Access & Advocacy
State of Access Interactive Map
The Seeing Eye's State of Access Report Card
Interactive Map
The graphic below provides a visual representation of the data table provided further down the page. The grapic shows a color-coded map of the United States showing letter grades for all 50 states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico based on how well each jurisdiction protects the rights of service dog handlers.
Hover your mouse over a state to view the grade in the bottom left. For keyboard access, use Tab to enter the map, then arrow keys to navigate between states.
Map Description
This color-coded map of the United States, including Puerto Rico (shown as a separate inset), shows how well each of the 52 jurisdictions (all 50 states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico) protects the rights of people who work with service dogs. Each jurisdiction has both a color shade and a fill pattern based on its overall letter grade. Green with a solid fill indicates an A grade, light teal with horizontal lines indicates a B, amber with diagonal lines indicates a C, orange with a crosshatch pattern indicates a D and dark red with a dot pattern indicates an F.
The two highest-ranked jurisdictions are California and Alaska, both earning an A-minus. A cluster of B-grades appear across parts of the West and Midwest, including Colorado, Arizona, Nebraska, and Kentucky. Much of the central and southern United States falls in the C and D range, shown in amber and orange. The darkest red, indicating an F grade, is concentrated in the Deep South and includes Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Wyoming. Puerto Rico, shown as a separate labeled box outside the continental map, also received an F grade. Washington D.C. is represented by a small dot near the mid-Atlantic coast and received a C-plus.
Overall, the map skews amber and orange across the middle of the country, with green limited to the coasts and a few interior states, and dark red concentrated in the South.
Distribution Chart Description
The bar chart shows how the 52 jurisdictions are distributed across the letter grades, showing only the grades that were received, from A-minus to F. An accessible data table listing each grade and its jurisdiction count is provided below the bar chart.
The tallest bar belongs to C-minus, which was the most common grade, received by 13 jurisdictions. C-plus was the second most common, received by 12 jurisdictions. Together, grades in the C range account for 25 of the 52 jurisdictions evaluated, making C the modal performance band. Grades in the B range were earned by 9 jurisdictions, with the majority receiving a B-minus or B-plus rather than a straight B. Only 2 jurisdictions earned a grade in the A range and both received an A-minus. No jurisdiction received an A or A-plus. At the lower end, 5 jurisdictions received a D-plus and 5 received a straight D, while 3 earned a D-minus. Five jurisdictions received a grade of F. In total, 16 of 52 jurisdictions, nearly one in three, received a grade of D or F. The national average was a C.
Rankings Graph Description
This table lists all 52 jurisdictions in order from highest to lowest overall grade, along with individual grades in each of the five categories evaluated. An accessible version of this graph is located below. The table has 8 columns. The first column, labeled “#” contains the numerical rank of each jurisdiction from 1 to 52, where 1 is the highest performing and 52 is the lowest. The second column is labeled “Jurisdiction” and lists the name of each state or jurisdiction. The next column is labeled “Overall” and contains the overall grade for each state. The fourth through eighth columns are labeled, “Law Strength”, “Complaint & Enforcement”, “Public Awareness & Outreach”, “Transparency & Reporting”, and “Lived Experience” and each column contains the grade the state received in that category.
| Rank | State | Total Grade | Law Strength | Complaint & Enforcement | Awareness & Outreach | Transparency & Reporting | Lived Experience | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | California | A- | A- | B | B+ | C | A+ | |
| 2 | Alaska | A- | D- | A+ | C- | B- | A+ | |
| 3 | Colorado | B+ | A | B | C- | B- | C | |
| 4 | Pennsylvania | B+ | A- | C+ | A | A+ | D- | |
| 5 | Nebraska | B+ | B | B | C- | A+ | A+ | |
| 6 | Arizona | B+ | C+ | A- | C- | A+ | C | |
| 7 | Kentucky | B+ | C- | B+ | C- | A+ | A+ | |
| 8 | Nevada | B | A- | B- | B+ | D | C | |
| 9 | New Hampshire | B | A- | C+ | B+ | D | A+ | |
| 10 | Maryland | B | C- | B- | B+ | A+ | A+ | |
| 11 | Washington | B- | A- | B | C- | D | C | |
| 12 | Maine | B- | B | C+ | C- | B- | A+ | |
