Indicator #3: Resources and Support

An institution-wide web accessibility plan requires adequate resources and support. Administrators must provide the resources necessary to implement the web accessibility plan with provisions to ensure that the system is sustainable and will remain accessible.

Assessment Review Teams might see evidence for this commitment in any number of ways. Five Benchmarks support the adequacy of Resources and Support required for Institution-Wide Web Accessibility. Under each benchmark are some examples of evidence that would support institutional claims of adherence to that particular benchmark - other evidence may also exist. Clicking in the (+) next to each example will open a list of questions that can be used to help determine the strength of the given evidence.

Benchmark A: Focus on Personnel

It should be noted that not all examples below are required to point to evidence of this Benchmark. However, work across these examples show added strength for a focus on personnel.

Position announcements for individuals that include requirements for accessibility experience or knowledge (+)
- Is knowledge of web accessibility explicitly stated in technical position announcements?
- Do all technical announcements include web accessibility?
- Are web accessibility expectations included in announcements for other relevant personnel as appropriate to their role? e.g.:
The presence of incentives and motivators for faculty and staff participation in accessibility efforts (+)
- Is there documentation of institutional incentives for those participating in web accessibility work?
- What form do incentives take?
- Are students or student employees included in incentives for their roles in the web accessibility plan?
- Is there evidence that the incentives are applied consistently across individuals or groups?
The collection of data on retention rates for personnel key to accessibility implementation (+)
- Is there documentation on the retention rates for key accessibility personnel? These can include:
- Is there documentation of efforts made to retain key accessibility personnel?
- Is there information on how retention data is used?
- Is there documentation on steps taken to ensure that essential knowledge or understanding of the plan is not lost during personnel transitions?
- Is there evidence that data collection is sustained and ongoing?

Benchmark B: Sufficient Time and Effort Allocated to Personnel

It should be noted that not all examples below are required to point to evidence of this Benchmark. However, work across these examples show added strength of the sufficiency of time and effort.

The recognition of accessibility work in job descriptions and role statements (+)
- Is web accessibility included in job descriptions and role statements?
- Is the web accessibility work outlined in job descriptions or role statements appropriate to the efforts that are expected of the individual?
- Do all appropriate job descriptions and role statements include web accessibility?
The recognition of accessibility work in personnel time and effort reports (+)
- Is web accessibility reflected in all appropriate time and effort reports? e.g.:
- Is information collected on whether the different time and effort requirements are sufficient for transforming and maintaining institution-wide web accessibility?
The collection and use of feedback on the sufficiency of personnel allocation for web accessibility efforts (+)
- Is there evidence that feedback on personnel allocation was requested during the development stages of the web accessibility plan?
- Is there documentation of feedback systems in place to determine if personnel allocation is sufficient to conform to the accessibility plan?
- Is there evidence that feedback data is used?
- Is there documentation that feedback data collection is ongoing?

Benchmark C: A Budget Sufficient for Institution-Wide Efforts

It should be noted that not all examples below are required to point to evidence of this Benchmark. However, work across these examples show added strength of the sufficiency of the budget.

Reports that specifically evaluate the sufficiency of available web accessibility resources (+)
- Are reports available on the sufficiency of web accessibility resources?
- Do the reports cover personnel? This could include:
- Do the reports cover infrastructure? This could include:
- Are the reports used to make adjustments?
- Is there evidence that evaluations and adjustments to the budget are sustained and ongoing?
A review of reports and statements monitoring the use of accessibility resources (+)
- Is there documentation that web accessibility resources are monitored?
- Is there evidence that mechanisms are used to track the use of resources in relation to expected use?
- Is there documentation on how resource usages outside expected parameters are dealt with?
- Is there documentation that resource expenditures are used to track possible problems in implementation?
- Do reports evaluate the sustainability of resources as the plan progresses?
- Is there evidence that resource tracking is sustained and ongoing?
Feedback from key personnel and those involved in the implementation of the plan (+)
- Is there documentation that feedback on budget issues was requested during the development stages of the web accessibility plan?
- Is there evidence of feedback systems in place to determine if the budget is sufficient to conform to the accessibility plan?
- Is there evidence that feedback data is used?
- Is there evidence that feedback data collection is sustained and ongoing?

Benchmark D: Training and Technical Support

It should be noted that not all examples below are required to point to evidence of this Benchmark. However, work across these examples show added strength for the adequacy of training and technical support.

