Inclusion, Equity and Social Protection, Still Handicapping the Handicapped.

I once read an article titled Handicapping Freedom: The Americans with Disabilities Act  by Edward L. Hudgins.  In a way, that is how I feel about the UNCRPD.  The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was passed in 2006, and despite the inclusive rhetoric from the UN community, donors, and the NGO world, people with significant disabilities have been excluded from development altogether.   The needs of those with significant disabilities have not been mainstreamed into the humanitarian and development programs.  Yes, many great studies and policy papers have been written about how to develop Inclusive Disability Programs.  However, funding has been limited in delivering effective services. In addition, most of these studies have been undertaken by non-disabled health and rehabilitation experts, who, for the most part, conclude that people with disabilities need to become healthy or lack self-esteem.

As Hudgins argues in his article about inflating the statistics of disability, so it is true about the UN statistics on disabilities.  The UN clearly states: “Currently, it is estimated that 15% of the population worldwide, or some 1 billion individuals, live with one or more disabling conditions. More than 46 percent of older persons – those aged 60 years and over—have disabilities, and more than 250 million older people experience moderate to severe disability.”  Lumping people with disabilities with the aging population does not benefit those with significant disabilities. From an Anthropological viewpoint, in the Global South especially, the elderly population is often held in high esteem and well regarded, whereas people with significant disabilities are perceived as hopeless and unproductive. The reality is that the services needed by those with significant disabilities are not the same services needed by the elderly.

Consolidating people with disabilities with the aging population does not benefit those with significant disabilities who are isolated from society due to social taboos.   These social taboo issues will not be overcome just by good policy papers and polished reports. Overcoming these barriers means that people with disabilities must be engaged in developing, implementing, and monitoring programs and policies.  When have you seen a Country Director with a significant disability heading an office at an International NGO that supports the inclusion of people with disabilities?  How many UN donors have field offices and guest houses that are accessible? Disability inclusion is a route to democratization and equality, not a means to improving healthcare and Rehabilitation services.       

But, as a pragmatic American development practitioner who happens to have a disability, I am not concerned about the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; I am more concerned with how the US funds its foreign aid.   If there is Political Will in the US to advance the rights of persons with disabilities, then their social, economic situation would become better around the world. But despite the rhetoric in Washington, there is no Political Will to incorporate the disability rights agenda into our foreign aid portfolio. The funding and the technical assistance are not there to mainstream the rights of Persons with disabilities throughout our global investments.

 

 

As a civil rights law, the American with Disabilities Act is irrelevant to the US Foreign Assistance programs.  What is more important is the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.   Section 504 of the law states that all government-funded programs and services have to be accessible to the disabled; since foreign assistance uses government funds, the law could easily be applied to incorporate the needs of Persons with Disabilities in our foreign Aid Programs.    Already section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act has indirect global benefits. Implemented in 2000, under this guideline, all information and technology systems have to be accessible to people with disabilities.  Consequently, US computer hardware and software systems using federal funding must be accessible. A simple example is blind people, who can read and understand English, can access the web just as easily as anyone else.

This has Global benefits because disabled people, with Internet access anywhere in the world, can access information from the United States.    In effect, our foreign assistance programs can do so much to promote new ICT programs and other assistive technology services worldwide to empower those with significant disabilities.  For example, USAID infrastructure programs can work with financial institutions to create a low-interest rate for accessibility modification at home, in the community, or schools and workplaces. All kinds of programs can be designed to mainstream the needs of People with Disabilities throughout our foreign service programs, whether implemented by the State Department, USAID, or other agencies such as the US Department of Health and Human Services. However, that is not happening.  The usual excuse is that the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 only applies to programs within the USA, which is true because the law was written in 1973 before Globalization and social media were part of our daily lives.

But the simple reality is that these institutions explicitly fail to hire People with Disabilities to work in the field. Thanks to the Medical Clearance policy that has prevented many qualified Persons with Disabilities from serving overseas. Yes, the Office of Medical Clearances, which is within the  State Department and  is responsible for ensuring that U.S. government personnel receive adequate medical evaluation and clearance prior to their assignments abroad, has been denying people with disabilities clearance to work abroad.  Such policy is not only discriminatory in practice but holds back programs from mainstreaming the needs of people with disabilities into our foreign aid programs.  Just imagine if women were denied the right to work abroad, what types of foreign aid programs would be implemented for the poor women in Africa or South America? The technical knowledge will not be available to design and implement successful, sustainable programs for women. The same is true for disability rights programs. Today, with the trends of inclusion, our foreign aid programs still fail to mainstream disability and comply with the Rehabilitation Act.   

 

On January 17 2023 , the Department of State  announced that it has reached a class action Settlement of $37.5 million, resolving longstanding claims of Disability Discrimination relating to Its Foreign Service hiring process. It stated ‘that this was an important step forward in the Department’s efforts to create a workforce that reflects the full diversity of the American people and ensure we have the best team representing the United States abroad.” As we celebrate the 50^th anniversary of the Rehabilitation Act, let’s hope that these changes are made quickly, so that disability programs can become mainstreamed into our foreign aid investment sooner than later.