Service Design Collective logo
WIC Eligibility Content Audit 
and Usability Evaluation Report 

Published May 2023 

Service Design Collective, Inc. 

A public benefit company 
Contact: wic.project@servicedesigncollective.com 


Project summary 2 
What to know about this research 3 
Research activities 4 
1. WIC eligibility website content audit 4 
2. Pre-screener content audit 5 
3. Pre-screener tool heuristic evaluation 7 
WIC Eligibility Data Dashboard 8 
Statistics at a glance 12 
Research Findings 14 
Website Technical Errors Review 14 
Technical error criteria 14 
Mobile-friendly content 16 
Accessibility Review 17 
Readability and Plain Language Review 20 
Accurate and Timely Content 23 
Non-English Language Resources 25 
Pre-screeners 26 
Recommendations 31 
Pre-screeners 31 
Security and Errors 33 
Accessibility 35 
Content Strategy 37 
Mobile-friendly Design 41 
Conclusion 43 
Acknowledgements 44 
Addendum 44 
Appendix A: Definitions 45 
Appendix B: Technology and timeline 47 
Appendix C: Attachments 47 
Appendix D: References and reports 47 
Appendix E: Resources 48 
Project summary 

Service Design Collective is a public benefit corporation founded & run by alumni of 
the United States Digital Service. We focus on ways in which government programs 
& policies prevent people from successfully accessing critical services. We develop 
methods & tools to help governments keep pace with public needs, legislative 
changes & modern technologies. We empower our partners with knowledge & skills 
to continue their work long after we have completed a project. 

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, 
known more commonly by its abbreviation WIC, short for Women, Infants, and 
Children, is a food program administered by the United States Department of 
Agriculture (USDA). WIC provides food assistance, nutrition education, and health 
screenings to pregnant people and families with young children who earn less than 
185% of the poverty line. 

Although USDA controls funding, rulemaking, and policy, WIC is a federal grant 
given to U. S. states, territories, and Indian Tribal Organizations to manage benefit 
delivery. These 89 WIC entities currently manage benefits through a network of 
1,900 local agencies and over 10,000 clinic sites. Note: this report focuses on 
entity-level eligibility information only. 

WIC entities vary greatly in their size, population coverage, and resources, causing 
inconsistencies in information and benefit delivery. For example, some WIC entities 
have no website while others have specialized websites and online tools dedicated 
to WIC benefits. Other WIC entities are working to streamline services and increase 
participation by using new technologies, including online pre-screening forms that 
claim determine eligibility. 

WIC enrollment has been declining since 2011 for multiple and complex reasons. We 
used a variety of research reports and resources, including those from the Center on 
Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) and National WIC Association (NWA), to examine 
why WIC enrollment is declining and understand how our research could add to this 
knowledge. 

We focused on online eligibility information as one distinct part of the many 
challenges of increasing WIC enrollment. We explored the information people see 
online when they start their benefits journey, including what tools and resources 
they encounter when they research the WIC application process. 


We began with a broad set of research questions and narrowed our focus down to 
foundational eligibility information: 

● If a person looks for WIC online, what do they find? 
● Is that information easy to understand? 
● Is it accurate? 
● Does it tell people what to do next? 


We then audited the WIC eligibility web pages, pre-screening tools, documents, and 
online applications of all 89 entities. In addition, we audited federal WIC eligibility 
information, including the USDA and Benefits.gov pre-screening tools. 

We evaluated a comparison set of state and federal pre-screening tools using a 
heuristic evaluation structure and the Nielsen/Norman 10 Usability Heuristics for 
User Interface Design. We also conducted a comprehensive content audit of all 89 
entities’ WIC eligibility web presence. Our evaluation included reviewing eligibility 
resources for readability, basic accessibility compliance, accuracy, and mobile 
device display. 

Our findings include significant issues with consistency, accessibility, security, and 
equity. We also found the use of new technologies, such as pre-screening tools, to 
be poorly designed. Many of these findings can be easily addressed, while others 
will require additional planning or research. We have a robust set of research 
findings and potential areas of exploration for further research. 

What to know about this research 

A great website does not necessarily equal great service or program delivery. For 
example, the lack of a web presence does not mean an entity is not serving its 
community. This report examines just one aspect of WIC access: online eligibility 
information. Online web presence is one of many factors that can contribute to a 
successful WIC program. Depending on the needs of the participants the WIC entity 
serves, emphasizing other areas of WIC delivery may better serve their community. 

Our research was originally conducted in July and August of 2022, creating a 
snapshot in time of WIC eligibility across all 89 entities. We shared early findings 
from our research with the WIC community before we published this report. In the 
time since our research and review, entities have made changes and corrections, 


launched new websites, and implemented program updates. Recommendations 
from this report may already be in progress, done, or may no longer be relevant. 

We did not review every page on a WIC entity’s website. We focused on online 
eligibility information and pre-screening forms. This means we may have missed 
eligibility information or additional resources located or repeated on other pages or 
in other parts of a website. 

WIC entities do not have equal access to technology resources or control over their 
websites. Some communities may have technology barriers like spotty mobile signal 
coverage and slower or no broadband service. Some communities have less money 
than others for digital products, technical infrastructure, and website support. 

Our content review categories are broad and do not indicate how severe an issue is 
on a particular page. For example, two pages may both be marked as not mobile 
friendly. One page may have an improperly sized graphic while the other page may 
not have a mobile version at all. When reviewing our research, keep in mind that our 
work targeted broad trends rather than specific fixes for individual entities. 
Complete heuristic data is available upon request; please send requests to 
wic.project@servicedesigncollective.com. 

Research activities 

Our research is organized into three major evaluations: 

1. A comprehensive content audit of online WIC eligibility information 
2. A content audit of pre-screening tools 
3. A heuristic evaluation of pre-screening eligibility tools specifically to 
measure ease of use 


1. WIC eligibility website content audit 

We reviewed the content of each WIC entity’s web presence, including the USDA 
and Benefits.gov WIC eligibility websites. Our review focused specifically on the 
web pages and digital materials related to eligibility information. Although we 
attempted to be comprehensive, we may have missed content, links, or other 
resources located in other sections of a WIC entity’s website. 

The following topics give an overview of what we included in our content audit 
review. Detailed results and criteria are available in our findings section. 


General web presence: Can people get WIC eligibility information online? 

We reviewed each WIC entity for its general web presence, noting if they maintained 
a WIC-specific web presence, if the website used basic security features like HTTPS 
(secure hypertext transfer protocol), major errors like broken links or page 
rendering problems, site speed and load times, and other standard web-based 
criteria. 

Mobile-friendly: Does this work on a phone? 

We reviewed each WIC entity that had a web presence for how well their pages 
worked on mobile devices. We noted if the WIC entity had a mobile-compliant 
website as well as mobile rendering issues such as small text, side scrolling, 
navigation, and other issues. 

Accessibility: Can people with disabilities access this information? 

We reviewed each web page for basic accessibility criteria according to the Web 
Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) single A guidelines. 

Plain language and readability: Is this information easy to read and understand? 

We reviewed sample web content from each eligibility page for average reading 
grade level, noting complex words or confusing terms. 

Accurate and comprehensive content: Is this information correct, complete, and 
up to date? 

