Higher Education and Disability: Improved Federal Enforcement Needed to Better Protect Students' Rights to Testing Accommodations
Published: 2011-11-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Standardized tests are often required to gain admission into postsecondary schools or to obtain professional certifications. Federal disability laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) require entities that administer these tests to provide accommodations, such as extended time or changes in test format, to students with disabilities. GAO examined (1) the types of accommodations individuals apply for and receive and how schools assist them, (2) factors testing companies consider when making decisions about requests for accommodations, (3) challenges individuals and testing companies experience in receiving and granting accommodations, and (4) how federal agencies enforce compliance with relevant disability laws and regulations. To conduct this work, GAO interviewed disability experts; individuals with disabilities; officials from high schools, postsecondary schools, testing companies; and officials from the Departments of Justice (Justice), Education, and Health and Human Services (HHS). GAO also reviewed testing company policies and data, federal complaint and case data for selected testing companies, and relevant laws and regulations.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Among accommodations requested and granted in the most recent testing year, approximately three-quarters were for extra time, and about half were for applicants with learning disabilities. High school and postsecondary school officials GAO interviewed reported advising students about which accommodations to request and providing documentation to testing companies, such as a student's accommodations history.
Testing companies included in GAO's study reported that they grant accommodations based on their assessment of an applicant's eligibility under the ADA and whether accommodation requests are appropriate for their tests. Testing companies look for evidence of the functional limitations that prevent the applicant from taking the exam under standard conditions. They also consider what accommodations are appropriate for their tests and may grant accommodations that were different than those requested. For example, one testing company official told GAO that applicants with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder all might request extra time, but may be granted different accommodations given their limitations--extra time for an applicant unable to maintain focus; extra breaks for an applicant unable to sit still for an extended time period; a separate room for an easily distracted applicant.
Documenting need and determining appropriate accommodations can present challenges to students and testing companies. Some applicants GAO interviewed found testing companies' documentation requirements difficult to understand and unreasonable. Most applicants GAO spoke with said they sought accommodations that they were accustomed to using, and some found it frustrating that the testing company would not provide the same accommodations for the test. Testing companies reported challenges with ensuring fairness to all test takers and maintaining the reliability of their tests when making accommodations decisions. Testing company officials said that reviewing requests that contain limited information can make it difficult to make an informed decision. Some testing company officials also expressed concern with being required to provide accommodations that best ensure an applicant's test results reflect the applicant's aptitude rather than providing what they consider to be reasonable accommodations.
Federal enforcement of laws and regulations governing testing accommodations is largely complaint-driven and involves multiple agencies. While Justice has overall responsibility for enforcing compliance under the ADA, Education and HHS have enforcement responsibilities under the Rehabilitation Act for testing companies that receive federal financial assistance from them. Education and HHS officials said that they investigate each eligible complaint. Justice officials said they review each complaint at in-take, but they do not make a determination on every complaint because of the large volume of complaints it receives. Justice has clarified ADA requirements for testing accommodations primarily by revising its regulations, but it lacks a strategic approach to targeting enforcement. Specifically, Justice has not fully utilized complaint data--either its own or that of other agencies--to inform its efforts. Justice officials said that they reviewed complaints on a case-by-case basis but did not conduct systematic searches of their data to inform their overall approach to enforcement. Additionally, Justice has not initiated compliance reviews of testing companies, and its technical assistance on this subject has been limited. GAO recommends that the Department of Justice take steps to develop a strategic approach to enforcement such as by analyzing its data and updating its technical assistance manual. Justice agreed with GAO's recommendation.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the Department of Justice take steps to develop a strategic approach to enforcement such as by analyzing its data and updating its technical assistance manual. Justice agreed with GAOs recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Each year, millions of people take standardized tests to gain admission to  postsecondary education or to receive a professional license for certain  professions. These tests, which are typically administered under uniform  conditions and time limits, are designed to predict future academic  success or measure a person’s knowledge in the area tested. While  standardization is intended to ensure comparability of test scores across  examinees, it may make it challenging for some individuals with  disabilities to accurately demonstrate their ability. Federal disability laws,  such as the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), protect  individuals with disabilities from discrimination and a specific provision of  that act requires private companies offering standardized tests to provide  accommodations, such as extended time or extra breaks, in order to  make tests accessible to individuals with disabilities. However, disability  advocates and experts have raised questions about how testing  companies make decisions about accommodations and whether or not  they are complying with federal disability laws and regulations. Similarly,  testing companies have raised questions about protecting the integrity of  their tests by ensuring that accommodations are given only to those  individuals who require them. Given the importance of testing  accommodations in helping students with disabilities access higher  education and professional licensure, we examined: (1) what types of  accommodations individuals apply for and receive and how schools assist  them, (2) what factors testing companies consider when making decisions  about requests for testing accommodations, (3) what challenges  applicants and testing companies experience in receiving and granting  testing accommodations, and (4) how federal agencies enforce  compliance with relevant federal disability laws and regulations.
In conducting this work, we focused our review on a nongeneralizeable  sample of 11 tests offered by 10 testing companies for admission into  undergraduate, graduate, and professional programs and to obtain  professional certification. We included the 2 most common undergraduate  admissions tests and, for the graduate and professional level, we  included 5 admissions and 4 professional certification tests used in the  fields of study with the largest numbers of graduates and the top three  fields of study in which students with disabilities are enrolled. We  interviewed disability experts, representatives from a nongeneralizable  sample of 8 high schools and 13 postsecondary schools, and eight  individuals with disabilities who were referred to us by those experts and  school officials and were applicants for accommodations on one or more  tests included in our study. We selected schools based on characteristics  such as size, geographic diversity, public or private funding and, in the  case of postsecondary schools, academic programs. We also conducted  interviews with 7 testing companies and reviewed written responses to  our questions from 2 companies that declined our requests for an  interview. One company declined to participate in our study. We also  reviewed data provided by testing companies on the types of  accommodations requested and granted. Based on their responses to  questions about data reliability, we believe the information they provided  is sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We reviewed policies  and procedures for requesting accommodations found on testing  companies’ Web sites. However, we did not evaluate whether these  policies and procedures, or the procedures described to us in interviews,  were in compliance with relevant laws or regulations. Testing companies  that participated in our study reviewed draft statements in this report, and  their comments were incorporated where appropriate. We reviewed  relevant federal laws and regulations; reviewed selected court cases  regarding testing accommodations; interviewed officials from the  Departments of Justice (Justice), Education (Education), and Health and  Human Services (HHS); and reviewed available information on  complaints each agency received from fiscal years 2007 through 2010  regarding the 10 testing companies included in our study. However due to  data limitations described in the report, we cannot generalize the results  of our file review. A more detailed explanation of our objectives, scope,  and methodology can be found in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2010 to November  2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: In determining whether to provide testing accommodations, testing  companies are required to adhere to Section 309 of the ADA and, in  some circumstances, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as  amended (the Rehabilitation Act), as well as regulations implementing  those laws. Section 309 of the ADA provides that “ny person that offers  examinations or courses related to applications, licensing, certification, or  credentialing for secondary or post-secondary education, professional, or  trade purposes” must offer them “in a place and manner accessible to  persons with disabilities or offer alternative accessible  arrangements…” Section 504 prohibits discrimination against  individuals with disabilities by entities receiving federal financial  assistance. Persons requesting accommodations are entitled to them  only if they have a disability as defined by those statutes. Both the ADA  and the Rehabilitation Act define individuals with disabilities as those who  have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more  major life activities, have a record of such impairment, or are regarded as  having such an impairment. Justice is charged with enforcing testing  company compliance within Section 309 of the ADA, and the  Departments of Education and HHS are responsible for enforcing  compliance with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for any testing  companies that receive federal financial assistance from them.
