88% of institutes that answered the survey have a university policy, and most of them are implemented. 

Different ways that university disability policies are monitored include:

·        Procedures: Clear procedures allow many situations to be sorted without much effort.  “a clear complaints procedure that is followed if one wishes to make a complaint under the Disability Act / Regular review of policies and procedures / Annual statistical returns on student numbers, individual student financial allowances, disabled user feedback as part of 3-year disability equality scheme / Each student who requests accommodations through this office is required to fill out some forms to verify his/her disability, what services they need, and from that point, they work with their disability support service counselor on implementing the service(s) to meet their needs. / Each service provided through the disability support services are documented and kept for recording purposes.

·        Committees or working groups: a small number of people are appointed by the university administration to produce reports “senior level managers that make up the Diversity Steering Group/ Disability Equality Scheme working group/ Disabled Staff Network; Disability Equality Scheme; Joint Committee on Disability/ student counselors/ the Social Affairs Service/ a special team of 4 staff members of the Study and Career Centre / a working group, which follows the report of an extensive study on inclusive issues /working groups themed on four different areas (estates, communication, staff issues, student experience), which report into our University's Equality and Diversity Committee / Disability Services Committee meetings with department heads and/or with relevant members of staff and keep minutes of actions to be carried out etc. (this does take time though). / The Disability Service reports to the Student Services committee and the Equality Committee. / Evaluation every 2 years.”

·        Feedback: A range of feedback (forms, electronic, questionnaires…), from various stakeholders (disabled students, academic staff, students peers, etc) on different aspects of services can give useful information to show administrators why changes are needed.  “Monitoring and analysing the outlook to disable students / peer-reviews, group meetings, feedback/ assessments, feedback from disabled students and staff/ via student feedback (surveys, user/focus groups) / Student Feedback, Audits, Supervision from senior staff / feedback from students and review from staff / by regular internet questionnaires / Evaluations are sent out to disabled students and employees. Staff of the Disability Resource Center and Office of Affirmative Action are responsible for monitoring university compliance / feedback from students and staff / Every semester, students with disabilities are encouraged to fill out an evaluation form provided by the office to determine the service providers' strengths and areas in need of improvement.”

·        Face to face meetings: Meeting students and staff in person can bring information that other formats might not pick up.  “Maintaining communication disabilities support office. On a day to day basis we keep in touch with faculty and students and may act ad hoc if necessary / Monthly "Question Time; Disabled Students" meetings through Human Resources for members of staff - so it's ongoing awareness training.”

·        The design of the policy: One respondent mentioned the initial design of the policy: “By developing of an institutional policy aimed at obtaining the cooperation of social institutions and organizations, both public and private, interested in the integration of disability.  Also by encouraging actions to meet solid commitments with the authorities to provide both, access to the university system and attendance of disabled people.”

·        External monitoring: “By the national Institute for Integration in Study”

A note from one respondant: “Implementation can be monitored only if the number of disabled is present. But the authorities themselves believed that the disabled students are ignorant of the laws or rights of the disabled. Hence, implementation may not accurately be monitored.”