We reviewed eligibility content to make sure it contained current information, 
especially 2022-2023 income levels. We also checked WIC criteria, noting if “who is 
eligible,” “income levels,” “nutrition assessments,” “qualifying programs,” and 
“residency” were clearly stated and explained. 

Non-English language resources: Can people get this information in a language 
other than English? 

We reviewed each WIC entity’s web presence for non-English language eligibility 
resources, noting what type of resources were available online and in what 
languages. 

2. Pre-screener content audit 

Pre-screeners are quizzes, forms, or questionnaires that ask people a series of 
questions and then give them an anticipated eligibility result based on their 
answers. Pre-screeners are different from portal registrations or contact forms 
because they do not keep the information they collect or pass the information on to 


a WIC office. USDA, Benefits.gov, and four WIC entities maintain online 
pre-screeners. We created a separate content evaluation that applied specifically to 
these tools. Our criteria are outlined below. 

Desktop screenshot of USDA pre-screener
Figure 1: Screenshot (August 2022) of the desktop version of the USDA pre-screener 
containing an explanation of the tool and a get started button. 

This pre-screener is linked to from many WIC entities. The tool asks a series of in-depth 
questions and gives people a result with links to a variety of nutrition services. 

Question text: What information are these forms asking for? 

We reviewed each pre-screening form question, noting what is commonly asked 
when assessing WIC eligibility. 

Help text: Does the question provide helpful information? 

We reviewed each question for help text, noting what that text said and how that 
information was displayed. 


Question error states: Does the form help people recover from errors? 

We noted what happened when people failed to answer a question or otherwise 
made an error, including what message was displayed and where on the page the 
error alert was present. 

Page and functional errors: Does the pre-screener work as intended? 

We reviewed each form question or page for errors including checking to see if the 
question matched the answering format (example: using radio buttons for single 
selection questions vs using checkboxes for multiple selection questions), back 
button usage, rendering, loading, and general form functionality. 

Mobile compliance: Does this work on a smartphone? 

We reviewed each step of each pre-screening tool for mobile device display the 
same way we reviewed eligibility web pages. 

Accessibility: Can people with disabilities access this information? 

We reviewed each step of each pre-screening tool for accessibility criteria 
according to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) single A guidelines. 

3. Pre-screener tool heuristic evaluation 

In addition to our pre-screener content audit, where we focused on the specific 
information each tool was asking people, we performed a usability heuristic 
evaluation on the two federal and four state pre-screening tools. We used the 
Nielsen/Norman Group’s 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design, a 
standard evaluation tool used widely across the technology industry to evaluate 
applications and websites. Ratings were given to pre-screening tools as pass, 
partial, and fail. More detail about our criteria can be found in our usability findings. 


Page one of WIC Eligibility Web Presence Data Dashboard. This image lists each WIC entity alphabetically and uses a filled dot to indicate when an entity meets certain evaluation criteria. This file can be provided in a more machine readable format by emailing us at wic.project@servicedesigncollective.com.

Page two of WIC Eligibility Web Presence Data Dashboard. This image lists each WIC entity alphabetically and uses a filled dot to indicate when an entity meets certain evaluation criteria. This file can be provided in a more machine readable format by emailing us at wic.project@servicedesigncollective.com.

Page three of WIC Eligibility Web Presence Data Dashboard. This image lists each WIC entity alphabetically and uses a filled dot to indicate when an entity meets certain evaluation criteria. This file can be provided in a more machine readable format by emailing us at wic.project@servicedesigncollective.com.

Page four of WIC Eligibility Web Presence Data Dashboard. This image is the legend for the rest of the dashboard and has symbols, criteria and definitions. This file can be provided in a more machine readable format by emailing us at wic.project@servicedesigncollective.com.

Statistics at a glance 

Eligibility information results 

● 6 entities listed all the eligibility criteria on their web pages. 
● 17 entities had inaccurate information, out-of-date information, or information 
so minimal it was not helpful. Most inaccurate information was related to old 
or improperly calculated income rates. 
● 75 entities listed partial or incomplete eligibility information on their 
eligibility-related pages. Information most often omitted were nutritional 
need, nutritional assessment, qualifying program information, and clear 
information about non-mother caregivers. 


General web presence 

● 9 WIC entities had a limited web presence. All 9 entities with a limited web 
presence were Indian Tribal Organizations. 
○ 7 entities had a primary website, but that website did not contain WIC 
information beyond phone numbers. 
○ 1 entity had a WIC website built using a free website service with 
almost no program information. This website counted in our statistics 
as a WIC web presence. 
○ 1 entity had no entity-run website at all. 




● 18 WIC entities had a WIC-dedicated microsite separate from the main tribal, 
territory, or state website. Some of these entities also had one or more pages 
on their main website in addition to these WIC-dedicated websites. 
● 4 WIC websites did not use secure HTTPS for their main web presence. Two 
of these entities had a https version of their WIC website, but the non-https 
version is either linked from other pages or was first in search results. 


Mobile compliance 

● 2 WIC entities did not have a mobile version of their website. 
● 34 WIC entities had some issue with mobile compatibility on at least one of 
their eligibility web pages. 


Accessibility 

● 74 WIC entities had accessibility issues on one or more pages of their 
website. 
● 99 individual web pages were flagged by WAVE, an automated browser tool, 
or visual inspection as having at least one WCAG single A level issue. Note 
that many entities had multiple web pages with eligibility information. 


Readability grade level 

About 80% of eligibility pages required a high school level of education or above to 
read. The grade levels broke down as the following: 

● Grade School: 1 page 
● Middle School: 19 pages 
● High School: 43 pages 
● College: 37 pages 


Non-English language resources 

● 40 WIC entities provide non-English language resources or translation 
options of some kind on their pages. 
● Puerto Rico’s WIC website is in Spanish and is the only non-English language 
website of all the WIC entities. 
● 20 WIC entities provide machine translation options like Google Translate. 
● Spanish is the most common non-English language offered in translated 
materials. 



Research Findings 

Website Technical Errors Review 

81 WIC entities had a web presence of some kind. We reviewed each website for its 
over-all use of basic web security practices. We also noted website errors or issues 
as part of our larger content audit whenever we encountered them. 

Desktop screenshot of 500: server error found when attempting to use the USDA pre-screener
Figure 2: Screenshot (August 2022) of 500: Server Error message from the USDA WIC 
pre-screener website. 

We frequently encountered this 500: server error when attempting to access the USDA WIC 
pre-screener several times during our review. This error would appear unpredictably when 
attempting to use the pre-screener or follow links from websites or search engines. 

Technical error criteria 

Our review included recording basic technical errors that occurred while reviewing 
the general web presence of a WIC entity. We did not perform a formal technical 
audit, instead noting issues a person may encounter when trying to get eligibility 


information. Specifically, we noted the following: 

● If a WIC entity had an entity-owned website 
● Dedicated WIC website or pages vs a general government website 
● HTTPS: Use of secure hypertext transfer protocol for WIC web pages and 
files 
● Broken links 
● Public-facing tools and resources that are no longer maintained or have been 
replaced 
● Missing or broken page elements like images or graphics 
● Pop-up errors 
● Browser warnings 
● Page load issues and errors (such as 404 page not found errors or 500 server 
errors) 


HTTPS and insecure page errors: Most WIC entities used HTTPS for their websites, 
a critical security setting that prevents harmful redirects or tracking while people 
navigate websites. Websites that don’t use HTTPS are often hidden from search 
engine results and give warning errors when using the website. Web browsers may 
even block people from accessing insecure pages like portals and web forms that 
collect data. 

