIDGING THE GAP: STIGMA

These two sets of clear, yet somewhat conflicting, results suggest a disconnect within theseindividuals’ experiences with arts organizations. The real question becomes, why is this disconnect

20%

52%

2%

40%

60%

80%

0%

Arts organizations that usean access advisory council

IWDs that are aware of access advisory councils

100%

FIGURE 1 Percentage of arts organizations that use advisory councils versus percentage of IWDs who are awareadvisory councils exist. (color figure available online)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

35 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

146 LUDWIG

occurring? And more importantly, what can administrators do about it? One relatively unexploredconcept and a possible explanation for this disconnect is the idea of self-stigma. As outlined byPatrick Corrigan and Petra Kleinlein in their work The Impact of Mental Illness Stigma (2005),one of the most common outcomes of the stigma process is self-stigmatization. According to theirresearch, this type of stigma often affects individuals even if they have not been direct victimsof discrimination. Because individuals recognize that they are part of a traditionally stigmatizedgroup, they fear personal rejection and avoid social situations with potential stigmatizers. In thiscase, the potential stigmatizers are the patrons and staff at arts organizations.

The concept of self-stigmatization begins to address some of the discrepancies that becameapparent in the research results. For example, the results suggested IWDs felt welcomed by artsorganizations in their area but still felt that attending those organizations was uncomfortableor difficult because of their disability. Also, IWDs indicated that stigma was often harder toovercome than physical barriers, reaffirming that architectural accessibility is not the only factorin the decision-making process. When stigma is combined with other factors including lowexpectations, a previous negative experience with a particular organization, or even a generalsense of disappointment when it comes to accessibility features, the effect on participationbecomes apparent. For example, the survey to arts organizations revealed that 60 percent had lessthan 5 percent of their annual audience comprised of individuals with disabilities.5

Comments by survey respondents give deeper insight into the issue. One parent wrote, “Whileat theaters we must go to one’s [sic] with stadium seating and sit in the very back row due to myson’s need to put his hands over his head during the movie. In general being in a public placealways makes me be on guard for any signs of behavior that would not be looked upon agreeablyby others.” Another respondent with a disability wrote, “When I make suggestions, no one listens.”This statement in particular contributes to the reason individuals with disabilities are still unwillingto participate in the arts, even though they are theoretically welcomed by arts organizations. Theymay see programs and/or services that interest them, but because they are afraid of how they will bereceived by others, they falsely believe their concerns are not important to arts organizations anddo not bother trying to participate. Furthermore, it is important to realize that the stigma processdoes not only affect those with disabilities. As the survey results illustrate, the parents and familiesof IWDs are also affected. More than 50 percent of those who took the survey were the parents ofchildren with disabilities. The response from this demographic brings up an important aspectof accessibility that may have been overlooked in the past: the idea that the family and friendsof individuals with disabilities experience the same difficulties as the individuals themselves.Corrigan and Kleinlein (2005) label this phenomenon courtesy stigma. It reflects the idea that thediscrimination experienced by people with disabilities also affects family, providers, and othersassociated with the person (22). Many IWDs attend cultural activities with their families, andthe combined effects of self-stigma and courtesy stigma can affect the entire patron group, notjust the individual with the disability. If someone with a disability feels uncomfortable attendingan arts organization, not only does the organization lose the individual, it loses the family andfriends that would attend with that individual.

BLENDING MISSION AND DESIRE

Stigma’s effect on participation in the arts is a multifaceted problem with roots in societal attitudesas well as personal insecurities. Because the source of stigma is not easily identifiable, one may

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

35 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

STIGMA IN THE ARTS 147

wonder how arts organizations can begin to combat its effects. Ideally, at least some efforts shouldbe directed toward eliminating stigma on a grand scale. Social scientists Amy Watson and PatrickCorrigan (2005) realize that stigma permeates society on a number of levels, including throughnegative stereotypes and misrepresentations in the media. They identify three strategies forchanging stigma in society: protest, education, and contact between individuals with disabilitiesand those without. While it is not feasible for any organization to singlehandedly combat stigmain society at large, there are smaller steps arts administrators can take to limit its effects withintheir organizations. The author suggests that administrators implement the following steps inorder to increase accessibility at their organizations:

