City websites: usability rankings

Project ScanGov usability rankings for U.S. city government websites, with the most common failures.

  • Sites: 267
  • Last scan: 10/9/2026

F 51

Average usability score of 215 fully scanned city sites

215 of 267

City sites fully scanned. We couldn't fully scan 52, so they're listed without grades

4%

Fully scanned city sites earning an A for usability (9 sites)

80%

Fully scanned city sites earning a D or F for usability (171 sites)

How U.S. city usability scores are distributed

Smoothed distribution of the 215 fully scanned U.S. city sites, score 0 to 100. Height shows how many sites score near each value.

Distribution of 215 scores. The data table lists counts by score range.

  • Average
View the data table
How U.S. city usability scores are distributed
Score rangeSites
0 to 90
10 to 190
20 to 2917
30 to 3972
40 to 4920
50 to 5932
60 to 6930
70 to 7916
80 to 8919
90 to 1009

City sites by usability grade

One dot per city site, colored by its usability grade. Select a dot to open that site's report. The table lists every site.

City of San Jose, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of Olathe, KS: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of Kent, WA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of Montgomery, AL: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of New Haven, CT: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of Laredo, TX: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of Broken Arrow, OK: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of Hillsboro, OR: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of Lancaster, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of Glendale, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of Fort Lauderdale, FL: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 995) City of Bend, OR: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of El Lago, TX: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Boston, MA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Vallejo, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Olympia, WA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 998) City of Paterson, NJ: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 997) City of Allentown, PA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 994) City of Bellaire, TX: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 408) City of Chattanooga, TN: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Brownsville, TX: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 994) City of Richardson, TX: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Santa Clara, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Los Angeles, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Chicago, IL: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Kansas City, MO: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Katy, TX: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Buckeye, AZ: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) Jefferson County, KY: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Carlsbad, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of El Cajon, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Springfield, MO: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Pearland, TX: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Orange, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Jackson, MS: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Las Cruces, NM: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Fremont, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Fullerton, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Stamford, CT: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Chula Vista, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Henderson, NV: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Goodyear, AZ: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Fishers, IN: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Raleigh, NC: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Greensboro, NC: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of New Bedford, MA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Tempe, AZ: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Pomona, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Fremont, CA: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Yuma, AZ: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Carrollton, TX: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 403) City of Detroit, MI: not fully scanned, so not graded (status 996) City of Toledo, OH: grade A, usability score 100 City of Baton Rouge, LA: grade A, usability score 93 City of Virginia Beach, VA: grade A, usability score 93 City of Moreno Valley, CA: grade A, usability score 93 City of Tampa, FL: grade B, usability score 87 City of Rochester, MN: grade A, usability score 93 City of Thornton, CO: grade B, usability score 81 City of Fort Worth, TX: grade B, usability score 81 City of