Broken page elements: Many WIC web pages had one or more broken elements like 
graphics, links, or embedded elements on their pages. Although usually minor, these 
issues can make pages look unreliable or inaccurate and decrease trust in the 
content. Broken links and functionality prevent people from completing tasks or 
getting more information. 

Deprecated Pre-screening tool: The USDA hosted (as of February 2023) a 
deprecated pre-screening tool that was findable by people using search engines. At 
least two WIC entities were still using this tool. This tool collects information but 
may not provide accurate results. USDA said in a banner (see “banner blindness,” 
below) on the page that it is “not the official WIC Prescreening Tool.” USDA provided 
a link to the updated tool, but had not removed the tool or automatically redirected 
the link to the proper site. 


Mobile-friendly content 

We reviewed every website for how well it renders on mobile devices. Mobile 
devices account for about 50% of government web traffic according to public 
federal website data. Low-income households are more likely to access the internet 
through their phones. 

Mobile screenshots of Alaska's WIC eligibility and income guidelines pages
Figure 3: Screenshots (August 2022) of the state of Alaska’s WIC Eligibility web page on 
the left and WIC Income Guidelines web pages on the right displayed on an iPhone SE 
screen for scale. 

At the time of our review in July and August of 2022, Alaska’s state website did not have a 
mobile version, making it difficult to use on smaller screens. 

How we measured mobile friendliness 

We tested each web page on an iPhone SE using home Wi-Fi internet speeds. We 
reviewed each page for its accuracy and rendering on mobile screens, including the 
following criteria: 


● Mobile website was available 
● Mobile website and desktop website content matched 
● Pages and menus rendered well on smaller screens 
● Page text, graphics, and content scaled appropriately to smaller screens 


PDFs on mobile devices: Portable Document Formats, or PDFs, are a common type 
of digital document. Much of WIC income information, including detailed 
breakdowns of income level by household size was contained in PDFs. PDFs have 
display issues on mobile devices, generally loading as whole pages with very small 
text. PDFs force people to scroll, pinch, and zoom to find critical information. These 
documents also open in a new tab or mobile window, making it harder to navigate 
back to pages with useful next steps. 

Improperly sized embedded content: The most observed mobile issue was 
improperly sized content like images, infographics, tables, and videos embedded in 
pages. Income tables often were not coded correctly to scale or render on mobile 
devices (see example images), hiding some of the content and forcing the page to 
scroll or shift sideways when trying to access page content. 

Information-dense graphics with program or income information: These graphics 
often appeared extremely small on mobile screens, forcing people to zoom in very 
closely. Even zooming often did not make these page elements readable. 

Rendering problems: Many pages had issues with page elements like menus, 
breadcrumbs, and blocks of content rendering improperly or in an order that did not 
match the desktop reading experience. 

Accessibility Review 

Web accessibility covers a wide range of criteria that helps people with different 
physical, perception, and cognitive abilities access information online. Although 
accessibility guidelines are designed to make websites usable for these people, 
accessibility benefits everyone. For example, high contrast websites make text 
easier to read for people with vision issues, but also make reading easier in bright 
sunlight. 


Desktop screenshot of Colorado's WIC income guidelines page
Figure 4: Screenshot (August 2022) of the WIC income guidelines page on the state of 
Colorado’s website. 

Colorado provided income information in a complex graphic with a link to a 
machine-readable PDF. The ALT text says “Photo of WIC Income Eligibility Guidelines 
2022-20223 [sic]” with no image description on the page. This image also appeared slightly 
blurry and pixelated on the web page. 

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, or WCAG, are a set of criteria designed to 
make web content usable for people with a variety of disabilities. These standards 
are governed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), an international non-profit 
organization that focuses on all aspects of web standards. WCAG covers all web 
content and is a living set of standards, always evolving and reacting to changing 
technology. 


WCAG compliance is broken down into three levels: A, AA, and AAA compliance. 
Single A level compliance is considered the minimum standard for meeting 
accessibility guidelines. W3C provides detailed guidelines for all levels of 
compliance which have multiple success criteria. 

How we measured accessibility 

Our accessibility review focused on WCAG single A level guidelines, the minimum 
accessibility requirements for online content. We used the WAVE accessibility tool 
to render each web page we tested in Google’s Chrome browser. We also visually 
inspected the page to note small text size, use of red text, or all caps. We read 
alternative descriptions (ALT text) for images and verified WAVE results visually. 

WAVE is an automated tool. It will miss certain accessibility issues or may flag 
issues incorrectly. When applicable, we noted results that may be inaccurate. 
Although useful, WAVE and other automated tools are not substitutes for testing 
with community members and software tools like screen readers. For those reasons, 
this accessibility review is a starting point rather than a comprehensive set of 
findings. 

Color usage and contrast: WCAG refers to color usage and contrast as luminance; 
the perceived brightness of a color compared to its background field. The preferred 
contrast ratio is 4.5:1 for all informational text. WebAIM has extensive detail on 
contrast and color usage. Many WIC websites have low contrast issues, especially 
with text overlaid on colored backgrounds. Yellow, light green, and medium gray 
text color choices are particularly problematic. 

Text size: WCAG does not specify a minimum text size for pages, instead advising 
text must still be readable at 200% of its original size if a person overrides defaults. 
Small text size is noted on pages as it forces sight impaired people to change the 
font settings manually. WebAIM outlines general good practices for text including 
font considerations, spacing, and size. 

Descriptive ALT text and image descriptions: ALT text, also known as an alternative 
attribute, or alternative text is the text that is shown when a page element like a 
picture, graphic, or table, can’t be rendered on screen. ALT text is usually short and 
descriptive. ALT text is an important accessibility element as it helps people who 
use screen readers or text-only browsing options navigate pages and understand 
what information is presented on a page. Descriptive ALT text also aids in search 
engine optimization, making content easier to find via searching. 


Image descriptions are longer text explanations usually consisting of sentences or a 
paragraph that describe the information and content of the image in more detail. 
Unlike ALT text that is only visible when an image can’t be displayed, image 
descriptions are sometimes visible to all users as captions or additional text. Image 
descriptions provide more context about the image or graphic as it relates to the 
content of the page and is important for explaining complex graphics or images. 

Although many images on WIC websites contained ALT text, fulfilling the minimum 
requirements for “single A level” compliance, they lacked the descriptive details 
that tell people what information the image actually contains. ALT text is 
particularly problematic on income table images, typically lacking detailed 
descriptions of the income levels. WCAG provides excellent guidance on how to 
properly tag complex images that contain information tables and graphs. 

Missing labels: Page elements require labels to allow people to navigate through 
pages and understand what part of the page they are viewing. Label errors are often 
built into the structure of the web page. WCAG provides an overview of labeling 
regions and form elements for better navigation. 

Readability and Plain Language Review 

As part of our larger content review and heuristic evaluation, we reviewed every 
website for its readability, including estimated reading grade level for text, reading 
the text to identify plain language patterns, and flagging design elements that 
might interfere with people reading information. 

