A Maturity Assessment Model for your EIT Accessibility Program Technology access coordinator University of Arizona Dawn hunziker

Outcomes for today Be able to identify key program elements for an Electronic and Information Technology (EIT) Accessibility Program Become familiar with a maturity assessment model Gain insight into using existing technology liaison frameworks to effectively and efficiently grow campus-wide knowledge and avenues for sharing information. This presentation leaves copyright of the content to the presenter. Unless otherwise noted in the materials, uploaded content carries the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-Share-Alike license, which grants usage to the general public with the stipulated criteria.

Background for the ua EIT Accessibility program

University of Arizona (UA) Large research institution Predominately decentralized IT environment History of commitment and excellence in addressing Electronic and Information Technology (EIT) Accessibility Highly successful, campus-wide, department liaisons model Disability Resource Center (DRC) recognized as a national leader  in disability services and works proactively to prioritize accessibility

UA Networks and Collaboration DRC efforts and commitment from UA Leadership Instrumental in growing a number of university ‘champions’ for accessibility Web accessibility guidelines, workshops and individual consulting have given the existing efforts frequent success “Catch-as-Catch-Can” vs. EIT Accessibility Program Information Security Office Information Security Liaisons model Successful entity on campus which facilitates collaboration and knowledge sharing An existing group that is positioned to be an EIT resource to campus departments

Why an EIT accessibility program? Increased national and campus awareness regarding accessible electronic environments “Dear Colleague Letter” co-written by U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights In the Courts: Kindle, Google Apps for Education, E-Text Pilot, CMS Content Many post-secondary institutions are evaluating and implementing campus- wide guidelines for accessibility Websites, applications and teaching materials are purchased and/or developed by a wide variety of campus members Growing use of technology in all higher education environments Essential to ensure all users, including users with disabilities, have equitable access.

Program Development UA Leaders came together CIO, ADA/504 Coordinator, Office of Institutional Equity (OIE) and Office of General Counsel (OGC) Recognized the importance of creating a campus-wide effort rather than centering efforts in DRC Office EIT Accessibility Program Leaders Leaders included staff from Information Security Office (ISO) and Disability Resource Center (DRC) Charged with developing campus-wide program

Establishing the EIT Accessibility Program

Challenges and Goals: Ensure accessibility to University electronic resources by Increasing campus-wide ownership Developing campus-wide collaborative effort

Governance Guidance Council Sub-committees: Made up of campus leaders at decision-making levels, by invitation of higher administration Address policy issues and prioritize program goals Create the strategy for systematically evaluating and improving the accessibility of application systems Includes representatives from all major campus areas Sub-committees: Appointed by Guidance Council members Serve as liaisons/worker bees Assist with research, planning, user feedback, complete tasks, knowledge base, etc. Report back to Guidance Council with findings/progress

building campus infrastructure Governance Develop standards, guidelines, procedures Create a model of sustainability / scalability to keep up with standards in ever- changing technology environment Education and Communication Develop and formalize training programs Workshops, possibly mandatory Toolkits / resources Procurement and Supplier Contracts Ensure those purchasing technology (including software, course tools, etc.) are aware of accessibility requirements Request accessibility compliance information from vendors (VPAT)

UA’s Maturity Assessment Model for accessibility

Our Approach Program leaders envisioned a method which would: Systematically outline a program for campus-wide deployment Provide a baseline Assist in establishing priorities Provide a roadmap for tackling multifaceted projects Demonstrate a process for readily recognizing progress Support collaboration, dialogue, shared ownership and strategic planning

What is a Maturity Assessment Model? Maturity Assessment Models Facilitate dialogue and strategic planning for a program Lay out steps to reach best practices Acknowledge that a program passes through various stages as it matures towards goals of best practice Serves as a template to measure current efforts Allow for strategic planning of a roadmap to improve accessibility

5 levels for assessment Level 1: Informal Level 2: Defined Level 3: Repeatable Level 4: Managed Level 5: Optimized Level 1: Informal Level 2: Defined Level 3: Repeatable Level 4: Managed Level 5: Optimized

Major categories Leadership Standards and Implementation Governance and risk management process Resources and cost impact Education and communication Procurement and supplier contracts Application Systems Reasonable adjustments process Leadership Standards and Implementation Governance and risk management process Resources and cost impact Education and communication Procurement and supplier contracts Application Systems Reasonable adjustments process