Sacramento, CA: grade B, usability score 87 City of Pittsburgh, PA: grade D, usability score 68 City of New Orleans, LA: grade B, usability score 81 City of Renton, WA: grade D, usability score 68 City of Minneapolis, MN: grade C, usability score 75 City of Columbus, OH: grade C, usability score 75 City of Portland, OR: grade B, usability score 81 City of Huntsville, AL: grade A, usability score 93 City of Sioux Falls, SD: grade D, usability score 68 City of Columbia, MO: grade C, usability score 75 City of Chandler, AZ: grade B, usability score 81 City of Helena, MT: grade D, usability score 68 City of Round Rock, TX: grade A, usability score 93 City of San Antonio, TX: grade D, usability score 68 City of Albuquerque, NM: grade B, usability score 87 City of South Bend, IN: grade C, usability score 75 City of Wilmington, NC: grade C, usability score 75 City of Corona, CA: grade B, usability score 81 City of Burbank, CA: grade B, usability score 81 City of College Station, TX: grade B, usability score 81 City of Syracuse, NY: grade D, usability score 68 City of Gainesville, FL: grade D, usability score 68 City of Miami, FL: grade D, usability score 62 City of Waco, TX: grade D, usability score 68 Village of Indian Hill, OH: grade C, usability score 75 City of Orlando, FL: grade D, usability score 62 City of Tacoma, WA: grade D, usability score 68 City of Joliet, IL: grade D, usability score 68 City of Cleveland, OH: grade B, usability score 81 City of Saint Paul, MN: grade B, usability score 81 City of Pompano Beach, FL: grade C, usability score 75 City of Arlington, TX: grade D, usability score 62 City of Quincy, MA: grade D, usability score 62 City of Corpus Christi, TX: grade B, usability score 81 City of Ontario, CA: grade C, usability score 75 City of Scottsdale, AZ: grade A, usability score 93 City of Grand Rapids, MI: grade D, usability score 68 City of Norman, OK: grade D, usability score 68 City of Alexandria, VA: grade B, usability score 87 City of Santa Clarita, CA: grade B, usability score 87 City of Memphis, TN: grade C, usability score 75 City of Vancouver, WA: grade D, usability score 62 City of Charleston, SC: grade C, usability score 75 City of Phoenix, AZ: grade C, usability score 75 City of Bridgeport, CT: grade F, usability score 50 City of Tucson, AZ: grade F, usability score 56 City of Miramar, FL: grade D, usability score 62 City of Amarillo, TX: grade D, usability score 68 City of Providence, RI: grade B, usability score 87 City of Allen, TX: grade F, usability score 56 City of Charlotte, NC: grade F, usability score 50 City of Huntington Beach, CA: grade F, usability score 56 City of Victorville, CA: grade F, usability score 50 City of Oakland, CA: grade F, usability score 43 City of Boulder, CO: grade F, usability score 56 City of Fresno, CA: grade F, usability score 46 City of Birmingham, AL: grade D, usability score 68 City of Jacksonville, FL: grade F, usability score 56 City of Fayetteville, NC: grade F, usability score 50 City of Independence, MO: grade F, usability score 50 City of Gresham, OR: grade D, usability score 68 City of Sandy Springs, GA: grade D, usability score 62 City of Knoxville, TN: grade B, usability score 81 City of Lansing, MI: grade D, usability score 62 City of Madison, WI: grade C, usability score 75 City of Reno, NV: grade D, usability score 62 City of Hedwig Village, TX: grade D, usability score 62 City of Berkeley, CA: grade C, usability score 73 City of San Diego, CA: grade F, usability score 56 City of Austin, TX: grade F, usability score 50 City of Conroe, TX: grade F, usability score 50 City of Cape Coral, FL: grade D, usability score 62 City of Stockton, CA: grade D, usability score 62 City of Newport News, VA: grade F, usability score 43 City of Temecula, CA: grade F, usability score 37 City of Piney Point Village, TX: grade F, usability score 43 City of Cambridge, MA: grade D, usability score 68 City of Albany, NY: grade F, usability score 37 City of Seattle, WA: grade F, usability score 50 City of North Charleston, SC: grade F, usability score 56 City of Jacinto City, TX: grade F, usability score 31 City of Jefferson City, MO: grade F, usability score 43 City of Boise, ID: grade F, usability score 50 City of Jefferson City, MO: grade F, usability score 43 City of Hialeah, FL: grade F, usability score 33 City of Plano, TX: grade F, usability score 37 City of Buffalo, NY: grade F, usability score 31 City of Fayetteville, AR: grade F, usability score 56 City of Chandler, AZ: grade F, usability score 31 City of Hunters Creek Village, TX: grade C, usability score 73 City of Colorado Springs, CO: grade F, usability score 40 City of Fontana, CA: grade F, usability score 31 City of El Monte, CA: grade F, usability score 37 City of Murfreesboro, TN: grade F, usability score 31 City of Concord, NC: grade F, usability score 50 City of West University Place, TX: grade F, usability score 31 City of Piedmont, CA: grade F, usability score 37 City of Arvada, CO: grade F, usability score 50 City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA: