2026-05-17 · 6 min read

What a DOJ-Compliant Accessibility Statement Actually Requires (And What Most Government Sites Get Wrong)

# What a DOJ-Compliant Accessibility Statement Actually Requires (and What Most Government Sites Get Wrong)

If your agency's website has an accessibility statement, there is a reasonable chance that statement is inadequate under the current DOJ Title II Final Rule — not because of bad intentions, but because the standard changed.

The accessibility statement requirements in effect for the Title II Final Rule are more specific than what most government IT teams put together years ago. Statements that reference "best efforts," omit the WCAG version number, or cite outdated contact information are not compliant. Neither are statements that were generated by an accessibility overlay vendor's auto-generator and never customized.

This post explains exactly what a compliant accessibility statement must contain, what the most common gaps are, and what happens if yours does not meet the standard.

What the DOJ actually requires

The Title II Final Rule does not provide an exhaustive template for accessibility statements, but it does require that covered entities demonstrate good-faith conformance efforts. DOJ enforcement practice and established accessibility standards (including the W3C's Accessibility Statement Generator Guidelines) consistently identify the following elements as necessary for a defensible statement:

1. A specific conformance claim

The statement must name WCAG 2.1 Level AA specifically. Vague language — "we strive to be accessible," "we follow accessibility best practices," "we comply with applicable laws" — does not constitute a conformance claim and will not satisfy a DOJ reviewer.

Acceptable: *"[Agency Name] is partially conformant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA, due to the non-conformances listed below."*

Not acceptable: *"We are committed to ensuring our website is accessible to all visitors."*

2. A "partial conformance" or "full conformance" declaration — not both, not neither

If your site has known accessibility issues (and it almost certainly does), your statement should say "partially conformant" and list the known issues. Claiming full conformance when issues exist creates legal exposure — a plaintiff's attorney can use it as evidence that you misrepresented your compliance status.

If you have completed a professional audit and remediated all findings, full conformance is defensible. Most agencies, absent a recent audit, should use partial conformance language.

3. A description of known limitations

For each known accessibility issue, the statement should include: what the issue is, which pages or components it affects, the WCAG success criterion it violates, and your planned remediation date.

This is the element most agencies skip. A statement that says "partially conformant" but lists no known issues is not more defensible than one that says "fully conformant." If you claim partial conformance, you need to describe what the partial means.

4. Contact information for accessibility feedback

The statement must include a named contact mechanism for users to report accessibility barriers — at minimum, an email address or phone number. The contact should be monitored. A DOJ complaint investigation may include inquiry into whether submitted accessibility concerns were addressed.

Increasingly, accessibility statements also include a response time commitment ("We aim to respond within 5 business days") and an escalation path (the ADA Coordinator's contact information).

5. The date of the statement

DOJ reviewers check whether the statement has been updated recently. A statement dated 2018 on a site that has been substantially redesigned since then undermines any claim of current conformance.

6. The assessment approach

The statement should note how the site was assessed: self-evaluation using automated tools, manual testing by staff, or external evaluation by a named auditor. This does not need to be detailed — a single sentence per method is sufficient.

7. For enforcement purposes: the ADA Coordinator's information

Under Title II, covered entities with 50 or more employees are required to designate an ADA Coordinator and make that person's contact information available. Including the ADA Coordinator's name, title, and contact in the accessibility statement is the clearest way to demonstrate compliance with this requirement.

The most common gaps in government accessibility statements

The "overlay vendor auto-statement" problem. Many government sites that added an accessibility overlay in the past five years received an auto-generated accessibility statement from the overlay vendor. These statements typically claim full WCAG 2.2 or "WCAG 2.1" conformance without specifying the level, omit known limitations, and cite the overlay vendor's own conformance scan as the assessment method. They are not compliant and they do not accurately describe the site's accessibility status. If your statement was generated by an overlay tool, it needs to be replaced.

The "we're working on it" language problem. Statements that say "we are working toward accessibility" or "we are in the process of improving" are aspirational claims, not conformance claims. The DOJ rule requires you to state where you are, not where you intend to be. Aspirational language cannot substitute for a conformance declaration.

The stale statement problem. A site redesigned in 2023 with an accessibility statement dated 2019 signals that nobody reviewed accessibility when the new design launched. Dated statements are easy for enforcement staff to notice and easy for plaintiffs to use in litigation.

The missing partial-conformance details problem. Saying "partially conformant" without listing specific issues provides no useful information and suggests the statement was written by someone who knew the formula but not the substance. The known limitations section should be populated with real findings.

What a compliant statement looks like in practice

Here is the structure of a statement that will hold up to scrutiny:

``` Accessibility Statement — [Agency Name]

[Agency Name] is partially conformant with WCAG 2.1 Level AA, due to the non-conformances listed below.

[or: fully conformant]

Known limitations: Issue: [Describe issue] Affected pages: [URLs or sections] WCAG criterion: [e.g., 1.4.3 Contrast (Minimum)] Planned remediation: [Date]

[Repeat for each known issue]

Assessment approach: [Agency Name] assessed [website URL] using the following methods:

• Automated scanning using axe-core
• External evaluation by [Auditor Name], conducted [date]

Technical specifications: [Website URL] is built with HTML, CSS, and JavaScript.

Feedback: We welcome feedback on the accessibility of [website URL]. Contact:

• Email: [ADA Coordinator email]
• Phone: [ADA Coordinator phone]
• Response time: We aim to respond within 5 business days.

Formal complaints: Contact [ADA Coordinator name], [title], at [contact info]. For unresolved complaints: ADA.gov or the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division.

Statement date: [Date]. Last reviewed: [Date]. ```

The relationship between this statement and your audit

An accessibility statement is most defensible when it is backed by a professional audit. A statement that cites a named external auditor and includes audit-derived findings is substantially stronger than one based on self-assessment alone.

This is the direct relationship between the statement and the audit: the audit generates the known limitations inventory. The statement documents that inventory. Without an audit, your known limitations section is either empty (implying no issues) or a guess.

Getting started

The WCAG Pre-Audit Readiness Kit includes an accessibility statement template that is pre-populated with the section structure described in this post. The template includes instructional callouts for each placeholder, notes on which conformance option to select, and a worked example of the known limitations section. It is written for government agencies and reflects the Title II Final Rule's requirements.

The kit also includes a 47-point WCAG 2.1 AA remediation tracker for documenting your known issues, a VPAT (WCAG Edition) worksheet for procurement documentation, and a procurement guide for Florida agencies evaluating WCAG audit vendors.

If your agency needs a professional audit to populate the known limitations section with real findings, the Parallax audit delivers the full findings inventory, a prioritized remediation roadmap, and a completed accessibility statement draft. The statement included with the audit names the auditor and is formatted for immediate publication.

---

*Morton Technology Consulting LLC, Tallahassee, FL. Questions about accessibility statements or Title II compliance: [email protected].*

Morton Technology Consulting LLC — WCAG 2.1 AA audits for Florida government agencies. Parallax audit → · WCAG Readiness Kit → · All posts →