Trainings for faculty, staff, and students which occurs in conjunction with their expected accessibility roles (+)
- Is there documentation on web accessibility training for all those who will be involved in web accessibility activities?
- Is the training tailored to be appropriate to the activities of the individual groups?
- Are the details of these trainings provided? Some information to consider are:
- What percentage of those involved in web accessibility activities have participated in the trainings?
- Is there documentation of efforts made to promote the training and improve attendance?
- Is there documentation on the efficacy of the trainings?
- Is there evidence that data on training effectiveness is used to improve efficacy?
- Is there documentation of changes in training and information as technology evolves, roles change and institutional situations transform?
Technical assistance and support that is available to, and used by, faculty, staff, and students (+)
- Is there documentation of the technical assistance and support that is available?
- Is the technical assistance tailored to the needs of the different personnel? i.e.:
- What formats are offered for technical assistance?
- Is there evidence that those that need technical assistance know that it is available?
- What percentage of those involved in web accessibility activities have utilized technical assistance?
- Is there evidence that the technical assistance is useful in helping those that need it?
- Is there evidence that data on technical assistance is used to improve efficacy?
The presence and use of materials necessary to support training, technical assistance, and implementation (+)
- What types of support materials are available?
- Are materials tailored to support different levels of knowledge and different personnel roles?
- Is there evidence that those that will need to use the materials know that they are available?
- What percentage of those involved in web accessibility activities have utilized the materials?
- Is there evidence that the materials are sufficient and useful?
- Is data on these materials used to improve efficacy?

Benchmark E: The Procurement, Development, and Use of Technologies That Will Result in Accessible Web Content

It should be noted that not all examples below are required to point to evidence of this Benchmark. However, work across these examples show added commitment to accessible procurement.

Accessibility procurement language that is included in contracts, is consistent with the institutional standard, and used as part of the selection process for purchasing (+)
- Is there documentation that accessibility language is included in procurement contracts and requests from vendors?
- Do all types of products and service requests and contracts include accessibility language?
- What percentage of procurement contracts and requests include web accessibility language?
- Is there documentation that accessibility is a factor in purchasing decisions?
- Are there mechanisms to evaluate and ensure the vendor’s accessibility claims?
- When accessible products are not available is there documentation the institution purchases products that conform closest to the institutional standard?
The existence and enforcement of accessibility requirements for course resources that are shared but originate from other institutions or organizations (+)
- Is there documentation that the institution’s technical accessibility standard is required for shared resources and cooperative agreements?
- What percentage of cooperative agreements include web accessibility language?
- Are there mechanisms to evaluate and ensure that shared resources meet (or exceed) the institutional accessibility standard?
- Is there documentation that the institution is working with originating institutions to ensure that existing materials meet the required accessibility standard?
Products that are developed by the institution meets the institution's stated accessibility standard (+)
- Is the requirement that products that are developed by the institution meet the institution's technical accessibility standard specified in policy and plan documentation?
- Is there documentation that those developing web-based products at the institution are aware of the institution’s required technical accessibility standard?
- Are there mechanisms to evaluate and ensure that web-based products developed on campus meet (or exceed) the institutional accessibility standard?
- What percentage of university developed web products conform to (or exceed) the institution’s technical standard?

Indicator #3: Resources and Support

Benchmark A: Focus on Personnel

Position announcements for individuals that include requirements for accessibility experience or knowledge (+)

The presence of incentives and motivators for faculty and staff participation in accessibility efforts (+)

The collection of data on retention rates for personnel key to accessibility implementation (+)

Benchmark B: Sufficient Time and Effort Allocated to Personnel

The recognition of accessibility work in job descriptions and role statements (+)

The recognition of accessibility work in personnel time and effort reports (+)

The collection and use of feedback on the sufficiency of personnel allocation for web accessibility efforts (+)

Benchmark C: A Budget Sufficient for Institution-Wide Efforts

Reports that specifically evaluate the sufficiency of available web accessibility resources (+)

A review of reports and statements monitoring the use of accessibility resources (+)

Feedback from key personnel and those involved in the implementation of the plan (+)

Benchmark D: Training and Technical Support

Trainings for faculty, staff, and students which occurs in conjunction with their expected accessibility roles (+)

Technical assistance and support that is available to, and used by, faculty, staff, and students (+)

The presence and use of materials necessary to support training, technical assistance, and implementation (+)

Benchmark E: The Procurement, Development, and Use of Technologies That Will Result in Accessible Web Content

Accessibility procurement language that is included in contracts, is consistent with the institutional standard, and used as part of the selection process for purchasing (+)

The existence and enforcement of accessibility requirements for course resources that are shared but originate from other institutions or organizations (+)

Products that are developed by the institution meets the institution's stated accessibility standard (+)