In 2008, concerned that judicial interpretations had limited the scope of  protection it had intended under the ADA, Congress enacted the ADA  Amendments Act of 2008 (ADAAA), rejecting several Supreme Court  interpretations that had narrowed the definition of an individual with  disabilities. The ADA Amendments Act set out guidelines for determining  who qualifies as an individual with disabilities and provided a  nonexhaustive list of “major life activities,” which includes learning,  reading, concentrating, and thinking. In the ADAAA, Congress also stated  that it found the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission  (EEOC) regulation regarding the definition of an individual with a disability  inconsistent with congressional intent and directed the EEOC to revise  that regulation. On March 25, 2011, the EEOC issued final regulations,  implementing Title I of the ADAAA. Those regulations, which went into  effect on May 24, 2011, provide that the term “substantially limits” should  be construed broadly in favor of expansive coverage to the maximum  extent permitted by the ADA and is not meant to be a demanding  standard; that when determining if an individual is substantially limited in  performing a major life activity, the determination of disability should not  require extensive analysis and should be compared with that of “most  people in the general population;” and that the comparison to most people  will not usually require scientific, medical, or statistical analysis. The  regulations provide that, in applying these principles, it may be useful to  consider, as compared with most people in the general population, the  condition under which the individual performs the major life activity; the  manner in which the individual performs the major life activity; and/or the  duration of time it takes the individual to perform the major life activity.”
In 1991, Justice issued regulations implementing Section 309 which,  among other things, provide that any private entity offering an  examination must assure that “he examination is selected and  administered so as to best ensure that, when the examination is  administered to an individual with a disability that impairs sensory,  manual, or speaking skill, the examination results accurately reflect the  individual’s aptitude, achievement level or whatever other factor the  examination purports to measure, rather than reflecting the individual’s  impaired sensory, manual or speaking skills…..” Under the  regulations, such entities are also required to provide individuals with  disabilities appropriate auxiliary aids unless the entity can demonstrate  that a particular auxiliary aid would fundamentally alter what the  examination is intended to measure or would result in an undue burden.  On September 15, 2010, Justice issued a final rule adding three new  provisions to its regulations, stating that, through its enforcement efforts, it  had addressed concerns that requests by testing entities for  documentation regarding the existence of an individual’s disability and  need for accommodations were often inappropriate and burdensome. The  first new provision requires that documentation requested by a testing  entity must be reasonable and limited to the need for the accommodation.  The second new provision states that a testing entity should give  considerable weight to documentation of past accommodations received  in similar testing situations, as well as those provided under an  Individualized Education Program (IEP) provided under the Individuals  with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), or a plan providing services  pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (a Section 504 plan).  The third new provision provides that a testing entity must respond to  requests for accommodation in a timely manner.
Since the ADAAA and EEOC regulations have broadened the definition of  an individual with disabilities, it is possible that the focus for determining  eligibility for testing accommodations will shift from determining whether a  person requesting testing accommodations is an individual with a  disability for purposes of the ADA to what accommodations must be  provided to meet the requirements of Section 309 and its implementing  regulations. Several recent cases that address the type of  accommodations that must be provided under Section 309 will likely  impact the latter determination. In Enyart v. National Conference of Bar  Examiners, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the  argument that Section 309 requires only “reasonable accommodations”  and adopted the higher “best ensure” standard for determining  accessibility that Justice included in its regulations. The court found that  the requirement in Section 309, that testing entities offer examinations in  a manner accessible to individuals with disabilities, was ambiguous. As a  result, it deferred to the requirement in Justice’s regulations providing that  testing entities must offer examinations “so as to best ensure” that the  exam results accurately reflect the test takers aptitude rather than  disabilities. Applying that standard, the court found that NCBE was  required to provide Enyart, a blind law school graduate, with the  accommodations she had requested rather than the ones offered by  NCBE based on evidence that her requested accommodations were  necessary to make the test accessible to her given her specific  impairment and the specific nature of the exam.
section_title: Additional Time Was the Most Frequently Requested and Granted Accommodation
subsections: section_title: Students Most Often Requested and Received Additional Time According to Testing Company Data
paragraphs: Extra time represented approximately three-quarters of all  accommodations requested and granted in the most recent testing year,  with 50 percent extra time representing the majority of this category (see  fig. 1). According to researchers, one explanation for the high incidence  of this accommodation is that students with the most commonly reported  disabilities—learning disabilities, such as dyslexia; attention deficit  disorder (ADD); or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)—may  need extra time to compensate for slower processing or reading speeds.  In addition, extra time may be needed to support other accommodations,  such as having a person read the test to a test taker or write down the  responses.
The remaining quarter of accommodations that students requested and  testing companies granted in the most recent testing year include  changes in the testing environment, extra breaks, alternate test formats,  and auditory or visual assistance. Changes to the testing environment  might involve preferential seating or testing in a separate room to  minimize distractions. The accommodation of extra breaks could be an  extension of the scheduled break time between test sections or breaks  when needed, depending on students’ individual circumstances. For  example, students might need more than the allotted break time if they  have a medical condition that requires them to test their blood sugar or  use the restroom. Requests for auditory or visual assistance might entail  having a “reader” to read the test aloud, whereas alternate test formats  include large type, Braille, or audio versions. Additionally, students  requested some other types of accommodations, including being allowed  to have snacks as needed or using various types of assistive technology  to take the test, such as computer software to magnify text or convert it  into spoken language. For example, one blind individual we interviewed  described using Braille to take tests and screen reading software to  complete assignments when she was an undergraduate student. When it  came time to request accommodations for a graduate school admissions  test, she requested use of screen reading software because it helps her  read long passages more quickly than with Braille alone. However, she  also requested use of Braille because it allows her to more closely study  a passage she did not initially comprehend. Students and disability  experts we spoke with also told us that students may need multiple  accommodations to help them overcome their disabilities, and that their  requests reflect the accommodations that have previously worked for  them. For example, in addition to using screen reading software and  Braille, the blind student mentioned above was also allowed extra time,  use of a computer, breaks in between test sections, a scribe, and a few  other accommodations.