1. Create an advisory council comprised of staff and individuals with disabilities.2. Complete an internal evaluation of the organization that assesses accessibility on physical

and perceptual levels.3. Conduct staff training that focuses specifically on handling accessibility issues.4. Focus on marketing communication and public relations as ways to promote an accessible

and welcoming environment.:

While this is not an exhaustive list, these steps provide a starting point for limiting the effects ofstigmatization and may begin to mitigate the discrepancies between an organization’s perceptionof its own accessibility and the realities faced by IWDs. Each step is described in more detail inthe following section.

Step 1, as a means of enforcing the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, recom-mends that administrators create an access advisory council, comprised of board members, theexecutive and program directors, the Accessibility Coordinator, and consultants who representand/or have disabilities. For guidance, administrators can turn to the Accessibility Planning andResource Guide, the online companion to the NEA’s Design for Accessibility handbook. Thisguide provides assistance in creating the council, finding members, and determining functionsand goals. The guide stresses that “it is extremely important to gain the expertise of a person who[has a disability]; these individuals will be able to give the best advice about what is needed forincreased accessibility” (Accessibility Planning Guide).

Keith Gartletts, Facilitation Coordinator for the Matheny Arts Access program, also recom-mends promoting equality and education between organizations and patrons with disabilities.In an interview, Gartletts expressed that in the Arts Access program facilitators take the timeto find out what clients (in this case, individuals with severe physical disabilities) really want.He urged arts organizations to “take time to understand your client and take time to allow themto express themselves and what they want. The end product is far more genuine and far morevalid when you see that it’s coming from the client.”3 By involving patrons with disabilities inthe accessibility process, organizations foster a spirit of collaboration that can go a long way incombating attitudinal barriers.

Step 2 is to complete an internal evaluation of the organization in order to assess accessibilityon physical and perceptual levels. The advisory council should be closely involved with theevaluation process. For advice on how to do this, arts administrators can turn to self-assessmenttools, such as the one developed by the Cultural Access Network (2006) in cooperation with theNew Jersey State Council on the Arts. The full tool is available on the Cultural Access website(http://www.culturalaccessnetwork.org) or in the NEA’s Section 504 Self-Evaluation Workbook

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

35 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

148 LUDWIG

found on their website. The former compels organizations to evaluate several aspects of theiraccessibility, including the following:

• Management practices• Employment• Grievance procedures• Communications including publications, marketing, and outreach

The 504 Evaluation Workbook is an extensive tool intended for use in conjunction with theDesign for Accessibility handbook and covers architectural accessibility, program accessibility,and modification, among other topics.

As organizations complete their internal evaluation, they should keep in mind the accessibilityconcept that has grown in popularity in recent years: universal design. According to Hanna andKammel (2007, 335), universal design is “the design of products and environments to be usableby all people, with disabilities and without, to the greatest extent possible, without adaptation orspecialized design.” Its appeal lies in its ability to streamline efficiency while blurring the linebetween accommodation and convenience. Adopting universal design principles early on allowsadministrators to create an accessibility system that is seamless and removes the need to createadditional programs that make up for a deficit in the building’s architectural or programmaticfeatures. Of course, the challenge remains for organizations housed in historic buildings, whereupdating facilities is more complex. Nevertheless, taking universal design principles into con-sideration during the evaluation process may help administrators on the path to going beyondcompliance.

