Toward the Full Inclusion 

of People with Disabilities: 

Examining the Accessibility of 

Overseas Facilities and Programs 

Funded by the United States

National Council on Disability
National Council on Disability

1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850

Washington, DC 20004

Toward the Full Inclusion of People with Disabilities: Examining the Accessibility 

of Overseas Facilities and Programs Funded by the United States

This report is also available in alternative formats and on the National Council on 

Disability (NCD) Web site (www.ncd.gov).

202-272-2004 Voice

202-272-2074 TTY

202-272-2022 Fax

The views contained in this report do not necessarily represent those of the 

Administration, as this and all NCD documents are not subject to the A-19 Executive 

Branch review process.
National Council on Disability

An independent federal agency making recommendations to the President and 

Congress to enhance the quality of life for all Americans with disabilities and their 

families.

Letter of Transmittal

The President

The White House

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

The National Council on Disability is pleased to submit the enclosed report “Toward the 

Full Inclusion of People with Disabilities: Examining the Accessibility of Overseas 

Facilities and Programs Funded by the United States.” 

More than one billion people, 15 percent of the world’s population, have a disability. The 

prevalence of disability continues to grow due to aging, poverty, armed conflict, and 

AIDS, among other contributing factors. Post-conflict and developing countries have a 

significant proportion of people with disabilities as a result. Although people with 

disabilities make up a large segment of the population in many countries, they continue 

to face intolerable forms of discrimination and segregation throughout the world. 

The United States invests billions of taxpayer dollars each year into foreign assistance 

programs that foster international diplomacy and development, aimed at improving the 

quality of life for people around the world. These programs develop economies, promote 

democracy and governance, provide humanitarian assistance, build new infrastructure, 

and advance and protect human rights. Given that 15 percent of the world population is 

made up of people with disabilities, and growing, the United States cannot effectively 

accomplish the goals of foreign assistance programs unless it undertakes measures to 

ensure that the programs are accessible to and inclusive of people with disabilities. 

NCD undertook this study to advance understanding and to promote accessibility and 

inclusion of people with disabilities in foreign assistance programs funded by the United 

States. The report reviews U.S. federal disability laws, the United States Agency for 

International Development’s (USAID) disability policy, and the Convention on the Rights 

of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and discusses their application to U.S. foreign 

assistance programs. It examines the work of USAID, the U.S. Department of State 

(DOS), and the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), and provides recommendations 

that will strengthen the operation of these agencies by ensuring that U.S. government 

funding is accessible to and inclusive of people with disabilities.

NCD’s recommendations are grounded in a basic premise: that overseas economic 

development will not be successful unless people with disabilities are included. If 

development is not inclusive, the significant numbers of people with disabilities in 
2

developing countries will hinder the very economic growth the US is trying to foster.

Throughout our report, NCD urges micro-level interventions aimed at income generation 

and macro-level interventions designed to create legal and regulatory frameworks that 

are accessible to people with disabilities.

In many countries, domestic law contains blatant discriminatory provisions for people 

with disabilities that undermine access to justice and full participation in society. The 

provisions that discriminate against people with disabilities include arbitrary exclusions 

in electoral codes, sweeping plenary guardianship laws with no due-process 

protections, discriminatory banking practices, and inaccessible court proceedings. 

National disability legal frameworks remain underdeveloped throughout the world. 

In this report, NCD also finds that the failure to build infrastructure that is accessible to 

people with disabilities results in exclusion from physical premises as well as denial of 

equal access to services and resources. The barriers have a negative impact on other 

development work as people with disabilities may not be able to access voting centers, 

courthouses, administrative agencies, schools, and embassies. NCD notes that 

improved access to embassies will have the domestic benefit of facilitating the 

employment of Americans with disabilities in the Foreign Service, as ambassadors, 

legal advisors, political officers, and development practitioners. Accessibility to federal 

buildings and U.S. government-funded infrastructure projects for people with disabilities 

will also foster important linkages between the United States and foreign governments. 

In closing, NCD commends your Administration for signing the first human rights treaty 

of the 21st century. The goals of this report closely correspond to one of the core 

mandates of the CRPD - that international development projects be inclusive of and 

accessible to people with disabilities. We look forward to working with you in ensuring 

the goals of the CRPD are met, and the recommendations in this report are 

implemented.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Young, Ph.D., J.D.

Chairman
3

National Council on Disability Members and Staff

Members

Jonathan M. Young, Ph.D., Chairman

Janice Lehrer-Stein, Vice Chair

Gary Blumenthal

Chester A. Finn

Sara Gelser

Marylyn Howe 

Matan Aryeh Koch

Lonnie Moore 

Ari Ne’eman

Dongwoo Joseph (“Joe”) Pak, MBA

Clyde E. Terry

Fernando M. Torres-Gil, Ph.D.

Linda Wetters

Pamela Young-Holmes 

Staff

Aaron Bishop, Executive Director 

Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant

Julie Carroll, Senior Attorney Advisor

Lawrence Carter-Long, Public Affairs Specialist

Joan M. Durocher, General Counsel & Director of Policy

Lisa Grubb, Confidential Special Assistant / Coordinator of Administration

Geraldine-Drake Hawkins, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst

Carla Nelson, Administrative Specialist

Robyn Powell, Attorney Advisor

Mark Seifarth, Legislative Affairs Specialist

Anne Sommers, Director of Legislative Affairs & Outreach
4

Acknowledgments

NCD expresses its appreciation to Allison deFranco, Director; and Janet Lord, Senior 

Partner, both of BlueLaw International, for the research and development of this report.

NCD acknowledges the report’s technical advisors: Dr. Nora Groce (Leonard Cheshire 

Disability and Inclusive Development Centre, University College London); Eric 

Rosenthal (Disability Rights International); Michael Stein (Harvard Law School Project 

on Disability); Anne Hayes (Perkins School for the Blind); and Jerry Mindes (American 

Institutes for Research). NCD also appreciates the research assistance provided by 

Kelly Bunch, Sarah Amin, and Lea Simokovic. NCD thanks the various DPOs and 

disability advocates who conducted interviews throughout the world as well as 

participants in the June 2010 recommendation roundtable event. 
5

Table of Contents

National Council on Disability Members and Staff..................................................... 3

Acknowledgments......................................................................................................... 4

List of Acronyms........................................................................................................... 9

Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 11

Summary of Methodology ..................................................................... 14

Summary of Findings ............................................................................ 15

Summary of Recommendations ............................................................ 17

NCD Recommendations Directed to Congress............................ 17

NCD Recommendations Directed to USAID, DOS, and DOD ..... 18

NCD Recommendations Directed to USAID................................ 19

NCD Recommendations Directed to DOS................................... 20

NCD Recommendations Directed to DOD................................... 21

CHAPTER 1. Introduction and Background............................................................ 23

The Situation of People with Disabilities in Developing Countries......... 23

The Role of the United States ............................................................... 25

Purpose and Structure of Report........................................................... 27

CHAPTER 2. Research Methodology....................................................................... 29

CHAPTER 3. Federal Disability Rights Laws and Their Application to 

Overseas Facilities, Programs, and Employment ............................ 33

Federal Disability Rights Laws: An Overview........................................ 33

Extraterritorial Application of Federal Disability Rights Law .................. 36

Accessibility of Federal Buildings and New Construction Projects 

Overseas....................................................................................... 41

Equal Access to Employment Opportunities in U.S.-Funded 

Overseas Programs ...................................................................... 42

Conclusion ............................................................................................ 49

CHAPTER 4. Pursuing Disability-Inclusive Development through the 

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ................... 51

Introduction ........................................................................................... 51

Implications of Signature and Future Ratification of the CRPD for 

the United States........................................................................... 53

Nondiscrimination and Reasonable Accommodation in the CRPD ....... 56

The CRPD on Accessibility ................................................................... 57

Disability and International Development in the CRPD ......................... 59
6

Promoting Disability Inclusion in Humanitarian Assistance and 

Disaster Relief............................................................................... 61

Promoting Disability Inclusion in Democracy and Governance ............. 62

Ensuring the Inclusion of People with Disabilities in Economic 

Development................................................................................. 65

Participation of People with Disabilities in Cultural Exchange............... 66

Conclusion ............................................................................................ 67

CHAPTER 5. USAID Disability Policy ...................................................................... 69

Introduction ........................................................................................... 69

Overview of USAID Disability Policy ..................................................... 69

USAID Reports on the Implementation of the Disability Policy.............. 77

The Disability Fund and Inclusive Development Trainings.................... 79

Appointment of Coordinator on Disability and Inclusive 

Development................................................................................. 81

Research Findings on the Implementation of the USAID Disability 

Policy ............................................................................................ 81

Lack of Knowledge Regarding Disability Issues and the 

USAID Disability Policy ......................................................... 82

Disability-Specific Funding Sometimes Reflects Outmoded 

Approaches........................................................................... 84

Disability-Specific Programming Favored over Inclusion in 

General Development Programming..................................... 87

Monitoring and Evaluation Efforts Fail to Apply a Disability 

Lens ...................................................................................... 89

Conclusion ............................................................................................ 93

CHAPTER 6. USAID Sector-Specific Review........................................................... 95

Introduction ........................................................................................... 95

Disaster Relief: Making Humanitarian Preparedness and Response 

Accessible..................................................................................... 96

OFDA Technical Publications................................................................ 97

Humanitarian Assistance Sector Conclusion ...................................... 100

Economic Development: Ensuring the Inclusion of People with 

Disabilities................................................................................... 100

Economic Development Technical Guidance...................................... 101

Economic Development Solicitations .................................................. 102

Examples from USAID Programming.................................................. 102

Economic Development Sector Conclusion ........................................ 104

Democracy and Governance: Achieving the Full Participation of 

People with Disabilities and Their Representative 

Organizations in Politics and Public Life ..................................... 105

Rule of Law ......................................................................................... 106

Governance Programming .................................................................. 107

Elections and Political Processes Programming ................................. 107
7

Civil Society Programming .................................................................. 108

Democracy and Governance Technical Guidance in Featured 

Publications................................................................................. 109

Democracy and Governance Solicitations .......................................... 110

Democracy and Governance Program Examples ............................... 111

Democracy and Governance Sector Conclusion................................. 115

CHAPTER 7. Review of Department of State: Country Reports on Human 

Rights, Embassy Accessibility, and Cultural Exchange 

Programs ........................................................................................... 117

Country Reports on Human Rights ..................................................... 118

In-Depth Review of Reports ................................................................ 120

Selected Country Analysis .................................................................. 124

Embassy Accessibility......................................................................... 129

Security Concerns Trump Accessibility ............................................... 129

Information and Materials Are Not Provided in Accessible Formats.... 131

Cultural Exchanges: Ensuring Inclusion of People with Disabilities 

in the Design and Implementation of Cultural Exchange 

Programs .................................................................................... 133

Conclusion .......................................................................................... 136

CHAPTER 8. U.S. Department of Defense: A Review of Overseas Building 

and Infrastructure Efforts................................................................. 139

Conclusion .......................................................................................... 143

CHAPTER 9. Recommendations and Future Directions ...................................... 145

NCD Recommendations Directed to Congress................................... 145

NCD Recommendations Directed to USAID, DOS, and DOD............. 146

NCD Recommendations Directed to USAID.............................. 147

NCD Recommendations Directed to DOS................................. 150

NCD Recommendations Directed to DOD................................. 152

ANNEX I. Country List....................................................................................... 153

ANNEX 2. Question Set on Embassy Accessibility ......................................... 155

ANNEX 3. Question Set on USAID Programs and Policies ............................. 161
8
9

List of Acronyms

AAPD Acquisition and Assistance Policy Directives

ABA Architectural Barriers Act of 1968

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

ADAAG Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines

ADS USAID’s Automated Directive System

AFRICOM Africa Command

AJ Administrative judge

AO Agreement Officer

CO Contracting Officer

CRA Civil Rights Act of 1964

CRPD Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

CSO Civil society organization

DG USAID Democracy and Governance programming

DOD U.S. Department of Defense

DOS U.S. Department of State

DPO Disabled people’s organization

DRI Disability Rights International

DRL DOS Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor

EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

EIT Electronic and information technology

FOG Field Operations Guide

GAO Government Accountability Office

HI Handicap International

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

MED DOS Office of Medical Services

MIUSA Mobility International USA

NCD National Council on Disability

NGO Nongovernmental organization

ODA Official development assistance

OFDA Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance

OHDACA Overseas Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid 

PMP Project Monitoring Plan

PVO Private voluntary organization

QDDR Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review

QDR Quadrennial Defense Review

RFA Request for Application

RFP Request for Proposal

TTY teletypewriter

UN United Nations

USAID United States Agency for International Development
10
11

Executive Summary

The overarching aim of this report is to advance understanding and to promote 

accessibility and inclusion of people with disabilities in foreign assistance programs 

funded by the United States. The report reviews U.S. federal disability laws, the United 

States Agency for International Development’s (USAID) Disability Policy, and the 

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and discusses their 

application to U.S. foreign assistance programs. The report examines the work of 

USAID, the U.S. Department of State (DOS), and the U.S. Department of Defense 

(DOD), and provides recommendations that will strengthen the operation of these 

agencies by ensuring U.S. Government funding is used in a manner that is accessible to 

and inclusive of people with disabilities.

More than one billion people, 15 percent of the world’s population, have a disability. The 

number continues to grow as a result of aging populations, poverty, armed conflict, and 

AIDS. Postconflict and developing countries have a significant proportion of people with 

disabilities. Although people with disabilities make up a large segment of the population 

in many countries, they continue to face horrific forms of discrimination and segregation 

throughout the world. 

The United States has been a leader in advancing the rights of people with disabilities 

and must continue to promote disability rights through its international development 

work. The United States invests billions of taxpayer dollars each year into foreign 

assistance programs that foster international diplomacy and development. Notably, these 

programs develop economies, promote democracy and governance, provide 

humanitarian assistance, build new infrastructure, and advance and protect human 

rights. The United States cannot effectively accomplish the goals of foreign assistance 

programs unless it undertakes measures to ensure that the programs are accessible to 

and inclusive of people with disabilities. 

To ensure effective and sustainable economic development and poverty eradication, 

people with disabilities must benefit from economic development programs. Micro-level 
12

interventions aimed at income generation and macro-level interventions designed to 

create legal and regulatory frameworks must be accessible to people with disabilities.

Further, it is important to ensure that people with disabilities are included in humanitarian 

assistance and disaster relief programs. Armed conflict and natural disaster increase the 

number of people with disabilities by causing injury, impairment, and trauma. 

Additionally, people with disabilities are disproportionately affected during disaster and 

armed conflict owing to inaccessible information dissemination and transportation 

procedures.

The goals of democracy and governance programs cannot be achieved without the 

inclusion of people with disabilities. In many countries, domestic law contains blatant 

discriminatory provisions for people with disabilities that undermine access to justice and 

full participation in society. The provisions that discriminate against people with 

disabilities include arbitrary exclusions in electoral codes, sweeping plenary guardianship 

laws with no due-process protections, discriminatory banking practices, and inaccessible 

court proceedings. National disability legal frameworks remain underdeveloped 

throughout the world.

The failure to build infrastructure that is accessible to people with disabilities results in 

exclusion from physical premises as well as denial of equal access to services and 

resources. The barriers have a negative impact on other development work as people 

with disabilities may not be able to access voting centers, courthouses, administrative 

agencies, schools, and embassies. Improved access to embassies and missions can 

facilitate the employment of Americans with disabilities in the Foreign Service, as 

ambassadors, legal advisors, political officers, and development practitioners. 

Accessibility to federal buildings and U.S.-Government-funded infrastructure projects for 

people with disabilities will foster important linkages between the United States and 

foreign governments. 

In 2010, DOS released the inaugural Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review 

(QDDR), which articulates the future diplomatic and development goals of DOS and 
13

USAID. The QDDR underscores the importance of disability inclusion in both the 

programs and policies of DOS and USAID. The reform agenda set forth in the QDDR 

presents an opportunity and a challenge for including people with disabilities in the work 

of DOS and USAID.

The United States has in place the legal framework to ensure access to and inclusion of 

people with disabilities in foreign assistance programs. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

prohibits federal agencies from discriminating based on disability and requires that 

reasonable accommodations be provided in programs under contract with the Federal 

Government and recipients of federal financial assistance. Significantly, Section 504 of 

the act protects qualified individuals with disabilities employed by programs that receive 

federal financial assistance. In 2003, the National Council on Disability (NCD)

underscored that Section 504 applies to conduct outside of the United States. 

Accordingly the United States is obligated to comply with Section 504 in its foreignassistance programs. The protections set forth for federal employees in Section 501, to 

federal contractors in Section 503, and to federal electronic information technology in 

Section 508 likewise extend to foreign assistance programs. U.S. Government agencies 

should comply with these sections of law and relevant regulations in operations 

overseas.

Beyond the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, federal disability law provides other guarantees 

applicable to foreign assistance programming. Title I of the Americans with Disabilities 

Act of 1990 (ADA) protects Americans with disabilities who work for American-owned 

companies overseas. Title III of the ADA requires that reasonable modifications be made 

for people with disabilities to enjoy full and equal access to public accommodations 

funded by U.S.-controlled companies. The U.S. Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 (ABA)

requires that all federal buildings, including buildings financed by the Federal 

Government and U.S. military construction programs be accessible to people with 

disabilities.

In addition to the federal disability rights laws that apply to foreign assistance programs, 

USAID has a Disability Policy that prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities 
14

and requires inclusion in all programs and activities. Two Acquisition and Assistance 

Policy Directives (AAPDs) require all Requests for Applications (RFAs) and Requests for 

Proposals (RFPs) that involve new construction to include a provision on the Disability 

Policy and provide accessibility guidelines.

Finally, the United States has signed the Convention on the Rights of Persons with 

Disabilities. The research goals of this report closely correspond to one of the core 

mandates of the CRPD, that international development projects be inclusive of and 

accessible to people with disabilities. Article 32 of the CRPD requires States Parties to 

integrate people with disabilities into all aspects of their assistance programs, from the 

design stage through implementation. The CRPD provides the United States with a tool 

to promote nondiscrimination and equality for people with disabilities worldwide through 

its foreign assistance programs.

Summary of Methodology

This report provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge, 

attitudes, and practices toward people with disabilities in U.S.-funded overseas facilities, 

programs, and employment opportunities. The study was designed to elicit information 

from a range of stakeholders working in the field of international development. The 

research methodology for this report included key informant interviews, focus groups, incountry assessments, and extensive desk-based document review. The research also 

included a legal analysis of the extraterritorial application of U.S. federal disability laws 

and the implications of the CRPD for U.S. foreign assistance programs. The three 

primary U.S. Government agencies that were reviewed for this report were USAID, DOS,

and DOD.

In the early stages of research, 20 countries were selected for in-country assessments of 

U.S. Government-funded facilities, programs, and employment practices. Local 

advocates of disability rights visited U.S. embassies and USAID missions in 14 of the 20 

countries, where they conducted interviews and accessibility assessments. Accessibility 
15

assessments covered, among other things, the accessibility of entrances, hallways, and 

bathrooms; the availability of sign language interpreters; and whether information and 

materials were provided or available in accessible formats. While a limited number of 

countries were selected for the in-country reviews, the more general, sector-specific 

analyses included desk-based document review of many additional countries. The 

research was conducted with the intention of generating as broad an overview of current 

policy and practice as possible. 