An estimated 179,000 individuals with disabilities—approximately 2  percent—of about 7.7 million test takers took an exam with an  accommodation in the most recent testing year, according to data  provided to us. Approximately half of all accommodations requested and  granted were for applicants with learning disabilities, and one-quarter was  for those with ADD or ADHD. The remainder of accommodations  requested and granted was for applicants with physical or sensory  disabilities, such as an orthopedic or vision impairment; or psychiatric  disabilities, such as depression; and other disabilities, such as diabetes  and autism spectrum disorders (see fig. 2).
High schools help students apply for accommodations on undergraduate  admissions tests in several ways. According to disability experts and a  few high schools we interviewed, school counselors alert students to the  need to apply for accommodations and advise them about what to  request. Additionally, school officials play an important role in helping  students with the application. For certain types of requests, school  officials can submit the application on the student’s behalf, requiring  minimal student involvement. One testing company reported that 98.5  percent of new accommodation requests for a postsecondary admissions  test were submitted this way in the most recent testing year. Alternatively,  when students submit the application themselves, school officials can  provide copies of the disability documentation on file with the school. In  addition to helping students with the application process itself, high school  officials can also facilitate communications between the student and  testing company after the application has been submitted. For example,  one high school administrator we interviewed reported contacting a  testing company about an accommodation application that had been  submitted past the deadline for a specific test date. In this case, the  student’s recent health diagnosis and treatment necessitated  accommodations, and the administrator helped explain why it was  important for the student to take the test when originally scheduled.
Postsecondary Schools’ Services for Students with Disabilities  Postsecondary schools provide an array of services to help ensure that students have  equal access to education. School officials we interviewed work closely with students  who self-identify as having a disability and request services to provide  accommodations, coordinate with faculty and campus services, meet periodically with  students to monitor their progress, and adjust accommodations as necessary. Schools  are required to identify an individual who coordinates the school’s compliance with the  Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. Some schools also have a centralized disability  services office to coordinate these services.
The transition from high school to postsecondary school can present  challenges for all students, and especially for students with disabilities  because they must assume more responsibility for their education by  identifying themselves as having a disability, providing documentation of  their disability, and requesting accommodations and services. For  example, students must decide whether or not to use accommodations in  their postsecondary courses and, if needed, obtain any new  documentation required to support a request for accommodations.  Consequently, postsecondary schools play an important role in advising  students with disabilities to help them achieve success both in school and  when applying for testing accommodations. Generally, when  postsecondary students apply for testing accommodations, school  officials provide a letter documenting the accommodations students have  used in school. In addition to providing these letters, postsecondary  officials we interviewed described several ways they advise students who  apply for testing accommodations, including the following:    Counseling students about what accommodations best meet their  needs—Postsecondary school officials play an important role in  helping students adapt to the new academic environment and in  determining the best accommodations to use in school and for  standardized tests to achieve success at this level. For example, at  one postsecondary school, a committee consisting of two learning  specialists, a psychologist, two administrative staff, and the director of  the disability services office meet to review each student’s request for  accommodations and discuss the appropriate services to provide for  his or her courses. With technological advances, an official at another  school has advised some students to reconsider requesting the  accommodation of extra time as they may be better served by other  accommodations, such as screen readers, to address their disability.  According to the official, using certain technologies has decreased the  need for extra time for some students as they have been able to  complete more of their work on time.   Explaining application requirements—Postsecondary school officials  advise students about the need to apply for testing accommodations  and help them understand application requirements, which can be  extensive. For example, several postsecondary officials we  interviewed said they alerted students to the need to apply for testing  accommodations and to allow sufficient time for the application  process. One official reported sending reminders to students about  the need to apply for accommodations if they are considering  graduate school, and another official reported advising students to  begin the process 4 to 6 months in advance, in case the testing  company requests additional information. Another school official  described helping a student interpret the testing company’s  instructions for the accommodation application, including what  documentation is required. One school official said that she helps  students understand more subtle aspects of preparing a successful  application by, for example, recommending the use of consistent  terminology to describe the disability throughout the application to  make it easier for reviewers to understand. Several postsecondary  officials we interviewed reported advising students about the  likelihood of a testing company granting accommodations based on a  review of their existing documentation. For example, a  psychoeducational evaluation that was current when a student  enrolled in postsecondary study might need to be updated by the time  a student applies for testing accommodations. At one school, an  official estimated that about 30 percent of the students served by the  school’s disability service office would need to update their  documentation if they decide to apply for testing accommodations.   Providing resources to obtain evaluations—A few postsecondary  officials we interviewed reported referring students to a variety of  resources when they need an updated or new evaluation, sometimes  at substantial savings to the student. Two schools we interviewed  make campus resources available to students, such as providing  grants or scholarships to help students who demonstrate financial  need to offset the cost of evaluations. Schools also reported helping  students by providing a mechanism for them to obtain the necessary  evaluations on campus. For example, students can obtain an  evaluation from the campus health and counseling center at one  school for about $700, while the psychology clinic and the Department  of Neuropsychology at another school provide these evaluations on a  sliding fee basis. Additionally, officials said that they provide students  with a list of area professionals who conduct evaluations, although  such outside sources could cost several thousand dollars and may not  be covered by health insurance.
section_title: Testing Companies Determine Whether Applicants Qualify for Accommodations under the ADA and Whether Requests Are Appropriate
paragraphs: In reviewing requests for accommodations, testing companies included in  our study reported considering a number of factors to determine whether  applicants have a disability that entitles them to accommodations under  the ADA. As part of their review process, the testing companies included  in our study typically look for a current disability diagnosis made by a  qualified professional. However, seven testing companies included in our  study either state in their guidance for requesting accommodations or told  us that the presence of a disability diagnosis does not guarantee an  accommodation will be granted because they also need to consider the  impact of the disability. Testing companies included in our study reported  reviewing applications to understand how an applicant’s current functional  limitations pose a barrier to taking the exam under standard conditions.  As an example, one testing company official stated that someone with  limited mobility might meet the ADA definition of a disability but not need  an accommodation if the testing center is wheelchair accessible.
To understand an applicant’s current functional limitations, testing  companies may request documentation that provides evidence of how an  applicant’s disability currently manifests itself, such as the results of  diagnostic tests. For example, several testing companies included in our  study request that applications for accommodations include the results of  a psychoeducational test to support a learning disability diagnosis. As  another example, applicants who have a hearing impairment would be  asked to provide the results of a hearing test to document their current  condition. Officials from most testing companies included in our review  said that, for some types of disabilities, it is important to have  documentation that is current to help them understand the functional  limitations of an applicant’s disability. For example, one testing company  official told us that disabilities of an unchanging nature, such as blindness  or deafness, could be documented with evaluations from many years ago,  whereas psychiatric conditions, learning disabilities, and ADHD would  need more current evaluations. For applicants who may not have a formal  disability diagnosis or recent medical evaluations, some testing company  officials told us that they will look at whatever information applicants can  provide to show how they are limited. For example, testing company  officials said they will consider report cards or letters from teachers to  obtain information about an applicant’s condition.
