The Inclusion of Persons With Disabilities in U.S. Foreign Policy

U.S. Department of State

The mission of the U.S DOS “is to shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just, and democratic world and foster conditions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American persons and persons everywhere” (“About the U.S. Department of State,” 2017). It maintains a diplomatic presence in more than 180 countries, employs more than 75,000 individuals, and oversees an annual budget of more than US$27 billion. The DOS provides (a) foreign assistance, (b) direct consular services to Americans and foreign nationals at home and abroad, and (c) cultural and educational exchange programs between the United States and other countries.

U.S. Agency for International Development

In 2013, USAID adopted a new mission statement, committing to “partner to end extreme poverty and promote resilient, democratic societies while advancing our security and prosperity” (USAID, 2016). USAID’s structure is comprised of individualized bureaus and offices that have independent areas of focus, but shared responsibilities. With missions in more than 80 countries and programs in more than 100, staff and program teams spend less than 1% of the federal budget to carry out work in areas including agriculture, economic growth, education, democracy, and human rights and governance.

Peace Corps

Volunteers serving on behalf of the PC have worked for more than 50 years to address critical issues in more than 140 countries. As an independent agency within the executive branch of the U.S. government, the PC is overseen by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. With a general annual budget of approximately 1% of the U.S. foreign operations budget, the agency provides service opportunities “for motivated change-makers to immerse themselves in a community abroad, working side by side with local leaders to tackle the most pressing challenges of our generation” (Peace Corps, 2017a).

Millenium Challenge Corporation

The Mission and Congressional mandate of the MCC is poverty reduction through economic growth (MCC, 2017). Working from a strong belief that gender and social inequality are significant constraints to economic growth and poverty reduction, MCC’s mission is executed with a focus on inclusion, striving to reach the poorest, most disadvantaged and potentially excluded groups. The corporation’s approach is unique in that it carefully selects the “best governed” developing countries, in the belief that aid is more effective in a country with a strong commitment to accountable and democratic governance.

With this context in mind, this article addresses the following research question: To what extent have the DOS, USAID, PC, and the MCC developed policies and/or programs to ensure the inclusion of individuals with disabilities as recipients of U.S. foreign assistance.

Method

This qualitative research study was conducted by a research team comprised of faculty and PhD students at the University of Massachusetts Boston’s School for Global Inclusion and Social Development and at the University of Washington. The research team adopted a collaborative work approach to the design, implementation, and conclusions drawn from the research process. Collaborative work is defined as “involving multiple researchers in designing a study or concurring about conclusions to ensure the analyses and interpretations are not idiosyncratic and/or biased” (Brantlinger et al., 2005, p. 201). This study included two components: (a) a document review of the current policies and practices of DOS, USAID, the PC, and MCC (n = 62), and (b) key informant interviews to ensure data triangulation of DOS (n = 3), USAID (n = 4), the PC (n = 1), and MCC (n = 2). There were four key themes or areas of inclusion:

Agency disability policies and guidance;

The inclusion of persons with disabilities in foreign assistance programs;

The employment of persons with disabilities within federal agencies;

Physical accessibility of federal agencies.

All documents and key informant interviews were inputted into NVivo software and coded using descriptive codes related to the above areas of inclusion. Coding and interpretation of codes was conducted by a minimum of two researchers and reviewed by the principal investigator to ensure trustworthiness.

The document review (N = 62) included a thorough analysis of academic and gray literature and a website review of each agency to identify relevant legal and policy documents related to four key areas of inclusion. During the initial data collection, individuals from multiple departments and programs from each agency were contacted by researchers and asked to provide additional documentation, clarification, and individual expertise on applicable legal and policy documents. A snowball sampling method was used to identify additional relevant points of contact within each agency if possible. All print and web sources are identified in the references.

In addition, key informant interviews with staff who had relevant institutional knowledge (N = 10) were conducted to clarify any additional practices related to the four key areas of inclusion. Each area of inclusion was operationally defined, and the resulting questions were used as a guide to conduct all key informant interviews (see Table 1).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Summary of Select Key Informant Interview Questions.

