Good faith compliance under ADA Title II means maintaining a documented record that your agency is actively identifying, prioritizing, and remediating accessibility barriers over time.
Good faith compliance is one of those phrases that gets used constantly in ADA Title II conversations and almost never explained clearly.
The assumption is that good faith means trying. That if your agency has been working on accessibility — fixing things, running scans, updating templates — that effort speaks for itself and protects you when questions arise.
It does not. Not without documentation.
Good faith compliance is not a posture or an intention. It is a demonstrable record. A specific, structured, timestamped body of evidence that shows an enforcement body, an advocacy organization, or a court that your agency identified its accessibility obligations, took them seriously, built a program around addressing them, and sustained that program over time.
The difference between an agency that can demonstrate good faith and one that cannot is almost never the amount of work that was done. It is whether the work was documented in a way that can be produced, organized, and presented as a coherent compliance narrative when someone asks for it.
This guide explains what good faith compliance actually requires, what documentation demonstrates it, and why the absence of documentation turns genuine effort into an indefensible position.
What Good Faith Compliance Is Not
Before getting into what good faith compliance requires, it is worth clearing up what it is not — because several common assumptions lead agencies in the wrong direction.
Good faith is not effort alone. An agency that has fixed hundreds of accessibility issues over the past two years but has no documentation of what was fixed, when it was fixed, or how it was prioritized cannot demonstrate good faith compliance. The work was real. The evidence is not. In enforcement contexts, undocumented effort is practically indistinguishable from no effort.
Good faith is not an accessibility statement. Publishing a statement on your website that says your agency is committed to accessibility and is working toward WCAG 2.1 AA conformance is a required component of a compliance program. It is not, by itself, a compliance program. A statement without an audit, a remediation log, and a monitoring program behind it is a claim without evidence.
Good faith is not an overlay tool. Accessibility overlay products are frequently marketed to public agencies as compliance solutions. They are not. An overlay does not create audit documentation, remediation logs, monitoring records, or governance structures. Courts and enforcement bodies have been consistent in rejecting overlay-only approaches as insufficient to demonstrate defensible compliance.
Good faith is not a completed project. Completing a remediation sprint — fixing the issues identified in an audit, updating templates, addressing form labeling — is meaningful work. But a completed project has an end date. Good faith compliance does not have an end date. It has a cadence. An agency that completed a remediation project two years ago and has no monitoring records, no remediation log activity, and no governance documentation since then is not demonstrating ongoing good faith. It is demonstrating a past project.
What Good Faith ADA Compliance Actually Requires
Good faith compliance is built from five categories of demonstrable evidence. Each one answers a specific question that enforcement bodies ask. Together they form the documentation record that transforms accessibility effort into a defensible program.
1. A Baseline Audit With Documented Findings
The starting point for any demonstrable compliance program is a baseline audit — a formal evaluation of the agency's digital environment against WCAG 2.1 AA that produces a documented findings report.
The audit answers the first and most fundamental question enforcement bodies ask: did the agency know where its exposure was? An agency that has never conducted a formal audit cannot answer that question. It can say it suspected issues existed. It cannot demonstrate that it systematically evaluated them.
A defensible baseline audit includes:
- A defined scope covering primary web templates, core transactional workflows, a document sample, and embedded vendor tools
- Findings classified by WCAG criterion, severity level, and operational risk
- A prioritization model that explains how issues were ranked for remediation
- A date — the specific date the audit was conducted, which establishes the timeline everything else is measured against
The audit report is the foundation of the documentation record. Without it, every subsequent action lacks context. With it, the agency has a starting point it can point to and say: this is when we assessed where we stood, this is what we found, and this is what we decided to do about it.
2. A Risk-Based Prioritization Framework
Good faith compliance requires not just that issues were identified but that prioritization decisions were made with a coherent rationale. An agency that fixes accessibility issues in random order — whatever is easiest, whatever someone happens to notice, whatever gets flagged in a complaint — cannot demonstrate that its remediation program was strategically designed to reduce the most significant barriers first.
A risk-based prioritization framework documents the logic behind remediation sequencing. It distinguishes between:
- High-risk issues that block core government service transactions and need immediate remediation
- Template-level issues that affect hundreds or thousands of pages and warrant early attention because of their scope
- Moderate-risk issues on high-traffic surfaces that should be addressed in the near term
- Lower-risk issues on low-traffic or archival content that can be scheduled into later remediation cycles
When an enforcement body looks at a remediation log and sees that permit application barriers were addressed before decorative image alt text on low-traffic pages, they see evidence of intentional prioritization. That is good faith. When they see no clear pattern — or when the most visible, low-impact fixes were addressed while core service barriers remain — they see the absence of a real program.
3. A Remediation Log With Timestamps
The remediation log is the single most important piece of documentation in a good faith compliance record. It is the running evidence that the compliance program is actually functioning — not just planned, not just described in a policy document, but actively producing results.