The study examined four major sectors of international development funded by the U.S. 

Government: (1) humanitarian assistance and disaster relief; (2) democracy and 

governance; (3) economic growth; and (4) cultural exchange programs. In-country 

interviews of USAID personnel were specifically geared toward democracy and 

governance programming. The other sectors were reviewed through extensive deskbased research, as well as interviews with federal employees and government 

contractors with headquarters in Washington, DC. Additionally, a roundtable event for 

key stakeholders who work in the field of disability rights and international development 

enabled participants to share their opinions on inclusive development. 

Summary of Findings

● USAID has initiated various efforts to promote disability-inclusive development. 

Although USAID has advanced disability inclusion, many USAID employees have 

low levels of awareness about disability issues and limited understanding of how 

to include people with disabilities in programs. Many USAID personnel are 

unaware of the Disability Policy. Personnel who are aware of the policy are unable 

to clearly articulate its relevance or impact on their work. 

● The majority of USAID-funded projects that include people with disabilities are 

stand-alone, disability-specific projects with small budgets. USAID uses a “twintrack” approach to disability inclusion by funding small disability-specific projects 

and promoting disability inclusion in general development programs. Through this 

approach, very few general development programs successfully implement 
16

disability components. The main goal of inclusive development is to ensure that all 

U.S. Government-funded programs are accessible to and inclusive of people with 

disabilities. USAID’s current twin-track approach does not effectively foster 

inclusion in all programs and in some ways promotes segregated disabilityspecific projects with no relationship to general development programs operated 

out of the same USAID mission. NCD found that disability-specific projects have 

been effective on a small scale in building the capacity of disabled people’s 

organizations (DPOs) and promoting the rights of people with disabilities, but 

disability-specific projects have not successfully been integrated with general 

development programs. NCD emphasizes the importance of ensuring that all 

foreign assistance programs include people with disabilities.

● Although USAID’s disability-specific projects have successfully developed 

monitoring and evaluation strategies, the majority of USAID general development 

programs do not apply a disability lens in a consistent and ongoing manner to 

monitoring and evaluation efforts. 

● Many USAID technical publications fail to provide guidance on how to include 

people with disabilities in projects, thereby undermining the implementation of 

USAID’s Disability Policy. 

● The Department of State Country Reports on Human Rights show marked 

improvement in their coverage of country human rights conditions affecting the 

rights of people with disabilities; however, many reports do not provide consistent, 

credible information or are seriously limited in their scope.

● Security and other concerns trump accessibility measures, with the effect that 

officials at embassies, consular offices, and missions routinely invoke security in 

response to the failure of facilities and services to be fully accessible to people 

with disabilities. For example, in many embassies the push-button doors were 

turned off because of security concerns. A push-button door is commonly found 

on the side of doorways for people who use wheelchairs to push in order to 

automatically open the door. Many secure buildings in the United States have this 
17

feature, and they are fully operational. It is unacceptable to allow security 

concerns to trump accessibility for people with disabilities in overseas buildings.

● Information and materials are not provided in accessible formats at embassies, 

consular offices, and missions in order to facilitate full access to facilities and 

services for people with disabilities.

● Cultural exchange programs do not routinely provide information on programs in 

accessible formats, including information concerning accessible housing options. 

Summary of Recommendations

The following recommendations are based on this report’s findings and focus on the 

accessibility of U.S. foreign assistance programs for people with disabilities in areas 

covered in the research. This section summarizes the recommendations, with more 

detail provided in Chapter 9 of this report. NCD directs its recommendations to the 

Administration, Congress, USAID, DOS, and DOD. The recommendations also have 

relevance for other U.S. Government agencies operating abroad, and those agencies 

should also implement many of these recommendations. These recommendations will 

advance accessibility and inclusion for people with disabilities and will improve the 

effectiveness and impact of U.S.-funded foreign assistance throughout the world.

NCD calls on the Administration to recognize the extraterritorial application of Sections 

501, 503, 504, and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act; Title III of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act; and the Architectural Barriers Act. Measures should be undertaken to 

ensure that all U.S. Government-funded foreign assistance work is brought into 

compliance with these laws.

NCD Recommendations Directed to Congress

1. Congress should instruct USAID, DOS, DOD, and other U.S. Government 

agencies operating overseas that Sections 501, 503, 504, and 508 of the 
18

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 apply to overseas programs and employment 

opportunities operated by the U.S. Government. 

2. Congress should instruct USAID, DOS, DOD, and other U.S. Government 

agencies operating overseas to promote greater comparative knowledge and 

understanding of local disability law and policy frameworks, including the 

status of CRPD ratification in countries receiving foreign assistance. 

3. Congress should narrow the waivers and exceptions currently outlined in the 

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and regulations for building temporary 

structures in times of emergency.

4. The U.S. Senate, upon receipt of the ratification package, should consider and 

expeditiously provide its advice and consent to ratification of the Convention 

on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

NCD Recommendations Directed to USAID, DOS, and DOD

5. USAID, DOS, and DOD should implement mandatory disability rights and 

disability inclusion in development training sessions for employees at all 

missions and embassies. The findings of this report indicate that personnel 

around the world are unfamiliar with strategies for disability inclusion in 

facilities, programs, and employment opportunities. Ensuring the participation 

of people with disabilities, DPOs, and inclusive-development experts should be 

a core component of any training strategy. 

6. USAID, DOS, and DOD should promote employment opportunities for people 

with disabilities in missions, embassies, consular offices, and overseas 

programs. Americans with disabilities have the right to equal access to 

employment opportunities and are entitled to reasonable accommodations to 

perform their job duties. This should include the opportunity to work in U.S. 

embassies, missions, and U.S.-Government funded programs abroad. Further, 

where local nationals are utilized, local nationals with disabilities should be 

hired to work in U.S.-funded overseas programs and facilities to promote 
19

greater inclusion of people with disabilities in U.S.-funded foreign assistance 

programs. 

NCD Recommendations Directed to USAID

7. USAID should review and update its Disability Policy. The current policy, 

drafted in 1997, is outdated and provides minimal guidance on how USAID 

programs can be made inclusive across all sectors of its development 

portfolio. 

8. USAID should provide adequate resources for the Coordinator on Disability 

and Inclusive Development to accomplish the goals of the USAID Disability 

Policy.

9. USAID should ensure that all of its programs are accessible to and inclusive of 

people with disabilities. To this end, USAID should undertake measures to 

advance inclusion beyond disability-specific projects. Disability-specific

projects should be integrated into large-scale general development programs. 

Further, organizations with expertise to develop disability-specific projects 

should participate in the design and implementation of large general 

development programs.

10. USAID should issue a policy directive that requires meaningful disability 

inclusion in the statements of work and program descriptions of RFPs and 

RFAs.

11. USAID should include people with disabilities in the technical approach section 

of evaluation criteria for RFAs and RFPs. Such an approach will compel 

applicants and offerors to emphasize their technical approach to disability 

inclusion and implementation of the Disability Policy. 

12. USAID should apply a disability lens to its monitoring and evaluation efforts. 

To this end, USAID should require applicants and offerors to develop and 

outline disability indicators and outputs in result frameworks and performance 

management plans. Given the commitment to strengthening USAID’s 
20

monitoring and evaluation, as underscored in USAID Forward and the QDDR, 

such an approach is timely and readily achievable.

13. USAID should provide specific instructions for applicants and offerors in the 

preparation of the budget proposal in all USAID solicitations for costing 

reasonable accommodations and modifications for people with disabilities. A 

line item in the cost proposal for proper budgeting of reasonable 

accommodations should be specified in these instructions and in 

accompanying charts or spreadsheets.

14. USAID should fund capacity building for DPOs as a part of its civil societystrengthening program within the Democracy and Governance sector. 

Consistent with USAID’s work to mobilize constituencies for reform through 

civil society organization (CSO) development, USAID should redouble its 

efforts to provide funding to DPOs to build their capacity to undertake disability 

law and policy reform, collaborate with partner organizations, manage funds, 

research funding opportunities, and draft proposals, among other skills that are 

essential to sustain inclusive development programs.

NCD Recommendations Directed to DOS

15. DOS should issue an official policy statement on compliance requirements for 

Sections 501, 503, 504, and 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. DOS must make it 

clear to all federal employees that Sections 501, 503, 504, and 508 apply to all 

U.S. programs, facilities, and employment opportunities overseas.

16. DOS should provide adequate resources for the Office of the Special Advisor 

on International Disability Rights to effectively promote disability inclusion in all 

aspects of DOS work.

17. DOS should ensure that all embassies, consular offices, and missions are fully 

accessible to people with disabilities. Entranceways, meeting rooms, 

bathrooms, and other areas must be accessible to people with disabilities. 

Information and materials must also be accessible and available to people with 
21

disabilities. This includes visa applications, websites, and informational 

pamphlets and brochures, among other materials distributed to the public by 

embassies, consular offices, and missions. Additionally, DOS should ensure 

that where accessible architectural modifications already exist in buildings, 

they are made fully operational and are not disregarded owing to security or 

other concerns.

18. DOS should strengthen its disability rights coverage in its Human Rights 

Reports. Human Rights Officers should be encouraged to consult with local 

DPOs when drafting Country Reports within its Human Rights Reports. 

19. DOS should support trainings for staff of cultural exchange programs on the 

inclusion of people with disabilities and consider adopting specific disabilityinclusive mission statements or policies that encourage qualified people with 

disabilities to apply. DOS should ensure that all information on programs is

available in accessible alternative formats (website materials, print, and in 

person) and that accessible housing options are available for participants with 

disabilities, along with individualized accommodations. 

NCD Recommendations Directed to DOD

20. DOD should limit the number of waivers and exceptions permitted under its 

newly adopted ABA Accessibility Standards for DOD Facilities. Waivers and 

exceptions have been used throughout the world to build inaccessible 

infrastructure that later must be retrofitted to provide accessibility at a high cost 

to American taxpayers.

21. DOD should provide clear guidance to contractors on the application of the 

ABA Accessibility Standards in developing countries. At present, the standards 

state that they apply “worldwide,” but there is a gap in the standards that 

allows contractors to apply for waivers or argue for an exception in developing 

countries. These standards must clearly indicate that DOD infrastructure 

projects in foreign countries are subject to the same provisions as other DOD 

infrastructure projects.
22
23

CHAPTER 1. Introduction and Background 

“[W]e cannot fulfill both the moral and the economic imperatives of development unless 

we universalize the opportunities we help to create. [We] will work to mainstream 

disability perspectives throughout the programs and policies of State and USAID, 

respectively.”—Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, Leading Through 

Civilian Power, U.S. Department of State and USAID (December 2010).

The Situation of People with Disabilities in Developing Countries

The World Report on Disability, released in 2011 by the World Health Organization and the 

World Bank, reveals that more than one billion people, 15 percent of the world’s population, 

have a disability.1 The report discloses that the global population of people with disabilities 

is higher than previously estimated, and that the population is continuing to grow.2

The experience of disability for people living in developing countries is more profound 

than for those in developed countries. As the World Report on Disability notes, disability 

disproportionately affects vulnerable populations: 

Results from the World Health Survey indicate a higher disability 

prevalence in lower income countries than in higher income countries. 

People from the poorest wealth quintile, women, and older people also 

have a higher prevalence of disability. People who have a low income, are 

out of work, or have low educational qualifications are at an increased risk 

of disability.3

 

1 World Health Organization [hereafter WHO] and the World Bank [hereafter WB],

Summary: World Report on Disability, 7–8 (2011).

2 Id. at 7.

3 WHO and WB, supra note 1, at 8.
24

Furthermore, studies estimate that only 2 percent of people with disabilities in developing 

countries have access to rehabilitation and appropriate basic services.4 Research 

suggests that only 2 to 3 percent of children with disabilities attend schools in developing 

countries.5 Poverty and social exclusion lead to multiple disadvantages and forms of 

discrimination in other spheres, including employment, housing, and participation in 

community life.6 The barriers that limit the participation of people with disabilities also 

preclude their participation in development-planning decisions that could advance their 

inclusion in society.7

The situation of people with disabilities in developing countries underscores the critical 

need to ensure that foreign assistance programming is directed toward advancing 

disability rights and eliminating barriers to inclusion for people with disabilities. The 

importance of ensuring the participation of people with disabilities in foreign assistance 

programming has been further exposed by the increased attention to the human rights of 

people with disabilities and the prevalence of disability discrimination worldwide,8

 

4 See Leandro Despouy, Human Rights and Disabled Persons (Study Series 6), Centre 

for Human Rights, Geneva, and United Nations, New York (1993).

5 See S. Peters, “Education for All: Including Children with Disabilities,” Education Notes

(August 2003). See also D. Filmer, “Disability, Poverty and Schooling in Developing 

Countries: Results from 14 Household Surveys,” 22 WB Econ. Rev. 141–63 (2008).

6 UN Secretary-General, UN, Social Development: Questions Relating to the World 

Social Situation and to Youth, Aging, Disabled Persons and the Family, Implementation 

of the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons and the United Nations 

Decade of Disabled Persons, paragraph 5, address before the General Assembly 

(September 11, 1992), UN Document A/CONF.47/415. 

7 See Jen Betts and Jonathan Flower, “Towards a Level Playing Field: A Call to Make 

Development Programs More Inclusive,” in All Things Being Equal 7 (World Vision, 

Autumn 2001). See also Jonathan Flower, Mid-term Evaluation of CBR Programme in 

Mandalay and Rangoon, report written for World Vision and DFID, UK, 2001.

8 Human rights violations against people with disabilities, many of an egregious nature, 

are persistent, ongoing, and take many forms. See, for example, Disability Rights 

International [hereafter DRI] (formerly Mental Disability Rights International), Human 

Rights and Mental Health: Mexico, 13–41 (2000); DRI, Children in Russia’s Institutions: 

Human Rights and Opportunities for Reform, 10–23 (1999); Mental Disability Advocacy 
25

prompted in part by the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with 

Disabilities9 by the United Nations in 2006. The failure to reach this significant population 

in foreign assistance programming impacts a large segment of society in developing 

countries and is beginning to emerge as a major concern among numerous bilateral and 

multilateral development agencies around the world.10

The Role of the United States

The United States has an important role to play in improving the situation of people with 

disabilities throughout the world. The United States contributes substantial funding to 

foreign assistance and has in place the legal framework to ensure that people with 

disabilities can both access and benefit from such assistance. American disability rights 

laws provide essential guidance for U.S. Government agencies in implementing foreign 

assistance programs that are inclusive and accessible to people with disabilities. Further, 

 

Center [hereafter MDAC], Cage Beds: Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment 

in Four EU Accession Countries, 36–41 (2003), http://mdac.info/sites/mdac.info/

files/English_Cage%20Beds.pdf; DRI, Behind Closed Doors: Human Rights Abuses in the 

Psychiatric Facilities, Orphanages and Rehabilitation Centers of Turkey, 24–25 (2005), 

http://www.mdri.org/PDFs/reports/turkey%20final%209-26-05.pdf; DRI, Torture Not 

Treatment: Electric Shock and Long-Term Restraint in the United States on Children and 

Adults with Disabilities at the Judge Rotenberg Center, 1–3, 12–13 (2010), 

http://www.mdri.org/PDFs/USReportandUrgentAppeal.pdf; Human Rights Watch, As If 

We Weren’t Human (August 26, 2010), http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/

2010/08/26/if-we-weren-t-human; DRI, Abandoned and Disappeared: Mexico’s 

Segregation and Abuse of Children and Adults with Disabilities (2010), 

http://www.disabilityrightsintl.org/media-gallery/our-reports-publications/.

9 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities [hereafter CRPD], GA Res 

61/106, UN Doc A/RES/61/106 (December 13, 2006).

10 See Janet E. Lord et al., World Bank, Disability and International Cooperation and 

Development: A Review of Policies and Practices (Social Protection Discussion Paper 

No. 1003, May 2010), http://siteresources.worldbank.org/DISABILITY/Resources/

Publications-Reports/Disability_and_Intl_Cooperation.pdf; see also Michael Ashley 

Stein, Charlotte McClain-Nhlapo, and Janet E. Lord, Disability Rights, the MDGs and 

Inclusive Development in Millennium Development Goals and Human Rights: Past, 

Present and Future (Malcolm Langford et al., eds., 2011).
26

it is the stated policy of USAID to make development, stability, and humanitarian 

assistance efforts accessible to all.11 The United States is a signatory to the Convention 

on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), and significantly, the CRPD requires 

that international development programs be inclusive of people with disabilities.

12 As the 

world’s largest bilateral development donor13 and a world leader in domestic disability 

rights law and policy, the United States should ensure that taxpayer dollars support 

foreign assistance programs that are inclusive of and accessible to people with 

disabilities. 

In 2010 the U.S. Department of State (DOS) released the Quadrennial Diplomacy and 

Development Review (QDDR),14 modeled on the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR).15

The QDDR focuses on four components of reform for both DOS and USAID: 

(1) Adapt international diplomacy to new threats and opportunities; 

(2) Transform development assistance to deliver results and reestablish USAID as 

the world’s premier development agency; 

 

11 See U.S. Agency for International Development [hereafter USAID], “Disability 

Initiatives,” http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/disability/. 

12 Id.

13 Development aid rose in 2009 and most donors will meet 2010 aid targets, Organisation 

for Economic Co-operation and Development [hereafter OECD], April 14, 2010, 

http://www.oecd.org/document/11/0,3343,en_2649_34447_44981579_1_1_1_374

13,00.html; OECD iLibrary, Development aid: Net official development assistance (ODA),

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/development/development-aid-net-official-developmentassistance-oda_20743866-table1. 

14 U.S. Department of State [hereafter DOS] and USAID, Quadrennial Diplomacy and 

Development Review: Leading through Civilian Power [hereafter QDDR] (December 

2010), http://www.usaid.gov/qddr/QDDR_FullReportHi.pdf.

15 Department of Defense [hereafter DOD], Quadrennial Defense Review Report

[hereafter QDR] (February 2010), http://www.defense.gov/qdr/qdr%20as%20of

%2029jan10%201600.PDF. 
27

(3) Improve the ability of the United States to operate in fragile states and help 

stop conflicts before they happen; and 

(4) Improve approaches to planning, procurement, and personnel. 

Significantly, the inaugural QDDR articulates the future diplomatic and development 

goals of DOS and USAID, underscores the importance of including people with 

disabilities, and commits to disability inclusion in both the programs and policies of DOS 

and USAID.16 The reform agenda set forth in the QDDR clearly presents both an 

opportunity as well as a challenge for disability inclusion in the work of DOS and USAID.

Purpose and Structure of Report

The purpose of this report is to assess the implementation of disability inclusion in U.S. 

Government-funded overseas facilities, programs, and employment opportunities. In 

particular, the report analyzes how U.S. federal disability law and policy applies to U.S. 

foreign assistance work and reviews the application of disability inclusion in three 

specific areas of U.S. foreign assistance: (1) accessibility of U.S.-funded overseas 

construction and infrastructure projects; (2) access to and inclusion of people with 

disabilities in U.S.-funded international development programs; and (3) employment 

opportunities for people with disabilities. The report also reviews the relevance of 

international development provisions under the CRPD, of which the United States is a 

signatory and may ratify in the future. Given the ratification of the CRPD in more than

100 countries around the world, including many countries where the U.S. Government is 

a major donor of foreign assistance, the CRPD provisions on disability inclusive 

development assume particular significance.