Interview topic areas and questions
Agency disability policies and guidance
• Do any policies exist at [insert organization name] on disability? Within your programs? Related to employing persons with disabilities?
• Please describe any training you have provided or received at MCC on disability issues.
• What relevance do these laws (ADA, Rehabilitation Act, IDEA, Architectural Barriers Act, etc.) have to your work?
• Is there anything else regarding inclusion of persons with disabilities within your organization that is important for me to know?
• Is there anything you would recommend be done to ensure the inclusion of persons with disabilities in future [insert organization name] work?
Inclusion of persons with disabilities in programs
• Please describe how your organization’s programs routinely includes persons with disabilities. If not, why?
• Is it a priority for your programs to include persons with disabilities? Are there certain programs in which persons with disabilities are more/less likely to be included than others? Does you track participation in programs?
• Please describe any accommodations or modifications to programming made for persons with disabilities to enable them to be included?
Employment of persons with disabilities within federal agencies
• Do you have a policy promoting diversity in the workplace? Does that policy cover the employment (including hiring and promotion) of persons with disabilities? Does an HR policy exist for employees with disabilities?
• Do you employ persons with disabilities? If yes, what percentage? How do you recruit employees with disabilities to work at your organization? What barriers would employees with disabilities face? Have you received any complaints regarding the failure to hire or promote persons with disabilities? If yes, what steps did you take to respond to such complaints?
Physical accessibility of federal agencies
• Does your organization have any policies and criteria regarding accessibility of overseas construction projects? Is there a budget for accessibility?
• How are persons with disabilities consulted during this project planning or design?
• Have you ever received any complaints regarding a lack of access for persons with disabilities in any of its projects?

Note. MCC = Millennium Challenge Corporation; ADA = Americans with Disabilities Act; IDEA = Individuals Disabilities Education Act; HR = human resource.

The intent of the qualitative interviews was to discern practices related to knowledge production (i.e., information about the perspective of employees, setting questions related to administrative function, and techniques for ensuring the inclusion of PWDs); and to answer questions related to both “what is happening?” and “why or how is it happening?” (Shavelson & Towne, 2002, p. 99, as cited by Brantlinger et al., 2005). It is important to note that, if needed, key informants consulted with relevant colleagues to fully answer our interview questions. In lieu of full transcripts, telephone interviews lasting between 45 and 60 min were captured through case notes. The information was then analyzed under the four areas of inclusion using investigator triangulation, defined by Brantlinger et al. (2005) as the “use of several researchers, evaluators, and peer debriefers” (p. 201) the results were fed into each agency’s case. Communications (in-person, e-mail, and telephone) were all considered under the umbrella of key informant interviews and included a minimum of two researchers to ensure trustworthiness. For the purposes of confidentiality, data from individual key informants were made anonymous and aggregated into one data source for analysis. At times, information between the key informant interviews and document analysis differed. When this occurred, the research sought to clarify findings using validity checks (i.e., asking the key informant to clarify, conducting additional interviews, and reviewing additional documentation). Finally, the final report draft was sent to each agency to review and verify the reliability of the data. The responses were incorporated into the final report.

Results

Results of the data analysis showed that some progress has been made in regard to the inclusion of PWDs (e.g., establishing and appointing a Special Advisor for International Disability Rights at the DOS), yet efforts often suffer from the “silo effect” and lack sustained and coordinated engagement. In addition, a persistent lack of accountability—through data collection, monitoring, and evaluation—diffused responsibility for ensuring the inclusion of PWDs in programs and policies agency-wide. The following section includes subsections highlighting data and results in each of the study’s four key areas for inclusion:

Agency disability policies and guidance;

The inclusion of persons with disabilities in foreign assistance programs;

The employment of persons with disabilities within federal agencies;

Physical accessibility of federal agencies.

