For many state and local government technology teams, April 2026 was supposed to be a major accessibility milestone. The U.S. Department of Justice has now pushed the compliance dates back by one year. State and local governments with populations of 50,000 or more now have until April 26, 2027. Smaller public entities and special district governments have until April 26, 2028.
That extra time is useful. But it can also create a temptation to put accessibility work on hold. That would be a mistake.
For an agency with years of websites, PDFs, forms, reports, videos and other digital content, accessibility remediation is not something that can be completed in a few weeks. The agencies that use this additional time to understand their accessibility gaps and establish a sustainable process will be in a much better position when the new deadlines arrive.
More importantly, residents shouldn’t have to wait for a compliance date to access government services.
Start With the Resident, Not the Website
It’s easy to think about digital accessibility as a website problem. A government website may have accessible navigation, readable text and properly labeled buttons. But that doesn’t necessarily mean the service itself is accessible.
Consider a resident applying for a building permit.
They might start on the city’s website, download an application PDF, read a set of instructions, complete a form, upload supporting documents and watch a video explaining the process.
The website may work perfectly with a screen reader. But what happens if the application PDF has no logical reading order? What if the form fields aren’t labeled? What if the instructional video has no captions? The resident still faces an accessibility barrier.
The DOJ’s Title II rule is focused on web content and mobile applications, and its definition of web content includes information such as text, images, sound, video and documents. That’s why government agencies should look at accessibility through the entire digital service journey, rather than treating the website as the finish line.
The Accessibility Gaps May Be Hiding in Plain Sight
Government agencies have accumulated enormous amounts of digital content over the years. Think about the documents residents actually need:
- Permit applications
- Public meeting agendas and minutes
- Budget documents
- Election information
- Benefits applications
- Planning documents
- Public notices
- Annual reports
- Policies and regulations
- Tax forms
- Emergency information
Many of these resources are distributed as PDFs or other downloadable documents.
GovLoop recently highlighted this issue in its coverage of PDFs and public trust, noting that documents such as budgets, permits, meeting packets and annual reports are an important part of how residents interact with local government.
An inaccessible document can create the same practical barrier as an inaccessible webpage.
For example, a PDF may contain text that looks perfectly readable visually but has no meaningful structure for someone using a screen reader. Tables may not be tagged correctly. Images may lack alternative text. The reading order may be confusing, or a scanned document may contain no usable text at all.
These aren’t always problems that a resident can solve on their own.
Don’t Try to Fix Everything at Once
One of the biggest challenges for state and local governments is scale. An agency may have thousands of documents spread across departments, websites and content management systems. Trying to remediate everything simultaneously can quickly become overwhelming, particularly for smaller teams.
A better starting point is to create an inventory. List the digital properties and content your agency provides to the public, including:
- Websites and web applications
- Mobile applications
- PDFs and other documents
- Online forms
- Videos and recorded meetings
- Frequently accessed public resources
Then identify which content matters most to residents.
A document explaining how to apply for housing assistance is likely more important to remediate quickly than an old report that receives almost no traffic. The DOJ’s own planning guidance recommends that state and local governments identify their web content and apps, determine which content needs to comply, identify necessary fixes and prioritize what to fix first. That provides a useful framework for agencies dealing with a large accessibility backlog.
Prioritize What Has the Greatest Impact
A simple way to prioritize content is to look at three factors:
How often is it used? Frequently downloaded forms and documents should receive attention early.
How important is the service? Content related to benefits, permits, healthcare, education, voting, emergency services or other essential government programs deserves a higher priority.
How difficult is the barrier to overcome? If an inaccessible document prevents someone from completing an application or understanding a government service, it should move higher on the list.
This approach helps teams move away from treating every accessibility issue as equally urgent. The goal isn’t to produce an impressive spreadsheet showing how many files have been remediated. The goal is to make the services residents depend on easier to use.
Build Two Accessibility Tracks
Remediating existing content is only half of the problem. If an agency fixes 5,000 PDFs but continues creating inaccessible PDFs every week, the backlog will eventually return. That’s why agencies should work on two tracks at the same time.
Track One: Remediate existing content
Identify and fix the accessibility problems in existing high-priority content. Depending on the format, this could include checking document structure, headings, reading order, tables, alternative text, links, form fields and other accessibility requirements.
