evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

BFIT-Bund's Second EU Monitoring Report — Tracking Digital Accessibility Across German Public Bodies

Germany · Berlin · See the Germany profile · See the Berlin profile

Evidence: Observational / pre–post Top 30% 88/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Germany's federal accessibility monitoring body tested 7,239 public websites and 269 apps in 2022–2024, more than triple the previous cycle — finding not one fully accessible, though accessibility-statement publication rose from 36% to 48%.

7239 websites
Websites tested (2nd cycle) (2022-2024)
1892 websites
Websites tested (1st cycle) (2020-2021)
269 apps
Apps tested (2nd cycle) (2022-2024)
57 apps
Apps tested (1st cycle) (2020-2021)
0
Websites or apps fully meeting all accessibility requirements (2022-2024)
51-82 %
Website WCAG-principle compliance range (2022-2024)
36 to 48 %
Accessibility statement publication rate (1st to 2nd cycle)
13.5 %
Accessibility statements fully meeting formal requirements (2022-2024)
74 %
State-level (Länder) average compliance (2022-2024)
BFIT-Bund's Second EU Monitoring Report — Tracking Digital Accessibility Across German Public Bodies BFIT-Bund's Second EU Monitoring Report — Tracking Digital Accessibility Across German Public Bodies

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Überwachungsstelle des Bundes für Barrierefreiheit von Informationstechnik (BFIT-Bund)
Period
2022–2024
Region (NUTS)
DE30
Keywords
public sector, digital accessibility, e-government, disability rights

Context

Under the EU Web Accessibility Directive ((EU) 2016/2102), Germany's Überwachungsstelle des Bundes für Barrierefreiheit von Informationstechnik (BFIT-Bund), an independent Berlin-based unit, monitors federal and Länder public-sector websites and apps against BITV 2.0 and EN 301 549/WCAG 2.1.

Objectives

To track, cycle over cycle, whether German public-sector digital accessibility is actually improving, and to identify where compliance and accessibility-statement quality still fall short.

Activities

For its second reporting cycle (1 January 2022 – 22 December 2024), BFIT-Bund and the Länder monitoring bodies tested 7,239 websites (322 in depth) and 269 apps — more than triple the 1,892 websites (130 in depth) and 57 apps tested in the first cycle (2020/21). BFIT-Bund also runs mandatory repeat inspections covering at least 10% of the previous cycle's sample, per EU rules.

Results

Not a single tested website or app fully met all accessibility requirements in either cycle. Website compliance with the four WCAG principles ranged from 51% (robustness) to 82% (understandability and operability); in-depth app monitoring found robustness as low as 37.5%. State-level bodies had the highest average compliance (74%, up marginally from 73%). Publication of the legally required accessibility statement rose from 36% to 48% of sites, but only 13.5% of statements fully met the formal requirements. Repeat inspections of previously tested sites found "in most cases no significantly improved results."

Conclusions

BFIT-Bund attributes the limited progress largely to the long development and update cycles of public websites and apps — a structural constraint on how quickly statutory monitoring alone can raise compliance, even at a tripled testing scale.

Implementation

Indicative cost
High (€500k–€5M) — Testing scaled more than threefold between cycles (1,892 to 7,239 websites; 57 to 269 apps) across federal and all 16 Länder bodies, implying substantial and growing monitoring resourcing.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
BFIT-Bund (federal monitoring unit, Berlin), Länder-level monitoring bodies across all 16 states, structured input from four national disability organisations

Conditions for success

  • A legal, recurring monitoring obligation under EU Directive (EU) 2016/2102 with a fixed reporting cycle
  • Dedicated federal and Länder monitoring bodies with a defined, repeatable methodology (BITV 2.0 / EN 301 549 / WCAG 2.1)
  • Mandatory repeat inspections (≥10% of the prior cycle's sample) to check whether flagged sites actually improved
  • Structured feedback loops with disability organisations to prioritise persistent barriers

Common failure modes

  • Not one of thousands of tested websites or apps fully met all requirements in either cycle
  • Repeat inspections of previously flagged sites mostly found no significant improvement, attributed to long website/app development and update cycles
  • Only 13.5% of published accessibility statements fully met the formal requirements, even after publication rates rose

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Attachments

Similar practices you may find useful