Another factor that several testing companies consider is how an  applicant’s functional ability compares to that of most people. For  example, officials from one testing company told us that before granting  an accommodation on the basis of a reading-related disability, they would  review the applicant’s reading scores to make sure they were lower than  those of the average person. Several testing company officials also told  us that while reviewing information within an application for  accommodations, they may reach a different conclusion about an  applicant’s limitations and necessary accommodations than what the  applicant requested. For example, one testing company initially denied an  applicant’s request, in part, because the testing company’s comparison of  the applicant’s diagnostic test scores with the average person his age led  them to different conclusions about the applicant’s ability to function than  those of the medical evaluator who performed the tests.
As described previously, Justice recently added new requirements to its  Section 309 regulations to further define the parameters of appropriate  documentation requests made by testing companies in reviewing  requests for accommodations. One of those amendments provides that  a testing entity should give considerable weight to documentation of past  accommodations received in similar testing situations, as well as those  provided under an IEP or Section 504 plan. In discussing the regulations,  most testing company officials we spoke with told us that they consider an  applicant’s history of accommodations; however, they also told us they  may require more information to make a decision. For example, officials  from one testing company said they may want information, such as  documentation from a medical professional and a personal statement  from the applicant, to explain the need for the accommodation if it had not  been used previously or in recent years. In guidance on its revised  regulations, Justice states that when applicants demonstrate a consistent  history of a diagnosis of a disability, testing companies generally should  accept without further inquiry documentation provided by a qualified  professional who has made an individualized assessment of the applicant  and generally should grant the requested accommodation.  Testing  company officials also told us they sometimes ask for more information  than provided by a licensed professional in order to understand an  applicant’s disability and limitations. For example, for certain disabilities,  such as learning disabilities or ADHD, officials from two testing  companies told us they may request evidence dating back to childhood  since these disabilities are considered developmental. While Justice  states in its guidance that the amendments to the regulation were  necessary because its position on the bounds of appropriate  documentation had not been implemented consistently and fully by  testing entities, officials from almost all of the testing companies  included in our study stated that they did not need to change any of their  practices for granting accommodations to be in compliance.
Testing companies included in our study also consider what  accommodations are appropriate for their tests. In doing so, some testing  company officials told us that they may grant an accommodation that is  different from what an applicant requested. Based on their assessment of  how an applicant is limited with respect to the exam, testing company  officials told us they make a determination as to which accommodations  they believe will address the applicant’s limitations. For example, one  testing company official told us that three applicants with ADHD all might  apply for extra time to complete the exam, but the testing company may  decide different accommodations are warranted given each applicant’s  limitations––extra time for an applicant unable to maintain focus; extra  breaks for an applicant who has difficulty sitting still for an extended time  period; preferential seating for the applicant who is easily distracted. Even  though one testing company official told us that evidence of a prior history  of accommodations can be helpful in understanding how  accommodations have been used in the past, having a history of prior  accommodations in school does not guarantee that those  accommodations will be appropriate for the test. For example, according  to one testing company, some students with hearing impairments who  need accommodations such as a note taker in school may not need  accommodations on a written standardized test.
In reviewing requests for accommodations, several testing company  officials told us they try to work with applicants when they do not grant the  specific accommodations requested. For example, one testing company  official told us that if an applicant has a qualifying disability and she could  not grant the requested accommodation because it would alter the test,  she will try to work with an applicant to determine an appropriate  accommodation.  In addition, all of the testing companies included in our  study have a process by which applicants can appeal the decision if they  disagree with the outcome. Based on their reviews, testing companies  reported granting between 72 and 100 percent of accommodations that  were requested in the most recent testing year for 6 of the 10 tests for  which we received data. However, these testing companies counted an  accommodation as granted even if it was different from what was  requested. For example, testing companies told us that they would have  counted an accommodation request for extra time as granted, even if the  applicant requested more than what was granted.
section_title: Documenting Need and Determining Appropriate Accommodations Can Present Challenges to Applicants and Testing Companies
subsections: section_title: Applicant Challenges
paragraphs: Some disability experts and applicants told us that one of the challenges  in applying for accommodations was understanding how testing  companies made their decisions, especially with relation to how much  weight certain aspects of the application appeared to carry. Most of the  applicants we spoke with told us that they requested accommodations  that they were accustomed to using and were often frustrated that testing  companies did not readily provide those accommodations. These  applicants had gone through a process for requesting classroom  accommodations and had documentation supporting those  accommodations, and two applicants told us that they did not believe  testing companies deferred to those documents in the way they would  expect. Some disability experts expressed concern that testing  companies rely heavily on scores that are perceived to be more objective  measures, such as psychometric assessments, and two of these experts  said they believe that, in addition to scores, testing companies should  also consider the clinical or behavioral observations conducted by  qualified professionals or school counselors.
While testing companies provide guidance outlining their documentation  requirements, some applicants and disability experts we spoke with told  us that knowing what documentation to provide to a testing company can  be a challenge in applying for accommodations. Two applicants told us it  was unclear what and how much information to submit to support their  requests. According to one of the applicants, the testing company asked  for additional information to substantiate his request for additional time  and a separate room to accommodate a learning disability, but was not  specific about which documents it wanted or why. Four applicants told us  they hired an attorney to help them determine what to submit in response  to testing companies’ requests for additional information or to appeal a  denial. According to one of the applicants, the attorney helped him find  the right balance of documentation to submit to successfully obtain  accommodations, something he was not able to do when he first applied  without legal assistance. School officials we spoke with said documenting  the need for an accommodation can be particularly challenging for gifted  students ––those who demonstrate high levels of aptitude or  competence—because they may not have a history of academic difficulty  or accommodations. As a result, it can be more difficult to know what  documentation to provide to support their requests.
Disability experts and applicants also told us that, in some instances, they  found testing companies’ documentation requirements on providing a  history of the disability to be unreasonable. Two applicants told us that  they found it unreasonable to be asked to provide a lengthy history of  their disability. For example, one student we spoke with who was  diagnosed with a learning disability in college provided the testing  company with the results of cognitive testing and documentation of the  accommodations he received in college, but the testing company also  requested records of his academic performance going back to elementary  school. He did not understand how such information was relevant to  document his current functioning and found the request to be  unreasonable since he was 30 years removed from elementary school.  Some applicants also found it frustrating to have to update medical  assessments for conditions that had not changed. For example, one  applicant was asked to obtain a new evaluation of her disability even  though school evaluations conducted every 3 years consistently showed  that she has dyslexia. Applicants and disability experts we spoke with told  us that obtaining these assessments can be cost prohibitive, and  applicants reported costs for updating these assessments ranging from  $500 to $9,000.