The report focuses on the work of USAID, DOS, and the U.S. Department of Defense 

(DOD), as they contribute the bulk of U.S. funding overseas. However, many of the 

 

16 DOS and USAID, supra note 14.
28

recommendations here are equally relevant for other U.S. Government agencies that 

fund programs overseas.

Following the introduction, the report is divided into nine chapters. Chapter 2 lays out the 

research methodology used in the study. Chapter 3 considers U.S. federal disability 

rights laws and their application to federal foreign assistance programming. Chapter 4

provides an analysis of disability-inclusive development within the context of international 

disability rights standards, including the CRPD. Chapter 5 reviews the USAID Disability 

Policy and how it is currently being implemented in development programs. Chapter 6 

provides an overview of selected sectors of USAID’s development programming, as well 

as an analysis of how accessible and inclusive those sectors are to people with 

disabilities. Chapter 7 focuses on DOS and reviews its Country Human Rights Reports 

as well as embassy accessibility and cultural exchange programs. Chapter 8 reviews

laws and policies used by DOD in overseas building and infrastructure efforts. The report 

concludes by setting forth recommendations that will secure continued U.S. leadership in 

inclusive development.
29

CHAPTER 2. Research Methodology 

In the development of a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge, 

attitudes, and practices toward people with disabilities in U.S.-funded overseas facilities, 

programs, and employment opportunities, the study was designed to elicit information 

from a range of stakeholders who work in the field of international development. The 

research methodology included key informant interviews, focus groups, in-country 

assessments, and extensive desk-based document review. The research design also 

included a legal analysis of the extraterritorial application of U.S. federal disability laws 

and the implications of the CRPD for U.S. foreign assistance programs. While the 

research was focused on compiling information on whether and how U.S. Government 

agencies ensure accessibility and inclusion for people with disabilities in foreign 

assistance, it does not attempt to provide a comprehensive review of the multitude of 

U.S. Government-funded foreign assistance efforts. The three primary U.S. Government 

agencies that were reviewed for the purposes of this report were USAID, DOS, and 

DOD. The scope of research had slight variations for each agency in an effort to review 

the broad array of U.S.-Government funded foreign assistance work and develop 

concrete recommendations that are applicable to all U.S. Government agencies working 

overseas. 

In the early stages of research, 20 countries17 were selected for in-country assessments 

of U.S.-Government funded facilities, programs, and employment practices. The 

following criteria were used in the selection in order to achieve a diverse group of 

countries representative of where the United States currently invests in foreign 

assistance programming: (1) geographic diversity; (2) diversity in development 

programming; (3) the amount of U.S. Government foreign assistance funding; and 

(4) strength of local DPOs. While a limited number of countries were selected for the in-

 

17 Annex 1 lists the selected countries. Of the 20 selected countries, in-country 

interviews and assessments were undertaken in 14. Desk-based research and focus 

group conference calls were conducted for the remaining six. 
30

country reviews, the more general, sector-specific analyses included desk-based 

document review. Other research into many additional countries was conducted with the 

intention of generating as broad an overview as possible of current policy and practice. 

Local disability rights advocates (local advocates) conducted in-country assessments in 

14 of the 20 countries studied. The local advocates visited U.S. embassies and USAID 

missions, where they conducted interviews and accessibility assessments.18 The 

interview questions were semistructured and geared toward learning whether and how 

people with disabilities are included in development programs, as well as gaining a 

sense of USAID and DOS employee knowledge about disability issues. There were 

separate questions for embassy and mission personnel. Furthermore, local advocates 

conducted brief assessments of embassy premises to determine how accessible they 

were to people with various types of disabilities. Accessibility assessments included 

coverage of, among other things, the accessibility of entrances, hallways, and 

 

18 Note that it was difficult in some cases to set up interviews in-country. This in itself 

may be a reflection of the low priority given to disability issues and the fact that many 

staff felt a lack of expertise in this area. For example, the local advocate in Serbia 

noted: 

The USAID contacts were identified quite quickly with the 

assistance/engagement of our initial contact, executive officer. USAID staff 

seemed very willing to cooperate and they even facilitated meetings with their 

partner civil society organizations. There were some problems with availability of 

the director of democracy and government program, but we managed to get an 

interview with him even though it took more than one month to schedule a 

meeting (because of his frequent travels outside of the country). Both identifying 

and arranging interviews with the U.S. embassy officials was far more 

complicated. The highest ranked officials were highly nonresponsive. It took us 

several email inquiries to deputy chief of mission to learn that she was leaving 

the mission at the time, but in three weeks of trying to establish correspondence 

with her (while copying her colleague who referred us to her in the first place) we 

never received this information.

-Lea Simokovic, Program Associate, Serbia Office, DRI. 
31

bathrooms; the availability of sign language interpreters; and whether information and 

materials were provided or available in accessible formats.19

In addition to in-country research, a series of interviews, meetings, and focus groups 

were conducted in Washington, DC, to elicit additional information about disability 

inclusion and accessibility in the foreign development projects and policies implemented 

by the three agencies reviewed in this study.

This study examined four major sectors of international development funded by the U.S. 

Government: (1) humanitarian assistance and disaster relief; (2) democracy and 

governance; (3) economic growth; and (4) cultural exchange programs. In-country 

interviews of USAID personnel were specifically geared toward democracy and 

governance programming. The other sectors were reviewed through extensive deskbased research,20 interviews with agency personnel in Washington, DC, and 

government contractors, and a roundtable event with inclusive development program 

implementers.

 

19 For the question set, see Annex 2. Note that only basic accessibility issues were 

examined. While the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) 

were considered in developing the question set, the full checklist was not used.

20 The extensive desk-based research included (1) programmatic review of USAID 

mission facilities and U.S. embassy websites for the 20 selected countries; (2) review of 

various DOD websites, with a particular emphasis on construction of infrastructure; (3) 

review of reports provided by USAID, DOS, and DOD personnel; and (4) review of 

USAID solicitations to determine compliance with the USAID Disability Policy and 

directives.
32
33

CHAPTER 3. Federal Disability Rights Laws and Their 

Application to Overseas Facilities, 

Programs, and Employment

This chapter examines federal disability rights laws and evaluates the extent to which 

they apply to U.S. Government-funded overseas facilities, programs, and employment. 

It also considers whether and how such laws apply to private entities abroad. In 

particular, the protections afforded by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)21 and 

the Rehabilitation Act of 197322 are discussed in relation to international development 

work funded by the United States. 

Federal Disability Rights Laws: An Overview

The United States has a long history of leadership in the development of progressive 

disability law and policy and in working to ensure the equal rights of Americans with 

disabilities. In 1973, Congress enacted the Rehabilitation Act, the first federal legislation 

to protect the civil rights of people with disabilities and the first domestic legislation in 

the world to introduce the concept of reasonable accommodation.23 The Rehabilitation 

Act prohibits discrimination based on disability by federal agencies and requires that 

reasonable accommodations be provided in programs under contract with the Federal 

Government and recipients of federal financial assistance.24

 

21 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 [hereafter ADA], 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 

(2000).

22 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112, 87 Stat. 355 (1973). 

23 Id.

24 Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act establishes a federal Interagency Committee on 

Employees Who Are Individuals with Disabilities. 29 U.S.C. § 791(a) (1991). Section 

503 of the Rehabilitation Act requires every contract or subcontract of $10,000 or more 

with any federal department or agency to “contain a provision requiring that the party 

contracting with the United States shall take affirmative action to employ and advance in 
34

In 1990, Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act, which further extended the 

protections and prohibitions of the Rehabilitation Act to private conduct with the goal of 

reducing the social discrimination and stigma faced by people with disabilities.25 In drafting 

the ADA, Congress recognized that “historically, society tended to isolate and segregate 

individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of discrimination 

against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social problem.”

26

The ADA prohibits discrimination in the following areas: (1) employment; (2) public services; 

(3) telecommunications; (4) higher education; (5) professional examinations and licensing; 

(6) access to public accommodations and commercial facilities; and (7) other realms of 

society.27 The ADA is divided into several titles that cover the various protections afforded 

by the law.28 Titles I and III cover employment and access to public accommodations and 

are thus most relevant for the purposes of this study, in particular their application to U.S. 

Government-funded facilities, programs, and employment overseas. 

Title I of the ADA specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in private 

employment. Title I requires employers to provide “reasonable accommodations” for 

people with disabilities in the employment realm. Reasonable accommodations by

private employers include, but are not limited to—

● Providing job application materials in accessible formats;

● Providing assistive technology for people with disabilities so they can perform the 

essential functions of their job;

 

employment qualified individuals with disabilities.” 29 U.S.C. § 793. 29 U.S.C. § 794

applies to recipients of federal financial assistance.

25 ADA, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (1990).

26 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2) (1990).

27 ADA, Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 201(c), 104 Stat. 327 (1990).

28 Title I pertains to employment; Title II to public entities; Titles III to public 

accommodations; Title IV to telecommunications; and Title V to other miscellaneous 

provisions. ADA, Pub. L. No. 101-336, tit. I-V, 104 Stat. 327 (1990).
35

● Providing interpreters for communication for people with disabilities and their 

colleagues; and

● Providing accessible workspace for people with disabilities.

Title III of the ADA requires “reasonable modifications” be made to ensure that people 

with disabilities can fully and equally enjoy “public accommodations.”

29 Under Title III, 

any entity that leases, owns, or operates a public accommodation must make 

reasonable modifications to its premises that are necessary for people with disabilities 

to access goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations. 

Examples of Title III violations include a private university that does not accept students 

with disabilities, a bank that does not have an accessible entranceway, and a privately 

owned medical facility that does not provide people who are deaf with sign language 

interpreters upon request.

The ADA and Rehabilitation Act, in combination with other key pieces of federal disability 

legislation, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),30 the Fair 

Housing Amendments Act,31 the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968,32 the Air Carrier 

Access Act,33 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996,34 comprise the core of federal 

disability rights legislation. One of the issues examined in detail in this report is the extent 

to which American federal disability rights laws apply extraterritorially—beyond the borders 

 

29 42 U.S.C § 12111(9) (2000); 42 U.S.C. § 12182 (b)(2) (2000). 

30 20 U.S.C.A. §§ 1400 et seq. Under IDEA, public schools are required to provide all 

children with disabilities a “free appropriate public education in the least restrictive 

environment appropriate to their individual needs.” Id.

31 Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-430, 102 Stat. 1619 (codified 

at 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601-3619, 3631 (1988), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2341-2342 (1988). Prohibits 

discrimination against people with disabilities in housing.

32 Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4151-4157 (1968).

33 Air Carrier Access Act, 49 U.S.C. § 41795 (1986).

34 Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. §§ 153, 255 (1996). 
36

of the United States—and the implications of extraterritoriality on U.S. Government-funded 

foreign assistance programs. This review is particularly important because the U.S. 

Government is the largest international development donor and should ensure compliance 

with U.S. disability rights laws in overseas work. Moreover, Americans with disabilities 

work and travel abroad, whether as private citizens, as diplomats, or as implementers of 

U.S.-funded foreign assistance programs, and must be able to enjoy equal access to 

overseas facilities, programs, and employment.

Extraterritorial Application of Federal Disability Rights Law

In reviewing the extraterritorial application of American disability rights laws to determine 

whether and how they apply to U.S. Government-funded overseas facilities, programs, 

and employment, a central question is whether Americans with disabilities are afforded 

the same protections abroad as those they are accorded in the United States. A key 

consideration, therefore, is whether U.S. Government-funded facilities, programs, and 

employment opportunities overseas must comport with the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and 

other federal laws to the same extent as U.S. Government-funded facilities, programs, 

and employment opportunities within the United States. The Supreme Court has held that 

Congress has the authority to enact laws that apply outside the territorial boundaries of 

the United States.35 Historically, however, many American courts have been reluctant to 

apply federal laws extraterritorially, relying on the long-held presumption against 

extraterritorial application of federal laws. Under this presumption, and absent explicit 

 

35 U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress broad powers “to 

regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” See EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. 

at 248 (1991) [hereafter Aramco]. Citing Foley Bros. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, 284-285 

(1949). See also, Hartford Fire Ins. v. Cal., 509 U.S. 764 (1949); Ford v. U.S., 273 U.S. 

593 (1927); American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co. 213 U.S. 341, 356 (1909) 

[hereafter United Fruit].
37

affirmative congressional intent of extraterritorial reach, U.S. courts traditionally have not 

applied federal laws to actions or parties outside of the United States.36

As the United States became more involved in the global economy, its courts slowly 

abandoned the presumption against extraterritorial application in matters that ranged from 

antitrust enforcement against foreign businesses to international trademark infringement, 

and in some cases, criminal law.37 Further, U.S. courts started reviewing legislative 

history38 to determine whether Congress intended for a law to apply outside of U.S. 

borders.39 For the purposes of this report, it is important to consider how courts have 

interpreted congressional intent with regard to federal civil rights statutes in claims arising 

in foreign jurisdictions, as many American civil rights laws, including the majority of federal 

disability rights laws, are silent when it comes to defining their extraterritorial reach.

In 1991, the Supreme Court considered the issue of extraterritorial application of 

American civil rights law in EEOC v. Arabian Am. Oil Co. (Aramco).40 Aramco involved 

application of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act (CRA) to a foreign-born American 

worker employed by an American corporation overseas.41 The employee alleged 

 

36 The first known case was Murray v. The Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch.) 64, at 

118 (1804), where the Court stated, “[A]n Act of Congress ought never to be construed 

to violate the law of nations, if any possible construction remains.” A century later, 

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated, “The general and almost universal rule is that the 

character of an act as lawful or unlawful must be determined wholly by the law of the 

country where the act is done,” United Fruit at 357.

37 See, for example, Sisal, 274 U.S.268 at 276 (1927); Alcoa, 148 F.2d at 416 (1945);

for examples of extraterritorial criminal cases, see U.S. v. Bowman, 260 U.S. 94 (1922); 

U.S. v. Plummer, 221 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2000); U.S. v. Harvey, 2 F.3d 1318 (3d Cir. 

1993); United States v. Larsen, 952 F.2d 1099 (9th Cir. 1991).

38 Legislative history includes the recorded statements of Congress during the passage 

of a particular law. 

39 Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 119 (2005).

40 Aramco, 499 U.S., at 248.

41 Id.
38

employment discrimination based on his religion and national origin.42 The Court relied 

on the presumption against extraterritoriality to hold that federal statutes did not apply 

abroad “unless a contrary intent appears.”

43 Significantly, the Court noted that Congress 

had the authority to extend the protections of American civil rights laws to American 

citizens working for American employers abroad.44 However, the Aramco Court held 

that Congress had not issued a “clear statement” as to the extraterritorial reach when 

Title VII was enacted.45 Because there was no clear language that Congress intended 

Title VII to apply to conduct outside the United States, the Supreme Court was not 

willing to extend the law’s protections in that case.46

In direct response to Aramco, Congress moved to enact amendments to the Civil Rights 

Act of 1991 (CRA Amendments) that specifically overturned the Court’s decision.47 The 

CRA Amendments expanded the protections of Title I of the ADA and Title VII of the 

 

42 Id.

43 Id. 

44 Id.

45 Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote for the dissent joined by Justice Harry Blackmun 

and Justice John Paul Stevens, arguing that the question of whether Title VII protects 

U.S. citizens from discrimination by U.S. employers abroad turns solely on 

congressional intent. “Contrary to the majority’s analysis, this canon is not ‘clear 

statement’ rule of which relieves a court of the duty to give effect to all indicia of the 

legislative will.... when these tools are brought to bear on the issue in this case, the 

conclusion is inescapable that Congress did intend Title VII to protect United States 

citizens from discrimination by United States employers operating overseas.” Id. at 261.

46 The Court stated, “We assume that Congress legislates against the backdrop of the 

presumption against extraterritoriality. Therefore, unless there is ‘the affirmative 

intention of the Congress clearly expressed,’ ...we must presume it ‘is primarily 

concerned with domestic conditions.’” Id. at 258 (citations omitted).

47 Following the Court’s decision in Aramco, Rep. William Jefferson (D-LA) introduced 

H.R. 1694, American Employees Equity Act of 1991, Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-MD) 

introduced H.R. 1741, Extraterritorial Employment Protection Amendments of 1991, and 

Sen. John Danforth (R-MO) introduced S.1407, Protection of Extraterritorial 

Employment, together with Sen. Edward Kennedy’s (D-MA) bills comprising the Civil 

Rights Act. 
39

CRA to Americans working for American corporations and companies controlled by 

American corporations overseas.48 The CRA Amendments extended protections to 

people with disabilities in the private employment realm under Title I of the ADA and did 

not specifically apply to other U.S. disability laws, such as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 

or other titles of the ADA.49 Nevertheless, the 1991 Civil Rights Amendments 

exemplified Congress’ discontent with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the reach of 

civil rights laws and laid the foundation for finding that the protections articulated in 

federal disability rights laws should apply overseas. 

Notwithstanding these developments, important questions remained as to the scope of 

protections and rights afforded under federal disability rights laws when applied 

overseas. As noted in NCD’s 2003 report, Foreign Policy and Disability: Legislative 

Strategies and Civil Rights Protections to Ensure Inclusion of People with Disabilities 

(Foreign Policy and Disability): 

Recent case law indicates that courts may be willing to extend the 

protections of American disability discrimination laws to persons and 

conduct overseas, even in the absence of specific legislative language, and 

even in the face of the long-held presumption against the extraterritorial 

application of American laws.50

 

48 Congress amended the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to give extraterritorial protection to 

American citizens working overseas for American employers. Civil Rights Act 

Amendments Act of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-166, § 109, 105 Stat. 1071 (1991) (codified 

as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-1 (1994)). Civil Rights Act Amendments Act of 1991 

§ 3(4). See 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (1999). The 1984 extraterritorial amendments are at 

29 U.S.C. §§ 623(f) (1), 623(h).

49 See 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(4) (1990). 

50 National Council on Disability, Foreign Policy and Disability: Legislative Strategies 

and Civil Rights Protections to Ensure Inclusion of People with Disabilities [hereafter, 

NCD, Foreign Policy and Disability], at 45 (September 9, 2003),

http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2003/Sept92003. 
40

Since 2003, U.S. courts have continued to apply American disability laws 

extraterritorially. In 2005, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of extraterritorial 

application of the ADA to foreign-flagged cruise ships in Spector v. Norwegian Cruise 

Line Ltd. (Spector).

51 In Spector, the plaintiffs brought claims against a cruise line 

company alleging violations of Title III of the ADA.52 The Court considered the issue of 

whether Title III applies to foreign-flagged cruise ships.53 The Court held that because of 

the business practices of Norwegian Cruise Lines in the United States, and the fact that 

the majority of their patrons were American citizens, the foreign company could be held 

liable under Title III. In so holding, the Court struck down a lower court’s ruling that the 

ADA was “inapplicable because the statute has no clear statement or explicit text 

mandating coverage for foreign-flag ships in U.S. waters.”

54

In Spector, the Court noted that if extraterritorial application was provided in a federal 

statute, then the court must enforce the statute. However, the Court abandoned the 

“clear statement” rule that looked only to whether a federal disability statute expressly 

mentioned applying extraterritorially. Spector is thus highly relevant, given that many 

American disability statutes are silent as to their application overseas. The Spector

decision gives courts more discretion to analyze disability rights claims arising abroad 

on a case-by-case basis to determine if Congress intended to prevent the alleged 

disability discrimination extraterritorially. 