Plain language guidelines 

Plain language or plain writing guidelines have many layers and are adapted based 
on audience. Our review criteria is based on principles outlined from plain 
language.gov. Based on the Federal Plain Writing Act of 2010, these standards help 
Federal agencies and programs conform with the law and help people find the 
information they need to take next steps. 

How we measured reading level 

Reading level was scored by sampling 2-3 paragraphs of text on each web page that 
had 3 or more text paragraphs using an online scoring tool. PDFs, pages with fewer 
than 3 paragraphs of text, individual graphics, and files were not rated. We used the 
Flesch–Kincaid readability tests ratings as our measurement. Ratings were put into 


range levels including Grade School (grades 1-5), Middle School (grades 6-8), High 
School (grades 9-12), and College (12+) as machine ratings are approximate. 

How we reviewed pages for plain language 

Plain language guidelines are contextual and based on audience, in this case 
potential WIC participants. Our review made general notes on plain language issues 
that arose from readability scores and cross-entity patterns. We focused on 
reviewing text for jargon, acronyms, and uncommon terminology. We also noted 
where text was copied from legislation or official memos or from the USDA website. 

Jargon, acronyms, complex words and uncommon terms: Many WIC web pages 
used complex language, often copy/pasted from USDA memos and guidelines, on 
their pages. This type of text can be very hard to understand, especially for people 
who may not be familiar with the program already or who speak limited English. 

For example, “postpartum” is used on most WIC eligibility pages as one of the ways 
a person can qualify for the program. The word “postpartum” is not commonly used 
in conversational English and is often associated with postpartum depression or 
other medical issues. “Postpartum” also lacks important details that can impact 
eligibility, like how long a parent would qualify for WIC after having a baby. 

Missing or confusing descriptions: If a complex or uncommon term must be used, 
either because it is legally required or it is the most accurate, it should also be 
defined in plain language. For example, many WIC web pages stated that “low 
income” “households” qualify for the program. Both “household” and “low income” 
must be defined in clear, plain terms for people to understand if they or their 
children qualify. This is especially important as household and income 
determinations vary between public benefit programs, including among food 
assistance programs. 

Banners and alerts: People tend to ignore content that is stored in formats that look 
like ads or are in places ads are traditionally found, a phenomenon called banner 
blindness. In August 2022 when we conducted our review, the United States was 
experiencing multiple baby formula recalls and ongoing COVID-19 impacts. Many 
WIC web pages had multiple banners, so many that people must scroll through 
many layers to get to relevant content. These banners make every page they appear 
on harder to read. Too many banners, especially those with warnings that don’t 
seem relevant to the page the person is on, can visually overwhelm people, causing 
them to ignore the important information contained in the banner warnings. 


Desktop screenshot of Georgia's WIC landing page with multiple warning banners
Figure 5: Screenshot (August 2022) of Georgia’s WIC web page with multiple banners and 
alert messages at the top of the page. 

During our review in July and August of 2022, the United States experienced a national baby 
formula shortage. Georgia’s website had multiple banners about this shortage. Although 
formula recall information was very important and greatly impacted WIC participants, these 
alerts seemed similar, and it was not clear where to start to get information. Basic program 
information was pushed very far down the home page. 

Text style and format: Plain language guidelines suggest using design elements to 
increase scanning, particularly on web pages which may be read on smartphones 
and small screens. WIC eligibility information was often part of a longer page with 
large, dense blocks of text. Text color, use of ALL CAPS, very small text, color usage 
and other design elements can also confuse readers, causing them to miss words, 
context and meanings. 

Accurate and Timely Content 

As part of our larger content audit and heuristic evaluation, we reviewed each 
entity’s WIC web pages and PDFs for accuracy and up-to-date information. Accurate 


and comprehensive information sets expectations, telling people exactly who 
qualifies for the program and what the program requires of them to apply. 
Up-to-date information helps people take next steps quickly and with confidence. 

Desktop screenshot of American Samoa's WIC How to Apply page
Figure 6: Screenshot (August 2022) of American Samoa's WIC How to Apply web page with 
phone numbers and eligibility information. 

American Samoa’s WIC page did a good job explaining that fathers can apply and that 
people don’t need a job to get WIC. It also uses program jargon like “category” to describe 
the people who can get WIC and “185% of the Federal Poverty Line” to describe the 
program income rules. 

How we measured accuracy and up-to-date information 

We reviewed each WIC eligibility page and PDF for accuracy and timeliness. These 
criteria included flagging out of date or inaccurate information on pages. Our 
specific emphasis was on income guidelines, making sure 2022 information was 
displayed correctly. 


We also read the content of each page and reviewed the information for 
comprehensive eligibility requirements. We looked to see if the page included 
qualifying information about: 

● Income guidelines 
● Pre-qualifying programs like SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 
Program), TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), Medicaid, and 
other state-specific programs 
● Pregnant people 
● Children under 5 
● Other caregivers who can apply for benefits on behalf of children 
● Residency requirements 
● Nutritional need 
● Nutritional assessment 


Out-of-date income information: Of the web pages that were flagged as having out 
of date information, the most common issue was old, misleading, or incorrect 
income information. These included PDFs and brochure materials with past year 
income numbers. 

Vague income information: Many WIC web pages, especially those of smaller WIC 
entities mentioned “low income” or “185% of the poverty line” when referring to who 
is eligible for the program. People may not know the term “poverty line” or 
understand that it changes every year. Low income is not specific enough to be 
helpful. 

The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) calculates 
poverty guidelines differently from the Census Bureau. Even programs within the 
USDA, such as WIC and SNAP, do not calculate income requirements the same way 
or use the same standards or thresholds. 

Pre-qualifying program information: Multiple WIC web pages did not mention that 
people who already get Medicaid, SNAP, TANF, state food assistance or health care 
and other programs automatically meet income requirements for WIC. This is 
especially important because it can lead to benefits for families that would not 
otherwise qualify for WIC. 

Residency guidelines: Many WIC entities did not have clear residency guidelines, 
especially Indian Tribal Organizations that may have additional requirements like 
tribal enrollment or reservation residency. Additionally, many WIC programs allow 


people to receive benefits in the state where they work rather than the state they 
live in, very relevant to people who live on state and entity borders. 

Diverse caregivers: Many WIC entities focused only on women, particularly 
pregnant women, as WIC participants. The common name for the program, Women, 
Infants, and Children, implies this as well. Any caregiver can sign their qualifying 
child up for benefits, however, not just mothers. 

Nutritional need and assessment: Many WIC entities did not mention nutritional 
needs as part of the WIC program even though it is one of the main qualifying 
factors. Very few WIC websites contain any details about the nutritional 
assessment, including important steps like blood draws, weight assessment, and 
health screenings. 

Non-English Language Resources 

We visited each eligibility web page and reviewed its content for non-English 
language WIC eligibility information. We focused on eligibility resources available 
on eligibility pages, noting the type of resource available, languages offered, and 
the general content of the resource. We did not review every possible resource 
offered on all WIC pages. 

Lack of resources: Less than half of all WIC entities offered non-English language 
resources that are easily findable from eligibility pages. 21.7% families do not speak 
English at home. 26.5% of adult WIC participants were born outside of the USA. 

