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

2. 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.

3. Background for the ua EIT Accessibility program

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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.

7. 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

8. Establishing the EIT Accessibility Program

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

10. 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

11. 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)

12. UA’s Maturity Assessment Model for accessibility

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. achievements and next steps

21. 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

22. 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

23. questions / discussion

24. 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 Questions and Answers about the “Dear Colleague Letter” Accessibility Maturity Model: Maturity Assessment Tool: ATHEN: Access Technology Higher Education Network:

25. Additional resources
E-Text Pilot – McGraw Hill Education, CourseLoad, 25 universities, Educause and Internet2 of-the-blind-takes-on-etext-pilots.aspx CMS Content, University of Montana: um-students-file-complaint-over-inaccessible-online-courses/article_d02c27ac e2-bc26-001a4bcf887a.html ATHEN Report on the Accessibility of Gmail, Google Calendar, and Google Documents:

26. Contact Information
Dawn Hunziker University of Arizona Disability Resources