Agency Policies and Guidance

As federal agencies responsible for either funding or executing U.S. foreign assistance activities, each agency is governed by U.S. laws and regulations. However, the internal policies which guide each agency’s approach to disability inclusion vary widely. Nearly a decade before the passage of the CRPD, USAID was leading the way for disability inclusion. The agency published its disability policy in 1997, and it extends from project design to implementation, with the simple goal of promoting “the inclusion of persons with disabilities both within USAID programs and in host countries where USAID has programs.” Twenty years later the policy has remained unchanged and become outdated. Although many independent agencies have recommended the need for revision, USAID has no formal plans in place to update the policy (A. Van Edema, personal communication, November 3, 2016). The DOS has clear publicly available messaging that outlines its stance for disability inclusion, the content has not been translated into a formal disability policy that is publicly available (National Council on Disability [NCD], 2013). In 2013, DOS issued an internal cable that could be viewed as policy, titled Advancing Disability-Inclusive Diplomacy as a Global Policy Priority. Researchers could find no evidence of disability-specific policies with the exception of a nondiscrimination employment policy at the PC. In an effort to better understand their approach to inclusion, researchers reviewed the agency’s Performance and Accountability Report, Congressional Budget Justification, and Strategic Plan (2014–2018) and found only a brief mention of disability related to employment and one PC project (Peace Corps, 2014, 2015, 2017a, 2017b). The MCC regards disability as a crosscutting issue that is included in the definition of marginalized populations (V. Karr, personal communication, February 17, 2017), but its current gender and social inclusion policy (Millennium Challenge Corporation, 2016) only pertains to gender.

From a human resource perspective, only USAID and the DOS had specific coordinators appointed to work on disability issues. However, USAID’s Disability Coordinator position has remained vacant since 2014 with the relevant duties of this role diffused and disjointed. USAID’s Education Office in the Bureau for Economic Growth, Environment and Education does have a staff member dedicated to disability inclusion. At the DOS, following the United States’ signing of the CRPD, a Special Advisor for International Disability Rights was appointed that “coordinates the interagency process for the ratification of the Disabilities Treaty, ensures that foreign assistance incorporates persons with disabilities, leads on disability human rights issues, ensures that the needs of persons with disabilities are addressed in international emergency situations, and conducts public diplomacy, including with civil society, on disability issues” (Department of State, 2015). According to key informant interviews, this raised the visibility of PWDs in DOS policies and programs, increased interagency cooperation, and increased the number of bureaus with staff dedicated to addressing disability inclusion (V. Karr, personal communication, March 15, 2017).

Inclusive Foreign Assistance Programs

As the world’s largest foreign aid donor (by volume), the United States provides nearly a quarter of ODA. With this leadership role comes responsibility. Programs are the implementing arm of each agency’s disability policy; this section focuses on the inclusion of PWDs in agency programs and projects abroad. While each agency has diverse mandates and missions, they share a common commitment to promoting peace, security, and economic and physical well-being of all people, including those with disabilities.

USAID highlights a twin-track approach to disability-inclusive development that includes support for disability-specific and the inclusion of PWDs into all of its programs. Specific disability-inclusive USAID projects and programs include accessible education, increasing access to assistive technology, national awareness campaigns, accessible polling initiatives that promote compliance with CRPD, organizational capacity-building in disabled peoples’ organizations (DPOs), advocacy programs for PWDs, microcredit grant programs focused on women with disabilities to promote economic independence, workforce development initiatives for youth and adults, and inclusive health programs. Congressional funds also include the Displaced Children and Orphans Fund, the Leahy War Victims Fund, the Victims of Torture Program, and the Wheelchair Program which benefit PWDs.

The DOS has a different approach to disability inclusion that can be observed through its annual human rights reports compiled by embassy and consular staff. These reports have incorporated information on the treatment of PWDs since 2003. With help from the Office of the Special Advisor for Disability Rights, the reports now have a designated section in which PWDs are specifically reported, and many country reports contain coverage of disability in other sections. The data indicated a significant improvement in countries’ reports between 2009 and 2015. In 2009, 24% of the reports incorporated information about PWDs somewhere outside of the specified subsection. As of 2015, that figure had risen to more than 97%. In addition, the DOS’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) funds youth and sports programs and international exchange programs characterized by the inclusion of PWDs.

The PC provided evidence to suggest that the agency is committed to diversity and inclusion through its current policies and practices for recruiting underrepresented groups. These efforts include a move toward prioritizing the recruitment of underrepresented applicant groups such as the LGBTQ and adult and aging populations, but do not specifically include PWDs. The PC has implemented intercultural competency, diversity, and inclusion training and support for staff and volunteers to address areas of equity and inclusion, but it did not include mention of disability. While there is no evidence of planning for disability-related projects, researchers found evidence of three volunteers with disabilities in the past 5 years.