Although U.S. federal disability statutes are silent as to whether they can be applied 

extraterritorially, congressional intent in creating the ADA and other federal disability 

statutes was to promote the full participation of people with disabilities in all facets of 

 

51 Spector, 545 U.S.

52 Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in the full 

and equal enjoyment of public accommodations, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a) (2000), and 

public transportation services, 42 U.S.C. § 12184(a) (2000).

53 Spector, 545 U.S., at 125.

54 Id. at 120.
41

society and to protect people with disabilities from discrimination that would limit such 

participation.55 In 2008, Congress amended the ADA to reemphasize the law’s purpose 

to focus on preventing discrimination and to correct the Supreme Court’s previous 

errors in statutory interpretation that narrowed the ADA’s application.56 Congressional 

intent discloses that American disability rights laws should be interpreted to provide the 

same protections and remedies to Americans with disabilities throughout the world. The 

extraterritorial application of American disability rights laws is essential to ensuring that 

Americans with disabilities can travel, live, and work anywhere they want to in the world. 

One example that illustrates the importance of these laws applying abroad occurs when 

an American with a disability encounters an emergency in a foreign country and needs 

to be able to access the U.S. embassy in the country.

Accessibility of Federal Buildings and New Construction Projects 

Overseas

New investments in infrastructure funded by U.S. taxpayers should not create barriers 

that will hinder the participation of Americans in work and tourism abroad. Nor should 

such investments create barriers in countries whose development the United States is 

seeking to promote. In other words, the failure to provide access results in exclusion 

from physical premises as well as denial of equal access to services and resources 

inside buildings. Lack of access to public buildings also infringes on political rights by 

preventing access to voting centers, courthouses, administrative agencies, and 

embassies. Further, access to embassies and missions can facilitate the employment of 

Americans with disabilities in the Foreign Service, as ambassadors, legal advisors, 

political officers, and development practitioners, among other positions. Thus, ensuring 

 

55 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (a), (b) (1990).

56 ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325 (2008). See also Sutton v. 

United Air Lines, Inc., 527 U.S. 471 (1999), Toyota Motor Mfg., KY, Inc. v. Williams, 534 

U.S. 184 (2002).
42

accessibility to federal buildings for people with disabilities can help foster important 

linkages between the United States and foreign governments. 

The Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 requires that all federal buildings be made 

accessible.57 The law requires that all buildings designed, constructed, or financed by 

the Federal Government ensure physical accessibility.58 The law contains no provision 

limiting its applicability to buildings located in the United States, and accordingly, should 

be construed as applying to embassies and missions overseas.59 Further, the concept 

of universal design should be applied to all U.S.-funded new construction overseas. The 

next chapter provides an in-depth review of the concept of universal design as defined 

in the CRPD. 

Equal Access to Employment Opportunities in U.S.-Funded Overseas 

Programs

Under American disability rights laws, Americans with disabilities have the right to equal 

access to employment opportunities and are entitled to reasonable accommodations to 

perform their job duties. This should include the opportunity to work in U.S. embassies, 

missions, and U.S. Government-funded programs abroad. It is therefore important for 

U.S. Government agencies to ensure that Americans with disabilities are afforded the 

same protections and remedies overseas as in the United States. The following analysis 

reviews the provisions of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that are most relevant 

to employment opportunities for Americans with disabilities in overseas programs.

Title I of the ADA applies to private employers and provides, “[n]o covered entity shall 

discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job 

 

57 42 U.S.C. §§ 4151-4157 (1968).

58 Id.

59 Id.
43

application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee 

compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of 

employment.”

60 As discussed above, Title I of the ADA extends to protect American 

citizens working for private American-controlled employers overseas, such as major 

American corporations with offices in other countries.61 These groups of Americans with 

disabilities who work abroad are afforded the same accommodations, rights, and 

remedies as people with disabilities working in the United States. Although Title I does 

not apply to the Federal Government, when private employers contract with the Federal 

Government to perform work overseas, private employers must comply with Title I.62

This requirement is of special relevance for the purposes of this report given that a high 

percentage of U.S. Government-funded foreign assistance work is implemented by 

private contractors, which are considered covered entities under Title I.63 For example, 

Chemonics International, a large private international development company working 

under USAID contracts, is subject to Title I of the ADA in the 75 countries where it 

works. Accordingly, Title I jurisdiction extends to protect Americans with disabilities who 

work for these private employers on foreign assistance programs.64 It follows that 

government employees with disabilities working on the same program overseas should 

be covered by Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, the legal equivalent of Title I for 

government employees. Title I’s protections are essential to furthering the goals of 

inclusive development by ensuring that more people with disabilities will work in the field 

of international development for both private contractors and U.S. Government 

agencies, thus raising disability awareness worldwide.

 

60 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (1990).

61 Civil Rights Act Amendments Act of 1991 § 109(a) (1990).

62 Id.

63 Curt Tarnoff and Larry Nowells, Congressional Research Service, OC 98-916, 

“Foreign Aid: An Introductory Overview of U.S. Programs and Policy,” 30 (2004).

64 Id.
44

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in 

(1) programs receiving federal financial assistance; (2) federal employment; and 

(3) the employment practices of federal contractors.65

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act applies to entities and programs receiving federal 

funding and covers “otherwise qualified individual[s] with a disability in the U.S.”

66

NCD’s Foreign Policy and Disability briefly discussed the meaning of “in the United 

States,” and then presented arguments that recent case law demonstrates that Section 

504 is applicable overseas, noting, “Upon review of recent court decisions, it appears 

that Section 504 also applies to conduct outside of the United States.”

67 Following this 

line of reasoning, the U.S. Federal Government is obligated to comply with the 

nondiscrimination mandate of Section 504 in programs overseas, provided such 

compliance would not conflict with another country’s laws.68 The requirement that 

compliance with Section 504 not conflict with another country’s laws is relevant here as 

it means that U.S. Government agencies must ensure their programs and practices in 

each country do not conflict with the host country’s domestic law.69 As will be discussed 

 

65 Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L No 93-112, 87 Stat. 355 (1973).

66 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 29 U.S.C. § 794 (1973).

67 NCD, Foreign Policy and Disability, supra note 50, at 47. The report cites two federal 

cases where courts applied Section 504’s protections to Americans abroad, reasoning 

that the individuals qualify for Section 504 protections when they are “in the United 

States.” Bird v. Lewis & Clark College, 104 F. Supp. 2d 1271 (D. Or. 2000) aff’d 303 

F.3d 1015 (9th Cir. 2002); King v. Bd. of Control of E. Mich. Univ., 221 F. Supp.2d 783 

(2002). One court found that Section 504 was applicable to a student who sought 

accommodations in a study-abroad program operated by an American college. Bird, 

104 F. Supp. 2d. 1271 (2000). Further, in another case, a federal court noted that the 

phrase “qualified individual in the United States” applies to individuals who qualify for 

the law’s protection in the United States, but does not limit the law’s coverage to entities 

and programs located in the United States. There, the court held Section 504 applicable 

to “all federally funded programs, not only those in the United States.” King, 221 F. 

Supp. 2d 783.

68 Foreign Assistance Act, 22 U.S.C. § 2151 (1961).

69 Id.
45

at length in the next chapter, the ratification of the CRPD by dozens of countries where 

the United States funds development programs has implications for U.S. Government 

agencies in their foreign assistance work. Moreover, it should be noted that the CRPD 

prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability and creates a duty to provide 

reasonable accommodations, provisions that are consistent with Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The failure to comply with Section 504 in federally funded 

programs abroad has the perverse effect of creating an inconsistent application of a law 

that Congress clearly intended to apply to the U.S. Federal Government in federally 

funded programs, facilities, and employment opportunities. Further, the failure to apply 

Section 504 in foreign assistance work undermines disability laws in countries that have 

ratified the CRPD and seriously undercuts American leadership in disability rights and 

inclusive development.70

Similarly, Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits discrimination against 

federal employees, has been held to apply in cases of federal employees seeking to 

work abroad.71 In its 2009 decision, Katz v. USAID and Department of State, the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)72 held that DOS and USAID were in 

violation of Section 501 for failing to conduct an individualized assessment of an 

 

70 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 29 U.S.C. § 794 (1973); 

CRPD, supra note 9.

71 Section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 29 U.S.C. § 793 (1973).

72 The EEOC is the federal administrative agency in the United States given judicial 

authority through the Administrative Procedures Act 5 U.S.C. §500 et seq. (APA) to 

interpret employment discrimination law. If a plaintiff or defendant wishes to appeal the 

EEOC’s decision, he or she can appeal to a federal court. However, a higher level of 

deference is given to the EEOC’s construction of a statute. “If the Court determines 

Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not 

simply impose its own construction of the statute . . . rather...[i]f the statute is silent or 

ambiguous with respect to the specific question, the issue for the court is whether the 

agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.” Chevron U.S.A., 

Inc. v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S. Ct. 2778, 81 L. 

Ed. 2d 694 (1984).
46

applicant for a U.S. Foreign Service position.73 The complainant in Katz alleged that 

DOS and USAID discriminated against her on the basis of disability when she was 

denied a Class 1 Medical Clearance after applying for a U.S. Foreign Service position in 

USAID’s Democracy and Governance Office.74 The Department of State’s Office of 

Medical Services (MED) denied the complainant the Class 1 Clearance because she 

did not meet its definition of “worldwide availability,” which was considered an essential 

function of the position.75 According to USAID, “worldwide availability is both an affirmed 

willingness to serve anywhere in the world and a matter of being medically qualified to 

do so; both are essential requirements for appointment to the Foreign Service.”

76 In 

cases where an individual does not receive a Class 1 Clearance, USAID’s Medical 

Review Committee can grant a waiver if the applicant can work in more than 51 percent

of worldwide posts. In Katz, the waiver was not granted, and therefore USAID did not 

hire the complainant, notwithstanding medical evidence provided by her longtime 

physician stating that she could indeed live and work at the post in question and 

irrespective of the fact that she had already worked in a difficult postconflict environment 

in a previous position that was, incidentally, funded by the U.S. Government.77

In Katz, the EEOC shifted the burden of proof to the agencies and provided guidance on 

how the agencies must conduct assessments: “when making its individualized 

assessment the agency must gather information and base its decision on substantial 

information regarding the individual’s work and medical history.”

78 Despite a number of 

letters from the complainant’s physicians providing evidence that she did indeed meet 

 

73 Katz v. Department of State, EEOC No.0720060025 (2009).

74 Id.

75 Id.

76 USAID, “Foreign Service Officer Frequently Asked Questions,”

http://www.usaid.gov/careers/fsofaq.html. 

77 Katz, EEOC No.0720060025. 

78 Katz, citing Lovell v. Department of Justice, EEOC Appeal No. 01A41642 (May 26, 

2006).
47

the “worldwide availability” standard, two physicians at the Department of State Office of 

Medical Services (MED) who reviewed the complainant’s medical record admitted that 

they never saw those letters.79 Furthermore, the EEOC found that the MED grounded its

decisions on assumptions about the complainant concerning her medical condition and 

did not undertake an investigation to assess whether the assumptions were true.80 The 

EEOC upheld the administrative judge’s (AJ’s) decision and stated: “The AJ found the 

State Department failed to conduct an individualized assessment and hence, did not 

satisfy its burden of establishing complainant was a direct threat.”

81 The Katz decision 

provides a salient example of how Section 501 has been applied to prohibit 

discrimination against federal employees with disabilities working abroad.

The Katz decision illustrates ongoing challenges in ensuring that employment 

opportunities are open to people with disabilities. In this regard, it stands to reason that 

Congress should instruct DOS and USAID that Section 501 applies abroad and that 

agencies must issue clear guidance to missions and embassies. In comparing Section 

501 to Title 1 of the ADA, it is important to note that Congress made it clear in the CRA 

Amendments that Title I applies overseas, and thus Title I does indeed apply to private 

contractors who receive U.S. Government funding to implement programs. It is equally 

clear that Congress also intends for government employees to have the same 

protections, rights, and remedies as private employees working on government-funded 

programs and thus Congress should provide clear instructions to DOS and USAID that 

they must adhere to the provisions set out in Section 501. 

Similarly, Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act should also be applied to prohibit 

discrimination beyond the borders of the United States. Section 503 prohibits 

discrimination by contractors with the Federal Government,82 and NCD’s Foreign Policy 

 

79 Katz, EEOC No.0720060025.

80 Id.

81 Id.

82 Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended 29 U.S.C. § 793 (1973).
48

and Disability report emphasized that it may be applied extraterritorially, even in the 

absence of specific legislative provision.83 As previously discussed in relation to Title 1 

of the ADA, Section 503’s application to government contractors is critically important as 

the majority of U.S.-funded foreign assistance work is contracted out by the Federal 

Government to private contractors who must comply with the law’s provisions. 

Therefore, Section 503 has a significant role to play in promoting the rights of people 

with disabilities to work for government contractors, and thus furthers the goal of 

inclusive development by creating jobs and programming accessible to people with 

disabilities working in international development.

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is another important provision that should 

be applied overseas to ensure equal access to employment for people with 

disabilities.84 Section 508 covers access to electronic and information technology (EIT) 

procured by the Federal Government.85 It requires that EIT developed, procured, 

maintained or used by any federal agency be accessible to people with disabilities. 

Section 508 “enhances the ability of federal employees with disabilities to have access 

to and use of information and data that is comparable to that provided to others. 

Similarly, agency procurement of accessible EIT enhances the ability of members of the 

public with disabilities who are seeking information or services from a federal agency to 

 

83 Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act requires every contract or subcontract of 

$10,000 or more with any federal department or agency to “contain a provision requiring 

that the party contracting with the United States shall take affirmative action to employ 

and advance in employment qualified individuals with disabilities.” 29 U.S.C. § 793. 

NCD, Foreign Policy and Disability, supra note 50.

84 Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794d (a) (1) 

(A), http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/act.htm; “Section 508 requirements are 

separate from, but complementary to, requirements in sections 501 and 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act that require, among other things, that agencies provide reasonable 

accommodations for employees with disabilities, provide program access to members of 

the public with disabilities, and take other actions necessary to prevent discrimination on 

the basis of disability in their programs.” U.S. Census Bureau, Section 508 Acquisition 

FAQs, http://www.census.gov/procur/www/508-faq.html. 

85 Access Board, “Section 508 Homepage,” http://www.access-board.gov/508.htm.
49

have access to and use of information and data that is comparable to that provided to 

others.” Of specific relevance to this report, Section 508 applies to U.S. Government 

websites and procurements issued on the Internet.86 U.S. embassies, missions, and 

other federal offices overseas should be in compliance with Section 508 and ensure that 

their websites are accessible to people with disabilities. Further, U.S. Government 

agencies operating overseas must issue electronic procurements in a manner that is 

accessible to people with disabilities. Websites and procurements must be in accessible 

formats in order to ensure equal access to programs and employment in U.S. 

Government-funded overseas work. 

Conclusion

The proper application of American disability rights laws abroad is crucial to achieving 

and promoting the purposes and goals behind the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, namely, 

the full participation of people with disabilities in society and protection against 

discrimination that would limit such participation. U.S. involvement in international work 

and foreign aid is increasing, and the American workforce abroad should be afforded 

the same protections as Americans working within the United States. Further, the goals 

of American disability rights laws would be reinforced through ratification of the CRPD 

by the United States, given the stated purpose of the CRPD “to promote, protect and 

ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by 

all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.”

87 The next 

chapter outlines the CRPD and its relevant articles that are vital for U.S. Government 

agencies to consider in foreign assistance work. 

 

86 Access Board, “The Rehabilitation Act Amendments (Section 508),”

http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/guide/act.htm.

87 CRPD, supra note 9, at art. 1.
50
51

CHAPTER 4. Pursuing Disability-Inclusive 

Development through the Convention on 

the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

Introduction

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD or the Convention),88

adopted on December 13, 2006, and entered into force on May 3, 2008, is the first 

legally binding international human rights convention specifically applying human rights 

to the situation of people with disabilities. It marks a paradigm shift in attitudes and 

approaches to people with disabilities in international instruments89 and has been 

celebrated as the “Declaration of Independence” for people with disabilities worldwide.90

Notably, the CRPD reflects principles and aims of American disability laws and marks a 

departure from more traditional medical or charitable models of disability that are still, 

unfortunately, embedded in many national domestic law and policy frameworks.91

 

88 CRPD, supra note 9.

89 For overviews of the CRPD and its reflection of the social model of disability, see 

Rosemary Kayess and Phillip French, “Out of darkness into light? Introducing the 

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,” 8 Hum. Rts., L. Rev., 1–27 (2008); 

Janet E. Lord and Michael Ashley Stein, “The Domestic Incorporation of Human Rights 

Law and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,”

83Wash. L. Rev., 449, 452–56 (2008); Michael Ashley Stein and Janet E. Lord, “Future 

Prospects for the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities,” in 

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: European and 

Scandinavian Perspectives 17 (Oddný Mjöll Arnardóttir and Gerard Quinn eds., 2009). 

90 Gerard Quinn, “Closing: Next Steps-Towards a United Nations Treaty on the Rights of 

Persons with Disabilities,” Disability Rights, 519, 541 (Peter Blanck ed., 2005).

91 For a discussion of the medical and charity models of disability, see Anna Lawson, 

“The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: New Era or 

False Dawn?,” 34 Syracuse J. Int’l. L. & Com., 563 (2007). “[T]he medical or individual 

approach to disability has little to offer beyond a lifetime of unfulfilled potential and 

segregation. Unable to access mainstream education or employment, these people 

must depend for their survival on welfare benefits or charity.” Id. at 571. See also
52

Historically, in the United States and throughout the world, people with disabilities were 

seen as objects in need of medical treatment, pity, social benefits, or rehabilitation, as 

opposed to claimants of rights capable of living independent, productive lives.92 The 

CRPD recognizes that people with disabilities are active agents and holders of rights,

thus adopting the social model perspective of disability “as an evolving 

concept...that...results from the interaction between persons with impairments and 

attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in 

society on an equal basis with others” and not as an inherent limitation.93 To break 

down these barriers, the Convention utilizes the concept of universal design, which is 

defined as “the design of products, environments, programmes and services to be 

usable by all people, to the greatest extent possible, without the need for adaptation or 

specialized design.”

94 The Convention sets forth general principles that inform its overall 

approach and that apply across the treaty: (1) dignity, individual autonomy including the 

freedom to make one’s own choices, and independence of persons; (2) 

nondiscrimination, participation, and inclusion in society; (3) respect for difference; (4) 

equality of opportunity; (5) accessibility; (6) equality between men and women; and (7) 

respect for the evolving capacities of children with disabilities.95

The Convention recognizes that many people with disabilities live in poverty and thus 

underscores “the critical need to address the negative impact of poverty on persons with 

disabilities”

96 and acknowledges that many people with disabilities experience multiple 

 

Michael Ashley Stein and Penelope J. S. Stein, Beyond Disability Civil Rights, 58 

Hastings L. J. 1203, 1206 (2007).

92 Id.

93 CRPD, supra note 9, at preambular para. (e).

94 Id. at art. 2.

95 Id. at art. 3.

96 Id. at preambular para. (t).
53

forms of discrimination based on economic or other statuses.97 The CRPD clearly

makes nondiscrimination and equal access for people with disabilities a human rights 

issue and with its enforcement, it has the power to change the way people with 

disabilities are treated around the world. 