Reliance on machine translations: Most commonly WIC entities offered machine 
translations like Google translate either site-wide or on WIC web pages. Machine 
translations provide a minimal experience for people who speak limited English. 
Prone to errors, grammatical mistakes, and wrong word choices, machine 
translations can mislead or confuse people using the service. 


Desktop screenshot of Connecticut's WIC landing page
Figure 7: Screenshot (August 2022) of Connecticut’s WIC web page with a large COVID-19 
banner and multiple language links at the top of the page. 

Connecticut provided machine translation services on their web pages in multiple 
languages. The links to the different languages on this page did not go to materials but 
instead gave people instructions on how to use the language feature which is not clear in 
the English language description. 

Pre-screeners 

We identified and evaluated the following WIC pre-screening tools on state and 
federal websites: 

● USDA WIC pre-screener 
● Benefits.gov WIC pre-screener 
● California pre-screener 
● Michigan pre-screener 
● New Mexico pre-screener 
● South Dakota pre-screener 



Pre-screeners are quizzes, forms, or questionnaires that ask people a series of 
questions and then give them an eligibility result based on their answers. 
Pre-screeners are different from things like portal registrations, pre-applications, or 
contact forms because they do not keep the information they collect or pass the 
information on to a WIC office. 

Six mobile screenshots of pre-screener landing pages merged into a single image
Figure 8: Screenshots (August 2022) of the 6 pre-screeners reviewed in this report taken 
on an iPhone SE mobile device. From the top left clockwise: USDA, Benefits.gov, California, 
South Dakota, New Mexico, and Michigan. 


Heuristic evaluation criteria 

Our scoring was based on the Nielsen/Norman Group’s 10 Usability Heuristics for 
User Interface Design, a standard evaluation tool used widely across the technology 
industry to evaluate applications and websites. Ratings were given to pre-screening 
tools as pass, partial, and fail. 

Pass: Meets standards. Few or no problems observed. Pre-screener supports 

user success and task completion. 

Partial: Meets some but not all the standards. Problems observed may impact 
how easily users can complete their task or move to the next step but do not 
cause user error or task failure. 

Fail: Does not meet standards. Multiple problems or major problems cause 

user error or task failure. 

Heuristic Evaluation Results 

All the pre-screening tools failed multiple heuristic criteria for usability. Many tools 
had severe errors, like server crashes, page load errors, and other basic 
functionality issues that prevented users from proceeding with the form. In addition, 
pre-screening tools also had issues helping users with complex questions, 
functional consistency, and more. 

Instability: USDA, South Dakota, and Michigan presented major stability issues with 
their pre-screening tools. These issues included pages failing to load, unexpected 
server errors, and pages that had unexpected time limits. 

Abandoned tools: Many pre-screeners were out-of-date, seemingly abandoned, or 
no longer maintained. Despite that, they remained available online and other pages 
continue to link to them. For example, an old version of the USDA screener allows 
people to fill out the form but cannot be successfully submitted. At least two 
entities directed people to this outdated tool. 

Format errors: All pre-screening tools were a web form or quiz of some type. Every 
pre-screener presented issues with question format, consistency, and rendering. 
Lack of in-line help messages, and inconsistent use of radio buttons and 
checkboxes. Graphic issues were observed when filling out these forms. 


Hiding information in a form: Pre-screening tools were sometimes the only source 
of detailed eligibility information, like income rates or family size, listed on a 
website. These tools forced people to fill them out to get information that could be 
presented in a scannable format like an income table or bulleted list. 

Desktop screenshot of an old version of the USDA pre-screener with a small pink warning banner
Figure 9: Screenshot (August 2022) of old USDA pre-screener that looks exactly like the 
active version except with a small pink and red top warning banner. 

This old version of the USDA pre-screener was still live and available to the public as of 
February 2023. People can fill out the screener and get all the way to the end before 
receiving a server error, making this appear to work. People may miss the banner warning at 
the top of the page, due to banner blindness or poor color contrast. 

Data disclosure: Pre-screeners asked for complex and sensitive information, like 
pregnancy status, income, and family size but didn’t collect or store this data in a 
meaningful way. This makes people disclose sensitive information about themselves 
to get basic program information. 

Deceptive: The pre-screeners we reviewed sometimes looked like application forms. 
Because of this format and how in-depth some of these were, people could think 
they applied for WIC when they did not. 

Distracting: Pre-screening tools often took people away from places they can find 
useful next steps. For example, the USDA pre-screening tool, linked to by many 


states, is a separate federal website. In some cases, an entity’s website would send 
applicants to the USDA pre-screening tool that, in turn, sent them back to the entity 
website. This setup created a loop without delivering adequate answers or clear 
next steps. These tools have the potential to derail people from going to their next 
application step through a local WIC office or program contact. 

Mobile screenshots of New Mexico's pre-screener results pages
Figure 10: Screenshots (August 2022) of the New Mexico WIC pre-screener results pages 
displayed on an iPhone SE to show scale. The screen on the left shows a non-qualifying 
answer to the New Mexico pre-screener compared to the qualifying answer on the right. 


Although styled and messaged differently, both results directed people to contact WIC, 
providing the same next step regardless of qualifying result. 


Inaccurate: Pre-screening tools may not be accurate in their results. Exact income 
can be hard to calculate, household size is confusing, and guesses might result in 
deceptive answers. Pre-screening tools can create false confidence or, worse, turn 
away eligible families. 

All results are the same: Filling out these forms should give people one of two 
results: yes, you qualify for WIC or no, you don’t. In practice, pre-screening tools do 
not give a definitive answer either way. Regardless of a yes or no answer, 
pre-screening tools told people the same thing: “Call your local WIC office.” 

Information System limitations: Pre-screening tools did not interface with backend 
systems, known as Information Systems (IS). IS are privately developed back-end 
systems for WIC entities. USDA established the requirements for IS vendors in the 
Functional Requirements Document for a Model WIC Information System (FReD) in 
2008. As defined by the FReD, IS “should support a number of program operations 
and management functions, such as certifying applicants, monitoring food vendors, 
tracking participation and expenditures and managing appointments.” 

FReD guidelines do not address the integration of data generated by pre-screeners 
or external applications. While the FReD allows for interfaces between some IS, 
there is no requirement to build other data intake processes, such as an Application 
Programming Interface (API). An API is technology that lets technical systems share 
and use common information. 

Recommendations 

Pre-screeners 

Use direct, concise web page content instead of pre-screeners. Pre-screeners ask 
people to give personal, sensitive information to get basic program information. 
Going through a pre-screener, especially more complex ones like the USDA 
pre-screener, takes a lot of time. 

Most pre-screeners look like application forms. This may mislead people by making 
them think they applied for the program, giving them a potentially false qualifying 
answer, or derailing them from the next steps in their benefits journey. 

In addition to placing a burden on a person to answer complex questions to get 
basic information, most pre-screeners do not work well. All six pre-screening tools 


we reviewed had issues with loading, form functionality, and page rendering. Some 
of the issues were so severe that they crashed completely or lost data. 

Instead of using pre-screeners, give people eligibility information in a format that is 
easy to read and scan so that they can know the rules right away. People can use 
that basic information to do more in-depth calculations if they want to. 