Reasonable Adjustments Process Level 1 Minimal / reactive Level 2 Basic process / used ad hoc Level 3 Integrated process promoted / in regular use Level 4 High standards / continuous improvement; proven standards compliance / metrics collected Level 5 Innovation / sharing of best practice Minimal or unclear; Minimal inclusion in development lifecycle Basic standards documented / used ad hoc; Lifecycle stages document / applied ad hoc Standards in regular use / actively promoted; Fully integrated including user acceptance testing (UAT) by staff & consumers High standards / continuous improvement; Proven standards compliance / metrics collected Influencer / early adopter of new standards; Innovation and design excellence

Education and communication Level 1 Minimal resources available Level 2 Workshops provided, basic Web resources, individual consultation Level 3 Department liaisons, Toolkits Level 4 Formalized workshops / role-based training, “train the trainer” comprehensive Web resources and toolkits, Level 5 Mandatory role-based training, ISM Model Minimal resources available Workshops provided, basic Web resources, individual consultation Department liaisons, Toolkits Formalized workshops / role-based training, “train the trainer” comprehensive Web resources and toolkits, Mandatory role-based training, ISM Model

UA Maturity Assessment for accessibility Leadership No senior buy in Strategy in place Top down commitment / involvement Active strategy management Pioneers and leaders Standards and Implementation Minimal or unclear; Minimal inclusion in development lifecycle Basic standards documented / used ad hoc; Lifecycle stages document / applied ad hoc Standards in regular use / actively promoted; Fully integrated including user testing High standards / continuous improvement; Proven standards compliance / metrics collected Influencer / early adopter of new standards; Innovation and design excellence Reasonable adjustments process Minimal / reactive Basic process / used ad hoc Integrated process promoted / in regular use Active management within service levels Innovation / sharing of best practice Resources and cost impact Not allocated or controlled Some budget provided / clear responsibilities Investment strategy / support services integrated Effective budget / benefit management Specific funding for innovation / user empowerment Level 1: Informal High standards / continuous improvement; Proven standards compliance / metrics collected Level 2: Defined Influencer / early adopter of new standards; Innovation and design excellence Level 3: Repeatable Level 4: Managed Reasonable adjustments process Level 5: Optimized Minimal / reactive Leadership Basic process / used ad hoc No senior buy in Integrated process promoted / in regular use Strategy in place Active management within service levels Top down commitment / involvement Innovation / sharing of best practice Active strategy management Resources and cost impact Pioneers and leaders Not allocated or controlled Standards and Implementation Some budget provided / clear responsibilities Minimal or unclear; Minimal inclusion in development lifecycle Investment strategy / support services integrated Basic standards documented / used ad hoc; Lifecycle stages document / applied ad hoc Effective budget / benefit management Specific funding for innovation / user empowerment Standards in regular use / actively promoted; Fully integrated including user testing Level 1 Informal Level 2 Defined Level 3 Repeatable Level 4 Managed Level 5 Optimized UA Maturity Assessment for accessibility

achievements and next steps

Early accomplishments Meetings with campus governance provided a consistent communication to stakeholders about the program initiative Response to the partnership approach has been very positive Partnerships created and actively moving towards campus-wide responsibility Departments are interested in learning how they can collaborate on the project The maturity assessment approach is a key component for organizing elements of the program evaluating current state developing strategic plans for growing maturity

Next steps Guidance Council Meeting: Discuss DRC’s approach to access and frame for understanding disability Recognize how technology intersects all aspects of environment Learn about the maturity assessment model Revise model to fit UA environment Assess the current status in each category Prioritize goals Strategize implementation

questions / discussion

Resources “Dear Colleague Letter” regarding access to accessible technology from U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, June 2010. http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20100629.html Questions and Answers about the “Dear Colleague Letter” http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/504-qa-20100629.html Accessibility Maturity Model: http://www.btat.org/toolkit/maturity-model Maturity Assessment Tool: http://www.btat.org/toolkit/test-assessment ATHEN: Access Technology Higher Education Network: http://www.athenpro.org

Additional resources E-Text Pilot – McGraw Hill Education, CourseLoad, 25 universities, Educause and Internet2 http://campustechnology.com/articles/2012/10/02/national-federation- of-the-blind-takes-on-etext-pilots.aspx CMS Content, University of Montana: http://missoulian.com/news/local/disabled- um-students-file-complaint-over-inaccessible-online-courses/article_d02c27ac- 0145-11e2-bc26-001a4bcf887a.html ATHEN Report on the Accessibility of Gmail, Google Calendar, and Google Documents: http://www.athenpro.org

Contact Information Dawn Hunziker University of Arizona Disability Resources 520-626-9409 hunziker@email.arizona.edu http://www.arizona.edu