Showing Connecticut county sites. All U.S. county sites
B 88
Average accessibility score of 9 fully scanned Connecticut county sites
7th
of 48 states, ranked by average accessibility score
9 of 9
Sites fully scanned
B 88
U.S. county average accessibility score, 2435 fully scanned sites
Connecticut's state site, ct.gov, ranks 7th of 51 state sites with an A. State rankings.
How Connecticut county accessibility scores are distributed
Smoothed distribution of the 9 fully scanned Connecticut county sites, score 0 to 100. Height shows how many sites score near each value.
Distribution of 9 scores. The data table lists counts by score range.
- Connecticut average
- U.S. county average
View the data table
| Score range | Sites |
|---|---|
| 0 to 9 | 0 |
| 10 to 19 | 0 |
| 20 to 29 | 0 |
| 30 to 39 | 0 |
| 40 to 49 | 0 |
| 50 to 59 | 0 |
| 60 to 69 | 0 |
| 70 to 79 | 1 |
| 80 to 89 | 3 |
| 90 to 100 | 5 |
Connecticut counties by accessibility grade
Each county with a site on our list is colored by that site's grade. Select a county to open its report. The table lists every site.
- A (90 to 100)
- B to C (70 to 89)
- D to F (below 70)
- No site on our list
9 of the 9 sites on our list could not be matched to a county boundary and appear only in the table.
Connecticut counties by accessibility grade, compared with all U.S. counties
Share of fully scanned sites in each grade band. Connecticut: 9 sites. U.S.: 2435 sites.
- A (90 to 100)
- B to C (70 to 89)
- D to F (below 70)
View the data table
| Group | A (90 to 100) | B to C (70 to 89) | D to F (below 70) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Connecticut | 56% (5) | 44% (4) | 0% (0) |
| All U.S. counties | 45% (1,107) | 52% (1,257) | 3% (71) |
Top 3 Connecticut county sites by accessibility score
#1 in Connecticut · U.S. rank 3
Lower Connecticut River Valley Planning Region, CT
A 96 accessibility
- Accessibility A
- Botability B
- Security B
- Usability C
#2 in Connecticut · U.S. rank 6
Northeastern Connecticut Planning Region, CT
A 93 accessibility
- Accessibility A
- Botability C
- Security C
- Usability F
#3 in Connecticut · U.S. rank 8
Western Connecticut Planning Region, CT
A 91 accessibility
- Accessibility A
- Botability A
- Security C
- Usability F
What each check means
- Links have a discernible name. Links have unique, descriptive text so users know where they go. Screen reader users cannot identify or interact with elements.
- Background and foreground colors have a sufficient contrast ratio. Text and background colors meet minimum contrast ratios. Users with low vision cannot read your text.
- Heading elements appear in a sequentially-descending order. Page headings follow a logical order without skipping levels. Keyboard users cannot efficiently navigate your site.
- Document has a main landmark. The page has exactly one main content area so screen readers can navigate to it. Screen reader users cannot skip directly to main content.
- Touch targets have sufficient size and spacing. Buttons and interactive elements are large enough to tap easily on touch screens. Users with motor disabilities struggle to tap small buttons.
All Connecticut county sites by accessibility score
| Rank | Site | Checks passed | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
rivercog.org
Lower Connecticut River Valley Planning Region, CT U.S. rank 3 |
32 of 33 checks pass | A |
| 2 |
neccog.org
Northeastern Connecticut Planning Region, CT U.S. rank 6 |
30 of 32 checks pass | A |
| 3 |
westcog.org
Western Connecticut Planning Region, CT U.S. rank 8 |
21 of 23 checks pass | A |
| 4 |
nhcogct.gov
Northwest Hills Planning Region, CT U.S. rank 9 |
27 of 30 checks pass | A |
| 4 |
secogct.gov
Southeastern Connecticut Planning Region, CT U.S. rank 9 |
29 of 32 checks pass | A |
| 5 |
crcogct.gov
Capitol Planning Region, CT U.S. rank 11 |
30 of 34 checks pass | B |
| 6 |
metrocogct.gov
Greater Bridgeport Planning Region, CT U.S. rank 17 |
24 of 29 checks pass | B |
| 7 |
nvcogct.gov
Naugatuck Valley Planning Region, CT U.S. rank 18 |
27 of 33 checks pass | B |
| 8 |
scrcog.org
South Central Connecticut Planning Region, CT U.S. rank 20 |
23 of 29 checks pass | C |
About accessibility
Meet WCAG standards so every type of user can use your website.