Desktop screenshot of Minnesota's WIC Automatic Income Eligibility web page
Figure 11: Screenshot (August 2022) of Minnesota’s WIC eligibility page with the automatic 
income eligibility information focused on the top of the screenshot. 


Minnesota’s website has extensive information on all the programs that automatically 
qualify people for WIC. The page spells out acronyms and puts complex concepts like 
household size in plain terms. These are all available for people to scan in bulleted lists on 
one page. 

Give people straightforward eligibility information and useful next steps. List out 
eligibility requirements in clear, plain terms on web pages that have contact 
information and next steps. Keep people on web pages that give them next steps on 


how to get benefits. Direct people to useful information like WIC office phone 
numbers and email addresses to get customized eligibility advice. 

Update the FReD. Pre-screening tools seek noble outcomes, both better 
understanding and faster processing for busy families, but they do not work well. If 
USDA wants to encourage the use of modern technical tools and online 
applications, it should update the Functional Requirements Document for a Model 
WIC Information System (FReD). Technical requirements written 15 years ago cannot 
capture the techniques and capabilities of modern technical development. Outside 
organizations, such as Nava Public Benefit Corporation, are piloting such tools and 
capabilities. Partnering with entities, modern developers, and users, USDA could 
encourage the use of modern, human-centered technologies by updating the 
minimum requirements for the Information Systems used by all WIC entities. 

Security and Errors 

Use HTTPS 

Use HTTPS for all websites and pages, especially forms and information 
collecting pages. HTTPS is a security feature that safeguards information 
exchange while visiting websites. This feature prevents common attacks like URL 
(web address) hijacking or 3rd parties seeing information about a person’s browsing 
history. 

Most WIC websites used HTTPS, although we cited 4 that did not use HTTPS or did 
not set HTTPS as the default. Websites that don’t use HTTPS are penalized in 
several ways including removal or lowered priority on search engine results, content 
loading issues, and potential browser blocking. These issues can prevent people 
from finding the official website and reduce confidence in people who do visit. Note 
that using HTTPS is one of many basic web security features and does not 
guarantee website browsing is private. 

Limit personal information disclosure 

Only ask for personal information when it will be collected securely and used 
meaningfully. Many WIC websites asked people for sensitive personal information 
like pregnancy status, income, and social benefit participation as part of a 
pre-screening, pre-application, or contact process. Pre-screening tools in particular 
gather large amounts of sensitive data without using that data to help people apply 
for the program. Even if this data is passed onto a WIC office, in almost all cases 


people will need to provide or verify this information again in person at a WIC office, 
duplicating time and work. 

Have more in-depth income discussions person-to-person instead of forcing people 
to guess or estimate. If a person is submitting personal information online, make 
sure that data goes to a person or office that can help the potential participant. 
Avoid forcing people to fill out complex forms and disclose information about 
themselves to get basic program information. 

Desktop screenshot of Google search results for the search term "guam wic"
Figure 12: Screenshot (August 2022) of the Google search results page for “guam wic” with 
the first two results, location map, commonly asked questions, and information sidebar 
displayed. 


Search results for Guam’s WIC web presence. Guam has a government-controlled WIC 
website, but did not have HTTPS enabled as the default. This caused search engines like 
Google to not list the website in search results, instead pointing people to third party 
websites. 


Fix functional errors 

Test pages and tools for server timeouts, page crashes, slow load times, and other 
functional errors and fix as needed. During our content review, we observed several 
issues with basic page functionality impacting multiple WIC entities. These types of 
functional issues prevent people from accessing the program online and undermine 
their trust in using the site (and faith in the entity operating it), especially when the 
site asks for detailed personal information. 

Issues included slow page load times, unexpected server errors, incomplete content 
loading, and page rendering issues. These issues were mostly observed on mobile 
websites or when attempting to access online portals, forms, and pre-screening 
tools. Conduct user Acceptance Testing (UATs), Technical Quality Assurance tests 
(QAs) and other technical exercises on all WIC pages and digital tools to help 
identify and eliminate bugs. 

Remove old tools 

Take down unmaintained tools and resources. Legacy web pages, tools, and forms 
are often forgotten about but remain accessible to the public, leading people to 
incorrect information, insecure forms and applications, or deceptive dead ends. 
These deprecated tools are often still discoverable via search engines, third party 
links, and other web properties outside the entity’s control. 

Perform a content audit, noting outdated pages or tools that are no longer 
maintained. Take down these pages, turn off unused aspects and features, and put 
web address redirects in place where needed. Ensure that income tables are 
accurate. Request search engines reindex websites after major changes to update 
search engine results. 

Accessibility 

Review materials for WCAG Double A level compliance 

One in four people in the United States has a disability of some kind, covering a wide 
range of sensory, cognitive, and physical differences. Accessibility helps a large 
part of the population navigate and get the services they need in a way that works 
for them. 

Beyond specific disabilities, accessibility helps everyone. High contrast content 
means that content is visible in very bright or very dark conditions. Clear, large text 


is easier to read, especially on small screens. Subtitles help people access video 
content when listening to audio is not an option. The ability to access materials in 
multiple formats allows people to listen while they do other things, read on their 
preferred device, and save their progress in a life full of distractions. 

Use automated tools for basic accessibility review. Several machine review tools 
are available on the market to use for accessibility review. Most of these will cover 
the basics and focus on WCAG guidelines but are limited in their scope. Our review 
covered WCAG single A level compliance, but after reviewing our research results 
with accessibility specialists, we now recommend WCAG double A level compliance 
at a minimum. 

Desktop screenshot of Arkansas WIC landing page
Figure 13: Screenshot (August 2022) of Arkansas’s WIC web page from a desktop computer. 


Arkansas’s WIC web page had good color contrast, text size, and uses headings to organize 
content. Red text can sometimes be an indicator of a warning or alert, but here is easily 
understandable as the page title. 


Include disabled people in website reviews 

Engage people with disabilities in testing and review through usability testing, 
program evaluation, and community outreach. Each person brings important 
context with them when they participate in content reviews, giving WIC entities 
better insights to what will work for a variety of ability differences. 

Think beyond visual issues 

Accessibility considerations include people with a variety of disabilities and 
cognitive differences, not just visual perception. Although basics like page 
tagging, structure, contrast, and font size are extremely important, making pages 
accessible goes beyond the WCAG rules. For example, location and size of mobile 
website elements such as buttons can help someone who has the use of a single 
limb, either from a physical disability or because their other arm is holding an infant. 

Content Strategy 

Write for everyone 

Use plain language. Many WIC websites used complex language, special terms, or 
program-specific jargon on their pages. Most people scan web pages rather than 
read them word-for-word. Complex language makes pages hard to understand, 
forcing people to re-read information several times or guess about its meaning. 
Always use a simpler word when available. Write in an active voice using personal 
pronouns. Use short sentences and paragraphs. If a complex term is needed, clarify 
with a plain language explanation. 

Simple word use helps people who do not speak English well. Many WIC entities 
offer machine translations on their websites. These automatic translations will be 
more accurate if the web page uses plain language and simple grammar. Many 
non-English speaking families rely on young household members to translate on 
behalf of adults. Plain language helps children read and understand information so 
they can translate for their families. 