Track Two: Prevent new problems
Accessibility should become part of the normal content-production process. Before a new document is published, for example, teams can establish a basic review process:
Create → Check → Fix → Validate → Publish
The same principle can apply to web pages, forms, videos and other public-facing content. This is how accessibility moves from a one-time compliance project to an ongoing part of digital service delivery.
Don’t Rely on Automated Scanning Alone
Automated accessibility testing can be extremely useful. It can help agencies identify certain types of problems quickly, especially when they have large websites or content libraries to review. But automated testing doesn’t tell the whole story.
A document can technically pass an automated check and still be confusing to someone using assistive technology. A form can contain correctly labeled fields but still create a frustrating user experience. A video can have captions that technically exist but contain significant errors.
Agencies should therefore combine automated testing with manual review and user testing where appropriate. Keyboard testing, screen-reader testing and testing with people with disabilities can reveal problems that automated tools may miss.
The objective isn’t simply to generate a compliance report. It is to understand whether people can actually use the service.
Accessibility Cannot Belong to IT Alone
Another common problem is ownership. An IT department may manage the website, while communications creates PDFs, individual departments publish documents, procurement manages vendors and another team manages public meetings.
If everyone assumes accessibility belongs to someone else, gaps are inevitable. Accessibility therefore needs clear ownership across the organization.
IT can manage technical standards and testing. Communications can establish accessible publishing practices. Procurement can include accessibility requirements when evaluating technology vendors. Departmental content owners can take responsibility for the documents and information they publish.
Leadership also has a role in making sure these responsibilities are defined and supported.
The DOJ’s planning guidance specifically recommends identifying who within a state or local government will have a role in complying with the rule and training staff.
Don’t Forget Your Vendors
Many government services depend on third-party technology. A city might use an external vendor for its website. A county might rely on a third-party permitting platform. A state agency may use a vendor to provide online applications or other digital services. That doesn’t make accessibility the vendor’s problem.
The DOJ’s guidance specifically notes that Title II requirements can apply to web content and mobile apps provided through contractual, licensing or other arrangements. Public entities should work with vendors to ensure the services they provide meet accessibility requirements.
That makes accessibility an important procurement question. When evaluating a technology provider, agencies should ask:
- What accessibility standards does the product support?
- How is accessibility tested?
- How are accessibility defects reported and fixed?
- Who is responsible when an accessibility problem is discovered?
- Can the platform produce accessible content?
- How is accessibility maintained after software updates?
These questions are much easier to address before a system is purchased than after an inaccessible platform becomes embedded in an agency’s operations.
Measure Whether Residents Can Actually Get Things Done
Accessibility programs often produce numbers. How many pages were tested? How many defects were fixed? How many employees completed training? Those metrics can be useful, but they don’t tell the whole story.
A more meaningful question is:
Can a resident complete the task they came to the government website to complete?
- Can they apply for a permit?
- Can they understand a public notice?
- Can they download and read a meeting packet?
- Can they complete an online form?
- Can they watch a public meeting?
- Can they access information about a government benefit?
Those are the outcomes that matter.
The DOJ has made a similar point in its guidance by connecting accessible web and mobile services with everyday government activities, from applying for benefits to participating in public meetings and accessing local services.
Use the Extra Time Wisely
The revised deadlines give state and local governments additional breathing room. They should use it.
The agencies that wait until the next deadline is approaching will be forced to make accessibility decisions under pressure. Those that start now can inventory their content, identify the services that matter most, establish ownership, address their highest-priority barriers and build accessibility into everyday workflows.
That doesn’t require fixing every document on Day One. It requires knowing where the problems are and having a sensible plan for addressing them.
The real objective isn’t to complete an accessibility project and move on. It’s to build government digital services where accessibility is considered when the service is designed, when content is created, when technology is purchased and when residents actually use it.
The compliance clock may have moved.
The opportunity to make government services easier for everyone to use shouldn’t.
Emilie Brown is part of Continual Engine’s Content Marketing team, crafting concise, solution-focused content on digital accessibility and remediation. She excels in connecting with readers seeking practical insights. Outside work, Emilie enjoys time with her dog, volunteering, and playing guitar.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.