With the April 2026 deadline approaching, the conversation around ADA Title II has shifted. Most public institutions are no longer asking whether digital accessibility applies to them — they know it does. The harder questions are about what to do next: which systems to prioritize, how to handle vendors, what "compliant enough" actually looks like under real operational pressure.
To help answer those questions, accessiBe recently published two original industry reports on ADA Title II readiness — one focused on higher education and one on state and local government agencies.
What the research found
Higher education: a confidence gap hiding in plain sight
Public colleges and universities have a clear mandate: digital content must conform to WCAG 2.1 Level AA by April 2026 for large institutions, and April 2027 for smaller ones. And most campuses are doing something about it. But our research shows that doing something and being defensibly prepared are two very different things.
Only 14% of institutions described their accessibility efforts as defensible under Title II. Meanwhile, 53% reported not being fully confident that students can complete required digital tasks end-to-end without barriers.
That gap isn't about indifference — it reflects the operational complexity of higher education environments, where accessibility responsibilities are spread across IT, faculty, procurement, disability services, and vendor-managed systems, often without a single coordinating framework.
The research also points to where risk concentrates most. Learning management systems, financial aid portals, registration tools, and required course documents are the systems students depend on daily — and the ones where accessibility gaps have the most direct consequences. Mobile applications add another layer: fewer than half of institutions reported including mobile apps in their formal accessibility scope, even as campuses move toward mobile-first student experiences.
Procurement is another pressure point.
While a majority of institutions said they consider accessibility during vendor selection, only 38% conduct independent testing to verify vendor claims.
Under Title II, outsourcing a platform doesn't outsource the responsibility — and institutions that inherit inaccessible systems through procurement often end up carrying the cost and the risk of remediation that should have been addressed before the contract was signed.
State and local government: the same challenge at a different scale
For government agencies, the picture is similarly complex. The DOJ's rule applies across the full breadth of public digital services — websites, mobile apps, online portals, and public-facing documents — regardless of whether those services are built in-house or delivered through third-party vendors. And like higher education, most agencies are working with legacy systems, distributed teams, and procurement pipelines that weren't originally designed with accessibility in mind.
The research reinforces what practitioners already sense: accessibility risk in government isn't primarily concentrated on the homepage: It lives in the forms people need to apply for benefits, the portals they use to pay bills, the documents that govern their rights and options.
When those systems aren't accessible, the consequences are immediate and real — a resident who can't complete a task independently isn't having a bad user experience, they're being excluded from a public service they're entitled to.
A phone number is not a workaround. Providing an alternative contact method does not satisfy Title II's requirement that digital services be accessible by default — a point that came up directly during our webinar and that the DOJ has made explicit in its guidance.
Insights from the disability community
What we’re seeing in the public sector isn’t isolated. It mirrors what members of the disability community are navigating as their digital ecosystems scale and become more dynamic.
In conversations with accessiBe’s product advisory board and wider nonprofit community, a consistent pattern emerged: Accessibility is applied unevenly across systems.
That impacts users most in moments of use.
“Imagine trying to complete a task, and your screen goes blank every 15 seconds. That’s what inaccessible digital experiences feel like.” — accessLabs community member
And the impact isn’t abstract. It directly affects participation.
“As accessibility barriers increase, participation decreases. If people can’t access your platform, they can’t engage with your services.” — Josh Basile, Esq., Community Relations Manager at accessiBe & Forbes Accessibility 100 Honoree
Accessibility breakdowns don’t just happen at the policy level. They happen across workflows, systems, and tools people rely on every day.
From research to reality: questions from the field
To translate these findings into next steps, accessiBe hosted a live webinar — Closing the gap on ADA Title II— with two experts who bring both policy knowledge and lived experience to the conversation: Josh Basile, Community Relations Manager at accessiBe and a practicing disability rights attorney, and Chandra Smith, Section 508 Officer at the Defense Intelligence Agency.
Attendees came with real questions. Below are the ones that came up most — and the answers that followed.
Questions from the field
Q: What's the difference between Section 508 and ADA Title II?
A:Section 508 governs the federal government — specifically how federal agencies procure and use technology. ADA Title II applies to state and local government entities: agencies, municipalities, public universities, transit authorities, school districts, and similar public bodies. The mission is the same — equal access for people with disabilities — but the responsible party and the legal framework differ depending on where you sit. If you work in the state or local public sector, or in public higher education, Title II is your primary framework.
Q: Do online order forms and intake documents need to be accessible — including ones that collect payment or personal information?
A: Yes. If a member of the public or a student is required to use a form to complete a task — submit a request, make a payment, enroll in a program — that form must be accessible. The format doesn't change the obligation. Whether it's an embedded web form or a downloadable PDF, if it's part of a required workflow, it falls within scope.