Spell out acronyms and use familiar program names. WIC entities often used 
acronyms or abbreviations for state agencies or programs. Spell acronyms out when 
they first appear on a page or in a document. Use common names after spelling out 
official program names and abbreviations. 


Desktop screenshot of Idaho's Apply for WIC page
Figure 14: Screenshot (August 2022) of Idaho’s Apply for WIC web page with eligibility 
information listed in the middle of the image. 


Idaho’s eligibility information does a good job of putting eligibility requirements in plain 
terms, including using the term “postpartum” and then later defining it as “Women who had 
a baby within the last six months.” This page could be improved by including information 
about qualifying programs like SNAP and Medicaid. 

Use inclusive language. WIC entities focused on women, using gendered language 
and terms. Even the common abbreviation for the program, Women, Infants, and 
Children, implies that WIC is only for women. Any caregiver can get WIC for their 
qualified child or their pregnant household member. Use gender neutral language 
whenever possible to make the information inclusive of other caregivers. 

Kids cannot use or administer the benefits themselves so they are generally not 
thought of as benefit holders. Encourage people to apply on behalf of their children 
using language centered around the person who will be applying for and controlling 
the benefits. Clearly state that other caregivers like dads, foster parents, or other 
guardians can get WIC for their kids under 5. 


Provide English language alternatives. Many WIC entities provided limited 
translation services, most of which were machine translations like Google Translate. 
Machine translations are imperfect at best, producing hard to read results with 
grammatical errors and poor word choices. Although plain language can help 
facilitate better automatic translations, providing services and materials in 
commonly spoken languages is best. This is especially important for tables and 
images that may not be included in automatic translation, which often contain key 
eligibility information. 

Providing these services does not necessarily mean investing in expensive text 
translation of materials or pages. Videos, radio ads, or even highlighting which 
offices speak which languages can help non-native English speakers navigate 
services with more confidence. 

Consolidate content 

Consolidate WIC information in one place: Many WIC entities had a dedicated WIC 
website in addition to one or more state pages which also contained WIC 
information. WIC websites often had a very different look and feel from the entity’s 
main website. Depending on where a person lands first, these pages can create a 
confusing browsing experience. Cross-linking between separate websites with 
different pieces of information in different places that look completely different 
makes it hard for people to find and trust information. 

Maintaining multiple web presences also increases the burden on WIC entities, 
doubling the work and increasing the likelihood of errors and out of sync 
information. This is even more problematic when linking to an external site outside 
of an entity’s control. Put all WIC information in one place, either a microsite or a set 
of pages on the official entity main website. Link only to that one place. 

Combine web pages with similar information. Many WIC entities had multiple short 
pages with small amounts of content on each page. This page style fragments 
important information in multiple places, causing people to go to many places and 
spend longer finding the information they need. Multiple places with similar 
information increase the chances of duplicate or conflicting information and 
doubles the work to keep this information correct. Combine similar content on 
pages. Consider all the information a person needs to take a next step after reading. 


Set expectations 

Tell people what WIC is with basic program information. Do not assume people 
know what WIC is even if they are participating in other programs or services. 
Clearly state basic information about the program to avoid confusing potential 
participants. 

List all eligibility requirements. WIC eligibility is not straightforward and uses a 
unique set of criteria that overlap with but do not match other social programs. Most 
WIC entities did not list all the ways a person can be eligible for WIC, such as 
highlighting only mothers as caregivers. Include all the program requirements on 
eligibility pages. Be as comprehensive as possible, highlighting things like food 
stamp participation that automatically satisfies a family’s income requirements. 

Desktop screenshot of South Carolina's Am I Eligible for WIC web page
Figure 15: Screenshot (August 2022) of South Carolina’s Am I Eligible for WIC web page 
with the top call-out box displayed along with other information. 


South Carolina’s WIC eligibility page told people with disabilities and people who have 
trouble understanding English how to get help and what to do next. This page also did a 
good job of highlighting caregivers other than mothers and helped set expectations with 
potential participants by letting them know WIC is free. 


Review content regularly 

Take down outdated files and check links regularly. Although PDFs are easy to 
upload and host online, they can also be easy to lose track of. Many websites don’t 
take down old files which can show up in search engine results, misleading people 
or giving them outdated information. 

Automate what you can. Whenever possible, pull data from a reliable source, such 
as USDA and automate that process as much as possible. An Application 
Programming Interface (API) is technology that lets technical systems share and 
use common information. For example, an API might be able to index the USDA’s site 
for important program data like updated income guidelines, removing the need to 
manually update sites. 

Use banners and alerts sparingly. Too many banners, alerts, and warnings can 
easily overwhelm people, especially when the alert information doesn’t seem 
relevant to the page the person is on. Alerts often don’t expire when the information 
may no longer be relevant, making pages look outdated. Consolidate emergency 
information into a single alert that points to a page with more information. Only add 
alerts where that information is relevant. 

Mobile-friendly Design 

Format pages for small screens. The most common error trend observed across all 
WIC entities was issues with mobile display and formatting. These included side 
scrolling tables, improper content order, unformatted graphics, and inconsistent 
menus. Ensure information stacks in a way that makes sense on small screens. Fix 
tables, icons, and graphics so that they scale properly, and pages scroll smoothly. 

Make content easy to scan and scroll. Most people do not read all the content on a 
web page, instead they scroll or scan to find the piece of information they need. 
Many WIC entities presented information in long paragraphs or large blocks of text 
which are harder to read, especially on smaller screens. Break these into shorter 
sentences or lists for easier scanning. Use heading tags to break up page content in 
a logical order, allowing people to scroll to specific content. 

Offer simple explanations of dense graphics like charts, tables, and data-focused 
images. Some WIC entities provide critical eligibility information like income rates in 
graphics. Mobile devices will reformat images to fit screen sizes, making some 


images very small and hard to read. Include both ALT tags and image descriptions to 
help people access this content more easily. 

Include critical PDF information on web pages instead. PDFs are hard to read on 
small screens. Brochures, booklets, and other PDFs, especially those designed for 
printed documents, may be formatted improperly for web viewing. Spell out the 
most important information in text on the relevant web pages. Avoid posting PDFs 
whenever possible and, when a PDF is necessary, link to the PDF from explanatory 
page text. 

Mobile screenshots of Nevada's WIC eligibility page
Figure 16: Screenshots (August 2022) of Nevada’s WIC eligibility web page displayed on an 
iPhone SE for scale. The image on the left is the top of the eligibility page. The image on the 
right is a numbered list of eligibility information with a learn more button. 


Nevada’s WIC eligibility web page rendered well on mobile devices, has a readable alert 
banner that draws attention to it but is dismissible and doesn’t limit access to other content 
on the page. The buttons are big enough to easily tap and the text is big enough to read on 
small screens. This page could be improved with plain language explanations of the 
eligibility criteria. 


Conclusion 

WIC entities provide benefits across the United States, serving diverse communities 
with different needs, wants, access, and abilities. Eligibility website information is 
only one aspect of service delivery. Depending on the population an entity serves, it 
may not be an important one. A great website does not equal great WIC benefits 
delivery or participant satisfaction. 

Our content review was conducted in July and August of 2022 during the COVID-19 
national state of emergency as well as a major baby formal recall and shortage. 
These emergencies highlight how priorities continue to shift in response to ongoing 
COVID-19 impacts like supply chain disruptions. 

