Understanding the VPAT and Accessibility Conformance Reports (ACRs)
The Voluntary Product Accessibility Template (VPAT) and Accessibility Conformance Reports (ACRs) are widely used to help people and organizations easily learn about accessibility of the web-based and digital products they want to purchase. This resource explores some common questions about the VPAT and ACRs, where they fit into the purchasing process, and their related opportunities and challenges.
What is the VPAT?
The VPAT, as the name suggests, is a template form vendors can voluntarily fill out to report how well a product they offer conforms to web accessibility standards. Created by the Information Technology Industry Council (ITI), the VPAT has become the de facto standard for vendors to give potential customers insight into the accessibility, or lack thereof, of a product.
What are ACRs?
Once a vendor fills out the VPAT, it becomes an ACR. The term “VPAT” is still widely used, however, to mean either the blank template or the completed report. Going forward in this description, the term “ACR” will distinguish the finished report from the empty template.
Just because a vendor has an ACR for a product does not mean the product has the level of accessibility the vendor declares. Vetting an ACR is necessary to validate vendor claims.
How voluntary is the VPAT, really?
From a legal perspective, the short answer is it’s entirely voluntary. However, as more purchasing groups require ACRs from potential vendor partners, the VPAT will become less so.
Include an ACR as a requirement in your requests for proposals, scopes of work, or any less formal requirement documentation. It is important to call this out specifically so accessibility is embedded in the bidding process from the beginning. Making accessibility a firm requirement helps communicate your agency’s commitment to accessibility alongside other requirements, such as cybersecurity and data privacy.
The VPAT and ACRs Create Opportunities
You will find vendors that have VPAT-based ACRs readily available on their website. Others may have one available upon request. This allows you to collect the information you need quickly.
For educational technology (edtech) product categories where ACRs are commonly available, the likelihood they contain current and thorough information is usually high. This provides more confidence that the information in the ACR is reliable. For example, learning management systems by vendors that sell to higher education institutions likely maintain accurate and thorough ACRs because their customers have requested them for years and hold these vendors to a high standard.
As a potential customer, you have an excellent opportunity to improve the quality and accuracy of ACRs. When enough consumers start requesting accessibility information, we can expect vendors to improve their ACRs. This opportunity for improvement is another reason for state and local educational agencies to require ACRs. The more agencies make requests, the more vendors will pay attention.
Finally, even some quick vetting of an ACR’s less technical information is insightful. The early section of an ACR asks general questions such as the date the ACR was created, the software version it applies to, any notes a vendor chooses to provide, and details on the evaluation methods the vendor uses. If an ACR is more than one year old or a full version number behind the version you’re considering purchasing (e.g., you would purchase version 3.5, but the ACR applies to 2.8), ask for a current ACR. Look over the notes section to learn any details about how the vendor approaches accessibility (unfortunately, the instructions for vendors don’t ask for this, so these details may come to you in an email rather than in the ACR). Ideally, the evaluation methods a vendor uses will include something about working with a reputable third-party accessibility specialist or at least an internal one. When checking both the notes and evaluation methods used, the more details, the better.
…And Some Challenges
Vendors in the Pre-K-12 space may not have had requests for an ACR until the ADA Title II update in 2024. This means some vendors do not have an ACR at all. In and of itself, this can be telling, especially if other vendors you’re considering do provide an ACR. Not having an ACR may indicate a vendor has yet to address accessibility. It is worth asking such a vendor why they don’t have one, unless the other products in your pool of finalists provide ACRs and you decide there’s no need to start a conversation.
Some vendors require a non-disclosure agreement before they provide an ACR. This adds an extra layer of work and can sometimes delay the purchasing process while agency staff reviews the NDA terms to ensure they are acceptable.
ACRs are notorious for being out of date or lacking enough information. Some of these issues are due to the VPAT itself, where the instructions for vendors allow for some gaps. Receiving so few requests for ACRs, and few buyers engaging with them, can also keep vendors from putting in the effort to create and maintain good ACRs. This potential lack of experience is another key reason to vet ACRs and follow up with vendors to receive more current and thorough information.
For SEAs and LEAs without in-house accessibility expertise, understanding the ACR may be difficult. They can be very technical, and having someone who understands accessibility at a more technical level is usually necessary.
Summary
State and local educational agencies need to lean on vendor partners to provide them information through industry-standard reports offering sufficient detail to make an informed purchasing decision. ACRs, produced from the VPAT, can go a long way toward serving that purpose. It is up to the purchaser to vet ACRs appropriately and validate vendor claims when they are out of date, unclear, missing details, or incomplete. As demand for ACRs increases from the educational agencies doing the purchasing, we can expect ACRs to provide more information and require fewer questions for edtech vendors.