evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Lithuania's First Accessibility Monitoring Cycle — 128 of 131 Government Sites Non-Compliant, Then Tracked to Remediation

Lithuania · Vilnius · See the Lithuania profile · See the Vilnius profile

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

Lithuania's first EU accessibility monitoring cycle found shortcomings on 128 of 131 tested government sites and full compliance on only 2 of 18 mobile apps — rising to 10 of 18 after a remediation deadline, showing structured follow-up drives real fixes.

128 of 131
Websites with accessibility shortcomings
3 of 131
Websites fully clean
17 of 17
E-service portals with shortcomings (initial pass)
3 of 17
Portals fixed and re-verified by remediation deadline (by 1 Oct 2021)
2 of 18
Mobile apps fully compliant, initial pass
10 of 18
Mobile apps fully compliant, after remediation deadline (by 1 Oct 2021)
+13%
Sample size versus EU minimum requirement

Details

Maturity
Pilot
Promoter
Information Society Development Committee under the Ministry of Economy and Innovation of the Republic of Lithuania
Period
2020–2021
Region (NUTS)
LT
Keywords
digital accessibility, e-government, disability rights

Context

Lithuania's Law on the Right to Receive Information from State and Municipal Institutions (amended 2018) transposed EU Directive 2016/2102, making the Information Society Development Committee (IVPK) responsible for monitoring public-sector website and app accessibility under EN 301 549.

Objectives

To measure baseline accessibility compliance nationally and drive real remediation through a hard deadline, not just a one-off audit.

Activities

For its first monitoring cycle (websites: Jan 2020-Dec 2021; apps: Jun-Dec 2021), IVPK evaluated 131 websites via simplified/automated checks and 17 major e-service portals via in-depth manual review, plus 18 mobile app versions (10 Android, 8 iOS) — 13% above the EU's minimum required sample size — consulting disability-community representatives on which apps/services to prioritise. A remediation deadline of 1 October 2021 followed the initial audit.

Results

Simplified monitoring found shortcomings on 128 of 131 websites, with only 3 fully clean; all 17 in-depth e-service portals had shortcomings initially. By the remediation deadline, 3 of the 17 portals were fixed and re-verified, while the remaining 14 formally requested and were granted extra time, citing the need to procure specialist help. Mobile apps showed the clearest before/after change: only 2 of 18 app versions were fully compliant initially, rising to 10 of 18 after the deadline; Android versions consistently showed more defects than iOS equivalents for the same services.

Conclusions

Pairing the first monitoring cycle with a hard remediation deadline produced a measured, fivefold increase in fully compliant mobile apps directly attributable to the monitoring-then-remediation cycle, though 8 of 18 apps and 14 of 17 portals still needed further work.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Low (< €50k) — A statutory monitoring and remediation cycle run by an existing government committee; the main cost driver is remediation work borne by individual public bodies, some of which needed to procure specialist help.
Time to results
Short (< 1 year) — First monitoring cycle: websites Jan 2020-Dec 2021, apps Jun-Dec 2021, with a remediation deadline of 1 October 2021.
Staffing & skills
Information Society Development Committee (IVPK), Ministry of Economy and Innovation

Conditions for success

  • Consulting disability-community representatives on which apps/services to prioritise for testing
  • Pairing the audit with a hard remediation deadline and mandatory re-verification rather than a report-only exercise
  • Allowing extensions only against a stated reason (procurement of specialist help), keeping accountability for the delay explicit

Common failure modes

  • 14 of 17 in-depth portals still needed an extension past the original deadline
  • 8 of 18 mobile apps remained non-compliant even after the remediation deadline
  • Android app versions consistently showed more defects than iOS equivalents for the same public services

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes CERV — Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values

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

Replication kit

Reusable artefacts from this practice — as published by their sources.

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.

Similar practices you may find useful