More than 1 in 4 adults in the U.S. now have a disability, with data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showing that the percentage increased from 24.6 percent in 2016 to 28.7 percent in 2022, the most recent year for which this data is available.
While experts believe there are several reasons for this increase, the fact is that this population represents a growing portion of the public that government must serve, both in person and online. When it comes to digital spaces, a federal mandate requires states to make all their digital products and services accessible to people with disabilities by April 2026.
State governments are increasingly prioritizing accessibility by working to better understand this population and the unique needs of its members. One goal is to ensure government remains accessible in a digital age, in part to meet the 2026 deadline, but also to deliver effective public service — to all members of the public.
STATE-LEVEL ACCESSIBILITY WORK
Listening to people who have lived with disabilities is a key part of digital accessibility work, according to Zaki Barzinji, senior director of Aspen Digital. Efforts like digital navigator programs can help in gathering essential feedback to understand whether specific needs are being met.
“It's not enough to just make something technically accessible to the community. You have to also think about, ‘what are the community's actual needs?’” Barzinji said.
While Washington, D.C., is not technically a state, its disability rate is 21.1 percent, and the district government’s work to increase accessibility for residents is wide-ranging. Complying with the federal mandate is also a priority.
“It’s integrated into everything we do,” Washington, D.C., CTO Stephen Miller said of accessibility.
As IT staff continue to ramp up the district's tech use, they scan all government websites with Siteimprove, a website-accessibility checker. A new DC.gov redesign is slated for Fiscal Year 2026, and the mayor’s proposed budget includes enhancements to existing portals. The Office of Disability Rights there also created an ADA Digital Accessibility Compliance Plan to ensure all digital communications across government agencies are accessible, including websites, social media platforms and mobile applications.
Miller said the government in D.C. needs to analyze as much data around this as they can in order to find opportunities for improvements — both for compliance and usability. Another component of the district’s accessibility work is a July 2025 public listening session, which will focus on the use of AI to support language access, usability, and non-emergency support. Miller’s office will lead this effort, he said, underlining that feedback from the community will play a critical role in internal planning. The district will pilot a new AI tool as a channel through which to collect data during this session.
The Office of the Chief Technology Officer has a comprehensive approach to community outreach including forums and visits to metro stations, public libraries and more. The DC Center for Accessibility offers resources such as classes conducted in American Sign Language and accessibility support for large-scale events like Trans Pride Washington, D.C.
“In-person outreach definitely allows you to be a little more dynamic about the questions you’re asking,” Miller said, noting more agility in this method than through a standard survey for a more comprehensive approach.
Arkansas, meanwhile, has an estimated disability rate of 38.1 percent of adults, the highest among U.S. states. It also has a broad array of programs and policies assisting residents with physical, developmental and intellectual disabilities, said Keith Metz, a spokesman within the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS)’s Office of Communications and Community Engagement.
“DHS is working internally to ensure that all agency content adheres to the new accessibility rules by the deadline,” Metz wrote in an email.
DHS works with its website’s vendor to meet accessibility standards. The Access Arkansas portal is compatible with Job Access With Speech screen-reader technology and is tested using Level Access AMP to ensure compliance. A system scan is completed about three times per year or as needed. Engagement with the disability population in the state helps officials obtain information to better assess the impact of programs and services.
In some states, there has been an intentional effort to dedicate staff to support digital accessibility efforts, as seen in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Texas, among others. Ashley Bloom has served as Massachusetts’ first chief IT accessibility officer since January 2024.
“Having a dedicated role to oversee and create a program to be scaled across our Secretariats is key to alignment and consistency with expectations, requirements and outcomes pertaining to digital accessibility,” Bloom told Government Technology via email.
One of the key digital accessibility challenges is the variation in third-party software and services, she said, highlighting the importance of transparency with vendors about requirements. Education for vendors, employees and the public supports broader accessibility plans — including that of the state meeting the 2026 federal accessibility mandate deadline.
“Creating feedback loops involving employees and the public to integrate their perspectives in program efforts is something I will continue to champion and build upon as we continue advancing digital accessibility for Massachusetts,” Bloom wrote.