grade F, usability score 50 City of Cincinnati, OH: grade F, usability score 50 City of Houston, TX: grade F, usability score 43 City of Wichita, KS: grade F, usability score 31 City of Elgin, IL: grade F, usability score 26 City of South Fulton, GA: grade F, usability score 46 City of Augusta, GA: grade F, usability score 37 City of South Houston, TX: grade F, usability score 25 City of Murrieta, CA: grade F, usability score 43 City of Friendswood, TX: grade F, usability score 43 City of Green Bay, WI: grade F, usability score 37 City of Knoxville, TN: grade F, usability score 31 City of Humble, TX: grade C, usability score 75 City of Manchester, NH: grade F, usability score 31 City of Midland, TX: grade F, usability score 37 City of Bakersfield, CA: grade F, usability score 37 City of Columbia, SC: grade C, usability score 75 City of Abilene, TX: grade F, usability score 31 City of Frisco, TX: grade F, usability score 37 City of Eugene, OR: grade F, usability score 37 City of Peoria, IL: grade F, usability score 37 City of League City, TX: grade F, usability score 31 City of Waller, TX: grade F, usability score 43 City of Bellevue, WA: grade F, usability score 50 City of Hilshire Village, TX: grade F, usability score 37 City of Killeen, TX: grade F, usability score 31 City of Sugar Land, TX: grade F, usability score 31 City of Rio Rancho, NM: grade F, usability score 37 City of Garland, TX: grade F, usability score 25 City of Savannah, GA: grade F, usability score 56 City of Irving, TX: grade F, usability score 37 City of Norfolk, VA: grade F, usability score 31 City of Yonkers, NY: grade F, usability score 50 City of Concord, NH: grade F, usability score 37 City of Dayton, OH: grade F, usability score 37 City of Durham, NC: grade F, usability score 31 City of Nassau Bay, TX: grade F, usability score 31 City of Grand Rapids, MI: grade F, usability score 31 City of Santa Fe, NM: grade F, usability score 37 City of Richmond, VA: grade F, usability score 50 City of Rialto, CA: grade F, usability score 25 City of Miami Gardens, FL: grade F, usability score 31 City of Houston, TX: grade F, usability score 56 City of Nampa, ID: grade F, usability score 31 City of Escondido, CA: grade F, usability score 31 City of Grand Rapids, MI: grade F, usability score 31 City of Shreveport, LA: grade F, usability score 31 City of High Point, NC: grade F, usability score 43 City of Beaumont, TX: grade F, usability score 37 City of San Bernardino, CA: grade F, usability score 31 City of Chesapeake, VA: grade F, usability score 37 City of Annapolis, MD: grade F, usability score 31 City of Wichita Falls, TX: grade F, usability score 25 City of Long Beach, CA: grade F, usability score 43 City of Palmdale, CA: grade F, usability score 31 City of Deer Park, TX: grade F, usability score 31 City of Modesto, CA: grade F, usability score 31 City of Bismarck, ND: grade F, usability score 25 City of Fargo, ND: grade F, usability score 43 City of Stafford, TX: grade F, usability score 25 City of Clarksville, TN: grade F, usability score 25 City of Santa Rosa, CA: grade F, usability score 37 City of Rockford, IL: grade F, usability score 31 City of Billings, MT: grade F, usability score 31 City of Antioch, CA: grade F, usability score 25 City of Galena Park, TX: grade F, usability score 31 City of Springfield, MA: grade F, usability score 46 City of Everett, WA: grade F, usability score 37 City of Spring Valley Village, TX: grade F, usability score 25 City of Harrisburg, PA: grade F, usability score 50 City of Dearborn, MI: grade F, usability score 43 City of Pasadena, TX: grade F, usability score 31 City of Lowell, MA: grade F, usability score 31 City of Richmond, CA: grade F, usability score 31 City of Spokane, WA: grade F, usability score 46 City of Sterling Heights, MI: grade F, usability score 31 City of Billings, MT: grade F, usability score 37 Marion County, IN: grade F, usability score 31 City of Lynn, MA: grade F, usability score 43 City of Jersey City, NJ: grade F, usability score 37 City of Odessa, TX: grade F, usability score 25 City of Anaheim, CA: grade F, usability score 37 City of Denton, TX: grade F, usability score 37 City of San Mateo, CA: grade F, usability score 25 City of Spokane Valley, WA: grade F, usability score 31 City of Hampton, VA: grade F, usability score 31 City of Baytown, TX: grade F, usability score 31 City of Seabrook, TX: grade F, usability score 31 City of Akron, OH: grade F, usability score 43 City of New Braunfels, TX: grade F, usability score 31 City of Houston, TX: grade F, usability score 25 City of Concord, NC: grade F, usability score 50 City of Las Vegas, NV: grade F, usability score 25 City of Tulsa, OK: grade F, usability score 50 City of Charleston, WV: grade F, usability score 56 City of Baton Rouge, LA: grade F, usability score 31 City of Thousand Oaks, CA: grade F, usability score 26 City of Augusta, ME: grade F, usability score 31
  • A (90 to 100)
  • B to C (70 to 89)
  • D to F (below 70)
  • Not fully scanned

