12 minutes
Prioritize by impact, urgency, reach and feasibility Decide what to fix first in a way you can defend, without letting difficulty quietly demote a legal duty.
What you’ll be able to do Rank audit findings using impact, urgency, reach and feasibility, record the reasoning, and identify findings that must be acted on regardless of feasibility. Compare the responses to this question and explain your choice: How do you prioritize? Document a next step for Prioritize by impact, urgency, reach and feasibility: Rank the findings from your own journey map using the four questions, and mark any that involve a duty with a note that they are not optional regardless of feasibility. Four questions in the right order Every audit produces more findings than anyone can fix at once, so prioritizing is part of the method. The trap is letting feasibility go first. When the easiest fixes are done first because they are easy, the audit quietly becomes a list of cosmetic improvements while the barriers that actually stop people wait for a budget cycle. The order of the four questions is the safeguard.
Impact comes first: does this barrier stop participation entirely, make it significantly harder, or make it less pleasant? A person who cannot submit an appeal because the only route is inaccessible has been stopped. A person who can submit it but takes twice as long has been burdened. Both matter; the first matters more. Urgency asks what is lost while you wait: benefits, jobs, appeal rights, safety, health. Reach asks how many people meet this barrier and which people; a barrier that affects a small number of people who have no other route can outrank one that inconveniences many. Feasibility comes last and asks what the fix costs in time, money and authority. It shapes the plan and the sequence. It does not change the rank, and it never lowers a duty. A barrier that denies access must be addressed now by some interim means even when the complete fix is far away.
Write the reasoning beside the rank. A simple scale, such as one to three on each question, is fine, but the sentences are what a decision maker can actually engage with. “Ranked first because it closes cases for people who cannot arrange transport in the time given; the template change requires a statewide owner; interim measure available locally” invites a decision. A number alone invites a shrug.
Signals for each question Impact: can the person continue independently at all? If not, this is a stop, and stops rank above burdens.
Urgency: is a benefit, job, appeal window, safety or health at stake during the wait? Deadlines raise urgency.
Reach: how many people meet this touchpoint, and do the people affected have any other route? No other route raises reach even for small numbers.
Feasibility: who has the authority, what does it cost, how long will it take, and what interim measure is available while the full fix is pursued?
Duty check: does this finding involve effective communication, program access, a reasonable modification or a digital accessibility standard? If so, mark it as required, not optional, whatever the feasibility score.
The same finding, four ways Impact Urgency Reach Feasibility
Finding: the online document upload rejects photographs from phones. For people without a scanner, this stops the application entirely; they cannot continue independently. Impact is high.
An application that cannot be completed by the deadline is denied or delayed, and benefits depend on it. Urgency is high.
Most applicants use phones. People with the least equipment, the least income and the most disabilities are the most affected, and many have no other route. Reach is high.
The system owner can accept common image formats with a configuration change, and an interim route exists: accept documents by mail, in person or by email while the change is made. Feasibility is good, and the interim measure starts this week.
Feasibility shapes the plan, not the rank What you can change You control whether hard-but-critical barriers stay at the top of the list with an interim measure, or slide to the bottom because they are hard.
What to watch for Do not let a priority list become a list of easy wins. If every item at the top is cheap and quick, the ranking was done backwards.
Your next step Look at your top three findings. If none of them is hard, re-rank with impact first and write the interim measure for the hard one.
Prioritizing without self-deception Stop versus burden
A stop means the person cannot continue independently in a reasonable time. A burden means they can, at a cost. Stops rank first.
Urgency
What is lost while the barrier waits: benefits, jobs, appeal rights, safety, health. A deadline in the journey raises urgency for everything before it.
Reach
How many people, and which people. Small numbers with no alternative route can outrank large numbers with an easy alternative.
Feasibility
Time, money and authority. Asked last. It decides the sequence and the interim measure; it does not decide whether a duty applies.
Interim measure
What you do this week for the person while the full fix is pursued. Every high-impact finding should have one written next to it.
Carry this forward Impact asks whether the barrier stops participation entirely or makes it harder; urgency asks what is lost while you wait; reach asks how many people and which people; feasibility asks what the fix costs in time, money and authority.
Feasibility is the last question, not the first, and it never lowers a duty; a barrier that denies access has to be addressed even when the full fix is far off.
Write the reasoning next to the rank so a decision maker can disagree with the judgment rather than the arithmetic.
A priority table for at least six findings with reasoning; a knowledge check on a hard-but-urgent barrier.
Rank the findings from your own journey map using the four questions, and mark any that involve a duty with a note that they are not optional regardless of feasibility.
Browse and download only. Course notes are not typed or saved on this page.
Reset this lesson
Previous lesson Next lesson Participation and course completion in this program do not count toward DHS-required training credits unless management, a director, or DHS leadership expressly approves an exception.