A CLOSER LOOK AT GOVERNMENT DATA
Henry Claypool, technology policy consultant for the American Association of People with Disabilities, said that government lacks a single, shared strategy for how it collects and uses data around people with disabilities. Different agencies collect data for varying purposes, which has created a patchwork of information at the federal level.
Self-reported identity data — the sort increasingly used by states — is the “gold standard” for disability data collection, according to Bonnielin Swenor, who serves as director and founder of the Johns Hopkins University Disability Health Research Center.
In January, the CDC updated its Disability and Health Data System with data from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, a telephone survey that collects self-reported state information on health conditions among U.S. adults. Arguably the most striking trend in this data set was the aforementioned nationwide increase in self-reported disability.
There are other possible reasons for the increase, including an aging population and the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Disability rates differ by type — including cognitive, hearing, mobility and vision — and by location.
There was a stark contrast between states with the highest and lowest rates of self-reported disability in general: In Arkansas, for example, an estimated 38 out of every 100 adults identified as having "any disability," a category in the survey that encompassed all of the aforementioned types of disability; while in Washington, D.C., the figure was an estimated 21 out of every 100 people.
The jurisdictions with the lowest rates of those who reported having any disability were Washington, D.C., Hawaii, New Jersey, Illinois and Maryland.
The states with the highest rates of those who reported having any disability were Arkansas, Oklahoma, West Virginia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Puerto Rico, a U.S. territory, has a disability prevalence rate of 41.5 percent, higher than any state.
Experts say there are a variety of possible reasons for the number of adults with disabilities increasing. Claypool pointed to an association with higher poverty rates or even age of residents — young people moving into or out of a state can impact disability rates, for example. There are other social determinants, too, like access to nutritious food, access to health care, and even the physicality of career options in an area.
Swenor also highlighted the impact of health inequities leading to a higher prevalence in estimates of disabilities.
“I don’t think that disability can properly be considered completely removed from factors like socioeconomic status, et cetera,” said Ariana Aboulafia, project lead for Disability Rights in Technology Policy at the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT).
She noted that people with disabilities often belong to other marginalized groups, all of which impact their experiences — both with disability and with systems like employment, education and health care.
GETTING BETTER DISABILITY DATA
There is still not a full picture of the prevalence or the experience of disability captured or reflected in federal data sets, Aboulafia said. The disability population is not monolithic, meaning the experience varies for different people. Also, whether people identify as disabled can vary based on the definition of disability (or lack thereof) included in a survey, and it can change over time. CDT offers resources and considerations to make data collection practices more inclusive.
AI, too, can play a role in accessibility efforts, but it can also cause new harms for people with disabilities if systems are not designed with disability-inclusive considerations. In the age of AI, good data governance is key to a good AI program.
Swenor has advocated for people with disabilities serving in leadership roles and participating in the data collection process. For states with a limited capacity to establish a dedicated data official role, advisory committees can be helpful, she said, especially those that include people with disabilities and are designed to be integrated into data collection processes across different spaces. This is important because there are varying digital accessibility implications from transit to benefits programs and beyond, she explained.
There are actions governments can take to better understand their disability populations with data, Swenor said, including asking questions about disability as a demographic in places where other demographic data is being collected — “because disability is a demographic.”
The standardization of data collection can also help improve information exchange across data sets to identify and address inequities.
A federal official recently touted plans to create a “registry” of people with autism nationwide, a claim which sparked controversy and has since been denied by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Still, it has raised concerns about disability data protections, as have federal attempts to obtain data collected by states.
The solution, Swenor said, is building trust. This includes close engagement with the disability community and practicing good data stewardship. There also needs to be a shared understanding of why data is being collected and how it will be used.
“I think right now we’re at sort of a crisis of confidence in data collection in this country,” Swenor said.
The reason is a longstanding underinvestment in this area, she continued, saying, “So, we have work to do in examining the ways in which we measure disability to match the perspectives of the disability community so we can properly and accurately enumerate this population — so we can do a better job serving this population.”
