I recently completed research with Dr. David Cordova, a University of Michigan School of Social Work professor, and Jared Smith, the Executive Director of WebAIM (Web Accessibility In Mind). We explored a topic at the intersection of technology, education, and social justice. WebAIM is a non-profit organization based at Utah State University, leading the way in web accessibility testing, training, and advocacy since 1999, providing essential tools and expertise to organizations worldwide. Our research journey has revealed both promising progress and troubling gaps in how educational institutions within our profession approach digital accessibility.
The Digital Accessibility Imperative
In a world where digital access serves as a fundamental gateway to education, employment, and social services, website accessibility is both a technical requirement and a social justice imperative. This is especially true for institutions training future social workers—professionals dedicated to eliminating barriers and promoting inclusivity for marginalized populations. Our study evaluated the accessibility of websites for the top 10 U.S. schools of social work, as ranked by U.S. News & World Report in 2023. Using the Web Accessibility In Mind (WebAIM) WAVE tool, we assessed compliance with Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA standards—the benchmark for digital accessibility. The significance of this research resonates deeply with me as a researcher in the field of social work. One in four Americans reports having a disability, and among higher education specifically, 21% of undergraduates and 11% of graduate students identify as having a disability. Beyond demographics, there are clear legal obligations: the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act require universities to provide accessible digital environments, with the Department of Justice recently mandating compliance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA by April 2026 for the public institutions.
What We Found: A Digital Accessibility Gap
Our findings revealed striking variations in accessibility compliance among these leading institutions. The University of Chicago (9.9/10), the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (9.8), Case Western Reserve University (9.8), and the University of Washington (9.7) demonstrated substantial accessibility compliance. In the middle range, the University of Texas at Austin (9.1) and UC Berkeley (8.6) showed good but not excellent compliance. More concerning were the scores from Washington University (6.2), UCLA (6.0), the University of Michigan (5.9), and Columbia University (5.3), which exhibited significant accessibility challenges.
What troubled me most were the common barriers we identified: missing alternative text for images that prevent screen reader users from understanding visual content, insufficient color contrast that creates difficulties for users with visual impairments, and elements that are not navigable by keyboard, impacting users who cannot use a mouse. These aren’t complex technical issues—they’re straightforward barriers with simple solutions that remain unaddressed.
Beyond the Numbers: School vs. University Comparisons
One of the most fascinating aspects of our research was comparing social work programs to their parent universities. Some schools of social work significantly outperformed their broader institutions: the University of Chicago’s School of Social Work scored 9.9 while the broader university scored 8.9, and UNC-Chapel Hill’s program (9.8) significantly outperformed its university (7.1). The University of Washington’s School of Social Work (9.7) substantially exceeded its university’s accessibility score (6.2).
Conversely, some programs lagged behind their universities. Washington University’s School of Social Work (6.2) fell short of its university’s score (9.0), UCLA’s program (6.0) was less accessible than its broader university (8.9), and my own institution, the University of Michigan’s School of Social Work (5.9), scored below its university (7.2).
These disparities suggest inconsistent implementation of accessibility policies across departments, highlighting the need for coordinated institutional approaches. I was particularly struck by how these differences reflect the varying priority levels accessibility receives, even within institutions that share common values and missions.
Accessibility as a Social Determinant of Health
When viewed through the social determinants of health lens, digital accessibility takes on even greater importance. Inaccessible websites create unnecessary stress and frustration for users with disabilities, limit access to crucial information about healthcare and education, and restrict opportunities for economic advancement and social inclusion. As more educational resources and services move online, ensuring equitable access becomes crucial for supporting student success and well-being. This isn’t just about technical compliance—it’s about creating digital environments that promote health equity and social justice.
From Research to Action: A Path Forward
For schools of social work committed to enhancing digital accessibility, I believe comprehensive strategies are essential. Institutions must integrate accessibility into strategic plans with dedicated resources and leadership support. Cross-functional committees can coordinate accessibility efforts across departments. I’m increasingly convinced that embedding accessibility concepts into our curriculum is vital—preparing future practitioners to recognize and address digital barriers in their practice.Â
Technical improvements matter as well, including implementing consistent templates and designs that meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards, combining automated scans with feedback from users with disabilities, and adopting formal written policies that codify compliance requirements. However, technical fixes alone won’t resolve the issue—what’s needed is a fundamental shift in how we conceptualize accessibility as integral to our mission rather than an optional add-on.
Conclusion: Aligning Digital Practices with Professional Values
The variability in accessibility scores among leading schools of social work highlights both challenges and opportunities. By tackling digital barriers, social work programs can better align their online presence with their core values of equity, inclusion, and social justice.
As Department of Justice rules require compliance with WCAG 2.1 Level AA standards by 2026, the time for proactive accessibility improvements is now. Through strategic planning, interdepartmental collaboration, and technical enhancements, schools of social work can create digital environments that genuinely welcome all users—modeling the inclusive world we strive to establish through our teaching, research, and service.
As I continue on this research journey, I am encouraged by the progress some institutions have made and motivated by the work that still needs to be done. Digital accessibility isn’t just a technical standard to meet—it reflects our profession’s commitment to removing barriers and creating truly inclusive spaces for everyone.