For blind applicants, access to familiar assistive technology, such as  screen-reading or screen-magnification software, was particularly  challenging, according to applicants and disability experts. Two blind  applicants told us they faced difficulty with being allowed to use the  specific technology they requested for the test. One of the applicants told  us the testing company required him to use its screen-reading software  rather than the one he used regularly, resulting in greater anxiety on the  day of the test since he had to learn how to use a new tool. Similarly, this  applicant told us he faced similar challenges in working with readers  provided by different testing companies rather than readers of his own  choosing, since he was not comfortable with the reader’s style.
While most of the applicants we spoke with eventually received one or  more of their requested accommodations, several of them reported  having to postpone their test date as a result of the amount of time the  accommodations approval process took. Some applicants told us that  they also experienced delays in achieving their educational or  professional goals. Additionally, some applicants who were denied their  accommodations told us that when they elected to take the test without  accommodations, they felt that their exam results did not fully  demonstrate their capabilities. For example, one applicant told us that he  took a licensing exam a few times without the accommodations he  requested over a two-year period while appealing the testing company’s  decision, but each time his scores were not high enough for licensure nor  did they reflect his academic performance. As a result, the applicant was  two years behind his peers. Another applicant told us that she did not  receive the requested accommodations for one of the licensing exams  she applied for and decided not to take the exam for the time being  because it wasn’t necessary for her to practice in the state she was living  in. However, she anticipates needing to take the test as she furthers her  career because the license will be needed for her to practice in  surrounding states.
section_title: Testing Company Challenges
paragraphs: Testing companies we interviewed reported challenges with ensuring  fairness to all test takers when reviewing applications for  accommodations. Officials from three testing companies expressed  concern that some applicants may try to seek an unfair advantage by  requesting accommodations they do not need. For example, officials from  two of the companies said some applicants may see an advantage to  getting an accommodation, such as extra time, and will request it without  having a legitimate need. Officials from the other testing company told us  that they do not want to provide accommodations to applicants who do  not need them because doing so could compromise the predictive value  of their tests and unfairly disadvantage other test takers. Officials from  several testing companies told us that ensuring the reliability of their test  scores was especially important since so many colleges, universities, and  licensing bodies rely on them to make admissions and licensing  decisions.
Testing company officials told us that reviewing requests that contain  limited information can be challenging because they do not have sufficient  information to make an informed decision. One testing company official  told us she received an accommodation request accompanied by a note  on a doctor’s prescription pad that indicated the applicant had ADHD  without any other information to document the applicant’s limitations on  the test, thereby making it difficult to grant an accommodation. Officials  from three testing companies also told us that an applicant’s professional  evaluator may not have provided enough information to explain why the  applicant needs an accommodation. They reported receiving evaluations  without a formal disability diagnosis or evaluations with a diagnosis, but  no information as to how the diagnosis was reached, leaving them with  additional questions about the applicant’s condition. In addition, some  testing company officials said it can be difficult to explain to applicants  that having a diagnosis does not mean they have a qualifying disability  that entitles them to testing accommodations under the ADA. One testing  company official said she spends a great deal of time explaining to  applicants that she needs information on their functional limitations in  addition to a disability diagnosis.
Testing company officials also told us that evaluating requests for certain  types of disabilities or accommodations can be difficult. Some testing  company officials told us that evaluating requests from gifted applicants  or those with learning disabilities are among the most challenging. Such  applicants may not have a documented history of their disability or of  receiving accommodations, making it more difficult to determine their  current needs. One testing company official told us that greater scrutiny is  applied to requests from applicants without a history of accommodations  because they question why the applicant was not previously diagnosed  and suddenly requests accommodations for the test. Officials from two  testing companies stated that determining whether to provide for the use  of assistive technologies or certain formats of the test can be difficult. One  testing company official stated that allowing test takers to use their own  software or laptop might result in information, such as test questions,  being left on a test taker’s computer, which could compromise future  administrations of the test since some questions may be reused. The  official from the other company stated that providing the exam in a  nonstandard format may change the exam itself and make the  comparability of scores more difficult.
Officials from two testing companies and an attorney representing some  of the testing companies included in our study also told us they have  concerns about testing companies being required to provide  accommodations that best ensure that applicants’ test results reflect the  applicants’ aptitudes rather than their disabilities since they believe the  ADA only requires testing companies to provide reasonable  accommodations. In a brief filed by several testing companies and  professional licensing boards supporting NCBE’s request that the  Supreme Court review the Court of Appeals decision in the Enyart case,  they stated that a “best ensure” standard would fundamentally alter how  standardized tests are administered since they would have to provide  whatever accommodation the test taker believes will best ensure his or  her success on the test. They stated this would skew nationwide  standardized test results, call into question the fairness and validity of the  tests, and impose new costs on testing organizations.
section_title: Federal Enforcement Is Largely Complaint- Driven, and Justice Lacks a Strategic Approach to Ensure Testing Company Compliance
subsections: section_title: Enforcement of Testing Company Compliance Generally Occurs in Response to Complaints, and Involves Multiple Agencies
paragraphs: Federal enforcement of laws and regulations governing testing  accommodations primarily occurs in response to citizen complaints that  are submitted to federal agencies. While Justice has overall responsibility  for enforcement of Title III of the ADA, which includes Section 309 that  is specifically related to examinations offered by private testing  companies, other federal agencies such as Education and HHS have  enforcement responsibilities under the Rehabilitation Act for testing  companies that receive federal financial assistance from them. Justice  can pursue any complaints it receives alleging discrimination under the  ADA, regardless of the funding status of the respondent, but Education  and HHS can only pursue complaints filed against entities receiving  financial assistance from them at the time the alleged discrimination  occurred. Education and HHS provided financial assistance to 4 of the 10  testing companies included in our study in at least 1 of the 4 fiscal years  included in our analysis, fiscal years 2007 to 2010.
When Justice receives a complaint that alleges discrimination involving  testing accommodations it may investigate the complaint, refer it to  another federal agency that has jurisdiction, or close it with no further  action. After Justice reviews the complaint at in-take, it advises  complainants that it might not make a determination about whether or not  a violation has occurred in each instance. Justice officials explained that  the department does not have the resources to make a determination  regarding each complaint given the large volume and broad range of ADA  complaints the agency receives. Specifically, Justice’s Disability Rights  Section of the Civil Rights Division reported receiving 13,140 complaints,  opening 3,141 matters for investigation, and opening 41 cases for  litigation related to the ADA in fiscal years 2007 to 2010. Due to the  limitations of Justice’s data systems, it is not possible to systematically  analyze Justice’s complaint data to determine the total related to testing  accommodations. However, using a key word search, Justice identified  59 closed complaints related to testing accommodations involving 8 of the  10 testing companies included in our study for fiscal years 2007 to 2010.  Based on our review of available complaint information, we found that  Justice closed 29 complaints without action, 2 were withdrawn by the  complainant, and 1 was referred to a U.S. Attorney. However, we were  unable to determine the final disposition of 27 complaints given  information gaps in Justice’s data systems and paper files. In addition to  identifying closed complaints, Justice identified five closed matters related  to testing accommodations for three of the testing companies included in  our study for fiscal years 2007 to 2010. One of these resulted in a  settlement with the testing company that would allow the complainant  to take the exam with accommodations, two were closed based on  insufficient evidence provided by the complainant, and the outcome of the  remaining two could not be determined based on limited information in  Justice’s files.