11 city sites have no map location yet and appear only in the table.

U.S. city sites by usability grade

Share of the 215 fully scanned U.S. city sites in each grade band

  1. All U.S. city sitesA (90 to 100): 4% (9 sites)B to C (70 to 89): 16% (35 sites)D to F (below 70): 80% (171 sites)
  • A (90 to 100)
  • B to C (70 to 89)
  • D to F (below 70)
View the data table
U.S. city sites by usability grade
GroupA (90 to 100)B to C (70 to 89)D to F (below 70)
All U.S. city sites4% (9)16% (35)80% (171)

Most common usability failures among U.S. city sites

Share of the 215 fully scanned U.S. city sites failing each check. A site can fail more than one check. Each check links to its standard and how to fix it.

  1. Open Graph image alt98% (211 of 215 sites)
  2. Open Graph site name80% (173 of 215 sites)
  3. Open Graph description71% (152 of 215 sites)
  4. Open Graph type70% (150 of 215 sites)
  5. Open Graph image67% (144 of 215 sites)
View the data table
Most common usability failures among U.S. city sites
CheckShare failingSites failing
Open Graph image alt98%211
Open Graph site name80%173
Open Graph description71%152
Open Graph type70%150
Open Graph image67%144

What each check means

  • Open Graph image alt. The social media preview image has alt text for screen readers. Screen readers cannot describe shared images.
  • Open Graph site name. The site has a name for social media and browser display. Site name missing in social media shares.
  • Open Graph description. The page has a description for social media previews. Shared links have no description on social media.
  • Open Graph type. The page declares its content type for social media cards. Social media shows wrong content type.
  • Open Graph image. The page has a preview image for social media cards. Shared links have no image on social media.