Where possible, HTML-based forms are strongly preferable to PDFs. They're easier to maintain, easier to update, and generally easier to keep accessible over time. If you have a form living as a PDF today, converting it to an accessible HTML page is often the most practical long-term solution.
Q: We've been told that "archivable" legacy PDFs aren't covered under Title II. Is that accurate?
A: Partially — but it's a distinction that's easy to misapply. The rule does recognize that not all content carries the same weight. Material that is genuinely archival — content no one is actively relying on to complete a task — carries lower risk than required, active documents.
That said, if a document is still publicly accessible on your website, it's difficult to argue it's truly archival. The cleaner approach: if it's not being actively used, take it down. If it is being used, it needs to be accessible. A document that sits on a public page while being labeled "archival" is a fragile position that doesn't hold up well under scrutiny.
Q: We receive PDFs from vendors that aren't accessible, but we're required to post them. How do we handle that?
A: This is one of the most common procurement challenges institutions face — and one of the most important to address proactively. Vendor-provided documentation, including VPATs and Accessibility Conformance Reports, should be treated as a starting point, not a guarantee.
Verification matters. That means reviewing vendor claims critically, and ideally including testing with users who rely on assistive technology. A screen reader user navigating a document will surface barriers that automated checks and vendor paperwork often miss entirely.
It's also worth revisiting contracts. Under Title II, the public entity remains legally responsible for the accessibility of its digital content, regardless of who produced it. Agreements with vendors should define who owns accessibility for what — and what remediation looks like when something falls short.
Q: Can we provide a phone number or email address as an alternative to an inaccessible website?
A: No. Under the Title II Final Rule, providing an alternate contact method is not a substitute for an accessible digital experience. Required digital content must be accessible by default — not only after someone encounters a barrier and asks for help.
This model — sometimes called reactive accommodation — was historically accepted in certain contexts, but the DOJ's 2024 rule draws a clear line. Accessibility must be built into required workflows from the start. A phone number isn't equal access: it removes independence, adds friction, and places the burden on the person with a disability to ask for something that everyone else receives automatically.
Q: How will ADA Title II actually be enforced?
A: Most enforcement will likely be complaint-driven — meaning individuals who encounter barriers can report them to the DOJ or pursue legal action. What regulators will look for is evidence of a structured, intentional accessibility program: documented audits, remediation plans, prioritization decisions, and records of progress over time.
The institutions in the strongest positions won't necessarily be the ones that have fixed the most by the deadline. They'll be the ones that can show the work — and that means documentation matters as much as remediation itself.
Q: What actually happens if we're not fully accessible by April 2026?
A: The deadline doesn't function like a light switch. If a complaint is filed, regulators will look at what your organization has done, not just where it landed on a single date. Institutions that have been actively auditing, prioritizing, and documenting their accessibility efforts — even if they haven't reached every system yet — are in a meaningfully different position than those that haven't started.
That said, if legacy systems are so fundamentally inaccessible that remediation isn't realistic, institutions may face harder choices about whether to rebuild or replace rather than retrofit. The time to assess which systems fall into that category is now, not after a deadline has passed.
Q: What about printable PDFs on a website — do those need to be accessible?
A: It depends on how they're being used. A PDF that someone needs to download and complete as part of a required process — a form, a policy, a notice — needs to be accessible. The question to ask for any document isn't "is this a PDF?" but "does someone need this to complete a task or access a service?" If the answer is yes, accessibility is required.
Q: How can we make sure we stay current as requirements and systems evolve?
A: Two things matter most. First, build a documentation habit now. Records of audits, remediation decisions, vendor evaluations, and testing results serve as your evidence of good-faith progress — for regulators, and for your own operational continuity as teams and systems change.
Second, don't try to manage this in isolation. Accessibility spans IT, procurement, legal, communications, and academic or program departments. Without a coordinated strategy and the right support, gaps are almost inevitable. The goal isn't to reach a finish line — it's to build a program that manages accessibility continuously as your digital environment evolves.
Go deeper: the research behind the conversation
The questions above reflect the real pressures public institutions are navigating right now. The full research is available across two reports — each tailored to the institutions and challenges it covers:
1. ADA Title II in higher education: readiness, risk, and the road to 2026
- Original survey research from 300 public college and university administrators
- Covers scope, procurement, documentation, and mobile accessibility
- Identifies the systems where Title II risk is most likely to surface
2. ADA Title II for government agencies
- A practical look at how state and local agencies are managing digital accessibility
- Covers websites, third-party platforms, and public-facing documents
- Addresses procurement strategy and building a defensible compliance posture
If you'd like to talk through where your organization stands, our Title II specialists are available for one-on-one conversations.