The CRPD provides the United States with a tool to promote nondiscrimination and 

equality for people with disabilities worldwide through its foreign assistance programs. It 

should also be noted that the United States has signed the CRPD, and while it has not 

as yet ratified the treaty, its signature does have some important legal implications 

relevant to the pursuit of disability-inclusive development and the themes outlined in this 

report. 

Implications of Signature and Future Ratification of the CRPD for the 

United States

The United States signed the CRPD on July 30, 2009.98 The obligation on a state that 

has signed a treaty but whose consent is subject to ratification is clear.99 In such cases, 

the signatory state is required to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and 

 

97 Id. at preambular para. (p).

98 The White House Office of the Press Secretary, Remarks by the President on Signing 

of U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Proclamation (June 22, 

2010), http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-on-Rightsof-Persons-with-Disabilities-Proclamation-Signing/; United Nations, UN Enable Rights and 

Dignities of Persons with Disabilities, Convention and Optional Protocol Signatures and 

Ratifications, http://www.un.org/disabilities/countries.asp?navid=12&pid=166#U.

99 Note that ratification is “the international act so named whereby a Sate establishes on 

the international plane its consent to be bound by a treaty.” Vienna Convention, art. 

2(1)(b). This should be distinguished from the approval of a treaty through domestic 

process (e.g., congressional or parliamentary). While “ratification” in the domestic legal 

context is quite often used to describe the domestic process of approval, this is different 

from ratification on the international plane. Anthony Aust, Modern Treaty Law and 

Practice (Cambridge University Press, 1st ed., 2000), 103 [hereafter Aust].
54

purpose of the treaty.

100 The signatory state is thus not obligated to comply with all the 

terms of the treaty, for such a result would render ratification of little purpose or 

consequence since international legal obligation is clearly triggered and dependent 

upon ratification (and entry into force).101 The obligation is to “refrain” from acts that

would “defeat” the object and purpose of the treaty. Therefore, the United States, as a 

signatory state, must not act in a manner that would prevent it from being able to fully 

comply with the treaty on ratification/entry into force and must refrain from conduct that 

would invalidate the basic purpose of the treaty. A leading commentator suggests that 

“[t]he test is objective, and it is not necessary to prove bad faith.”

102 The following 

examples, by no means exhaustive, would surely constitute a breach of the United 

States’ obligations in relation to the CRPD: (1) adoption of policy regarding foreign 

assistance programming that requires separate programs for people with disabilities or 

 

100 §312(3) of the Restatement (Third) of the Foreign Relations Law of the United States 

is consistent with the Vienna Convention on the legal effects of signature and this is 

widely regarded as representing customary international law (1987). The Restatement 

provides, “Prior to the entry into force of an international agreement, a state that has 

signed the agreement, or expressed its consent to be bound is obliged to refrain from 

acts that would defeat the object and purpose of the agreement.” Id. at 172. The 

obligation continues until the state has made clear its intention not to become a party to 

the treaty or where it appears that entry into force will be unduly delayed. Id. at 

Comment (i).

101 The practice of the United States is consistent with the proposition that signature 

does carry some legal consequence. In 2002, under the George W. Bush 

Administration, the United States is said to have “unsigned” the International Criminal 

Court Statute. As Aust points out, this is not entirely correct from a legal standpoint, as 

signature is a physical act. Thus while signature as such cannot be undone, its legal 

effects can be effectively nullified. Aust, supra note 99 at 103.On May 6, 2002, the 

United States sent a diplomatic note to the depositary of the International Criminal Court 

(ICC), saying that it did not intend to become a party to the ICC. Press Release U.S. 

Department of State, International Criminal Court: Letter to UN Secretary General Kofi 

Annan (May 6, 2002), http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2002/9968.htm. In effect, 

therefore, its signature was withdrawn. While the United States has not ratified the 

Vienna Convention, its practice in this particular instance discloses evidence that it does 

accept most of the provisions. It is an uncontroversial proposition, therefore, that the 

Vienna Convention provision regarding signature is customary international law to which 

the United States is bound.

102 Aust, supra note 99, at 119.
55

that purports to exclude people with disabilities as beneficiaries; (2) adoption of a law 

that excludes people with disabilities from voting on the basis of their disability; (3) 

adoption of a law requiring children with disabilities to be educated in separate schools; 

(4) funding institutions that segregate people with disabilities from mainstream society; 

and (5) adoption of a law or policy that strips the autonomy or legal rights of people with 

disabilities. 

The CRPD would enter into force in the United States following ratification. The U.S. 

Constitution establishes that treaty power is shared between the Executive Branch and 

the Senate.103 The President negotiates treaties; however, treaties are also subject to 

the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate.104 Once a treaty is so approved by 

the Senate, the President may ratify the treaty.105 When the President ratifies a treaty, it 

becomes binding law in all 50 States under the Supremacy Clause.106

The existing domestic disability rights legal framework in the United States, combined 

with its ratification of the CRPD, would send a clear message to the international 

community that the United States is not only committed, but remains the leader in the 

global effort to promote disability rights, nondiscrimination, and equality for people with 

disabilities. The aims and obligations of U.S. disability rights law are consistent with 

those outlined in the CRPD, including respect for human dignity, nondiscrimination, 

reasonable accommodation, autonomy, and equal participation.107 Note that much of 

the treaty derives from U.S. disability law. The sections below give a more detailed 

 

103 U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.

104 Id.

105 Id.

106 U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. 

107 See NCD, Finding the Gaps: A Comparative Analysis of Disability Laws in the United 

States to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

(Michael Ashley Stein and Michael Waterstone) (2008), 

http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2008/May122008.
56

description of the standards set forth in the CRPD and their particular relevance for 

informing disability-inclusive development within the framework of American foreign 

assistance programming.

Nondiscrimination and Reasonable Accommodation in the CRPD

The CRPD is the first international human rights convention to explicitly recognize 

disability as a prohibited ground of discrimination, together with the obligation to ensure 

that reasonable accommodations are made to facilitate human rights enjoyment by 

people with disabilities. In so doing, it brings into the international legal framework the 

core principles of nondiscrimination and equality first introduced into U.S. disability 

rights law and now reflected in other domestic disability law frameworks, especially 

through ongoing legal reform as a result of CRPD ratification.

The nondiscrimination and equality provisions in the CRPD are elaborated in Article 5. 

They require States Parties to ensure the equality of people with disabilities and prohibit 

any discrimination on the basis of disability.108 The CRPD defines disability 

discrimination as “any distinction, exclusion or restriction on the basis of disability” that 

“has the purpose or effect of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or 

exercise, on an equal basis with others, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms”

and it extends to “all forms of discrimination, including denial of reasonable 

accommodation.”

109 Thus, the Convention explicitly recognizes that the failure to 

provide reasonable accommodation constitutes discrimination. “Reasonable 

accommodation” under the CRPD is defined as “necessary and appropriate modification 

and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a 

particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an 

 

108 See CRPD, supra note 9, at art. 5.

109 Id. at art. 2.
57

equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”

110 Reasonable 

accommodations must be provided in relation to employment, education, participation in 

political and public life, and cultural activities, among other areas.

As will be further elaborated below, the nondiscrimination and equality provisions and 

the duty to provide reasonable accommodation are general obligations and attach to, for 

example, obligations to make foreign assistance programming inclusive of people with 

disabilities. 

The CRPD on Accessibility 

Article 9 of the CRPD lays out clear requirements and standards of accessibility for 

States Parties to follow in ensuring nondiscrimination and equality for people with 

disabilities and their full participation in society.111 Article 9 is a general obligation and 

thus applies to all provisions in the CRPD, including those provisions that seek to 

advance accessible and inclusive international development facilities, programs, and 

employment opportunities.

Specifically, Article 9 requires states to ensure that people with disabilities are able to 

access a comprehensive range of venues, facilities, and services on an equal basis with 

others.112 Accessibility under the CRPD relates to a wide variety of places and services, 

such as “buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, 

including schools, housing, medical facilities, and workplaces,” as well as “information 

and communications” and emergency services.113 In order to achieve accessibility, 

Article 9 requires States to identify and eliminate obstacles and barriers to 

 

110 Id. 

111 See id. at art. 9.

112 Id.

113 Id.
58

accessibility.114 The provisions that elaborate the specific measures to be undertaken 

are quite detailed and attempt to capture the wide range of access needs of people with 

disabilities in different contexts. They include—

● Developing (and monitoring the implementation of) minimum accessibility 

standards and guidelines;

● Providing training on accessibility for stakeholders;

● Promoting design, development, production, and distribution of information and 

communications technologies that address accessibility early in their 

development and that are provided at minimum cost;

● Promoting access to new information and communications technologies and 

systems, “including the Internet”;

● Providing signage for the public in Braille and other easy-to-read and understand 

forms;

● Providing live assistance (such as guides, readers, and sign language 

interpreters); and

● Promoting other “appropriate forms of assistance and support” to ensure access 

to information.115

The scope of Article 9 is not limited to State actors, such as local and national 

governments, government agencies, and government corporations. Rather, Article 9 

implicates private actors, requiring States to “ensure that private entities that offer 

facilities and services which are open or provided to the public take into account all 

aspects of accessibility for persons with disabilities.”

116 In other words, although the 

Convention is not directly legally binding on private actors (as only States can be bound 

 

114 Id.

115 Id.

116 Id.
59

by international treaties), it obligates States to ensure that private actors over whom

they have control act in a manner consistent with the goals and obligations of Article 9. 

Although this report focuses on U.S. Government agencies, it is important to note the 

implications of Article 9 for private U.S. donor organizations and foundations that fund 

international development programs. The CRPD requires States Parties to “take all 

appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination on the basis of disability by any 

person, organization or private enterprise,” which applies to Article 9 and all other 

obligations in the treaty.117 As an example, the Gates Foundation is a U.S. private 

foundation that provides extensive funding of international development programs and 

should ensure its funding is being used to develop accessible facilities and services.118

Additionally, Article 9’s obligation for private entities to ensure accessible premises 

when they offer services to the public is in line with Title III of the ADA’s “public 

accommodation” requirement.

Accessibility and the CRPD obligations of nondiscrimination and reasonable 

accommodation act as essential analytical tools in understanding the requirement that 

States Parties make their international cooperation programs accessible under Article 

32. The next section reviews Article 32 and its implications for international 

development assistance.

Disability and International Development in the CRPD 

Article 32 requires States Parties to the Convention to cooperate internationally through 

partnerships with other States or with relevant international and regional organizations 

and civil society in support of national measures to give effect to the CRPD.119 Further, 

Article 32 makes it clear that all international cooperation efforts, including international 

 

117 Id. at art. 4(1)(e).

118 See Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Global Development Program, 

http://www.gatesfoundation.org/global-development/Pages/overview.aspx.

119 CRPD, supra note 9, at art. 32(1).
60

development programs, should be accessible and fully inclusive of people with 

disabilities from design through implementation.120

In light of the foregoing, Article 32, together with the articles of general application 

relevant for the interpretation of Article 32 and specific provisions in the areas of 

education,121 employment,122 living in the community,123 accessibility,124 health,125 and 

access to justice,126 among others,127 have important implications, not only for States 

Parties and their international donor agencies, but for implementing partners of foreign 

assistance programs as well. These CRPD provisions provide a framework for 

international development programs to further advance the rights set forth in the CRPD 

and to promote best-practice models on inclusive development programming. 

As this report primarily focuses on four sectors of overseas programming funded by the

United States, the sections that follow highlight provisions of the CRPD that are most 

relevant to these targeted areas of programming: (1) humanitarian assistance and 

disaster relief; (2) democracy and governance; (3) economic development; and (4) 

cultural exchange programs.

 

120 Id. at art. 32.

121 Id. at art. 24. 

122 Id. at art. 27.

123 Id. at art. 19.

124 Id. at art. 9.

125 Id. at art. 25.

126 Id. at art. 13. The training of people in the justice system must have a disability 

component: “In order to help to ensure effective access to justice for persons with 

disabilities, States Parties shall promote appropriate training for those working in the 

field of administration of justice, including police and prison staff.” Id. at art. 13(2).

127 See id. at art. 8–30.
61

Promoting Disability Inclusion in Humanitarian Assistance and 

Disaster Relief

Failures in ensuring that humanitarian response and assistance to refugees and 

internally displaced persons take the needs of people with disabilities into account 

prompted the drafters of the CRPD to include a specific provision on protection in times 

of risk. The drafters of the CRPD were heavily influenced by the devastating impact of 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and the Asian Tsunami, all of which took place during the 

course of the CRPD negotiations.128 To that end, Article 11 of the Convention provides 

that States Parties take “all necessary measures to ensure the protection and safety of 

persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including situations of armed conflict, 

humanitarian emergencies and the occurrence of natural disasters.”

129 This provision, 

combined with Article 32 on ensuring inclusion in international cooperation, including

international development and the obligations of nondiscrimination and accessibility, 

provides the framework for ensuring that humanitarian assistance programs are 

inclusive of people with disabilities.

Other articles implicitly reference the right of people with disabilities to be included in 

humanitarian efforts by States Parties. For example, Article 28 compels States Parties 

to ensure an adequate standard of living and social protection, including equal access 

 

128 The impact of these disasters on people with disabilities continues to serve as a major 

impetus for more inclusive disaster preparedness and response, both internationally as well 

as domestically in the United States. See generally Michael Stein and Michael Waterstone,

“Disability Inclusive Development and Natural Disasters,” in Law and Recovery from 

Disaster: Hurricane Katrina, 71 (Robin Paul Malloy, ed., 2008); International Disability 

Rights Monitor, Disability and Tsunami Relief Efforts in India, Indonesia and Thailand

(2005), http://www.ideanet.org/cir/uploads/File/TsunamiReport.pdf. The appointment by 

President Obama of a senior disability advisor within the Federal Emergency Management 

Administration in the Department of Homeland Security is a salient domestic example of 

these developments. 

129 CRPD, supra note 9, at art. 11.
62

to “clean water services” and “public housing programmes.”

130 Article 25 requires equal 

access to health care,131 while Article 26 makes certain the provision of habilitation and 

rehabilitation,

132 and Article 20 facilitates access to mobility aids and training.133 Article 

16 of the CRPD requires States Parties to accord protection to people with disabilities 

from exploitation, violence, and abuse and to provide rehabilitation, reintegration, and 

protection for survivors of violence and other forms of abuse.134 These and other 

provisions provide important standards of protection for people with disabilities who are 

at risk as a result of natural or man-made disasters.

Promoting Disability Inclusion in Democracy and Governance

The promotion of democratic governance grounded in the Rule of Law is a mainstay of 

U.S. foreign assistance programming135 and also engages other major donors 

internationally. The CRPD provides specific guarantees for people with disabilities to 

ensure their full participation in political and public life and effective access to justice.

While a number of CRPD provisions are relevant to democracy and governance 

programming, several merit specific mention: Article 12, on legal capacity, calls on 

States Parties to take measures to ensure the right of people with disabilities to legal 

capacity and autonomous decision making.136 In other words, the provision requires 

States Parties to ensure that people with disabilities have the right to make their own 

 

130 Id. at art. 28, 28(2)(a), 28(2)(d).

131 Id. at art. 25.

132 Id. at art. 26.

133 Id. at art. 20.

134 Id. at art. 16.

135 For more on USAID’s democracy and governance programming, see “Overview,”

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/. 

136 See CRPD, supra note 9, at art. 12.
63

legal decisions.137 This includes the right of people with disabilities to own or inherit 

property, to control their own legal affairs, and to have equal access to mortgages, loans, 

and other forms of financial credit.138 In many countries, decision making is swept away 

for people with disabilities on the basis of discriminatory and procedurally unfair 

processes. The implications for U.S. Government-funded Rule of Law programming in 

this context are clear and far-reaching. A commonplace example of these discriminatory 

processes would be the arbitrary exclusion of people with disabilities in national election 

laws. Despite pervasive electoral discrimination in many countries, U.S. Governmentfunded election assessments rarely delve into an often complex legal analysis of 

disability discrimination in the electoral context. Nor do such assessments specifically 

identify people with disabilities as beneficiaries of voter education programs and thus fail 

to ensure voter education materials are accessible to people with various disabilities.139

Closely related to the right to make legal decisions is Article 13, on access to justice for 

people with disabilities.140 Article 13 guarantees the right of people with disabilities to 

effective access to justice on an equal basis with others in all phases of the 

administration of justice, including at preliminary stages, such as initial investigations. It 

further guarantees the right of people with disabilities to be both direct and indirect 

participants in the justice system, including participation as witnesses in court 

proceedings. Article 13 also requires States to provide procedural and age-appropriate 

 

137 Id.

138 Id.

139 The otherwise useful publication, Managing Assistance in Support of Political and 

Electoral Processes, illustrates well the invisibility of disability in technical publications in 

this and other democracy and governance contexts. Nowhere in the publication are 

people with disabilities recognized as a disadvantaged and politically disenfranchised 

group and nowhere is any specific guidance given on intervention that might enhance 

their inclusion in political and electoral processes. See USAID/Center for Democracy 

and Governance, Managing Assistance in Support of Political and Electoral Processes

(January 2000), http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/

publications/pdfs/pnacf631.pdf.

140 See CRPD, supra note 9, at art. 13.
64

accommodations to facilitate access to justice to all people with disabilities. The CRPD 

also requires States to provide training to those working in the administration of justice 

in order to help ensure effective access to justice by people with disabilities. 

In addition to CRPD provisions that are pertinent to Rule of Law programming, Article 

29 on participation in political and public life applies to another core subsector of 

democracy and governance programming—elections and political processes.141 Article 

29 requires that States Parties take measures to guarantee that people with disabilities 

have equal access to voting procedures, facilities, and materials as well as equal 

access to actively participate in the political process.142 More specifically, people with 

disabilities have the right to cast their ballot in secret and the right to assistance in order 

to exercise their right to vote.143 Beyond voting, people with disabilities have the right to 

be elected to public office; participate in the conduct of public administration, including 

the administration of political parties and civil society; and participate in the work of 

international organizations.144

Finally, U.S.-funded democracy and governance programming includes targeted efforts to 

strengthen civil society and citizen mobilization.145 In that regard, the CRPD emphasizes 

the importance of the participation of people with disabilities in all spheres of life, including 

the development of national and international laws, policies, and programs.146 The CRPD 

 

141 Id. at art. 29.

142 Id.

143 Id.

144 Id.

145 See generally USAID, A Guide to DCHA/DG Activities [hereafter DG User’s Guide],

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/publications/pdfs/

DG_Activities_Feb09_508c.pdf.

146 This due process imperative is reinforced through the inclusion of participation as a 

general principle within Article 3, as a general state obligation in Article 4, and in 

addition to its inclusion as a specific substantive right in Article 29 on participation in 

political and public life. CRPD, supra note 9. 
65

provisions on international cooperation likewise recognize the role of civil society 

organizations,147 as do the national-level monitoring provisions in the CRPD.148

The CRPD has specific and concrete applications for inclusive democracy and 

governance programming. The CRPD framework provides a ready template for 

inclusion in the full range of U.S. Government-funded democracy and governance work, 

including the following:

● Justice-sector programs supporting the establishment, rebuilding, or expansion 

of justice institutions; 

● Programs expanding access to legal services;

● Interventions to advance administrative law reform;

● Voter education and observation;

● Awareness raising to increase citizen knowledge of human rights standards; and

● Civil society capacity building. 

