Oklahoma’s 508 Legislation:  A Model for State Accessible Electronic & Information Technology

In April 2004, the state of Oklahoma enacted a law requiring its state departments and agencies to become 508 compliant by purchasing and using only electronic and information technology that is accessible to people with disabilities. . 

Oklahoma’s law is patterned after the federal 508 legislation which mandates that the equipment used when federal departments and agencies “develop, procure, and maintain” information be accessible to people with disabilities. (Note: Here, as with the ADA, the “undue burden” provision is in effect.)

The scope of 508 is very broad, covering almost everything in the modern office, such as

• software applications and operating systems;
• Web‑based information and applications;
• telecommunication products;
• video and multimedia products;
• self contained, closed products (e.g., information kiosks, calculators, and fax machines); and
• desktop and portable computers.

As you recall, the 1998 Amendments to the Rehabilitation Act strengthened section 508 and called for the U.S. Access Board to develop compliance standards. Furthermore, it established enforcement provisions permitting an individual to file a complaint, an injunction, and/or a civil action. If successful in a lawsuit, 508 allows for coverage of attorney’s fees but not, however, for punitive damages.

Although pleased with the bulking up of 508, disability rights advocates were disappointed that its coverage was not extended to state governments, and despite their best efforts, the law is written for federal government only. A different law, however, requires 508 action on the part of state governments: the Assistive Technology Act. The Act requires a state to provide assurance that it complies with 508; otherwise, the state is not eligible for Act funds. Our colleagues at ARAP (Association of Tech Act Projects--www.ataporg.org) note that these assurances consist, by and large, of simple statements of compliance with no specifics as to implementation. With the law not mandating states to meet the Access Board’s accessibility standards nor providing any external method of accountability, such as filing complaints or legal actions, such assurances of compliance may be considered by some disability rights advocates as  perfunctory.
     
So, when a state passes legislation compatible with section 508--such as Oklahoma did--it is significant, for it involves vision, organization, networking, political savvy, patience, and leadership--and no doubt many more characteristics. A number of states have made substantial progress toward 508 compliance. Missouri comes immediately to mind. And, most recently, Oklahoma.

How did Oklahoma do it?

ABLE Tech, Oklahoma’s Tech Act project, took the lead in organizing efforts to have 508 provisions made state law. We spoke at length with ABLE Tech’s manager, Linda Jaco and her associate Brenda Daws about all that was involved in this large-scale undertaking.

They report that like many of the other Tech Act projects, ABLE Tech’s staff had been doing intensive training about the need for accessible information technology for a number of years. Traditional training programs which featured nationally recognized experts on 508 and Web accessibility were conducted; an innovative on-line training course on designing for Web access was provided; and an array of resource materials were distributed to key constituencies.

Despite being well received and having significant success in making true believers of educators, Web managers, state agency staff, and business people, the state of Oklahoma’s conversion to accessible information technology  was not moving at a rapid pace.

In other states, efforts were being made to implement state 508 laws--with varying degrees of success and/or effectiveness. Jaco recognized that the state legislative route would be the best approach for Oklahoma. The only problem was the old problem: lack of funds. Jaco knew that such an effort would require a concentrated amount of staff time over a fairly long period of time.

Then in 2002, an opportunity became available. The Disability Law Resource Project (DLRP) of ILRU in Houston approach Jaco with an offer of $20,000 to be used in increasing availability of accessible information technology in Oklahoma. Quick background: Earlier that year, the nation’s ten Disability and Business Technical Assistance Centers on the ADA, of which DLRP is one, received a new priority: from its funding agency. The DBTACS are now required to promote accessible IT among states in their federal region. DLRP serves region  VI (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas). Thus, DLRP’s offer to ABLE Tech.

After discussing opportunities for effective action, Jaco and DLRP director, Wendy Wilkinson, agreed on how the funds should be used: ABLE Tech would undertake intensive and targeted educational activities which would lead to Oklahoma’s state senate and house of representatives passing legislation modeled after 508.

In April 2004, the law was passed, unanimously in both state houses.

In describing how it was accomplished, Jaco and Daws cite the critical activities of:

• Obtaining the support of state representative Abe Deutschendorf and state senator Gilder Camps. Neither man was known to ABLE Tech staff. They were selected because they chaired technology committees in their respective houses. Each listened to Jaco and Daws present the case for accessible information technology, and each agreed to take an active role in the process of getting such a bill passed, starting with obtaining legislative authorization of a task force.
• Having legislation enacted which authorized a task force on accessible electronic and information technology. The law called for task force members to be stakeholders from state government and the private sector, specified Deutschendorf and Camps as co-chairs, and assigned this mission: “The Task Force shall study and prepare recommendations concerning the accessibility for the disabled to publicly produced and provided electronic and information technology.” The first of the six task force meetings was held in August 2003.
• Providing task force members with an in-depth orientation to information technology accessibility issues. Two high-powered experts on the subject were brought in to do the training. Deborah Buck is director of the State IT Accessibility Initiatives of the Information Technology Technical Assistance and Training Center, and she discussed 508 initiatives undertaken by other states and the relative strengths and weaknesses of the initiatives. Diane Golden is director of the Missouri Assistive Technology Project, and she provided a first-hand overview of Missouri’s experiences in implementing accessible IT policies in state government. In addition, task force members were given an up-close demonstration of different kinds of accessible information technology.
• Furnishing members with a comprehensive notebook containing all of the information presented in the orientation and then some. It included copies of section 508, the Access Board standards, the amended Federal Acquisition Regulations with guidance on purchasing accessible IT, steps already taken by Oklahoma to comply with 508, overviews of initiatives implemented by other states, in-depth description of the Missouri model which is highly regarded by both disability rights advocates and information technology vendors, and much more.

In reflecting on factors which were key to their success, Jaco and Daws cite several:

• The roles of Deutschendorf and Camps. According to Jaco, the leadership of the two legislators, especially Deutschendorf, was remarkable--unwaveringly positive and far more than she expected. She says that throughout the task force sessions, they left no doubt in anyone’s mind that this legislation was going to happen.
• The exceptional training presentations by Buck and Golden which brought many of the task force members on board immediately,
• The extensive 508 and AT resource materials available at the Web sites of the three projects providing technical assistance to the Tech Acts projects, and
• the funds from DLRP which allowed ABLE Tech to give appropriate concentration and oversight to these educational activities.

In December 2003, acting on the recommendation of the task force, a bill modeled after 508 was introduced. And, in April 2004, it was made law. The task force has now been converted into an advisory council, charged with development of standards and complaint procedures.