All city sites by usability score

Site rankings
Rank Site Checks passed Grade
1 toledo.oh.gov
City of Toledo, OH
16 of 16 checks pass A
2 stgeorgela.gov
City of Baton Rouge, LA
15 of 16 checks pass A
2 virginiabeach.gov
City of Virginia Beach, VA
14 of 15 checks pass A
2 scottsdaleaz.gov
City of Scottsdale, AZ
15 of 16 checks pass A
2 moval.gov
City of Moreno Valley, CA
15 of 16 checks pass A
2 roundrocktexas.gov
City of Round Rock, TX
15 of 16 checks pass A
2 stlouis-mo.gov
City of St. Louis, MO
15 of 16 checks pass A
2 huntsvilleal.gov
City of Huntsville, AL
15 of 16 checks pass A
2 rochestermn.gov
City of Rochester, MN
15 of 16 checks pass A
3 tampa.gov
City of Tampa, FL
14 of 16 checks pass B
3 cabq.gov
City of Albuquerque, NM
14 of 16 checks pass B
3 cityofsacramento.gov
City of Sacramento, CA
14 of 16 checks pass B
3 alexandriava.gov
City of Alexandria, VA
14 of 16 checks pass B
3 santaclarita.gov
City of Santa Clarita, CA
14 of 16 checks pass B
3 providenceri.gov
City of Providence, RI
14 of 16 checks pass B
4 thorntonco.gov
City of Thornton, CO
13 of 16 checks pass B
4 chandleraz.gov
City of Chandler, AZ
13 of 16 checks pass B
4 nola.gov
City of New Orleans, LA
13 of 16 checks pass B
4 clevelandohio.gov
City of Cleveland, OH
13 of 16 checks pass B
4 portland.gov
City of Portland, OR
13 of 16 checks pass B
4 fortworthtexas.gov
City of Fort Worth, TX
13 of 16 checks pass B
4 stpaul.gov
City of Saint Paul, MN
13 of 16 checks pass B
4 coralsprings.gov
City of CORAL SPRINGS, FL
13 of 16 checks pass B
4 corpuschristitx.gov
City of Corpus Christi, TX
13 of 16 checks pass B
4 knoxvilletnpolice.gov
City of Knoxville, TN
13 of 16 checks pass B
4 coronaca.gov
City of Corona, CA
13 of 16 checks pass B
4 burbankca.gov
City of Burbank, CA
13 of 16 checks pass B
4 cstx.gov
City of College Station, TX
13 of 16 checks pass B
5 charleston-sc.gov
City of Charleston, SC
12 of 16 checks pass C
5 phoenix.gov
City of Phoenix, AZ
12 of 16 checks pass C
5 cityofhumbletx.gov
City of Humble, TX
12 of 16 checks pass C
5 minneapolismn.gov
City of Minneapolis, MN
12 of 16 checks pass C
5 columbus.gov
City of Columbus, OH
12 of 16 checks pass C
5 southbendin.gov
City of South Bend, IN
12 of 16 checks pass C
5 pompanobeachfl.gov
City of Pompano Beach, FL
12 of 16 checks pass C
5 indianhill.gov
Village of Indian Hill, OH
12 of 16 checks pass C
5 como.gov
City of Columbia, MO
12 of 16 checks pass C
5 ontarioca.gov
City of Ontario, CA
12 of 16 checks pass C
5 memphistn.gov
City of Memphis, TN
12 of 16 checks pass C
5 columbiasc.gov
City of Columbia, SC
12 of 16 checks pass C
5 wilmingtonnc.gov
City of Wilmington, NC
12 of 16 checks pass C
5 cityofmadison.com
City of Madison, WI
12 of 16 checks pass C
6 cityofhunterscreek.com
City of Hunters Creek Village, TX
11 of 15 checks pass C
6 berkeleyca.gov
City of Berkeley, CA
11 of 15 checks pass C
7 helenamt.gov
City of Helena, MT
11 of 16 checks pass D
7 rentonwa.gov
City of Renton, WA
11 of 16 checks pass D
7 sa.gov
City of San Antonio, TX
11 of 16 checks pass D
7 cambridgema.gov
City of Cambridge, MA
11 of 16 checks pass D
7 gainesvillefl.gov
City of Gainesville, FL
11 of 16 checks pass D
7 grandrapidsmi.gov
City of Grand Rapids, MI
11 of 16 checks pass D
7 normanok.gov
City of Norman, OK
11 of 16 checks pass D
7 ggcity.org
City of GARDEN GROVE, CA
11 of 16 checks pass D
7 birminghamal.gov
City of Birmingham, AL
11 of 16 checks pass D
7 waco-texas.com
City of Waco, TX
11 of 16 checks pass D
7 greshamoregon.gov
City of Gresham, OR
11 of 16 checks pass D
7 pittsburghpa.gov
City of Pittsburgh, PA
11 of 16 checks pass D