MCC reported that an extensive economic and social assessment was conducted prior to each project’s implementation to identify the most marginalized and potentially excluded groups, including but not limited to women, youth, ethnic/religious minorities, and PWDs. It was unclear how systematized this process was or if any data were collected related to disability inclusion. At this time, monitoring and standards exclude specific reference to disability. MCC reported three projects inclusive of PWDs related to accessibility, employment, and education.

Employment of PWDs

The United States has long been a global leader in promoting inclusive employment opportunities for PWDs. In 2010, with the goal of hiring 100,000 PWDs in 5 years, the federal government issued Executive Order 13,548 on Increasing Federal Employment of Individuals with Disabilities. As part of this effort, specific guidelines were introduced to support agency implementation, including recruitment, retention, and reporting.

Data from USAID’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) shows that fewer than 5% of USAID employees identified as having a disability, which falls below federal averages. Key informant interviews did not uncover a clear reason behind these employment rates. In response to Executive Order 13,458, USAID adopted its Disabilities Employment Program in 2010 in an effort to “improve their efforts to employ federal workers with disabilities and targeted disabilities through increased recruitment, hiring, and retention of these individuals.” The Disabilities Employment Program webpage provides very basic information about the program, including instructions for applying and a contact person; however, all details are linked to other agency websites (e.g., EEOC, Disability.gov, DOL). USAID reported making progress in this area and required hiring managers and HR professionals undergo mandatory disability training. These trainings occurred every 2 years and were part of both new hire orientation and existing employee professional development.

Looking at the DOS’s OPM’s (OPM, 2016) report, employment of PWDs at the DOS also falls below federal averages. The DOS reported that efforts to increase the employment of PWDs were hampered first by budgetary constraints caused by the economic downturn of 2008, and then by budget sequestration in 2011. The DOS reported several active measures in place to promote the inclusion of PWDs in their workforce, including the Disability/Reasonable Accommodation Division (DRAD), the presence of a Special Personnel Placement Coordinator, and ongoing recruitment, hiring, and retention efforts, including noncompetitive Schedule A hiring, disability inclusive internships and ongoing partnerships with wounded warrior organizations and disabled veterans.

In 2016, the Office of Accessibility and Accommodation (HR/OAA) was developed in an effort to centralize accessibility and accommodation issues. Expanded recruitment and staff training were among the efforts planned to increase the hiring of PWDs. In addition to hiring and recruitment initiatives, efforts to retain and promote employees with disabilities included tracking of employees, encouraging employees to self-identify, increased availability of assistive technologies, and the establishment of a Disability Affinity Group within the Department of Communications. Increasing staff awareness of disability issues included a week-long human rights course that was held twice per year.

The Peace Corps employed 1,093 direct hire staff and 3,007 locally hired personnel (including short-term language and cross-cultural training staff) at the time of this study. The PC followed standard operating procedures to comply with legal mandates which includes a diversity and inclusion policy aimed at promoting a “culture of inclusion.” The PC provided an overall policy of equal opportunity employment for all people, and they provided affirmative employment action for PWDs through their Office of Civil Rights and Diversity (OCRD). Their policy statement related to equal opportunity was consistent with U.S. laws and legal requirements for all federal agencies to establish Equal Employment Opportunity Programs (Peace Corps, 2013), with specific affirmative requirements in the areas of disabled veterans, members of underrepresented groups, PWDs, and additional authorities. A review of the OPM (2016) report was inconclusive. However, key informant interviews and data provided by The PC (2017) staff revealed behind-the-scenes efforts to comply with Executive Order 13548, including support for Schedule A hiring and a commitment to offering noncompetitive hiring options for PWDs and those who support them such as readers, interpreters, and personal assistants.

Hiring and promotion of PWDs within MCC was overseen by the Human Resources Management Division within the Department of Administration and Finance, however, recruitment of employees with disabilities was also the responsibility of each MCC department. MCC’s policy statement pertaining to equal employment opportunity was consistent with U.S. laws and a policy promoting diversity in the workplace. The policy was designed to prevent discrimination against PWDs in areas of employment, hiring, and promotion both inside, and outside of the U.S. MCC reported the use of Schedule A hiring authority to noncompetitively hire PWDs and reported that approximately 8% of MCC’s workforce are employees with disabilities. These individuals work in a variety of positions and departments, including positions in the HR department, involved in recruiting, hiring, and promoting PWDs.