| 13 | South Carolina | B- | C- | A | D | D | D- | |
| 14 | Massachusetts | B- | D | B | C- | A+ | A+ | |
| 15 | New Jersey | C+ | A- | C- | B+ | C | A+ | |
| 16 | Louisiana | C+ | B | B- | D | D | A+ | |
| 17 | Rhode Island | C+ | B | C+ | C- | B- | D- | |
| 18 | Missouri | C+ | B | D | A+ | A+ | C | |
| 19 | Tennessee | C+ | C+ | B | D | D | C | |
| 20 | West Virginia | C+ | C+ | C+ | D | A+ | C | |
| 21 | Michigan | C+ | C+ | C- | A | B- | A+ | |
| 22 | New York | C+ | C+ | C- | C+ | A+ | A+ | |
| 23 | Kansas | C+ | C- | C+ | C+ | C | C | |
| 24 | Washington DC | C+ | D | B | C- | A+ | F | |
| 25 | New Mexico | C | C+ | C+ | C+ | D | C | |
| 26 | Virginia | C | C+ | C+ | C- | D | C | |
| 27 | Montana | C | C+ | C- | A | D | C | |
| 28 | Florida | C | C+ | C- | C+ | D | C | |
| 29 | Oklahoma | C | C- | C+ | C+ | D | D- | |
| 30 | Illinois | C | C- | C+ | C- | A+ | D- | |
| 31 | Iowa | C | C- | C | B+ | C | C | |
| 32 | Vermont | C | D | C- | B+ | A+ | C | |
| 33 | Indiana | C | D- | B- | C- | B- | C | |
| 34 | Hawaii | C- | C- | C- | C- | D | A+ | |
| 35 | Idaho | C- | D | C- | D | B- | A+ | |
| 36 | Ohio | C- | D- | C+ | C- | B- | D- | |
| 37 | Texas | D+ | B | D+ | C- | D | D- | |
| 38 | Arkansas | D+ | C+ | C- | D | D | A+ | |
| 39 | Delaware | D+ | C- | C- | C+ | D | C | |
| 40 | Minnesota | D+ | C- | C- | C+ | D | D- | |
| 41 | Connecticut | D+ | D | D+ | C+ | B- | C | |
| 42 | Utah | D | C+ | D+ | D | D | D- | |
| 43 | North Dakota | D | C+ | D | C+ | D | F | |
| 44 | South Dakota | D | C- | C- | D | D | A+ | |
| 45 | Oregon | D | D | C- | D | D | C | |
| 46 | Wisconsin | D | D | D | D | D | A+ | |
| 47 | North Carolina | D- | C- | F | C- | D | C | |
| 48 | Wyoming | F | C+ | F | D | D | A+ | |
| 49 | Georgia | F | D | F | C- | D | D- | |
| 50 | Alabama | F | D | F | D | D | D- | |
| 51 | Mississippi | F | D- | F | D | D | A+ | |
| 52 | Puerto Rico | F | F | F | D | D | C |
The Grading System
Each jurisdiction was graded in five subjects. Total scores were used to organize the jurisdictions into a national ranking from 1 to 52 (50 states, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico). The evaluations combine legal analysis, real-world handler experiences, and government data*. Rankings are based on Total Grade. Ties were broken by giving priority to the higher grade in Law Strength, followed by Complaint & Enforcement, Public Awareness & Outreach, Public Data & Transparency, and Lived Experience.
- Strength and Scope of State-Level Laws: Does the state go beyond federal law to protect service dog handlers? Scoring assessed nine categories, including whether states criminalize access denials, have pedestrian safety laws, and have enacted service animal fraud statutes.
- Complaint & Enforcement Process: Can a service dog handler actually use their state’s complaint system to seek relief? Scoring assessed how state-level protections are addressed and whether the filing process is easy to find and initiate.
- Public Awareness & Outreach: Has the state proactively educated businesses and the public about guide dog access rights? Scoring recognizes states that publish materials, address service animal fraud, provide links to resources, and actively promote training opportunities.
- Public Data & Transparency: Does the state publish data on complaints and enforcement actions? Are service animals specifically addressed? Is the data current?
- Lived Experience: More than 522 service dog handlers from each of the 52 jurisdictions completed a survey on access barriers, quality of experience in their state, rights awareness, and the cultural climate toward service dog teams. Grades reflect normalized composite data adjusted for sample size.
*Government data was obtained from government websites maintained by each state between September 1, 2025, and January 1, 2026. If you feel we missed anything in our reporting and scoring, please contact us at info@seeingeye.org.
About The Seeing Eye
Established in 1929, The Seeing Eye provides specially bred and trained dogs to guide people who are blind. Seeing Eye dog handlers experience greatly enhanced mobility and independence, allowing them to retain their active lifestyles. The Seeing Eye is a 501(c)3 non-profit supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, bequests, and other planned gifts.
The Seeing Eye is a trademarked name and can only be used to describe the dogs bred and trained at the school’s facilities in Morristown, N.J.
Contact Us
Members of the media: mbarlak@seeingeye.org
Service dog handlers, lawmakers and business leaders: advocacy@seeingeye.org
General information or questions about The Seeing Eye: info@seeingeye.org