ADA Title II Self-Evaluation Worksheet (Local Government)

This worksheet helps a public entity document its ADA Title II self-evaluation of services, programs, and practices. It captures what was reviewed, what barriers were identified, and what modifications are needed. It also creates an audit trail for consultation and follow-up. Use it as the record of the review, not just a checklist.

Include any department, division, or public-facing service that affects access to programs, facilities, communications, or digital services. That can include permitting, parks and recreation, libraries, transit, clerk services, and online forms. The scope should match the actual review period and the services you are evaluating. If a service is public-facing, it belongs in scope.

Use it whenever your entity is conducting a formal ADA Title II review, updating policies, or documenting changes after a complaint or accessibility audit. Many organizations also run it on a scheduled cycle so the review stays current. The key is to tie the worksheet to a defined evaluation period. If services or systems change, the worksheet should be updated rather than left stale.

The submission owner is usually the department lead, ADA coordinator, compliance manager, or another designated staff member who can gather facts and route follow-up actions. Input from service owners, facilities staff, IT, HR, and legal or risk teams may be needed depending on the review. The person completing it should be able to confirm what was reviewed and who is responsible for fixes. The consultation field helps show that the review was not done in isolation.

No. It documents the self-evaluation process and the corrective actions identified, but it does not replace counsel or formal legal advice. The legal reference field helps anchor the review to the applicable ADA Title II standard. If a barrier raises policy, facilities, or digital accessibility questions, route it through the appropriate review process. Use the worksheet as evidence of diligence, not as a legal conclusion by itself.

Common mistakes include listing services too broadly, leaving barrier descriptions vague, and marking every item as compliant without evidence. Another frequent issue is failing to assign a responsible party or target completion date for each corrective action. Teams also sometimes skip consultation notes, which weakens the audit trail. The worksheet works best when each finding leads to a specific next step.

Yes. The reviewed areas and compliance area fields can be tailored for digital services, facilities, communications, policies, or program access. You can add conditional logic so only relevant barriers and corrective actions appear for each review type. That keeps the form focused and avoids collecting unnecessary details. It also supports progressive disclosure for easier completion.

Attach the materials that support the review, such as inspection notes, screenshots, policy excerpts, meeting notes, accessibility test results, or correspondence showing consultation. Keep the attachments relevant to the specific barrier or corrective action. Avoid uploading unnecessary PII. The goal is to preserve the evidence behind the evaluation and the audit trail.

Ad hoc notes and email threads are easy to lose and hard to audit. This worksheet standardizes the fields needed to show what was reviewed, what was found, and who owns the fix. It also makes it easier to track priorities and completion dates across departments. For a public entity, that structure is often the difference between an informal discussion and a usable compliance record.