Ensuring the Inclusion of People with Disabilities in Economic 

Development

The interrelationship between disability and poverty is captured in the preambular 

paragraphs of the CRPD and was an impetus for the negotiation of the treaty.149

Creating equal opportunities for participation in economic life is a core component of the 

CRPD. The CRPD calls on States Parties in Article 27 to recognize the “right of persons 

with disabilities to work, on an equal basis with others; this includes the right to the 

opportunity to gain a living by work freely chosen or accepted in a labour market and 

 

147 See id. at art. 32.

148 Id. at art. 33.

149 See id. at preamble para.
66

work environment that is open, inclusive and accessible to persons with disabilities.”

150

Given that U.S.-funded economic development programs are frequently inaccessible, 

and that microfinance initiatives historically have neglected people with disabilities as 

potential participants, the CRPD sets forth important obligations for economic 

development programs.

The CRPD provisions on employment, together with the inclusive development

obligations, are significant for economic development assistance.151 These provisions 

can and should inform strategic interventions designed and implemented by U.S. 

Government agencies to ensure that economic development does not increase the 

equity gap for people with disabilities.

Participation of People with Disabilities in Cultural Exchange

Cultural exchange between the United States and other countries around the world has 

a long and justifiably proud tradition.152 Ensuring the participation of both Americans 

with disabilities and foreigners with disabilities in such programming is essential. 

Article 30 of the CRPD recognizes a number of specific measures designed to enhance 

participation in various realms of social as well as cultural life, calling on States Parties 

to recognize the right to equal participation in cultural life, including cultural exchange 

 

150 Id. at art. 27.

151 See generally Hervé Bernard et al., Handicap International, Good Practices for 

Economic Inclusion of People with Disabilities: Funding Mechanisms for Self-Employment

(August 2006), http://www.handicap-international.org/uploads/media/goodpractices-GB2coul.PDF; S. Dyer, The Inclusion of Disabled People in Mainstream Micro Finance 

Programs, Disability and MF (April 7–9, 2003); Joshua Goldstein, A New Financial 

Access Frontier: People with Disabilities, (Center for Financial Inclusion at ACCION 

international concept paper, June 2010); C. Lewis, Microfinance from the point of view of 

women with disabilities: Lessons from Zambia and Zimbabwe, Oxfam GB 12 Gender and 

Development (2004).

152 See DOS, “Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs,” http://exchanges.state.gov/. 
67

programs153 The CRPD provides further reinforcement and guidance in relation to 

cultural exchange programming and its accessibility to people with disabilities, whether 

for participating Americans or counterparts abroad.

Conclusion

The CRPD, one of the most rapidly ratified human rights treaties ever, is serving as a 

major impetus for disability inclusion in international development efforts.154 A handful of 

donor agencies, in addition to USAID, have committed themselves to disability-inclusive 

development, and many others are currently formulating policies of inclusion in light of 

developments in international disability rights.155 The emergence of disability-inclusive 

 

153 See CRPD, supra note 9, at art. 30(1)(c). For detailed consideration of Article 30, 

see Janet E. Lord and Michael Ashley Stein, “Social Rights and the Relational Value of 

the Rights to Participate in Sport, Recreation and Play,” 27 BU Int’l L. J. 249 (2009).

154 See Lord, supra note 10. See also Katherine Guernsey, Marco Nicoli, and Alberto 

Ninio, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Its Implementation and 

Relevance for the World Bank 3 (World Bank, June 2007); GTZ, Disability and 

Development: A Contribution to Promoting the Interests of Persons with Disabilities in 

German Development Cooperation 2 (2006); AUSAID, Development for All: Towards a 

Disability-Inclusive Australian Aid Program 2009–2014 (2008), 

http://www.ausaid.gov.au/keyaid/pdf/FINAL%20AusAID_Development%20for%20All.pdf

; UK Department for International Development, How To Note: Working on disability in 

country programmes (2007), http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://

www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/DisguideDFID.pdf.

155 USAID, “Disability and development,” http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/disability/ ; 

See also USAID, “Disability in Australia’s aid program,”

http://www.ausaid.gov.au/keyaid/disability.cfm ; the United Nations Development 

Programme and other UN agencies and programs are likewise reconsidering their 

mandates in light of the CRPD, and the application of the CRPD to UN programming is 

being facilitated and coordinated through the Inter-Agency Support Group. The group is 

charged with coordinating the work of the United Nations system in support of the 

promotion and implementation of the Convention, which includes the development of a 

draft strategy and plan of action to mainstream the CRPD throughout the work of the 

UN system. For a summary of the work of the Inter-Agency Support Group, see Report 

of the Secretary-General, “Status of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with 

Disabilities” (July 7, 2009), UN Doc. A/64/128, 

http://www.dcdd.nl/data/1252922023240_CRPD%2064.pdf (CRPD status).
68

development on the agendas of bilateral and multilateral development donors clearly 

presents an opportunity for the United States. Fostering implementation of the CRPD 

through international development programs will allow the United States to broaden and 

deepen its long-standing commitment to disability inclusion in international 

development. U.S. ratification of the CRPD would clearly reinforce American leadership 

in disability rights and support American efforts to press for disability equality around the 

world.
69

CHAPTER 5. USAID Disability Policy

Introduction

The National Council on Disability made several recommendations to USAID in 2003 to 

promote access to and inclusion of people with disabilities in USAID programs. These 

recommendations included (1) establishing a “Fund for Inclusion”; (2) creating an office 

on disability in development; and (3) requiring specific action plans to include people 

with disabilities in strategic planning efforts in all USAID sectors. This chapter 

reexamines USAID’s Disability Policy, its implementation, and significant developments 

since 2003 both within USAID and within inclusive development. Further coverage is 

provided of USAID’s Disability Fund and the provision of disability-inclusive 

development training. The chapter concludes with research findings concerning the 

implementation of the Disability Policy, including the identification of areas requiring 

improvement. 

Overview of USAID Disability Policy

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is the central U.S. 

Government agency working to provide assistance to countries recovering from 

disaster, trying to escape poverty, and engaging in democratic reform.156 USAID is an 

independent Federal Government agency that receives foreign policy guidance from the 

Secretary of State.157 Its work in five regions supports long-term and equitable 

 

156 The origins of USAID may be traced to the Marshall Plan reconstruction of Europe 

after World War II and the Truman Administration’s Point Four Program. In 1961, the 

Foreign Assistance Act was signed into law and USAID was created by executive order.

See USAID, “About USAID,” http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/.

157 The 2010 National Security Strategy articulates the objective of development as 

follows: 

“Through an aggressive and affirmative development agenda and commensurate 

resources, we can strengthen the regional partners we need to help us stop 
70

economic growth and U.S. foreign policy objectives through programming in agriculture,

economic growth and trade, education, health, democracy and governance, and 

humanitarian assistance.158

In 1991, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) undertook an investigation into 

U.S. foreign assistance programming in developing countries to determine how 

inclusive they were of people with disabilities.159 The GAO found, among other things, 

that while such programs were directly relevant to people with disabilities, disability 

inclusion remained “sporadic” and concluded that USAID “does not generally attempt to 

target the people with disabilities in its regular bilateral assistance programs....”

160

Thereafter, in 1996, NCD issued a report entitled Foreign Policy and Disability, which 

reviewed the activities of the U.S. Department of State, USAID, and the U.S. 

 

conflict and counter global criminal networks; build a stable, inclusive global 

economy with new sources of prosperity; advance democracy and human rights; 

and ultimately position ourselves to better address key global challenges by 

growing the ranks of prosperous, capable and democratic states that can be our 

partners in the decades ahead.”

The White House, National Security Strategy, (May 2010),

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/rss_viewer/national_security_strategy.pdf.

158 See “About USAID,” supra note 156. Note that while USAID is the lead agency for 

international development assistance, there are a number of other agencies that 

implement foreign assistance programming, including the U.S. Departments of State, 

Defense, Agriculture, Commerce, Justice, Labor, and Treasury, among others. The 

proliferation of the international programs of federal departments or agencies across the 

government presents a major challenge for disability inclusion, as it also does for the 

coherence and coordination of U.S. foreign assistance generally. For a useful critique of 

U.S. foreign policy and development policy, see Gerald F. Hyman, Foreign Policy and 

Development: Structure, Process, Policy and the Drip-by-Drip Erosion of USAID, The 

Center for Strategic and International Studies (September 27, 2010), 

http://csis.org/files/publication/100923_Hyman_ForeignPolicyAndDevel_Web.pdf.

159 U.S. General Accounting Office, GAO/ NSIAD-91-82, “Foreign Assistance: 

Assistance to Disabled Persons in Developing Countries” (February 15, 1991),

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PCAAA224.pdf.

160 Id. at 2. For a review of efforts to ensure inclusion in foreign assistance 

programming, see NCD, Foreign Policy and Disability, supra note 50.
71

Information Agency and concluded that “the United States does not have a 

comprehensive foreign policy on disability” and “neither the spirit nor the letter of U.S. 

disability rights laws is incorporated into the activities of the principal foreign policy 

agencies.”

161

In 1997, USAID, noting the NCD report and recommendations, issued USAID Disability 

Policy Paper, a nonbinding guidance note.162 The policy articulated in the 1997 

document was grounded in the principle of nondiscrimination, as reflected in U.S. 

federal disability rights laws, with the objective “[t]o avoid discrimination against people 

with disabilities in programs which USAID funds and to stimulate an engagement of host 

country counterparts, governments, implementing organizations and other donors in 

promoting a climate of nondiscrimination against and equal opportunity for people with 

disabilities.”

163 An additional aim was “to promote the inclusion of people with disabilities 

both within USAID programs and in host countries where USAID has programs.”

164

The 1996 NCD report was followed by a subsequent NCD review in 2003, Foreign 

Policy and Disability: Legislative Strategies and Civil Rights Protections to Ensure 

 

161 NCD, Foreign Policy and Disability (1996), http://www.ncd.gov/publications/

1996/08011996. There, NCD recommended (1) creating a comprehensive foreign policy 

on disability to advocate for people with disabilities through activities on international 

levels; (2) extending U.S. disability law by legislation or executive order to 

unambiguously include the international operations of the U.S. Government; (3) 

employing domestic standards of nondiscrimination in U.S.-sponsored international 

activities; (4) training U.S. foreign affairs agencies and their contractors to plan for 

programmatic accessibility; and (5) establishing the principle that no U.S. international 

activity should have a lower standard of inclusion than its domestic correlate. 

162 USAID, Policy Guidance, USAID Disability Policy Paper (September 12, 1997),

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDABQ631.pdf. 

163 Id.

164 Notably, the 1997 Policy Paper takes the position that “While the ADA applies to 

U.S. citizens (including USAID employees) overseas, it does not apply to non-U.S. 

citizens, who are the primary beneficiaries of USAID programs. The USAID Disability 

Policy is thus in part an effort to extend the spirit of the ADA in areas beyond the 

jurisdiction of U.S. law.” Id. at 2. 
72

Inclusion of People with Disabilities.165 In subsequent years, several key developments 

occurred, particularly within the context of USAID programming. In November 2004, 

USAID made the 1997 disability guidelines part of USAID policy.166 The specific 

objectives of the USAID Disability Policy are as follows: 

(1) Advance U.S. foreign assistance program goals by promoting the 

participation and equalization of opportunities of people with disabilities in 

USAID policy, country and sector strategies, activity designs and 

implementation;

(2) Increase awareness of disability issues within USAID programs and in host 

countries;

(3) Engage other U.S. Government agencies, host-country counterparts, 

governments, implementing organizations, and other donors in fostering a 

climate of nondiscrimination against people with disabilities; and

(4) Support international advocacy for people with disabilities.167

In an effort to deepen its institutional commitment to inclusive development, USAID 

established two Acquisition and Assistance Policy Directives (AAPDs) in support of 

implementing the Disability Policy.

168 AAPDs provide information and guidelines for 

agency personnel and partners involved in the acquisition and assistance process, and 

 

165 NCD, Foreign Policy and Disability, supra note 50. 

166 See USAID, “Disability Policy,” http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/disability/. 

167 Id.

168 USAID, AAPD 04-17 USAID Acquisition and Assistance Disability Policy Directive,

Supporting USAID’s Disability Policy in Contracts, Grants, and Cooperative Agreements

[hereafter AAPD 04-17] (December 17, 2004), http://www.usaid.gov/business/

business_opportunities/cib/pdf/aapd04_17.pdf; USAID, “AAPD 05-07 USAID Acquisition 

and Assistance Disability Policy Directive, Supporting USAID’s Standards for 

Accessibility for the Disabled in Contracts, Grants, and Cooperative Agreements

[hereafter AAPD 05-07] (June 16, 2005), http://www.usaid.gov/business/

business_opportunities/cib/pdf/aapd05_07.pdf. 
73

these two AAPDs provide agency personnel with information directly applicable to 

solicitations.169 AAPD 04-17, Supporting USAID’s Disability Policy in Contracts, Grants, 

and Cooperative Agreements,

170 requires USAID contracting officers (COs) and 

agreement officers (AOs) to include a standard provision in all solicitations and in the 

resulting awards for contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements. For acquisitions 

(contracts), COs are required to include the provision “USAID Disability PolicyAcquisition” in Section H of all Requests for Proposals (RFPs).171 For assistance 

awards (grants and cooperative agreements), AOs must include the provision “USAID 

 

169 According to the Directive, such information includes, among other things, advance

notification of changes in acquisition or assistance regulations; reminders; procedures;

and general information. Also, AAPDs may be used to implement new requirements

on short notice, pending formal amendment of acquisition or assistance regulations. 

AAPD 04-17, supra note 174. 

170 Id.

171 This language reads as follows:

“USAID Disability Policy - Acquisition (December 2004)

(a) The objectives of the USAID Disability Policy are (1) to enhance the

attainment of United States foreign assistance program goals by promoting the 

participation and equalization of opportunities of individuals with disabilities in

USAID policy, country and sector strategies, activity designs and implementation; 

(2) to increase awareness of issues of people with disabilities both within USAID

programs and in host countries; (3) to engage other U.S. Government agencies,

host country counterparts, governments, implementing organizations and other 

donors in fostering a climate of nondiscrimination against people with disabilities;

and (4) to support international advocacy for people with disabilities. The full text

of the policy paper can be found at the following website:

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDABQ631.pdf.

“(b) USAID therefore requires that the contractor not discriminate against people

with disabilities in the implementation of USAID programs and that it make every 

effort to comply with the objectives of the USAID Disability Policy in performing

this contract. To that end and within the scope of the contract, the contractor’s 

actions must demonstrate a comprehensive and consistent approach for 

including men, women and children with disabilities.” Id. at 2–3. 
74

Disability Policy-Assistance” in RFAs and must ensure it is included as a special

provision in the award.172

The second relevant policy directive issued by USAID, AAPD 05-07, Supporting 

USAID’s Standards for Accessibility for the Disabled in Contracts, Grants, and 

Cooperative Agreements,173 requires COs and AOs to include a provision that supports 

USAID’s Disability Policy in solicitations by outlining standards for accessibility in all 

new construction, as well as in renovations of structures, facilities, or buildings. 

According to this AAPD, the provisions that must be included in all solicitations “set out 

the agency’s objectives regarding disability policy in terms of construction; require 

compliance with accessibility standards; how to comply in new construction and in 

alterations to existing structures; and construction related activities that are exempt from 

the requirements for compliance.”

174 For acquisitions, COs must include the provision 

“Standards for Accessibility for the Disabled in USAID Construction Contracts 

(September 2004)” in Section H of all RFPs and subsequent contracts.175 For 

assistance awards, AOs must include the provision “Standards for Accessibility for the 

Disabled in USAID Assistance Awards Involving Construction (September 2004)” and 

must ensure it is included as a special provision in the award.176

Although the two policy directives require USAID to include the Disability Policy in all 

RFAs and RFPs, there are serious limitations that call into question the utility of these 

 

172 Note that the required provision is substantially the same for RFPs and RFAs, but 

there are terminology differences between acquisitions and agreements that are applied 

in the required provisions.

173 See USAID, USAID Acquisition and Assistance Policy Directive (Disability Policy on 

New Construction) (2005), http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/disability/.

174 Id.

175 Id.

176 Id. Note that the required provision is substantially the same for RFPs and RFAs, but 

there are terminology differences between acquisitions and agreements that are applied 

in the required provisions.
75

provisions and their actual impact on disability inclusion in program implementation. 

Chief among these concerns are—

(1) Examples of solicitations that fail to incorporate the required Disability Policy

provision;177

(2) Placement of the provision at the end of solicitations embedded on a page 

that offerors and applicants may not closely review; 

(3) Absence of any requirement that points be allocated for inclusion of people 

with disabilities in the application-grading process; 

(4) Lack of any requirement for “statements of work” or “program descriptions” to 

reference people with disabilities as program participants and beneficiaries; 

and 

(5) Absence of any requirement or guidance on budgeting for reasonable 

accommodations within programming, and thus many programs do not 

provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities to access 

program materials and activities.178

In addition, the second policy directive, Supporting USAID’s Standards for Accessibility 

for the Disabled in Contracts, Grants, and Cooperative Agreements, allows USAID to 

authorize waivers “where compliance with accessibility standards is technically 

infeasible or presents an undue burden.” COs and AOs are required to obtain waivers in 

accordance with the USAID Policy on Standards for Accessibility for the Disabled in 

 

177 In a review of 55 RFAs released between February and July 2010, 23 of the RFAs 

did not include the required disability provision. See USAID Brazil, Mozambique RFA512-10-000004, Trilateral Cooperation—Food Security (July 7, 2010); USAID RFA-111-

10-000004, Support to Armenia-Turkey Rapprochement (July 2, 2010). Further, the 

disability provision was included in only one of the 10 annual program statements 

(APSs) reviewed in the same time period. 

178 See USAID Southern Africa RFA 674-10-0051, Support for Integrated Service 

Delivery (July 7, 2010) (includes Disability Policy provision, but makes no mention of 

people with disabilities in any other section of the RFA).
76

USAID-Financed Construction179 prior to issuing approval. The policy states that “[its] 

guidance extends the principles of the ADA and the ABA to USAID-financed

assistance.”

180 Waiver requests “must identify the specific requirements and procedures 

of the guidelines from which a waiver is sought and provide a detailed explanation, 

including appropriate information or documentation, as to why a waiver should be 

granted.”

181 In addition to waivers, the policy directive also provides for certain 

exceptions in construction-related activities.182 The emergency construction exception 

applies to structures “intended to be temporary in nature” and, under this exception, 

emergency construction efforts include providing tents or plastic sheeting, minor repairs,

or upgrades to existing structures; rebuilding certain parts of existing structures; or 

constructing temporary structures.183 The waivers and exceptions are problematic as 

they may lead to new construction efforts that are inaccessible and USAID should only 

authorize such waivers and exceptions in narrowly defined and limited circumstances.

In 2009, the two USAID policy directives were codified in USAID’s Automated Directive 

System (ADS).184 ADS is USAID’s directive management system and thus is crucial to 

the process of creating binding policy within USAID. USAID policy directives, required 

procedures, and other guidelines and optional materials are drafted, cleared, and issued 

 

179 “The Agency recognizes that it does not have specific expertise in 

universal/accessible design. Therefore, the U.S. Access Board, an independent Federal

agency devoted to accessibility for people with disabilities, is USAID’s consultative 

partner in developing and maintaining accessibility requirements and providing technical 

assistance and training on guidelines and standards. The Access Board and the list of

resources included in this document provide additional technical information.” USAID, 

USAID Policy on Standards for Accessibility for the Disabled in USAID-Financed 

Construction, http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDACG011.pdf.