Education and HHS officials told us they review each incoming complaint  to determine whether it should be investigated further. For Education and  HHS to conduct further investigations, the complaint must involve an  issue over which the agencies have jurisdiction and be filed in a timely  manner. Eligible complaints are then investigated to determine whether  a testing company violated the Rehabilitation Act. Similar to Justice,  Education did not track complaints specifically involving testing  accommodations. However, Education was able to identify a subset of  complaints related to testing accommodations for the testing companies  included in our sample by comparing our list of testing companies against  all of their complaints. For fiscal years 2007 to 2010, Education identified  41 complaints related to testing accommodations involving six of the  testing companies included in our study. Based on a review of closure  letters sent to complainants, we found that Education did not consider  testing company compliance for most complaints. Specifically, Education  determined that it did not have the authority to investigate 14 complaints  involving testing companies that were not receiving federal financial  assistance at the time of the alleged violation. Education closed 14  other complaints without making a determination about compliance  because the complaint was not filed on time, was withdrawn, or involved  an allegation pending with the testing company or the courts. Based on its  investigation of the remaining 13 complaints, Education did not identify  any instances in which testing companies were not in compliance with the  Rehabilitation Act. HHS identified one complaint against a testing  company included in our study, but it was withdrawn by the complainant  prior to a determination being made.
section_title: Justice Has Clarified ADA Requirements for Testing Accommodations but Lacks a Strategic Approach to Enforcement
paragraphs: Justice’s regulations implementing Section 309 of the ADA provide the  criteria for its enforcement efforts, and it has recently taken steps to  clarify ADA requirements pertaining to testing accommodations by adding  new provisions to regulations. In June 2008—prior to passage of the ADA  Amendments Act, Justice issued a notice of proposed rulemaking, and  issued final regulations in September 2010 following a public hearing and  comment period. In issuing those regulations, Justice stated that it relied  on its history of enforcement efforts, research, and body of knowledge  regarding testing accommodations. Justice officials told us they added  new provisions to the regulations based on reports—detailed in  complaints and anecdotal information from lawyers and others in the  disability rights community—that raised questions about what  documentation is reasonable and appropriate for testing companies to  request. The final regulations, which took effect in March 2011, added  provisions clarifying that testing companies’ requests for documentation  should be reasonable and limited to the need for the accommodation, that  testing companies should give considerable weight to documentation  showing prior accommodations, and they should respond in a timely  manner to accommodations requests. Justice provided further clarification  of these provisions in the guidance that accompanied the final rule.  Since the final regulations took effect, Justice has also filed statements of  interest in two recent court cases to clarify and enforce its regulations. In  both of these cases, test takers with visual disabilities filed lawsuits  seeking to use computer assistive technology to take a standardized test,  rather than other accommodations that the testing company thought were  reasonable, including Braille, large print, and audio formats. In these  statements of interest, Justice discussed the background of the ADA and  its regulations and stated that the accommodations offered to those test  takers should be analyzed under the “best ensure” standard. Justice also  pointed out that Congress intended for the interpretation of the ADA to  evolve over time as new technology was developed that could enhance  options for students with disabilities. In addition, Justice stated that it had  made clear in regulatory guidance that appropriate auxiliary aids should  keep pace with emerging technology.
While these actions may help clarify what is required under the ADA, we  found that Justice is not making full use of available data and other  information to target its enforcement activity. For example, incoming  complaints are the primary mechanism Justice relies on to focus its  enforcement efforts, and it makes decisions on which complaints to  pursue primarily on a case-by-case basis. However, Justice does not  utilize information gathered on all its complaints to develop a systematic  approach to enforcement that would extend beyond one case. Officials  told us that the facts and circumstances of every complaint are unique,  but that in determining whether to pursue a particular complaint, they  consider a number of factors, including available resources and the merits  of the complaint. Officials also said they may group complaints, for  example, waiting until they receive a number of complaints related to the  same testing company before deciding whether to pursue them. They  also told us they may pursue a complaint if it highlights an aspect of the  ADA that has not yet been addressed. For example, Justice officials told  us the department investigated one recent complaint because it  demonstrated how someone who was diagnosed with a disability later in  life and did not have a long history of receiving classroom  accommodations was eligible for testing accommodations under the ADA.  While these may be the appropriate factors for Justice to consider in  determining whether to pursue each individual complaint, we found that  the agency has not given sufficient consideration to whether its  enforcement activities related to all complaints, when taken in the  aggregate, make the most strategic use of its limited resources.
In addition, although Justice collects some data on the ADA complaints it  receives, it does not systematically utilize these data to inform its overall  enforcement activities in this area. Information on incoming complaints  are entered into the Justice’s Correspondence Tracking System, and data  on complaints that it pursues, also known as matters, are entered into its  Interactive Case Management system. Justice officials told us that they  do not systematically review information from these data systems given  system limitations. For example, Justice is able to generate reports on  complaints and matters associated with a specific statute (e.g., Title II or  III of the ADA), but because no additional data on the type of complaint  are entered into their systems it is not possible to generate a list of  complaints and matters related to specific issues, such as testing  accommodations. Additionally, because the two systems do not interface,  Justice is unable to determine the disposition of all complaints. Of the five  closed matters we reviewed, we were only able to track one back to the  original complaint in the Correspondence Tracking System. In the  absence of data that can be systematically analyzed, Justice relies on its  institutional knowledge of complaints and matters to inform its  enforcement efforts. For example, Justice officials told us they know  which testing companies are more frequently cited in complaints. While  institutional knowledge can be a useful tool to inform decisions, it may  leave the agency at risk of losing critical knowledge. For example, with  the recent retirement of two key officials from the Civil Rights Division’s  Disability Rights Section, Justice has lost a major component of its  institutional knowledge related to testing accommodations. We provided  Justice with the names of testing companies included in our review to  identify complaints and matters in their systems related to these  companies. While Justice officials said they have conducted similar  searches in reference to a specific complaint, they have not conducted  systematic searches of their data systems to inform their overall  enforcement efforts. In the absence of systematic reviews of information  on complaints within their data systems, Justice may be missing out on  opportunities to be strategic in identifying enforcement actions that would  extend beyond one complaint or that would address widespread issues  related to how testing accommodations decisions are made by testing  companies.