Why it's important
People with disabilities need equal access to information and services online.
Risks
- People with disabilities cannot use your site.
Guidance
What we use to grade accessibility:
Standards
- [accesskey] values are unique
- [aria-*] attributes match their roles
- Uses ARIA roles only on compatible elements
- button, link, and menuitem elements have accessible names
- ARIA attributes are used as specified for the element's role
- Deprecated ARIA roles were not used
- Elements with role="dialog" or role="alertdialog" have accessible names
- [aria-hidden="true"] is not present on the document <body>
- [aria-hidden="true"] elements do not contain focusable descendents
- ARIA input fields have accessible names
- ARIA meter elements have accessible names
- ARIA progressbar elements have accessible names
- Elements use only permitted ARIA attributes
- [role]s have all required [aria-*] attributes
- Elements with an ARIA [role] that require children to contain a specific [role] have all required children
- [role]s are contained by their required parent element
- [role] values are valid
- Elements with the role=text attribute do not have focusable descendents
- ARIA toggle fields have accessible names
- ARIA tooltip elements have accessible names
- ARIA treeitem elements have accessible names
- [aria-*] attributes have valid values
- [aria-*] attributes are valid and not misspelled
- Buttons have an accessible name
- The page contains a heading, skip link, or landmark region
- Background and foreground colors have a sufficient contrast ratio
- <dl>'s contain only properly-ordered <dt> and <dd> groups, <script>, <template> or <div> elements
- Definition list items are wrapped in <dl> elements
- Document has a <title> element
- ARIA IDs are unique
- No form fields have multiple labels
- <frame> or <iframe> elements have a title
- Heading elements appear in a sequentially-descending order
- <html> element has a [lang] attribute
- <html> element has a valid value for its [lang] attribute
- <html> element has an [xml:lang] attribute with the same base language as the [lang] attribute
- Image elements have [alt] attributes
- Image elements do not have [alt] attributes that are redundant text
- Input buttons have discernible text
- <input type="image"> elements have [alt] text
- Form elements have associated labels
- Links are distinguishable without relying on color
- Links have a discernible name
- Lists contain only <li> elements and script supporting elements (<script> and <template>)
- List items (<li>) are contained within <ul>, <ol> or <menu> parent elements
- The document does not use <meta http-equiv="refresh">
- [user-scalable="no"] is not used in the <meta name="viewport"> element and the [maximum-scale] attribute is not less than 5
- <object> elements have alternate text
- Select elements have associated label elements
- Skip links are focusable
- No element has a [tabindex] value greater than 0
- Tables have different content in the summary attribute and <caption>
- Touch targets have sufficient size and spacing
- Cells in a <table> element that use the [headers] attribute refer to table cells within the same table
- <th> elements and elements with [role="columnheader"/"rowheader"] have data cells they describe
- [lang] attributes have a valid value
- <video> elements contain a <track> element with [kind="captions"]
- All heading elements contain content
- Identical links have the same purpose
- Document has a main landmark
- Elements with visible text labels have matching accessible names
- Tables use <caption> instead of cells with the [colspan] attribute to indicate a caption
- <td> elements in a large <table> have one or more table headers
- Image aspect ratio
- Valid doctype
- Character encoding
Grades/scores
ScanGov
About this data
ScanGov scans the homepage of each county government site on our county list in Connecticut. Scores come from the checks listed on standards.scangov.org. Sites were scanned between 9/8/2026 and 9/17/2026; 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. 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.