ADA Title II requires state and local government entities to create and maintain records that document their accessibility efforts. This includes self-evaluations, transition plans, grievance procedures, and ongoing documentation of remediation activity. The specifics depend on the size of the entity and the scope of its digital presence.
| Key Point | What It Means |
|---|---|
| Self-Evaluation | Entities with 50 or more employees must keep self-evaluations on file for at least three years. |
| Transition Plans | Public entities must document plans for moving toward full accessibility, including timelines and responsible parties. |
| Grievance Records | Complaints and their resolutions must be documented and retained. |
| Ongoing Documentation | Records of remediation work, audit results, and conformance status demonstrate continued effort. |
What Records Does Title II Require?
Title II of the ADA applies to all state and local government entities. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has long required these entities to conduct self-evaluations of their programs, services, and activities. For entities with 50 or more employees, the self-evaluation must be preserved for three years.
A transition plan accompanies the self-evaluation for entities that identified physical or programmatic accessibility shortcomings. With the DOJ’s 2024 rule referencing Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 AA for web content and mobile apps, digital properties now fall squarely within the scope of what must be evaluated and documented.
How Grievance Procedures Factor In
Title II entities with 50 or more employees must adopt and publish grievance procedures. These procedures give individuals a formal way to file complaints about accessibility.
Each complaint, the investigation process, and the outcome should be documented. This record serves two purposes: it demonstrates that the entity takes complaints seriously, and it creates a paper trail that supports good faith compliance efforts if a complaint escalates to a federal investigation or lawsuit.
Why Ongoing Documentation Matters
A single self-evaluation is a snapshot. Accessibility conformance changes as websites and applications are updated. New pages are added, content management systems are modified, and third-party components change.
Maintaining ongoing records of accessibility audit results, identified issues, remediation timelines, and conformance status shows that an entity is treating accessibility as a continuous obligation rather than a one-time project. This type of documentation is exactly what a compliance management platform is designed to organize.
What Good Record-Keeping Looks Like
Effective record-keeping for Title II purposes includes dated audit reports with specific issues identified by WCAG criterion, a log of remediation activity showing what was fixed and when, and documentation of the entity’s designated ADA coordinator and grievance process.
Platforms built for accessibility compliance management centralize this information. They track issues from identification through remediation, maintain historical records of conformance status over time, and generate reports that can be produced on request during an investigation or procurement review.
The Connection Between Documentation and Risk Reduction
Record-keeping is not an administrative afterthought. It is a core component of demonstrating compliance with Title II. The DOJ evaluates whether an entity has made reasonable progress toward conformance. Without records, there is no evidence of progress.
Entities that maintain organized, timestamped documentation of their accessibility program are in a stronger position than those operating without a system, regardless of whether every page currently meets WCAG 2.1 AA.