States & IT Accessibility

• Deborah Buck, Executive Director
• Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs

States & §508 Requirements

• History of §508 requirements for States
  • Tech Act – 1988
  • Required Assurance
  • Lack of Clarity – “State” as a State defines it!!
  • Disparate interpretations of 508 applicability to States
• State & Local Government compliance with §508 is not required by ADA
• §508 does not apply to direct recipients of Federal funds (grants) unless a federal agency or department specifically requires conformance

Exception — AT Act of 1998, as amended

The application shall include assurances that…

(G) activities carried out in the State that are authorized under this Act, and supported by Federal funds received under this Act, will comply with the standards established by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (20 U.S.C. 794d); and…

Assistive Technology Act of 1998 as amended, PL108-364
SEC. 4. State Grants for Assistive Technology (d) Application (6) Assurances

IT Spending: States vs. Feds

• State & Local Gov’ts*
  • Expected to reach $74 billion by fiscal 2012
  • IT spending will reach $70 billion by 2010
• Federal Agencies**
  • Expected to spend $64.7 billion on IT in fiscal 2007 — slight decrease from last year.
  • Spent $48 billion on IT in 2005

*Source: CDWG
**Government Electronics and IT Association (GEIA)

State of the States

• Almost all States have policies & laws relative to web access
• 18 States have IT Access laws
• 1 State has an Executive Order (1993)
• 2 States have Executive or Administrative Order for web access alone
• 4 States have adopted policies or addressed E&IT accessibility through Enterprise Architecture or Policy

Web Accessibility

• States are all over the place – laws, policies, statements of commitment
• Standards
  • §508, W3C, State Standards
• State may have statute adopting §508, yet have Web Accessibility Policy/Guidance that goes beyond §508
• Industry is responsive to states taking hybrid approach – developing customizable validation & testing tools
• Usability

States with “508” Statutes

• Arizona 2004
• Arkansas 1999
• California 2002
• Colorado 2000
• Florida 2006
• Indiana 2001
• Kentucky 2000
• Louisiana 2001
• Maryland 1998
• Minnesota 1998/2002
• Missouri 1999
• Montana2001
• Nebraska 2000
• North Carolina 2001
• Oklahoa 2004
• Texas 2005
• Virginia 2004
• W. Virginia 2001

Executive Orders & Policies

• Executive Orders
  • Massachusetts 1993
• CIO Office Policy
  • Oregon 2001
  • Georgia*
  • Maine *2003
  • Wisconsin *??1997
  • Michigan 2006 Draft Policies

State Statutes, Executive Orders, Technical Architecture, Policies

• State Statute
• Executive Orders (MA)
  • Can be rescinded
  • Some EOs automatically expire on a set date or upon change in Governor.
  • Knowledge of EO can be nonexistent
• Policies & Standards
  • Policies
    • Don’t have full force & effect of law
  • Technical Architectures
    • Integrated approach

Adopting §508

• Civil Rights/Accommodation vs. E&IT Infrastructure Accessibility
  • Civil Rights / Non-discrimination Laws
  • IT Statutes & Procurement Statutes

Adopting §508 – Options

• Adopt §508 in full
• Adopt §508 components in statute
• Adopt statute to ensure IT accessibility
  • Designated entity given authority and responsibility to develop standards
  • Maintain state control adopt standards via rulemaking or policy
  • Adopt §508 standards or descriptive standards based on §508
    • Several did not adopt functional performance standards (MO,OK,NE,IN)
    • Some did not adopt self-contained closed products standards and modified other parts of technical standards
• Some cases – can’t distinguish between IT accessibility and individual accommodations
• Some cases – no standards adopted

Target Beneficiaries

• Majority of state statutes benefit all people with disabilities
• Six State Statutes limited to people who are blind or have other visual disabilities — Non-visual access
• States that adopted non-visual access changed to ensure access for all
  • Virginia
  • Texas

Scope of Applicability

• Varies by state to state – covered entities may be extended by policies
  • State governmental entities
  • Public Schools and Universities
  • Judicial branches of state government
  • Entities in receipt of state funds
  • Unfunded Mandates??
    • Requirement follows the dollar
    • Entities supported in whole or part by the state required to comply.
    • Efforts and ability to enforce are unclear

Lead Authority

• Implementation
  • No responsibility for implementation
  • CIOs office or comparable agency
  • Responsibility shared with finance entity.
  • Entity given authority to implement may not have authority over covered entities making enforcement a challenge.

Procurement–Implementation

• Consideration of accessibility
  • Priority – 1st screen — or…
  • Considered as part of the acquisition – subservient to business & technical needs
• Definitions
  • Undue Burden – different approaches
    • Vendor determination?
    • 5% Rule
      • Compliance not required if the cost of modifying the information technology to support for compatibility with software and hardware for nonvisual access would increase the cost of the procurement by more than 5 percent.
  • Accessible
    • Easy to get to, approachable, available
• Access Clause required in contracts
  • Statement of conformance by vendor or submission of Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) http://www.itic.org/reports/508/Sec508.html
• Testing
  • Lack of widely accepted testing protocols
  • Internal versus external testing
  • User testing – testing the product or the users knowledge and ability to use the technology or their AT
• Leveraging Federal Progress
  • Federal Supply Schedule