In addition to not making full use of its complaint data, Justice has not  effectively coordinated with other agencies to inform its enforcement  efforts. While Justice has broad responsibility for enforcing compliance  with the ADA, Justice officials told us that they were not aware that  Education and HHS were receiving and pursuing testing accommodations  complaints for testing companies that were recipients of federal funding.  Justice officials stated that they have not had regular meetings or  exchanges related to testing accommodations with officials from  Education or HHS. Officials from HHS also told us that relevant federal  agencies provide expertise to one another when necessary, but that no  formal or regular coordination meetings related to testing  accommodations have been held with Justice or Education. By not  coordinating with other federal agencies, Justice is limiting its ability to  assess the full range of potential compliance issues related to testing  accommodations.
As part of its enforcement authority, the ADA authorizes Justice to  conduct periodic compliance reviews. Justice reviews testing company  compliance with the ADA in the course of investigating complaints, and  officials said they could conduct a compliance review if they received a  series of complaints against a particular company. However, Justice  officials told us they have not initiated any compliance reviews that  include a thorough examination of a testing company’s policies, practices,  and records related to testing accommodations. Justice officials said it  would be difficult to undertake a thorough compliance review because  testing companies are not required to cooperate with such a review, and  the agency lacks the authority to subpoena testing companies. However,  in the absence of attempting to conduct such a compliance review,  Justice is not in a position to fully assess whether this enforcement  mechanism could prove beneficial to them.
In its 2007-2012 Strategic Plan, Justice states that “outreach and  technical assistance will continue to play a vital role to ensure compliance  with the civil rights statutes.” However, Justice’s efforts to provide  technical assistance related to testing accommodations have been  limited. Justice officials told us they provide technical assistance by  responding to calls that come into the ADA hotline or directly to the  Disability Rights Section. For example, a disability advocate may reach  out to an attorney to discuss a particular student’s situation. Justice  officials told us they have discussed testing accommodations at meetings  and conferences when invited to attend, although they have not made  any presentations in recent years. Justice provides some guidance  regarding testing accommodations in its ADA Title III Technical  Assistance Guide. However, since the guide was last updated in 1993, it  does not reflect recent ADA amendments, regulatory changes, or  changes in accommodations available to test takers based on advances  in technology. Justice officials also told us that they have not recently  conducted outreach with testing companies. They reported that their  resources have been focused on issuing regulations related to both  testing accommodations and other topic areas. Testing company officials  we interviewed reported that they had limited or no interaction with  Justice, and one official said she would welcome more interaction with  Justice to ensure the company was interpreting the laws correctly. An  attorney who works with multiple testing companies included in our study  told us that, because Justice only reviews complaints, which represent a  small fraction of all testing accommodations requested, it may not have  an accurate view of how often testing companies grant accommodations.  Similarly, Justice has not leveraged its complaint and case data to target  outreach and technical assistance based on the types of complaints most  frequently filed. For example, Justice has not analyzed its complaint files  to determine if multiple complaints filed had similar themes so that they  could target their outreach to testing companies to clarify how to apply the  regulations in these cases. Without targeted outreach, Justice misses  opportunities to limit or prevent testing company noncompliance with the  ADA.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Given the critical role that standardized tests play in making decisions on  higher education admissions, licensure, and job placement, federal laws  require that individuals with disabilities are able to access these tests in a  manner that allows them to accurately demonstrate their skill level. While  testing companies reported providing thousands of test takers with  accommodations in the most recent testing year, test takers and disability  advocates continue to raise questions about whether testing companies  are complying with the law in making their determinations. Justice, as the  primary enforcement agency under the ADA, has taken steps to clarify  how testing companies should make their determinations, but its  enforcement lacks the strategic and coordinated approach necessary to  ensure compliance. Without a systematic approach to reviewing  complaints that it receives, Justice cannot assure that all complaints are  consistently considered and that it is effectively targeting its limited  resources to the highest priority enforcement activities. Continuing to  target enforcement on a case-by-case basis does not allow Justice to  consider what enforcement activities could extend beyond one case.  Additionally, in the absence of coordination with other federal agencies,  Justice is missing opportunities to strengthen enforcement by assessing  the full range of potential compliance issues related to testing  accommodations. Justice’s largely reactive approach to enforcement in  this area may also limit its ability to address problems before trends of  noncompliance are well established. After revising its testing  accommodations regulations, Justice did not conduct outreach to testing  companies or update its technical assistance materials to ensure the  requirements were being applied consistently. Since we found testing  companies believe their practices are already in compliance with the new  regulatory requirements, it is unclear whether these changes will better  protect the rights of students with disabilities. In order to ensure  individuals with disabilities have equal opportunity to pursue their  education and career goals, it is imperative for Justice to establish a  credible enforcement presence to detect, correct, and prevent violations.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: We recommend to the Attorney General that Justice take steps to  develop a strategic approach to target its enforcement efforts related to  testing accommodations. For example, the strategic approach could  include (1) analyzing its complaint and case data to prioritize enforcement  and technical assistance, (2) working with the Secretaries of Education  and HHS to develop a formal coordination strategy, and (3) updating  technical assistance materials to reflect current requirements.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to Justice, Education, and HHS for  review and comment. In written comments, Justice agreed with our  recommendation, stating that its efforts to ensure the rights of individuals  with disabilities are best served through a strategic use of its authority to  enforce the ADA’s testing provisions. Justice highlighted some actions the  agency will pursue to enhance enforcement in this area. With regard to  analyzing its data, Justice stated that it utilizes complaint and case data  through all stages of its work and makes decisions about which  complaints to pursue based on ongoing and prior work. Also, Justice  stated that it is looking for ways to improve its recordkeeping with respect  to completed investigations and cases. While improving its recordkeeping  is a positive action, we believe it is important for Justice to systematically  review its data to strategically enforce the law. As we stated in our report,  Justice has not utilized its data to develop a systematic approach to  enforcement that would extend beyond one case, nor has it given  sufficient consideration to whether its enforcement activities, when taken  in the aggregate, make the most strategic use of its limited resources.  Justice agreed to pursue discussions with both Education and HHS on  the investigation and resolution of complaints about testing  accommodations, and agreed to develop additional technical assistance  materials on testing accommodations in the near future. Justice’s written  comments appear in appendix II.
In written comments, Education committed to working with Justice to  coordinate efforts to ensure equity in testing for all students, including  students with disabilities, consistent with the laws they enforce.  Education’s written comments appear in appendix III.
Justice and Education also provided technical comments, which were  incorporated into the report as appropriate.