Step 3 recommends conducting staff training that focuses specifically on handling accessi-bility issues. One respondent who participated in the survey for arts organizations suggestedthat “organizations should be presented with workshops on how to do outreach to persons ororganizations that work with persons with disabilities.” This is a viable suggestion and requiresthat administrators be proactive about seeking out training opportunities and developing partner-ships with outside organizations like centers for independent living, disability advocacy groups,and/or the VSA. Many of these organizations exist at the state level. In New Jersey, The Cul-tural Access Network is one such organization. In addition to providing equipment rentals andservices like interpreter referrals, the Cultural Access Network offers sensitivity training for artsorganizations. This program is taught by a panel of individuals with disabilities and educatesorganizations on how to effectively communicate with and provide a welcoming experience forpatrons with disabilities (Cultural Access Network, under “About”). This training is especiallyimportant for staff members who have contact with the public and those who manage marketingand public relations efforts. Supervisors of these positions need to be responsible for educatingthemselves on the causes and effects of attitudinal barriers and transferring that information tonew and existing staff. By maintaining an open line of communication with the board of directors,the executive or artistic director, and the advisory committee, these supervisors can more quicklyaddress accessibility issues as they arise.

The Australia Council, an international arts funding and advisory council, is another organiza-tion that offers guidance on staff training. The Council believes that the people in an organizationcan help eliminate barriers for individuals with disabilities, through training that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

35 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

STIGMA IN THE ARTS 149

• addresses misconceptions and prejudices about disability,• increases understanding of the requirements of different disabilities, and• presents people with disabilities as customers, rather than problems (Wyatt-Spratt 1999).

Training can also educate staff about aspects of disability they may not be familiar with, suchas the fact that it is not unusual to be uncomfortable when dealing with patrons with disabilitiesfor the first time or that one should not be embarrassed if they use words that refer to a person’sdisability. While the Australia Council is not required to abide by American laws like the ADAand the Rehabilitation Act, its ideas for improving accessibility are valid nonetheless. Disabilitiesaffect individuals all over the world, and the difficulties they experience as a result of theircondition are universal.

Finally, Step 4 encourages arts organizations to focus on marketing and public relations asa way of increasing accessibility. Again, the Australia Council has excelled in this area. Theirpublication Access All Areas focuses on developing practical strategies that are within the reachof arts organizations. “It seeks to show that exploring the fullest meaning of access makesgood marketing sense. Marketing to people with disabilities is about equal opportunity, equalaccess and the recognition that people with disabilities are valuable members of your audience”(Wyatt-Spratt 1999). The publication offers a practical guide organizations can use to increaseaccessibility using the six principles of marketing: people, product, place, price, processes, andpromotion. Promotion is an important concept organizations should address in their marketingstrategies. Patrons with disabilities may interpret the language and tone in materials differentlythan patrons without disabilities or may find that the content of publications do not apply to thembecause of their disability. The Australia Council suggests using truthful and easy to understandlanguage that honestly details the facility. They provide this passage as an example:

Our auditorium has three spaces for people using wheelchairs, all of which are next to seats for yourcompanions, and we can help if you would prefer to transfer to a seat for the performance. Your guidedog is welcome to stay with you, or we will dog-sit and provide water in the foyer until the interval,when the dog will be brought to your seat . . . The bar can only be reached up a steep flight of steps,but we can bring drinks into the auditorium for people with disabilities if you make your order knownto an usher on arrival . . . Please tell us if there is something we haven’t thought of and we’ll do ourbest to put it right. (Wyatt-Spratt 1999, 30)

As this passage illustrates, sometimes organizations may need to make exceptions to policiesin order to facilitate accessibility. Expending a little extra energy can go a long way with a patronwith a disability. Offering to bring them a beverage or caring for a guide dog are simple ways toprovide better customer service and increase the positive atmosphere at events.

Organizations should not be alone in their attempt to promote an environment that promotesacceptance and equality. The patrons themselves should know they have the power to establish anopen line of communication with an organization. For example, in a phone conversation with theProgram Coordinator for one local branch of the National Alliance for Mental Illness she indicatedthat she loved attending the theater with her daughter, a teenager with a mental illness, becauseit was one of the only ways she could socialize with others. However, they often ended up notattending because they assumed the theater would not provide the accommodations her daughterneeded to feel comfortable at the event. When the author suggested that the individual contactsomeone at the theater to discuss making special arrangements, she was extremely surprised. The

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

35 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

150 LUDWIG

individual thought that if the accommodations she needed were not listed on the website or printedin a brochure, the facility would not welcome her and her daughter. This comment emphasizes theimportance of Step 4, focusing on marketing communications and public relations. Organizationsneed to make sure that accessibility information is easily accessible and clearly listed on websitesand other print communication. While IWDs should know they have the right to request theservices they need in order to feel welcome at an organization, the information should be readilyavailable and should encourage open communication between patrons and staff.

