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 50th
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.