180 Id.

181 AAPD 05-07, supra note 181.

182 Id. at 1(f). 

183 Id. at 1(f)(2).

184 USAID, ADS Series 300, 302: Acquisition and Assistance, 302.5.14 Supporting 

USAID’s Disability Policy in Contracts, http://www.usaid.gov/policy/ads/300/302.pdf. 
77

through the ADS. The ADS functions as a database of relevant, useful, and valid 

information that USAID employees need to reference to correctly follow agency 

directives and guidelines. As AAPDs provide information and guidelines for agency 

personnel and partners involved in the acquisition and assistance process,185 AAPD 04-

17 and AAPD 05-07 had to be issued through the ADS. As such, this process codified 

the two AAPDs, thereby making them binding on all USAID employees.

USAID Reports on the Implementation of the Disability Policy

USAID has issued five reports on the implementation of the USAID Disability Policy, the 

most recent of which was issued in December 2008.186 In its Fifth Report on the 

Implementation of USAID Disability Policy (Fifth Report), USAID set forth the following 

recommendations to further advance the implementation of its Disability Policy: 

(1) Increase outreach to and consultation of DPOs and disability leaders by 

USAID missions, offices, and bureaus; 

(2) Systematize the inclusion of disability into USAID program selection criteria; 

(3) Increase formal and nonformal training opportunities and raise awareness of 

inclusive practices for staff, implementing partners, and DPOs; and 

(4) Increase the number of missions with disability plans.187

The Fifth Report illustrates that USAID’s commitment to disability inclusion and the 

uniform implementation of its Disability Policy across all missions is leading to an 

increase in policies and programs that raise awareness of disability issues and are 

 

185 See supra note 174. 

186 These reports are available on the USAID website at 

http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/disability/pubs.html. 

187 USAID, Fifth Report on the Implementation of USAID Disability Policy [hereafter Fifth 

Report] (December 2008), http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDACM100.pdf.
78

addressing the needs of people with disabilities. In total, 78 country missions, 8 regional 

offices, and 13 bureaus and offices voluntarily submitted reports.188 Missions were more 

willing to participate in the voluntary disability inclusion reporting process, with 75 

percent of missions submitting versus 43 percent for the previous report issued in 

2005.189 The number of missions with disability inclusion plans reached 20 percent, as 

opposed to “a handful” for the previous report, and 75 percent of respondents reported 

undertaking programs and activities that benefited people with disabilities.190 A quarter 

of the reporting missions indicated an increase in the capacity of local DPOs.191 The 

report indicates that the uniform implementation of the USAID Disability Policy has 

increased the profile of disability inclusion at the mission level. According to the report, it 

is now standard practice to include the Disability Policy provision in the solicitation 

process; there is an increasing presence of disability-related programming and program 

components; missions are disseminating USAID policy information to implementing 

partners; and missions are seeking greater coordination from experts in the disability 

field.192

Although the Fifth Report points to important progress, it does not necessarily follow 

that the increased percentage of reporting missions resulted from greater 

implementation of the USAID Disability Policy. This seems especially true considering 

the percentage of reporting missions (75 percent) compared to reporting missions with 

disability inclusion plans (20 percent).193 Missions are not required to have disabilityinclusion plans, but it should be noted that missions with inclusion plans are actively 

 

188 Id.

189 Id. USAID, Fourth Report on the Implementation of USAID Disability Policy

(November 2005), http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PDACF599.pdf.

190 Fifth Report, supra note 187.

191 d.

192 Id.

193 Id.
79

advancing the Disability Policy. Furthermore, while all missions were in compliance with 

equal employment opportunity standards, few missions reported having people with 

disabilities on staff and fewer still reported making any concerted effort to increase the 

number of people with disabilities employed by the mission.194 Additionally, only 10 

percent of missions reported collecting any input from people with disabilities.195 The 

findings and recommendations provide an important lens through which to review 

USAID’s progress in promoting the Disability Policy agency-wide. 

The Disability Fund and Inclusive Development Trainings

In 2005, Congress, under the sponsorship of Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), appropriated 

funds to USAID for “programs and activities to address and protect the rights of people 

with disabilities in developing countries” through the Consolidated Appropriations Act.196

The act made funding available for such programs, but also required that USAID 

establish the Disability Program Fund (hereafter Disability Fund or the Fund), an 

initiative that supports programs intended to benefit people with disabilities and foster 

disability inclusion in the development programs supported by USAID.197 The 

appropriation was originally $2.5 million,198 and has grown to approximately $4 million 

per year and has supported small-scale programs in more than 48 developing 

countries.199 The Fund not only supports programs that benefit people with disabilities, 

but also includes DPOs in project design, implementation, and monitoring and 

 

194 Id. Note that missions were not specifically asked to report on employment of people 

with disabilities. The missions that did report decided to include hiring in their selfreporting. 

195 Id.

196 Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, § 579 (a), Pub. L. No. 106-447. 

197 Id.

198 Id.

199 “Disability Program Fund,” USAID, http://www.usaid.gov/about_usaid/disability.
80

evaluation. The emphasis on partnership with DPOs builds the institutional capacity of 

DPOs to participate in future USAID and other donor-funded development programs.200

In another positive step toward implementation of the USAID Disability Policy, USAID 

developed an e-training course entitled “Inclusive Development” for staff to learn more 

about the inclusion of people with disabilities in USAID programs.201 The e-training 

course is a learner-controlled course that focuses on ways to include people with 

disabilities in USAID programs and missions. The course features five online modules: 

(1) foundations of inclusion; (2) barriers to inclusion; (3) the inclusive development 

program; (4) leading examples of inclusive development; and (5) inclusive human 

resources management.202 The e-training course also consists of self-paced exams to 

test the learner’s knowledge and extensive reference documents for learners to 

review.203 At present, the e-training course is voluntary and does not reach as many 

USAID personnel as it could under a mandatory training directive. While a new incentive 

has been created according to which mission eligibility to host programs under the 

Disability Fund requires that at least one mission member must have completed the 

course, mandatory training would clearly have greater impact. In addition to the 

voluntary e-training course, USAID has added a disability training component to its new 

staff training and orientation in Washington, DC.204 The disability training component 

was developed in an effort to “[i]Integrate disability inclusion concepts in other trainings 

given to new staff” and “to stimulate thinking on the topic and provide specific contact 

information within the Agency.”

205 This marks an important step in the right direction for 

training USAID personnel, but has a limited impact as it fails to reach existing USAID 

 

200 Id. 

201 USAID’s Involvement in Promoting Disability Inclusion, March 8, 2011. 

202 Id.

203 Id.

204 Id.

205 Id.
81

employees. A disability training component should be integrated into trainings for all 

staff members at all levels within USAID. Active learning approaches combined with 

specific technical tools to help personnel understand how to address disability inclusion 

within the framework of their specific jobs would deepen knowledge and promote fuller 

implementation of the USAID Disability Policy.

Appointment of Coordinator on Disability and Inclusive Development

Perhaps one of the more significant developments in USAID’s efforts to advance 

disability-inclusive development in its operations is the appointment in 2010 of a 

Coordinator on Disability and Inclusive Development. It is premature to provide any 

assessment of the impact of this appointment on the advancement of USAID’s Disability 

Policy and furtherance of disability-inclusive development. It is clear, however, that the 

placement of the Coordinator within the Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning, 

together with the various initiatives underway to strengthen USAID and the commitment 

in the QDDR to ensure inclusion in USAID’s work, represent unique opportunities to 

press for much-needed reforms. In order for the Coordinator on Disability and Inclusive 

Development to realize a much-needed and ambitious agenda, appropriate resources 

must be allocated for this purpose.

Research Findings on the Implementation of the USAID Disability 

Policy

The next section reviews the findings from interviews, focus group discussions, and 

desk-based research on the implementation of the Disability Policy by USAID and 

provides examples of where the policy is not being adequately implemented, as well as 

examples that highlight progress toward full implementation of the policy.
82

Lack of Knowledge Regarding Disability Issues and the USAID 

Disability Policy

One of the main findings was the serious lack of knowledge that USAID employees 

have about disability issues and, specifically, how to include people with disabilities in 

development work.206 Many of the personnel interviewed indicated that they had given 

little or no thought to the issue of including people with disabilities in USAID programs. 

Interview participants drew a sharp distinction between programs that include disability 

components and programs that include gender components and made it clear that 

gender is far more of a focus of discussion during program design. Further, interviewees 

indicated that little training is offered on disability issues and even when training 

sessions are available, few people attend.

207 Few mission personnel who were 

interviewed knew of any local DPOs in their country or nongovernmental organizations 

(NGOs) working on disability issues. For those mission employees who indicated they

did not know of any DPOs, when asked to describe a DPO, they discussed 

organizations that provide services to people with disabilities but rarely pointed to 

organizations composed of people with disabilities.208 According to the local advocate 

 

206 “We found the understanding of disability issues and its inclusiveness in USAID 

programs is very low. They have one program focused on medical rehabilitation like 

providing different artificial and assistive devices to the persons with physical 

disabilities.” Local advocate interview with USAID personnel, USAID, Nepal. 

207 Personnel from various missions indicated that they had never attended trainings on 

disability when they were offered. The officers interviewed in Armenia stated that the 

mission never offered any disability trainings, but they would like to attend such 

trainings if offered in the future. Further, there was a disability session at the democracy 

and governance officers training held in June 2010. Only a few people showed up at the 

session, as the majority of attendees elected to attend a session on “Legislative Web 

Portals” that was taking place at the same time. 

208 “Their partnership with DPOs for the strengthening and organizational development 

is almost nonexistent.” USAID interview, Nepal, supra note 206.
83

from Nepal, “their understanding about disability issues is just limited to the health 

issues, which is one of the major problems among many donor agencies.”

209

USAID personnel interviewed disclosed little awareness of the USAID Disability Policy, 

or, if they were aware of it, they were unable to articulate its purpose and how it applies 

to their work.210 For example, when asked to describe any USAID policy relating to 

disability of which they were aware, one Program Officer stated, “[t]here is a rule that 

anything funded with our money must be accessible. So that pertains basically to ramps 

or removal of barriers. I cannot really recall the exact name of the policy, but it does 

exist.”

211 The officers interviewed in Bangladesh reported there is no disability policy as 

such “aside from preliminary discussions surrounding an inclusion plan.”

212 This is 

problematic, as the policy cannot effectively impact development programming if it is 

little known or understood by mission personnel. 

A further problem is that some solicitations fail to comply with USAID’s solicitation 

directive, which requires inclusion of the Disability Policy provision in all solicitations. In 

a review of 66 full solicitations that were issued on the www.grants.gov website from 

February to July 2010, only 33 of the solicitations included the standard disability 

provision language outlined in USAID’s policy directives.213 The solicitations issued on 

www.grants.gov were from missions from around the world as well as from USAID DC.

In reviewing USAID solicitations, there is, however, some evidence of good practice,

which should serve as a guide in the effort to see the Disability Policy more uniformly 

applied throughout the Agency. For example, the West Bank USAID Mission included 

 

209 Id. Final Write-Up after Interviews.

210 The officers interviewed in seven missions were not aware of the USAID Disability 

Policy.

211 Local advocate interview with USAID personnel, USAID, Serbia.

212 Local advocate interview with USAID personnel, USAID, Bangladesh.

213 Review information on file.
84

the required disability provision for new construction efforts in solicitations they released 

on www.grants.gov during the reviewed period.214 In addition, the USAID Zambia 

Mission not only included the Disability Policy provision in its solicitations, but also 

meaningfully included people with disabilities in statements of work during the reviewed 

period.215 This is noteworthy, as Zambia’s mission received training on disabilityinclusive development funded by USAID.

Disability-Specific Funding Sometimes Reflects Outmoded 

Approaches

In procurements that fund disability-specific programming, the desk review and 

interviews disclosed some serious problems in relation to compliance with the letter and 

spirit of the USAID Disability Policy. Most notably, the U.S. Government’s funding of 

institutions, orphanages, and other segregated settings for people with disabilities—with 

no apparent attention paid to community-based alternatives or even transition plans—is 

troubling insofar as these living arrangements do not reflect American or international 

standards that underscore the importance of living in the community with appropriate 

supports.216 To provide one illustration, in a recent RFA from the Republic of Georgia, 

the mission calls for rebuilding orphanages and specifically mentions children with 

disabilities as beneficiaries.217 The proposed project to rebuild Georgia’s orphanages is 

problematic. 

 

214 USAID West Bank/Gaza, RFA 294-2010-116, Enhancing Palestine Independent 

Media (Issued May 7, 2010).

215 USAID Zambia, RFP 611 2011-02, Institutional Support Program; RFP 611 2011-04, 

Improved Student Effectiveness Program.

216 Credible documentation of human rights abuses in congregate institutions, including 

orphanages, psychiatric hospitals, and other facilities, is now ubiquitous and was a 

major reason that the CRPD reflects the trend against such living arrangements in favor 

of community-based alternatives. 

217 USAID Caucasus, RFA 114-10-000001, Social Infrastructure Project (February 12, 

2010).
85

American disability law recognizes that living arrangements for people with disabilities 

must be provided in the least restrictive setting possible and that community living 

arrangements are preferable to institutional ones.218 It is often assumed that 

orphanages offer an acceptable and even desirable place for children with disabilities to 

live and grow up, whereas it is understood that orphanages tend to segregate children 

with disabilities from their peers and confine them to an institution, where they are often 

locked away for the rest of their life. Disability rights organizations have documented the 

egregious abuses that so often accompany congregate custodial arrangements, 

including orphanages, and have pointed to the near impossibility of ever providing for 

the full enjoyment of civil and political rights within institutions, irrespective of the 

conditions.219 Investigations into orphanages throughout the world have found that 

children with disabilities in orphanages do not receive proper education, food, or care, 

and many are in “deplorable conditions.”

220 According to Disability Rights International 

(DRI), “[o]ne of the main drivers of institutionalization—particularly in developing 

countries—is the use of misdirected foreign assistance funding to build new institutions 

or rebuild old crumbling facilities, instead of providing assistance and access to services 

for families who want to keep their children at home...governments and international 

donors spend millions worldwide building and rebuilding these torture chambers for 

children with disabilities instead of supporting families, substitute families when 

 

218 Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999). 

219 See generally DRI, Not on the Agenda: Human Rights of People with Disabilities in 

Kosovo (2002); Human Rights & Mental Health: Mexico (2000); Children in Russia’s 

Institutions: Human Rights and Opportunities for Reform (1999); Human Rights and Mental 

Health: Hungary (1997); Human Rights and Mental Health: Uruguay (1995). These reports 

are available at http://www.MDRI.org. For a detailed report outlining specific abuses against 

people labeled with psychiatric disorders, see National Council on Disability, From 

Privileges to Rights: People with Psychiatric Disabilities Speak Out for Themselves

(January 20, 2002) available at http://www.ncd.gov/publications/2000/Jan202000.

220 DRI, Hidden Suffering: Romania’s Segregation and Abuse of Infants and Children 

with Disabilities, http://www.disabilityrightsintl.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/

romania-May-9-final_with-photos.pdf.
86

necessary, and community services and education.”

221 A staff attorney from DRI 

interviewed mission personnel in Georgia and discussed the horrific conditions that

children with disabilities are often exposed in orphanages in an effort to dissuade the 

mission from funding the reconstruction. Mission personnel did not change their position 

on the program and stated that they were funding a program that the local government 

identified as important and required.222 This response echoed many of the responses 

from other mission personnel who claimed they were implementing programs that the 

local government in the country requested, and yet disability programming should reflect 

the values and principles of the USAID Disability Policy. The local advocate in Serbia 

expressed concern over this issue: “Even though USAID is funding projects in Serbia 

that are recognized by local communities as important and needed, their passivity in 

reliance on partners which are not critical of the reform and do not possess adequate 

knowledge, makes them an actor that is de facto contributing to exclusion of persons 

with mental health/intellectual disabilities in Serbia.”

223 The local advocate in Nepal 

expressed similar concerns and noted that mission personnel “did not know about 

CRPD and explained in plain language they would always focus on what the 

government of Nepal requests them to do.”

224 A core component of any dialogue on 

disability programming should include principles of nondiscrimination, independence, 

inputs from people with disabilities, and participation with the local government. 

Unfortunately, lack of knowledge on the part of USAID mission personnel will constrain 

such dialogue and limit learning opportunities. The result may well be the funding of 

inappropriate programming that undermines the USAID Disability Policy, U.S. federal 

disability law, and the CRPD. This is of considerable concern given that the vast 

majority of countries around the world possess little to no domestic disability law and 

 

221 DRI, The Worldwide Campaign to End the Institutionalization of Children,

http://www.disabilityrightsintl.org/learn-about-the-worldwide-campaign-to-end-theinstitutionalization-of-children/. 

222 Id.

223 USAID interview (1), Serbia, supra note 211.

224 USAID interview, Nepal, supra note 206.
87

policy and those that do, particularly in developing countries, tend to fall well short of the 

standards applied in either U.S. federal disability law or international disability rights 

law.225

Disability-Specific Programming Favored over Inclusion in General 

Development Programming

USAID uses a twin-track approach to inclusion by funding small-scale disability-specific 

programs in addition to promoting its Disability Policy in general development programs. 

Unfortunately, the disability-specific programs appear to be more effective than the 

large-scale, general development programs, which disclose very limited disability 

inclusive development strategies. For example, USAID/Bangladesh has a $90 millionper-year budget, with a single $300,000 grant program for capacity building of DPOs 

run by Handicap International (HI).226 When asked about programs that include people 

with disabilities, the mission personnel stated they did not have any programs that 

included people with disabilities, but when asked a more specific question they 

mentioned the disability-specific HI program.227 This response was similar in interviews 

at other missions and reveals that missions are not proactively advancing the inclusion 

of people with disabilities in all programs.228 USAID’s twin-track approach to disability 

inclusion should systemically build on the successes and lessons learned in disabilityspecific programs and use such examples as the point of departure for facilitating full 

inclusion in all USAID programs. When USAID missions implement disability-specific 

projects, personnel should be trained on how to successfully align those projects with 

general development programs being implemented at the same time. At issue here is 

what tools, training, and other strategies could help USAID transition from the twin-track 

 

225 See Lord and Stein, supra note 89.

226 USAID interview, Bangladesh, supra note 212.

227 Id.

228 After meeting with USAID personnel in various missions, many local advocates 

reported that people with disabilities are not being included in all programs.
88

approach to a more comprehensive and holistic approach that fully includes people with 

disabilities and accords accessibility for all beneficiaries in general development 

programming. 

In the programming reviewed, there were very few general development programs that 

meaningfully included people with disabilities. Most general development programs had 

no provisions to include people with disabilities or to provide reasonable 

accommodations or modifications to facilitate access.229 USAID personnel in various 

missions reasoned that there was no need to make accommodations in general 

development programs, as people with disabilities were not program participants or 

beneficiaries.230 The USAID personnel in Egypt reported that only disability-specific 

programs provide accommodations or modifications for people with disabilities. Further, 

the USAID personnel interviewed in Armenia stated that “there are no special 

accommodations made” for people with disabilities to participate in general 

programming.231 The interview responses drew a clear line between USAID programs 

that specifically target people with disabilities versus all other programs, referred to as 

“general” programs. 