7 siouxfalls.gov
City of Sioux Falls, SD
11 of 16 checks pass D
7 amarillo.gov
City of Amarillo, TX
11 of 16 checks pass D
7 tacoma.gov
City of Tacoma, WA
11 of 16 checks pass D
7 joliet.gov
City of Joliet, IL
11 of 16 checks pass D
7 sgcityutah.gov
City of St. George, UT
11 of 16 checks pass D
7 syr.gov
City of Syracuse, NY
11 of 16 checks pass D
8 cityofvancouver.us
City of Vancouver, WA
10 of 16 checks pass D
8 reno.gov
City of Reno, NV
10 of 16 checks pass D
8 thecityofhedwigvillage.com
City of Hedwig Village, TX
10 of 16 checks pass D
8 arlingtontx.gov
City of Arlington, TX
10 of 16 checks pass D
8 quincyma.gov
City of Quincy, MA
10 of 16 checks pass D
8 capecoral.gov
City of Cape Coral, FL
10 of 16 checks pass D
8 miami.gov
City of Miami, FL
10 of 16 checks pass D
8 stocktonca.gov
City of Stockton, CA
10 of 16 checks pass D
8 sandyspringsga.gov
City of Sandy Springs, GA
10 of 16 checks pass D
8 miramarfl.gov
City of Miramar, FL
10 of 16 checks pass D
8 orlando.gov
City of Orlando, FL
10 of 16 checks pass D
8 lansingmi.gov
City of Lansing, MI
10 of 16 checks pass D
9 fayetteville-ar.gov
City of Fayetteville, AR
9 of 16 checks pass F
9 morganspoint-tx.com
City of Morgan’s Point, TX
9 of 16 checks pass F
9 allentx.gov
City of Allen, TX
9 of 16 checks pass F
9 bouldercolorado.gov
City of Boulder, CO
9 of 16 checks pass F
9 northcharleston.org
City of North Charleston, SC
9 of 16 checks pass F
9 sandiego.gov
City of San Diego, CA
9 of 16 checks pass F
9 tucsonaz.gov
City of Tucson, AZ
9 of 16 checks pass F
9 jacksonville.gov
City of Jacksonville, FL
9 of 16 checks pass F
9 huntingtonbeachca.gov
City of Huntington Beach, CA
9 of 16 checks pass F
9 houstontx.gov
City of Houston, TX
9 of 16 checks pass F
9 savannahga.gov
City of Savannah, GA
9 of 16 checks pass F
9 charlestonwv.gov
City of Charleston, WV
9 of 16 checks pass F
10 arvadaco.gov
City of Arvada, CO
8 of 16 checks pass F
10 cityofrc.us
City of Rancho Cucamonga, CA
8 of 16 checks pass F
10 harriscountytx.gov
City of Harris County, TX
8 of 16 checks pass F
10 independencemo.gov
City of Independence, MO
8 of 16 checks pass F
10 bellevuewa.gov
City of Bellevue, WA
8 of 16 checks pass F
10 charlottenc.gov
City of Charlotte, NC
8 of 16 checks pass F
10 cincinnati-oh.gov
City of Cincinnati, OH
8 of 16 checks pass F
10 cityofconroe.org
City of Conroe, TX
8 of 16 checks pass F
10 bridgeportct.gov
City of Bridgeport, CT
8 of 16 checks pass F
10 austintexas.gov
City of Austin, TX
8 of 16 checks pass F
10 cityofboise.org
City of Boise, ID
8 of 16 checks pass F
10 rva.gov
City of Richmond, VA
8 of 16 checks pass F
10 cityoftulsa.org
City of Tulsa, OK
8 of 16 checks pass F
10 seattle.gov
City of Seattle, WA
8 of 16 checks pass F

Page 1 of 3

About this data

ScanGov scans the homepage of the main website of each city on our city list. Scores come from the checks listed on standards.scangov.org. Sites were scanned between 7/21/2026 and 10/2/2026; each site's report shows its own scan date. A site counts as fully scanned when its homepage returned successfully and sent the scanner its page content. Averages, grade shares, failure rates, and ranks use fully scanned sites only. We weren't able to fully scan 52 sites because they did not respond, blocked the scanner, or returned no page content. They appear in the table without grades, each with its scan status, and are left out of every figure. Grades follow the ScanGov grade scale, and rank follows the ScanGov ranking method. The full dataset, including every county's raw results, is published in the ScanGov data repository.