Communications with staff at MCC revealed that efforts to recruit, retain, and promote PWDs are guided by the agency’s newly created Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan. Unfortunately, reporting specific to MCC was not included in the OPM (2016) report (likely because of agency size and number of employees) and information was not reported via the agency’s website. This made measuring the effectiveness of disability-inclusive employment efforts difficult to track for those outside of the agency.

Physical Accessibility of Federal Agencies

For PWDs to actively participate in the programs funded and facilitated by the agencies of focus, they must have physical access to the environments where the agencies conduct their work and access to related information. This section provides findings of the implementation of federal law and include agency-specific policies and programs aimed at improving accessibility.

The 2014 USAID Construction Assessment detailed findings from a worldwide survey of USAID’s construction portfolio that took place between 2011 and 2013. Designed to provide details of the character, scope, value, and management of construction activities supported by USAID, the report included limited mention of accessibility for PWDs. USAID’s description of the infrastructure design process briefly mentioned accommodation of disabilities, stating, “disability accessibility standards are required for construction contracts.” However, of the 572 sub-awards (sub-awards are projects that are contracted to primary agency that then hires secondary agency to facilitate the project) that responded to the survey’s accessibility question, just 55% reported including such standards. Furthermore, the assessment indicated that of 995 buildings serviced by the respondents (schools, hospitals/clinics, other buildings), more than half (423) were unaware of the requirement for accessibility standards.

The DOS, as part of its presence in other countries and in fulfillment of its role as a representative of the U.S. government, has a property portfolio that included “over 89,000,000 sq. ft. of functioning property, and over US$7 billion in projects.” These properties include embassies and consulates and office, living, and recreational spaces for employees of the U.S. government and, in many cases, their families. The Bureau of Overseas Building Operations (OBO) manages the DOS property portfolio. Part of OBO’s charge includes ensuring that DOS properties are accessible. The Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) of 1968 sets the legal framework for building, renovation, and operation, and requires that buildings built, altered or leased by the U.S. government meet guidelines for accessibility established by the United States Access Board. This mandate includes compliance with the ABA Accessibility Standards, and reasonable accommodation under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. OBO manages that compliance via design principles that balance the needs for accessibility, functionality, and security. OBO’s policy was formalized in Design PD 04: Barrier-Free Accessibility (current revision 5/22/2017). While the 2013 NCD report observed that security and accessibility concerns were found to conflict, OBO staff maintained that no conflict existed.

Since 2012, MCC has applied the International Finance Corporation’s Environmental and Social Performance Standards (IFC PSs) (n.d.) and the IFC Environment, Health and Safety Guidelines (2012) to its program investments. IFC PSs’ Performance Standard 1, Assessment and Management of Environment and Social Risks and Impacts, lays out a systematic approach to “identify individuals and groups that may be directly and differentially or disproportionately affected by the project.” The same standard explicitly included a focus on vulnerable groups, considering such factors as “mental and physical disability” and stating that “where individuals or groups are identified as disadvantaged or vulnerable, the client will propose and implement differentiated measures so that adverse impacts do not fall disproportionately on them and they are not disadvantaged in sharing development benefits and opportunities.” The Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) Guidelines state that “facilities also should be designed and built taking into account the needs of disabled people” and explicitly require facilities to provide an accessible means of egress for PWDs. The EHS recommends that the International Code Council (ICC) guidelines be followed, as appropriate, with respect to accessibility and means of egress.

In spite of these official policies, data collected suggested a more nuanced approach to ensuring physical accessibility. While new construction and renovation projects are reported to include accessibility for PWDs, “the procedures for the design and implementation vary by country, project, and overall site conditions.” At a minimum, MCC applied national-level regulation requirements and standards to ensure accessibility, which have been found to be less rigorous or nonexistent when compared with U.S. laws and regulations.