Every accessibility issue that has been identified and addressed needs a log entry. The entry needs to capture:
- When the issue was identified and through what mechanism (audit, automated scan, manual QA, user complaint)
- The specific WCAG criterion the issue violates
- The risk classification assigned to the issue
- The affected page, template, or workflow
- What specifically was done to remediate the issue
- Who was responsible for the fix
- When the fix was completed
- How completion was validated and when
The timestamp on each entry is what makes the log legally meaningful. "We fixed the permit application form labeling" is a claim. "Issue 34, identified March 3rd during manual workflow testing, classified High Risk under WCAG 3.3.2, remediated March 18th by the web development team, validated March 19th via screen reader testing with NVDA" is evidence.
That distinction — between a claim and a timestamped record — is what separates an agency that can demonstrate good faith from one that cannot.
4. A Monitoring and Scan History
Good faith compliance is ongoing, not historical. A remediation log that shows a burst of activity following an audit and then nothing for twelve months does not demonstrate an ongoing program. It demonstrates a project that ended.
Recurring monitoring is what proves that an agency is continuously managing its accessibility obligations rather than periodically reacting to them. A defensible monitoring record includes:
- Monthly automated scan results showing the agency is evaluating its digital environment on a scheduled cadence
- Manual QA records showing that human testing of core workflows is happening on a regular basis — at minimum quarterly for transactional workflows
- Documentation that scan findings are being reviewed, triaged, and fed into the remediation queue rather than generated and ignored
- A record showing that new issues introduced through content updates, vendor changes, or template modifications are being caught through monitoring rather than surfacing only when a complaint arrives
The monitoring history creates a timeline of sustained attention. That timeline is what makes the compliance program look like a program rather than a collection of past actions.
5. Executive Reporting Records
Good faith compliance is not just a technical program. It is an organizational commitment. And enforcement bodies look for evidence that accessibility has executive visibility — that leadership is informed, engaged, and accountable for compliance outcomes.
Executive reporting records demonstrate that accessibility is not siloed within IT or the web team but is treated as an organizational priority with leadership oversight. A defensible reporting record includes:
- Quarterly accessibility status reports delivered to the relevant executive leadership — IT director, city manager, legal counsel, or equivalent
- Records showing that leadership received and engaged with those reports — meeting notes, response records, or decision documentation tied to the reports
- Evidence that resource decisions — budget allocation, staff assignment, vendor procurement — were informed by the compliance reporting
When an enforcement body asks whether accessibility has executive-level accountability, an agency with quarterly reporting records can say yes with evidence. An agency without them can only assert it.
The Documentation That Is Most Commonly Missing
Across public agency accessibility programs, certain documentation gaps appear more consistently than others. These are the gaps that most directly undermine defensibility when enforcement attention arrives.
No baseline audit older than 18 months. Compliance programs that cannot point to a formal, documented audit within the past 18 months are working from an outdated or nonexistent baseline. The digital environment has changed. New content has been added. Vendor tools have been updated. Without a current audit, the agency does not know where it actually stands.
Remediation activity without timestamped records. Web teams that fix accessibility issues as part of normal development work but do not log those fixes in a structured remediation record are producing work with no evidence value. The effort is real. The documentation does not exist.
Monitoring scans that are not reviewed or acted on. Many agencies run automated accessibility scans on a scheduled basis. Fewer have a documented process for reviewing scan results, triaging findings, and feeding actionable issues into the remediation queue. Scans that are generated but not acted on are data noise rather than compliance evidence.
No validation records. Fixes that were not tested and confirmed after implementation are unverified. A remediation log that shows issues as "resolved" without a corresponding validation record and validation date does not demonstrate that the issues were actually resolved — only that someone intended to resolve them.
No complaint intake records. Agencies that receive accessibility complaints — informal or formal — and address them informally without creating a documented intake and resolution record are missing a significant piece of the compliance narrative. How an agency responds to complaints is one of the specific things enforcement bodies evaluate.
What Happens When Documentation Is Absent
Consider a scenario that is more common than it should be.
An agency has been doing genuine accessibility work for 18 months. Their web team has fixed dozens of issues. They updated their navigation templates, addressed form labeling problems across their permit system, and remediating their top 50 highest-traffic PDFs. Real work. Real investment of time and resources.
A complaint is filed. An enforcement inquiry opens. The agency is asked to produce documentation of its compliance program.
The web manager pulls together what she can. There are a few old scan reports. There are Jira tickets from the development team showing that accessibility issues were addressed in various sprints, but they are not organized by WCAG criterion or risk classification and they have no validation records. There is no formal audit report. There is no remediation log. There is no monitoring history. There is an accessibility statement on the website that was last updated two years ago.
The enforcement body sees an agency that has done some things at some point. What it cannot see is a program. There is no baseline showing what the agency knew. There is no prioritization logic showing how it decided what to address. There is no timeline showing sustained effort. There is no validation record showing that fixes were confirmed.