Considering emergencies and shifting priorities, every WIC entity benefits from a 
simple web presence with basic program information including a plain language list 
of eligibility requirements. WIC web pages are a way for participants to find 
information, get critical program updates, or take the next step on their benefits 
journey. 

Entity-run web pages are often used by other websites like Google search results 
and popular apps like Google Maps to populate data and help people navigate 
through their phone GPS. A secure, entity-run web presence creates a trustworthy 
source of information, preventing people from visiting third party websites that may 
have inaccurate or outdated information. 

WIC entities have a mix of great information, helpful processes, and areas of 
improvement on their websites. Many of the recommendations in this report are 
fixable now while others may take more time, effort, and coordination across 
departments. WIC entities know their communities and their urgent needs and can 
prioritize any of our recommendations depending on what people need most. 

For comments or questions about this report, including entity-specific findings, 
please reach out to wic.project@servicedesigncollective.com. 


Acknowledgements 

Thank you to the National WIC Association for their research in this space and 
assistance in supporting our plain language training to WIC entities. Without their 
background, in-depth statistics, and reporting we would not have a foundation for 
this report. 

Thank you to Judy Brewer and the Partnership for Public Service for their expertise 
on web accessibility tools and standards. 

Thank you to Nava PBC for partnership and research support as well as outreach to 
WIC entities. Service Design Collective partnered with Nava to create and host a 
plain language and readability training for WIC providers. 

Thank you to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and Zoë Neuberger for their 
foundational research in this space. 

Thank you to our philanthropic sponsors for their generous funding and support of this work.

Addendum 

This research was conducted in 2022. Since then, some WIC websites have 
changed, including new website launches, redesigns, error corrections, and/or 
updating HTTPS usage. As content continues to change, we hope these simple 
guidelines will benefit the WIC community. 


Appendix A: Definitions 

The following list contains the definitions for terms, language, and rules that guided 
our evaluation. 

Applications and pre-applications 

Applications and pre-applications are a variety of questionnaires or forms that 
collect data to begin applying for WIC benefits. Application and pre-application are 
used interchangeably by WIC entities to refer to these types of forms. Applications 
and pre-applications come in a variety of formats including online portal 
registration, simple contact forms, and longer intake forms. Many applications 
include one or more screening questions but use that data to register for an online 
service or initiate contact with a WIC program. 

Content 

Content is anything a technology platform presents to an end user when that user is 
interacting with that technology. Examples of content include performance 
elements like load time, error messages and error states, written words, page 
formatting, graphics, images, videos, sound, interactive elements, files, and other 
digital assets. 

Content Audit 

A content audit is a review and accounting of all the content of a given piece of 
technology. Our content audit specifically focused on web assets like web pages, 
PDFs, and online forms related to WIC eligibility. Content audits can also review 
technology products for system status, system performance, and errors. 

Eligibility 

We defined eligibility materials as web pages, files, forms and other digital assets 
that told people what criteria they needed to meet to be eligible for WIC benefits. 
Included in this definition are pre-screening tools, digital forms, or quizzes that ask 
people a series of eligibility questions. After answering questions about themselves, 
potential WIC participants are told if they qualify for WIC or not based on their 
answers. Pre-screening tools are an example of a specific digital asset that gives 
people information about what criteria they need to meet to be eligible for WIC 
benefits. 


Heuristic evaluation 

A heuristic evaluation is a type of usability review used to identify potential issues in 
the user interface (UI) design, system performance, and format of a technology 
product (examples: software, websites, kiosks, and operating systems). Heuristic 
evaluations use a set of recognized usability principles or "heuristics” as criteria for 
scoring. These criteria help determine how easy or difficult the technology product 
is to use and if the technology is designed in a way that supports its successful use. 

Pre-screeners 

Pre-screeners are quizzes, forms, or questionnaires that ask people a series of 
questions and then give them an eligibility result based on their answers. 
Pre-screeners are different from things like portal registrations or contact forms 
because they do not keep the information they collect or pass the information on to 
a WIC office. 

WIC 

The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children is 
known more commonly by its abbreviation WIC. WIC is short for Women, Infants, and 
Children. We use “WIC” throughout the report to refer to this program at all 
government levels. 

WIC entities 

We use the terms “WIC entity” or “WIC entities” through our report. A WIC entity is a 
government institution that is authorized to administer WIC benefits by the USDA. In 
2022, the United States had 89 total WIC entities comprising 50 US states, 5 US 
territories, 33 Indian Tribal Organizations, and the District of Columbia. WIC entities 
are referred to as “states” or “state agencies” on the USDA website or in other 
official contexts. WIC entities provide services through 1,900 local agencies and 
10,000 clinic sites. 


Appendix B: Technology and timeline 

Our data collection 

We evaluated all materials, websites, and pre-screening tools in July and August of 
2022. Our results represent observations made during that time period and may not 
reflect the current state of the systems reviewed or current content. 

Our evaluation technology 

We conducted our large screen reviews on a MacBook Pro running iOS 13 using the 
Google Chrome browser. Our mobile reviews were done using an iPhone SE running 
iOS 15 mobile with the native Safari browser. We used home Wi-Fi internet 
connections with variable speed rates of 25 -500 Megabits per second. Content, 
websites, and materials may appear or load differently depending on operating 
systems. 

Appendix C: Attachments 

● WIC Plain Language Training Session Slide Deck -PDF 
● WIC Plain Language Training Session Video Recording -YouTube 


Appendix D: References and reports 

Pre-screeners 

● USDA WIC pre-screener 
● USDA Deprecated pre-screener 
● Benefits.gov WIC pre-screener 
● California pre-screener 
● Michigan pre-screener 
● New Mexico pre-screener 
● South Dakota pre-screener 


References and data sources 

● Flesch–Kincaid Readability Tests 
● HHS Poverty Guidelines 
● Pew Research Center: Internet/Broadband Fact Sheet 



● US Census: Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) Detailed 
Program Receipt Tables: 2020 
● US Census: How the Census Bureau Measures Poverty 
● US Census: Language Spoken at Home 
● USDA: About the WIC program 


Reports 

● Center for Budget Policy and Priorities: Streamlining and Modernizing WIC 
Enrollment 
● National WIC Association: The State of WIC 2021 


Appendix E: Resources 

Design 

● 10 Usability Heuristics for User Interface Design: Nielsen/Norman Group 
● A Quick Guide to Inclusive Design: U.S. Digital Service 
● Banner Blindness Revisited: Users Dodge Ads on Mobile and Desktop: 
Nielsen/Norman Group 
● How Little Do Users Read?: Nielsen/Norman Group 
● U. S. Web Design System (USWDS) 


Plain language 

● Plainlanguage.gov 
● Plainlanguage.gov: Design for reading 
● Public Law 111 -274 -Plain Writing Act of 2010 
● A Plain English Handbook: U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission 


Accessibility 

● Contrast and Color Accessibility: WebAIM 
● Evaluating Web Accessibility Overview: W3C 
● How to Meet WCAG (Quick Reference): W3C 
● The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) that sets ADA standards and best 
practices for online tools and technology: W3C 
● WAVE Web Accessibility Tool 
● Typefaces and Fonts: WebAIM