Due to the nature of PC programming, the environmental placement of volunteers with disabilities was examined. The PC indicated a case-by-case basis decision needs to be made to ensure that each volunteer is placed in an environment conducive to their ability level. Volunteers could only serve in programs and countries that support their medical needs, which is determined by a Health History Form completed with volunteer applications. As part of this process, prospective volunteers received an individual assessment based on their medical records and the resources available in host countries. The PC application explicitly states that “an applicant must have the physical and mental capacity, with or without medical accommodation, to perform the essential functions of a volunteer for a full tour of duty without unreasonable disruption due to health concerns.” The PC also offers a list of health conditions (Peace Corps, 2017b) typically not supported in PC service.

While the PC sponsors many projects in areas such as infrastructure, education, and sanitation, it did not appear to have specific policies or procedures that mandated the inclusion of PWDs, and therefore no accommodations seemed to exist. For example, the PC website described initiatives, such as those in Moldova and Senegal, to construct functioning latrines and improve hygiene education of students and educators. However, no mention of accommodations for PWDs was made.

Discussion

Central themes emerged from the findings that were universal to all agencies and suggest a significant need for prioritization of PWDs in U.S. foreign policy efforts. By prioritizing the inclusion of PWDs, U.S. foreign assistance can address the inequalities and disadvantages PWDs face as outlined in the WHO/World Bank report (2011). The exclusion and marginalization of this community will not be alleviated unless all development efforts around the globe are inclusive, particularly the efforts of the United States, which inspired many disability rights frameworks, including the CRPD and 2030 Agenda.

While agency discourse around disability was encouraging, inclusive policies and practices were inconsistently applied. Public information related to disability access and inclusion lacked clarity (e.g., agency webpages are difficult to navigate, and information relating to disability is difficult to find). Agencies were aware of the need to explicitly include PWDs in foreign assistance, but most lacked systemic processes and procedures. Without policy, practice may be limited and accountability nonexistent. Agency policies were either outdated or nonexistent. The study found inadequate human and fiscal resources dedicated to system-wide inclusion and a significant underrepresentation of employees with disabilities that could be the result of limited recruitment and retention policies. While inclusive policies are needed, accountability metrics for implementation of said policies were also lacking. Agencies indicated an absence of accountability through disability-disaggregated data and monitoring and evaluation practices (e.g., adequately monitoring the number of PWDs included in foreign aid programs from design to implementation and evaluation). Finally, physical accessibility was inconsistently achieved overseas, and the implementation of international accessibility standards varied widely suggesting that access to foreign assistance for PWDs is limited.

Recommendations

The system of agencies entrusted to manage and implement U.S. foreign assistance must have a shared vision that not only sees the value in including PWDs, but positions inclusion as a core value in its work at home and abroad. Inclusion should have equal status to other core values like accountability, community and diversity, service, character, and loyalty. Findings from interviews and desk review showed that in most cases, despite agency rhetoric promoting disability inclusion, the reality of inclusion often falls far short of the mark. Across agencies, there is lack of coordinated efforts, limited fiscal and human resources, and the absence of tools for measuring progress, all of which limit the ability to evaluate progress.

However, there is room for improvement. The translation of vision to practice must begin with ensuring that PWDs are accounted for in every project, program, and priority. Furthermore, effective change takes teamwork, collaboration, and knowledge share. Executive leadership, foreign assistance agencies, and community stakeholders will need to work together to address the following overarching, systemic issues including a dearth of opportunities for PWDs to actively participate in decision making, policy and program development, and projects funded by U.S. foreign aid, the lack of current, explicit agency disability policy and guidance, a shortage of fiscal and human resources dedicated to disability inclusion, and the absence of transparent, publicly accessible data, and information related to the inclusion of PWDs.

While the details may differ based on the agency’s scope of work and current approaches, the findings of this study showed that the majority of missed opportunities fall into one of the above categories. This suggests that, in addition to each agency individually working to improve current policies and practices, the United States as a whole must recognize that a shift to disability-inclusive foreign assistance strategy is a shared responsibility. Moving forward, agencies should focus their attention on developing inclusive policies and programs that follow the CORE acronym. They are Collaborative: participatory, engaging, and inclusive of diverse stakeholders, especially those with disabilities; Operationalized: systematized across all programs, projects, and sectors, and include supporting policies and guidance; Resourced: equipped with fiscal and human resources to meet the needs of the population; and Equitable: accessible, measurable, and transparent.

