When people hear “accessibility audit,” they often think of a single website, a checklist, or a list of technical issues. An institutional accessibility gap analysis is different. It steps back and asks a bigger question:
Where are we, as an organization, falling short of providing accessible digital experiences and why?
This type of analysis doesn’t just look at content. It looks at systems, processes, policies, and culture. And that’s exactly why it’s so powerful.
What Is an Institutional Accessibility Gap Analysis?
An institutional accessibility gap analysis evaluates how well accessibility is embedded across the organization, not just in individual products or pages.
It compares:
- Current practices (what’s actually happening)
- Expected standards (what should be happening)
- Reality on the ground (what teams are able to do)
The goal is not to point fingers. The goal is to identify patterns, gaps, and opportunities for improvement that affect many people at once.
Why This Matters
Accessibility issues rarely exist because people don’t care. They exist because:
- Responsibilities are unclear
- Training is inconsistent or missing
- Tools and templates aren’t accessible by default
- Accessibility is added too late, if at all
A gap analysis helps leadership understand that accessibility challenges are often systemic, not individual failures. That shift in perspective changes everything.
Step 1: Define the Scope Broadly
At the institutional level, accessibility touches almost everything:
- Websites and microsites
- Learning platforms and internal portals
- Digital documents and forms
- Third-party tools and software
- Content workflows and publishing practices
- Procurement and vendor selection
- Training and onboarding
Trying to evaluate everything at once can feel overwhelming. A good approach is to focus first on high-impact systems that are used most often or are critical for access.
Step 2: Establish Clear Standards
You can’t measure gaps without a benchmark.
Most institutions align with:
- WCAG 2.2 AA for web and digital content
- Section 508 or similar legal requirements
- Internal accessibility policies or guidelines
At this stage, it’s important to clarify what “meeting the standard” actually means in practice, not just on paper.
Step 3: Gather Data From Multiple Sources
This is where the analysis becomes real.
Effective gap analysis pulls from several inputs:
- Automated testing to identify common technical issues
- Manual testing to uncover real user barriers
- Reviews of policies, templates, and workflows
- Surveys or conversations with content creators, developers, and designers
- Feedback from users who rely on assistive technology
Often, the most valuable insights come from listening to staff explain what gets in the way of doing accessibility well.
Step 4: Identify the Gaps
Once data is collected, patterns start to emerge.
Common institutional gaps include:
- Accessibility checks happening after content is published
- No clear ownership of accessibility responsibilities
- Inconsistent training across roles and departments
- Procurement processes that don’t require accessibility review
- Lack of accessible templates or guidance for non-technical users
These gaps usually repeat across teams, which is a strong signal that the issue is structural.
Step 5: Prioritize What Matters Most
Not every gap needs to be fixed at once.
Prioritization should focus on:
- Systems used by the largest number of people
- Barriers that block essential tasks
- Areas with legal or compliance risk
- Issues that can be prevented through process changes rather than remediation
This step helps leadership see where investments will have the greatest impact.
Step 6: Translate Findings Into Actionable Recommendations
A gap analysis should never end with a list of problems.
Strong recommendations connect gaps to solutions, such as:
- Standardized, accessible templates
- Required accessibility training by role
- Accessibility checkpoints built into workflows
- Clear guidance for content editors and developers
- Ongoing monitoring and reporting
This is also where accessibility becomes a time and resource saver, not a burden. Preventing issues early costs far less than fixing them later.
Step 7: Report Progress and Keep Momentum
Accessibility is not a one-time project.
Institutions benefit from:
- Clear reporting for leadership
- Shared accountability across teams
- Periodic reassessment to track progress
- Continuous improvement rather than “pass/fail” thinking
Over time, this creates a culture where accessibility is expected, supported, and sustainable.
The Bigger Picture
An institutional accessibility gap analysis does more than identify compliance risks. It creates shared understanding, aligns teams, and helps leadership make informed decisions.
Most importantly, it shifts accessibility from being reactive to being intentional.
And when accessibility is built into systems, not bolted on later, everyone benefits.
InHouse Inclusive 
Leave a comment