CONCLUSION

Sometimes the most difficult problems have the most obvious solutions. Attitudinal barriers areoverlooked as reasons why individuals with disabilities decide not to participate in the arts. Trueaccessibility is a multifaceted problem, one that cannot be solved merely by meeting minimumADA standards. Ideally, the goal should be a universal design, where individuals with and withoutdisabilities can access all facilities and programs. Until that concept becomes a reality, admin-istrators need to be proactive about finding solutions to existing architectural and attitudinalbarriers. The suggestions presented in the preceding passages can serve as a starting point formaking those solutions a reality. By making a commitment to conducting honest internal eval-uations and focusing on accessibility, education, staff training, and marketing communications,administrators can begin to bridge the gap between perceived and actual accessibility.

NOTES

1. Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 355 (1973).2. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §12102 (2009).3. Keith Gartletts, telephone interview with author, August 13, 2010, unpublished.4. K. Schoenitz, personal communication with author, January 25, 2010, unpublished data.5. Methods for measuring this data varied from organization to organization. Some monitored ticket sales

while others used first-hand experience or other informal methods for measuring attendance.

REFERENCES

ArtPride New Jersey. n.d. “About ArtPride.” http://www.artpridenj.com/content.php?id = A8340M0001.Arts Access Program, Matheny Medical & Educational Center. n.d. “Who We Are.” http://www.artsaccessprogram.org.Bird, Katharine, and Andi Mathis, eds. 2003. Design for Accessibility: A Cultural Administrator’s Handbook. Washington,

DC: National Assembly of State Arts Agencies.Corrigan, Patrick W., and Petra Kleinlein. 2005. “The Impact of Mental Illness Stigma.” In On the Stigma of Mental

Illness: Practical Strategies for Research and Change, edited by Patrick W. Corrigan, 3–27. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Cultural Access Network of New Jersey. n.d. “About the Cultural Access Network.” http://www.culturalaccessnetwork.org/about.

———. 2006. “ADA Self-Assessment Survey and Planning Tool.” http://culturalaccessnetwork.org/resource library.Grubbs, R. L. 2006. Building Cultural Participation in New Jersey (A START Project): Evaluating the Arts and Cultural

Event Participation among People with Disabilities in New Jersey. Atlanta: RLG Associates-New Jersey Arts AccessTask Force.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

35 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014

STIGMA IN THE ARTS 151

Hanna, Gay, and Lisa Kammel. 2007. “Cultural Access: Extend the Complete Invitation.” In Fundamentals of ArtsManagement, 5th ed., edited by Pam Korza, Maren Brown, and Craig Dreeszen, 331–57. Amherst: Arts ExtensionService−University of Massachusetts.

National Arts and Disability Center. 2003. Accessibility Planning and Resource Guide for Cultural Administrators. LosAngeles: National Endowment for the Arts. http://www.arts.gov/about/504workbook.html.

Reagan, Ronald. 1984. Proclamation 5196 of May 20, 1984: National Arts with the Handicapped Week. Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. http://www.gpo.gov.

Watson, Amy C., and Patrick W. Corrigan. 2005. “Challenging Public Stigma: A Targeted Approach.” In On the Stigmaof Mental Illness: Practical Strategies for Research and Change, edited by Patrick W. Corrigan, 281–91. Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Wyatt-Spratt, Neridah, and Pam Wyatt-Spratt. 1999. Access All Areas: Guidelines for Marketing the Arts to People withDisabilities. Surry Hills: Australia Council.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hbur

n U

nive

rsity

] at

10:

35 3

0 O

ctob

er 2

014