To effectively translate these recommendations into action, agency leadership and stakeholders must proactively map strategies that go beyond avoiding discrimination and instead create new pathways to economic, physical, and social inclusion. Table 2 captures a summary of recommendations that were developed based on comprehensive data collection and analysis for promoting the inclusion of PWDs in the United States and abroad.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Summary of Agency Recommendations.

Number	Recommendation	Justification
1	Ratify CRPD	As a global leader in disability inclusive development, the U.S. Senate should act promptly to ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
2	Model and promote inclusion among government/partners	Model best practices and encourage foreign counterparts to include persons with disabilities in shared initiatives.
3	Develop global advisory boards/committees	Consider developing diverse, global advisory boards, and committees to support disability inclusive work, including persons with disabilities.
4	Improve public/private partnerships	Improve public/private partnerships between U.S. foreign assistance agencies and Disabled Persons Organizations abroad.
5	Implement iterative processes	To ensure active participation and effective program implementation, agencies should implement iterative beneficiary feedback processes that promote formative progress evaluations and program revisions.
6	Build capacity in partner organizations	Active participation by persons with disabilities is critical to developing programs and projects that effectively meet their needs. Supporting capacity-building initiatives in partner organizations and funding recipients, U.S. foreign aid agencies can help boost inclusion through knowledge sharing and skill building.
7	Develop, implement, and/or update formal disability policies and guidance	Adopt formal policies for disability inclusion. Policies should include guidance on the agency’s approach to employment, accessibility, foreign assistance, program monitoring and evaluation, and reporting.
8	Promote mainstream disability inclusion across programs	Take active steps to ensure that persons with disabilities are included in all programs conducted abroad, without regard to whether such programs are specifically directed toward those with disabilities.
9	Standardize program monitoring and evaluation	Standardize program monitoring and evaluation, disability disaggregated data collection, and reporting to ensure transparency and program efficiency.
10	Prioritize disability inclusive development funding	Congress should consider the promotion of disability inclusive development a priority for foreign assistance funding.
11	Establish and fill disability coordinator positions	Appoint full-time staff and/or team to manage issues related to disability inclusion. This individual should have support from leadership (both fiscal and programmatic), and a strong understanding of the unique needs of persons with disabilities.
12	Funding for building awareness	Agency leadership must recognize that stigma is a major barrier to disability inclusion and ensure that agency projects have funding to raise awareness.
13	Uphold current legislation	Agency leadership should ensure that U.S. laws and policies designed to protect the rights of citizens at home and abroad are consistently applied and implemented in settings outside of the U.S.
14	Improve accessibility and representation	Ensure that all public-facing content of websites and social media platforms are accessible and that they include and accurately represent persons with disabilities.
15	Continue programs that promote a disability inclusive workforce	Despite changing administrations, agencies must remain committed to disability inclusive hiring, training, and recruitment practices.

Note. CRPD = UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Limitations

While this analysis followed a strict evidence-based methodology for data collection and analysis, there were limitations. Researchers were unable to connect with every employee at the federal agencies and, despite a thorough investigation into agency programs, may have missed some inclusive activities. In addition, data collection approval efforts were limited and/or delayed in some instances. Researchers were directed to only one source of information for the PC in particular, and the amount of data obtained was lacking in depth and breadth. Consistent agency reporting, program monitoring and evaluation, and data collection are recommended to promote transparency and ensure comprehensive program and policy reviews.

Conclusion

As a leader in disability rights, the United States has an opportunity to promote the inclusion of and lead international movements that improve the lives of PWDs around the globe. The findings from this study show that agency discourse around disability inclusive development programming is improving, but inclusive policies and practices are inconsistently applied. Agencies are aware of the need to explicitly include PWDs in foreign assistance, but most lack systemic processes and procedures to address this issue.

The results from this study show that efforts from these foreign assistance programs often suffer from the “silo effects” and lack sustained and coordinated engagement. To ensure that PWDs are consistently and effectively included across all sectors of work, agency leadership must promote a culture of inclusion that begins within its own walls. Accountability, through data collection, monitoring, and evaluation, will help to improve responsibility for ensuring the inclusion of PWDs in programs and policies agency-wide. This will not only support U.S. commitments to diversity and inclusion in the executive branch but will also create opportunities for PWDs to actively engage in the change process, bringing valuable lived experiences and knowledge to the table.