HHS had no comments on the draft report.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its  issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to relevant  congressional committees, the Attorney General, the Secretary of  Education, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and other  interested parties. In addition, this report will be available at no charge on  GAO’s website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of this report were to determine (1) what types of  accommodations individuals with disabilities apply for and receive, and  how schools assist them; (2) what factors testing companies consider  when making decisions about requests for testing accommodations; (3)  what challenges students and testing companies experience in receiving  and granting testing accommodations; and (4) how federal agencies  enforce compliance with relevant federal disability laws and regulations.
For our study, we focused our review on a nongeneralizeable sample of  11 tests administered by 10 testing companies. We chose tests that are  commonly used to gain admission into undergraduate, graduate, and  professional programs and to obtain professional certification or licensure.  We included the SAT and ACT in our study as these are the 2 most  commonly used standardized tests for admission into undergraduate  programs. To determine which graduate level and certification or  licensure tests to include in our study, we reviewed data from the  Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) to establish  the fields of study with the largest populations of students graduating with  a masters or first professional degree. We also reviewed IPEDS data to  determine the top three fields of study in which students with disabilities  are enrolled. Based on these data, we identified 5 graduate and  professional admissions tests, and 4 corresponding professional  certification tests that could be required of students graduating with  degrees in these fields. The fields of study included business, education,  law, medicine, and pharmacy. To inform our findings, we interviewed  officials from seven of the testing companies included in our study, and  two companies submitted written responses to questions we provided.  One testing company declined to participate in our study. (See table 1 for  a list of the testing companies and tests included in our study.) The views  of the testing company officials we spoke with or received responses from  cannot be generalized to all testing companies that provide  accommodations to applicants with disabilities.
To determine the types of accommodations requested by individuals with  disabilities and granted by testing companies, we reviewed data provided  by testing companies on accommodations requested and granted,  interviewed testing company officials, interviewed disability experts, and  reviewed literature to understand the types of accommodations applicants  with disabilities might require. GAO provided testing companies with a  standardized data collection instrument that covered a range of topics  including the types of disabilities students have and the types of  accommodations they requested and were granted in the most recent  testing year. We asked for data on the number of accommodations  requested and granted by type of accommodation and type of disability.  In some cases, testing companies did not collect data in the manner  requested by GAO and instead provided alternate data to help inform our  study. Because of the variance in how testing companies collect data on  disability type, we aggregated data into broad disability categories. We  identified the following limitations with data provided by the testing  companies, in addition to those noted throughout the report. We excluded  data testing companies provided on applicants with multiple disabilities  because these data were reported differently across testing companies.  For example, one testing company provided a disability category called  multiple disabilities while another told us that, in cases where an applicant  has more than one disability, they capture in their data the disability most  relevant to the accommodation. In general, testing companies’ data  reflect those requests that were complete, not those for which a decision  was pending in the testing year for which data were provided. In our data  request, we asked questions about the reliability of the data, such as  whether there are audits of the data or routine quality control procedures  in place. Based on their responses to these questions, we believe the  data provided by the testing companies were sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report.
To understand how schools assist individuals in applying for  accommodations, we interviewed officials from a nongeneralizable  sample of 8 high schools and 13 postsecondary schools and eight  individuals with disabilities who had applied for testing accommodations.  (See table 2 for a complete list of schools.) To select schools, we  reviewed data from Education’s Common Core of Data and IPEDS  databases and chose a nongeneralizable sample based on  characteristics such as sector (public and private, including nonprofit and  for-profit postsecondary), geographic diversity (including urban, suburban,  and rural settings for high schools), total enrollment, and size of  population of students with disabilities. We also reviewed publicly  available lists of colleges and universities to identify postsecondary  schools that offered academic programs in the fields corresponding to the  tests we chose. We identified individuals with disabilities to interview  based on referrals from experts and school officials and selected them  based on their representation of a range of disabilities and tests for which  they sought accommodations.
To determine the factors testing companies consider when making their  decisions, we reviewed policies and procedures for requesting  accommodations found on testing companies’ Web sites and reviewed  relevant federal laws and regulations pertaining to testing companies.  However, we did not evaluate whether these policies and procedures as  written or described to us in interviews—either on their face or as applied  in the context of responding to individual requests for accommodations— were in compliance with relevant laws or regulations.  Accordingly,  statements in this report that describe the policies and procedures used  by testing companies to review and respond to requests for  accommodations, should not be read as indicating that testing companies  are either in or out of compliance with applicable federal laws. We also  conducted interviews with seven testing companies and reviewed written  responses to our questions from two companies that declined our request  for an interview. One company declined to participate in our study.
To identify the challenges that applicants and testing companies may  experience in receiving and granting accommodations, we interviewed  eight individuals with disabilities to learn about their experiences in  obtaining accommodations, interviewed testing company officials and  reviewed written responses from testing companies about the challenges  they face in granting accommodations, interviewed disability advocacy  groups and researchers with expertise in various types of disabilities, and  reviewed literature. The testing companies that participated in our study  reviewed draft statements in this report, and their comments were  incorporated as appropriate.
To determine how federal agencies enforce compliance with relevant  federal laws and regulations, we reviewed pertinent laws and regulations  to identify the responsibilities of federal agencies and interviewed officials  from Justice, Education, and HHS to learn about the actions these  agencies take to enforce compliance. In addition, we obtained data from  Justice, Education, and HHS on the number of closed complaints they  received between fiscal years 2007 and 2010 related to testing  accommodations for the 10 testing companies included in our study. We  also reviewed selected court cases regarding testing accommodations.  Since Justice receives the majority of complaints, we reviewed all of  Justice’s available paper files associated with complaints and matters  pertaining to the testing companies in our study. We reviewed the paper  files to better understand what action Justice takes in responding to  complaints and enforcing testing company compliance. We also reviewed  all of Education’s closure letters and HHS’ complaint and closure letters,  pertaining to testing companies in our study from fiscal years 2007 to  2010, to better understand what action these agencies take. We reviewed  existing information about the data and interviewed agency officials  knowledgeable at Justice, Education, and HHS. We identified some  limitations with the data as we described in our report. Justice reported  receiving 13,140 ADA-related complaints between fiscal years 2007 and  2010. Justice used key word searches of the data to identify 59 closed  complaints related to testing accommodations involving 8 of the 10 testing  companies included in our study. Justice also identified five closed  matters. We were unable to determine the final disposition of 27  complaints due to gaps in Justice’s data systems and paper files. By  comparing our list of testing companies against their complaints,  Education was able to identify 41 complaints. HHS was able to identify  only 1 complaint that was later withdrawn. Due to limitations with the data,  we cannot generalize the results of our file review.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2010 to November  2011, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Justice
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Education
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual above, Debra Prescott (Assistant Director),  Anjali Tekchandani (Analyst-in-Charge), Jennifer Cook, Nisha Hazra, and  Justine Lazaro made significant contributions to this report. Jean  McSween provided methodological support; Jessica Botsford provided  legal support; Susan Bernstein assisted in report development; and Mimi  Nguyen assisted with graphics.