The work was real. The defensibility is not. And that gap — between genuine effort and demonstrable good faith — is what the documentation record is designed to close.
Building the Documentation Record Starting Now
If your agency does not currently have a complete good faith documentation record, the path forward is straightforward even if it is not immediate.
You cannot reconstruct documentation for work that was done without records. What you can do is start the record now, from this point forward, and build the evidence base that makes everything that comes next defensible.
Start with a current baseline audit. Even if your agency has done accessibility work, a current documented audit establishes where you stand today and gives you a foundation to build the rest of the record from.
Open a remediation log and use it for every action from this point forward. Every issue identified. Every fix made. Every validation confirmed. Every entry timestamped and attributed. The log starts building its evidentiary value from the first entry.
Implement a monitoring program with documented outputs. Monthly scans with a human review process. Quarterly manual QA of core transactional workflows. Archive every scan result.
Build executive reporting into the governance cadence. Quarterly reports to relevant leadership. Keep records that the reports were delivered and received.
Document your complaint intake process and use it for every accessibility complaint you receive, regardless of how informal the complaint was.
None of this requires a large immediate investment. It requires discipline and consistency. The documentation record grows with every passing month of a structured program. And every month it grows, the agency's good faith compliance posture strengthens.
The Standard Is Not Perfection. It Is Documented Progress.
This is the most important thing to understand about good faith compliance under ADA Title II.
Enforcement bodies are not looking for agencies with zero accessibility issues. They are looking for agencies that have taken their obligations seriously, built a program around addressing them, and can demonstrate sustained effort with a structured evidence record.
An agency with some remaining accessibility issues and a complete documentation record — audit, prioritization framework, timestamped remediation log, monitoring history, executive reporting — is in a fundamentally stronger position than an agency with fewer issues and no documentation.
The standard is not perfection. It is demonstrable, documented, ongoing effort. That is what good faith compliance looks like. And documentation is how you prove it.
[What does ADA Title II actually require from public agencies →]
[Learn more about an accessibility remediation log →]
FAQ: Good Faith ADA Compliance
What does good faith compliance mean under ADA Title II? Good faith compliance under ADA Title II means an agency has built a documented, ongoing accessibility program that demonstrates intentional effort to identify, prioritize, and remediate barriers in its digital services. It is not a posture or an intention — it is a demonstrable record. Enforcement bodies evaluate good faith through specific documentation including baseline audit reports, risk-based prioritization frameworks, timestamped remediation logs, monitoring records, and executive reporting history. Effort without documentation is not demonstrable good faith.
What documentation demonstrates good faith ADA compliance? The core documentation that demonstrates defensible good faith compliance includes a current baseline audit report with WCAG criterion-level findings, a risk-based prioritization framework explaining remediation sequencing decisions, a timestamped remediation log recording every issue identified and addressed, automated and manual monitoring records showing a recurring evaluation cadence, a complaint intake and response log, and executive-level reporting records showing that leadership is informed and accountable. Together these documents form the compliance narrative that enforcement bodies evaluate.
Does fixing accessibility issues without documentation create good faith compliance? No. Remediation work that is not documented in a structured, timestamped record creates no demonstrable good faith compliance record regardless of how much work was done. In enforcement contexts, undocumented effort is practically indistinguishable from no effort because it cannot be verified, organized, or presented as a coherent compliance program. A remediation log that records what was fixed, when, by whom, and how it was validated is what turns remediation activity into compliance evidence.
Can an agency demonstrate good faith compliance without a perfect WCAG score? Yes. The standard for good faith compliance under ADA Title II is not perfect WCAG 2.1 AA conformance across every digital surface. It is a documented, risk-based, ongoing program that demonstrates the agency has identified its exposure, prioritized remediation intelligently, made and recorded measurable progress, and built governance structures to sustain the work. An agency with a complete documentation record and some remaining issues is in a stronger enforcement position than an agency with fewer issues and no documentation program.
How long should ADA compliance documentation be kept? There is no specific retention period mandated by ADA Title II, but best practice is to maintain compliance documentation indefinitely or for a minimum of five to seven years. Enforcement inquiries can reference events that occurred years in the past. A remediation log that shows the full history of a compliance program — including the baseline from years prior and all activity since — is a significantly stronger piece of evidence than one that only covers recent activity. Archive everything.
What is the role of executive reporting in good faith compliance? Executive reporting demonstrates that accessibility has organizational accountability beyond the IT or web team level — that leadership is informed of compliance status, risk trends, and remediation progress on a regular basis. Enforcement bodies look for this specifically because it signals that accessibility is treated as an organizational obligation rather than a technical afterthought. Quarterly accessibility status reports delivered to and acknowledged by agency leadership, with records kept of that reporting, are a meaningful component of a good faith documentation record.