Many general programs do not specify disability inclusion at any stage—whether 

design, implementation, or monitoring and evaluation. On the other hand, programs that 

are specific to people with disabilities receive a tiny fraction of funding in comparison to 

 

229 Local advocate interviews at USAID in Serbia and Egypt revealed that only disabilityspecific programs provide accommodations or modifications for people with disabilities. 

USAID interview, Serbia, supra note 211; local advocate interview with USAID 

personnel, USAID, Egypt. 

230 USAID interview (2), Serbia, supra note 211. “We did not make such 

accommodations for the mere fact that there were no handicap people within the 

beneficiary group of our programs so far. For example, in programs dealing with 

Serbian media there were no journalists that were handicapped. Also, there wasn’t 

anyone handicapped, or should I say disabled, in the Ministry of Justice we worked with, 

at least to our knowledge. So, there was no need to make that type of accommodations 

or changes.” Id.

231 Local advocate interview with USAID personnel, USAID, Armenia. 
89

general development programs and often only benefit people with specific disabilities, 

such as programs targeting people who are blind, deaf, or mobility impaired. These 

programs do not reflect the diversity of disability, and in many cases people with mental 

health disabilities, intellectual disabilities, or developmental disabilities are completely 

excluded from such programs. The foregoing suggests that greater attention should be 

paid to fostering the diversity of disability in USAID programming and to include 

disability in the broad spectrum of general programming undertaken by USAID. This 

cannot be accomplished absent specific expertise in disability inclusion across the 

various sectors of USAID programming.

Monitoring and Evaluation Efforts Fail to Apply a Disability Lens

Evaluation is the systemic collection and analysis of information about the 

characteristics and outcomes of programs and projects as a basis for 

judgments, to improve effectiveness, and/or inform decisions about 

current or future programming—USAID Evaluation Policy (2011).232

The interviews, focus-group discussions, and desk-based research undertaken in the 

course of the study revealed that very few monitoring and evaluation efforts incorporate 

a disability lens in development programming. This is problematic as the fundamental 

purposes of evaluation are “accountability to stakeholders and learning to improve 

effectiveness.” USAID cannot determine whether and how a project effectively included 

people with disabilities without incorporating a disability lens in monitoring and 

evaluation efforts. Additionally, monitoring and evaluation efforts that do not include a 

disability lens have negative implications on budgeting for disability inclusion. The 

 

232 USAID, USAID Evaluation Policy, January 2011, http://www.usaid.gov/evaluation/

USAIDEvaluationPolicy.pdf “The evaluation policy sets out an ambitious recommitment 

to learn as we ‘do,’ updating our standards and practices to address contemporary 

needs. In an increasingly complex operating environment, the discipline of development 

demands a strong practice and use of evaluation as a crucial tool to inform our global 

development efforts, and to enable us to make hard choices based on the best available 

evidence.” Id. at 5.
90

USAID Forward website on “Strengthening Monitoring, Evaluation and Transparency”

outlines USAID’s new approach to monitoring and evaluation as follows: 

Recognizing that the way in which development programs are monitored 

and evaluated is inadequate, we will change the Agency’s policies, 

structures and processes that seek to establish USAID as ‘best in class’

with respect to accountability and learning. To accomplish this goal, we 

will: 1) Introduce a much-enhanced monitoring and evaluation process 

and 2) Link those efforts to our program design, budgeting and strategy 

work.233

Accordingly, it is essential that monitoring and evaluation efforts integrate a disability 

lens into the monitoring and evaluation framework to ensure that project implementers 

effectively budget for disability inclusion during project design and report on their use of 

funds for disability-related project components. 

The USAID evaluation policy released in January 2011 fails to mention disability, but the 

section on gender provides a useful example for how USAID should draft language on 

disability in evaluations. Gender is listed as one of the basic features that must be 

included in all evaluations: “gender-sensitive indicators and sex-disaggregated data.”

234

The basic feature section of the evaluation policy should use similar language, such as 

“disability-sensitive indicators.”

Many interview and focus-group participants reported that disability is not easy to 

include in monitoring and evaluation efforts for various reasons. One of the primary 

issues mentioned focuses on the difficulty of tracking the number of people with 

disabilities who participate in a project, because not everyone has a visible disability 

 

233 “Strengthening Monitoring, Evaluation and Transparency,” USAID Forward, 

http://forward.usaid.gov/reform-agenda/strengthening-monitoring-eval. 

234 Id. at 5.
91

and many people with hidden disabilities may not feel comfortable self-reporting.

Although this is important information to consider, this is not at all a sound basis for 

continuing to exclude disability data in monitoring and evaluation and, in fact, runs 

counter to international standards, including the CRPD.235 It is essential that USAID 

initiate the development of innovative indicators and outputs that have a disability lens 

but do not require people to self-report on their disability or require USAID and 

implementing partners to try to determine if someone has a disability. Such an initiative 

would bring USAID into alignment with international standards on disability data and 

statistics. 

Some good practices warrant mention and can serve as a foundation for further 

progress in this context. The mission in Vietnam, for example, has proactively included 

people with disabilities in programs since 1989 and has established useful disability

indicators. The personnel interviewed reported that disability-specific indicators and 

targets had been established and that “the number of persons with disabilities and 

family members receiving assistance from USAID-funded program is tracked through 

quarterly and annually performance reports.”

236 Likewise, the mission in Ecuador also 

noted progress in tracking people with disabilities reached in USAID programs.

The monitoring and evaluation efforts that were most effective combined a quantitative 

and qualitative approach to capturing disability inclusion in projects. The following 

indicators serve as useful examples for future USAID programming:

● Number of trainings for DPOs

● Number of trainings on disability rights for community members

● Number of DPOs who have participated in program trainings and events

● Number of DPOs with a fund-raising strategic plan 

 

235 CRPD, supra note 9, at art. 31.

236 Local advocate interview with USAID personnel, USAID, Vietnam.
92

● Number of DPOs that play an important role in awareness-raising activities 

● Number of civil society initiatives that include a disability component 

● Number of organizations receiving small grants to implement a disability 

component 

● Number of new laws, regulations, or guidelines that are developed

USAID should also promote qualitative methods in monitoring and evaluation efforts 

that include: detailed document review, case studies, focus groups, project site visits 

and direct observations, and semistructured key informant interviews.

Disability Rights International’s final evaluation from a USAID-funded project in Kosovo 

provides a useful model for USAID, applicants, and offerors to review in developing 

monitoring and evaluation efforts during the project design stage that have a disability 

lens: 

MDRI will survey and monitor participants in all programs to document 

levels of inclusion and participation by people with mental disabilities 

before, during, and after the establishment of the program. The survey will 

document the subjective experiences of program participants, and a 

monitoring instrument will document the objective outcomes of the project.

MDRI will summarize these evaluations and produce a report of lessons 

learned from this project. The report will include detailed 

recommendations to civil society and development programs as to how to 

ensure the effective inclusion of people with mental disabilities in existing 

programs.237

 

237 James W. Conroy, Report of the Independent Evaluator on the Outcomes of the 

USAID Grant Entitled “Initiative for Inclusion: A Civil Society Support Program for 

Citizens with Mental Disabilities and Their Families in Kosovo (July 2007) (citing DRI’s 

original proposal to USAID).
93

USAID Afghanistan recently issued an RFP that provides a useful example of language 

for USAID to consider in efforts to promote a disability lens in all monitoring and 

evaluation efforts. The “Representations and Instructions” section of the Stability in Key 

Areas (SIKA)-West states, “As part of the submission the offerors shall provide a 

proposed Project Monitoring Plan (PMP) that will include, at a minimum, the following 

elements and be capable of generating the following data and reports: Reporting on 

disadvantaged groups (Women, Youth, Disabled, etc) with both PMP indicators and 

budget/project data.”238

Finally, the QDDR places significant emphasis on strengthening USAID’s monitoring 

and evaluation system by establishing new requirements for performance evaluations, 

designing rigorous impact evaluations, linking evaluations to future funding decisions, 

and promoting the unbiased appraisal of programs and the full disclosure of findings.239

This undertaking, combined with the commitment in the QDDR to disability inclusion in 

DOS and USAID programs, provides a clear mandate for improving the capture of 

disability-specific data through the reformed monitoring and evaluation scheme. To this 

end, USAID should ensure monitoring and evaluation efforts are conducted with a 

disability lens. The recently appointed Coordinator of Disability and Inclusive 

Development within the Bureau for Policy, Planning and Learning, where other efforts to 

improve data collection are already underway, can spearhead this process. This effort 

should be directed at ensuring disability inclusion in future project design and 

implementation and the development of best practices.

Conclusion 

The findings relating to USAID and the implementation of its Disability Policy disclose 

some positive practices and also support a review of the Policy, the terms of which were 

 

238 USAID Afghanistan, RFP 306-10-0034.

239 QDDR, supra note 14, at 104.
94

drafted in 1997. A review and revision of the Policy is timely given the commitment to 

disability inclusion set forth in the QDDR and will help facilitate a redoubling of efforts to 

ensure inclusion in all programming and to provide specific, concrete, and achievable 

guidance to USAID personnel and implementing partners. An emphasis on training that 

reaches USAID personnel in Washington, as well as in the missions around the world, 

is clearly needed based on the findings. The development of disability indicators to 

enrich the monitoring and evaluation of USAID’s programs is likewise timely and 

warranted. Finally, and presenting a new and unique challenge, with rapid CRPD 

ratification occurring across the world, it becomes ever more important to take disability 

inclusion into careful account when designing development assistance programming 

consonant with local law and prevailing international standards. Ultimately, taking 

specific steps to ensure the inclusion of people with disabilities in all foreign assistance 

programming avoids future human harm and reduces redevelopment costs.
95

CHAPTER 6. USAID Sector-Specific Review

Introduction

In the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, the Obama administration 

undertook to “rebuild USAID into the world’s premier development agency.”

240 As 

discussed in Chapter 5, USAID was one of the first development donors to adopt a 

policy addressing disability inclusion in foreign assistance programs. In order to keep 

pace with other donor efforts to advance disability inclusion in development,241

prompted by domestic as well as international legal developments, USAID needs to 

redouble its efforts to ensure, pursuant to the QDDR, that disability is fully integrated 

into the policies and programs of USAID.242

The U.S. Government currently prioritizes its development efforts in the following six 

areas: 

(1) Food security 

(2) Global health 

(3) Global climate change 

(4) Sustainable economic growth

(5) Democracy and governance

(6) Humanitarian assistance.243

 

240 QDDR, supra note 14, at 76.

241 See Lord, supra note 10.

242 QDDR, supra note 14, at 90.

243 See 2010 Presidential Policy Directive on Development (PPD).
96

This chapter focuses on USAID’s disability inclusion in three of those sectors: 

humanitarian assistance, economic development, and democracy and governance. The 

purpose of this chapter is to provide a more in-depth analysis combined with salient 

examples of whether and how disability inclusion occurs in U.S. Government-funded 

development work. The following sections analyze USAID’s disability inclusion within 

those specific sectors based upon a desk review of key publications, a sampling of 

USAID-issued solicitations, and key informant interviews with USAID personnel and 

implementing partners.244 The chapter’s scope is limited to a review of USAID programs 

in three sectors, but many of the findings and recommendations set forth are applicable 

to DOS and other U.S. Government agencies operating overseas. Additionally, many of 

the findings and recommendations are relevant to other sectors of international 

development.

Disaster Relief: Making Humanitarian Preparedness and Response 

Accessible 

The Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) within USAID facilitates 

emergency assistance efforts overseas.245 OFDA’s mission is to support humanitarian 

assistance programs to save lives, relieve human suffering, and diminish the social and 

economic impact of humanitarian emergencies worldwide.246 OFDA responds to natural 

disasters and also provides assistance when lives or livelihoods are threatened by 

armed conflict, acts of terrorism, or industrial accidents.247 Additionally, OFDA funds 

 

244 While the parameters of this review are limited, disability inclusion is highly relevant 

across all sectors of international development.

245 USAID, “Disaster Assistance,” http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/

humanitarian_assistance/disaster_assistance/. 

246 Id.

247 Id.
97

activities to decrease the impact of recurrent natural disasters and supports training to 

build local capacity for disaster management and response.248

According to USAID, “[p]eople with disabilities are substantially more prone to being 

adversely affected by natural disasters, conflict, or other emergencies, yet they are 

continually excluded from disaster planning and response efforts.”

249 Armed conflict and 

natural disaster increase the number of people with disabilities by causing injury, 

impairment, and trauma.250 Additionally, people with disabilities are disproportionately 

affected during disaster and armed conflict owing to inaccessible information 

dissemination, transportation procedures, and overall relief efforts.251

OFDA Technical Publications

Desk-based research reviewing USAID’s humanitarian assistance programs revealed a 

dearth of useful information on disability inclusion in USAID policies, guidance 

documents, and relevant publications directed at OFDA programming. Where people 

with disabilities are referenced at all, the tendency is to reference their generalized 

vulnerability without providing any guidance on strategies for ensuring their protection in 

situations of risk. In this vein, USAID/OFDA’s Guidelines for Unsolicited Proposals and 

Reporting includes a short section on disability, stating that “[p]eople with disabilities

may become disproportionately vulnerable during times of disaster, due to the

 

248 Id.

249 USAID, General Information on Disability and Development (2007),

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/wid/pubs/Disability

Information_Sept2007_1.pdf.

250 Id.

251 Id.
98

disruption of infrastructure, services, and familiar routines.”

252 While the publication 

does acknowledge that proposed interventions should include people with disabilities to 

the extent possible, it provides no concrete examples or guidelines as to how inclusion 

can be facilitated, nor does it reference materials that could provide such guidance.253

Similarly, the Field Operations Guide (FOG) for Disaster Assessment and Response, a 

key reference for field workers undertaking initial assessments and for members of 

OFDA Disaster Assistance Response Teams (DART), lacks any guidance on disability 

inclusion.254 The FOG makes passing reference to disability but fails to provide 

meaningful instruction for including people with disabilities in assessments. While 

people with disabilities are identified as a “vulnerable population” that must be targeted 

for support after a disaster, the FOG does not address how to identify people with 

disabilities or otherwise point to inclusive strategies. Other technical documents 

intended to provide guidance in this context similarly fail to provide meaningful direction 

on disability inclusion.

Likewise, budgeting tools used in the humanitarian assistance context miss 

opportunities to provide meaningful direction on the implications of disability inclusion 

and the USAID Disability Policy. The Sample Detailed Budget for Primary Funding 

Recipients, for example, includes a long illustrative list of line items, but does not 

 

252 USAID/OFDA, Guidelines for Unsolicited Proposals and Reporting (October 2008), 

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/disaster_assistance/resources/

pdf/updated_guidelines_unsolicited_proposals_reporting.pdf

These OFDA guidelines are intended to assist organizations in the preparation of 

proposals for new awards and award modifications and their submission to OFDA. 

253 The guidelines do note that “[b]eneficiaries can include those who had disabilities

prior to, as well as resulting from, the disaster” and that “[d]isability activities can also

include specific care, such as rehabilitation services or psychosocial support, for people 

with temporary or long-term disabilities caused by the disaster,” yet this provides little in 

the way of information to foster meaningful implementation. Id.

254 USAID, Field Operations Guide (FOG) for Disaster Assessment and Response, 

Version 4.0 (September 2005), http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_

assistance/disaster_assistance/resources/pdf/fog_v4.pdf. 
99

include a line item for reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities to 

participate and benefit from programs.255 In addition to ensuring that technical 

publications provide relevant guidance on disability inclusion, budgeting references and 

models should likewise include such references, thereby cuing implementers to the 

need to account for disability inclusion in costing proposals.

While the focus on disability inclusion in humanitarian assistance in this report is limited 

to addressing USAID/OFDA, there are indicators of progress in other contexts. 

InterAction, the umbrella coalition organization of humanitarian assistance 

organizations, has adopted a section, “Promoting People with Disabilities,” into its 

private voluntary organization (PVO) standards.256 The standards call for member 

organizations to establish an internal mechanism to promote and monitor disability 

inclusion in humanitarian assistance programs257 and require disability inclusion 

strategies to be integrated into all programming stages.258 The PVO standards also 

state that programs and activities should be held in accessible locations, training and 

conference materials should be provided in accessible alternate formats, and members 

should budget for reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities in programs 

and activities.259 Notwithstanding these and other efforts to promote disability inclusion, 

it remains the responsibility of USAID and other U.S. Government agencies to advance 

disability inclusion in U.S.-funded programming, and these agencies should be setting 

the standard for nongovernmental humanitarian assistance contractors to follow, 

certainly not the other way around.

 

255 USAID, Sample Detailed Budget for Primary Funding Recipients,

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/disaster_assistance/resources/. 

256 Private Voluntary Organization (PVO) InterAction Standards, revised January 6, 

256 11, 7.4

257 Id. at 7.4.1.

258 The standards also call on members to consult with local partner organizations “in 

the field.” Id. at 7.4.2

259 Id. at 7.4.3
100

Humanitarian Assistance Sector Conclusion

The foregoing review exposed some significant gaps in disability inclusion within the 

framework of humanitarian assistance programming and missed opportunities to 

provide meaningful guidance on inclusion to implementing partners. A concerted effort 

should be made to ensure that technical publications and budget samples do provide 

disability-specific guidance on inclusion.

Economic Development: Ensuring the Inclusion of People with 

Disabilities 

The central goals of USAID’s economic development programs are to assist developing 

countries in achieving rapid, sustained, and broad economic growth aimed at ensuring 

the well-being and livelihoods of their citizens over time.260 USAID’s economic growth 

strategy, Securing the Future: A Strategy for Economic Growth,

261 guides these efforts 

and comprises three core program approaches: (1) developing well-functioning 

economies; (2) enhancing access to productive activities; and (3) strengthening the 

international framework of policies, institutions, and public goods. These core 

approaches are supported by USAID programming aiming to—

● Improve the environment for enterprise growth and competitiveness; 

● Strengthen economic policy and governance; 

● Create sound, well-governed financial systems; 

● Support business-enabling environments; 

 

260 See USAID, Economic Growth and Trade, http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/

economic_growth_and_trade/index.html. 

261 USAID, Securing the Future: A Strategy for Economic Growth 6 (2008),

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/economic_growth_and_trade/eg/eg_strategy/

eg_strategy_v4_final.pdf.
101

● Support microfinance programs and business services for micro and small 

enterprises; and 

● Build trade capacity.262

The stated aims of USAID’s economic development programming have clear 

implications for the inclusion of people with disabilities. The International Labor 

Organization estimates that 386 million of the world’s working-age people have 

disabilities, and unemployment of people with disabilities is as high as 80 percent in 

some countries.263 People with disabilities in developing countries make up a 

disproportionately high level of the world’s population living in poverty; thus it is 

essential that economic development programs be inclusive of people with disabilities. 

Ensuring disability inclusion and accessibility in USAID’s economic development 

programs is accordingly an important aspect of any successful poverty eradication 

program. Absent disability inclusion in all subsectors of economic development 

programming—whether micro-level interventions aimed at income generation or macrolevel interventions designed to create economic development-friendly legal and 

regulatory frameworks—people with disabilities will not be able to fully participate in 

society. The next section reviews USAID’s economic development programming within 

the context of the USAID Disability Policy. 

Economic Development Technical Guidance

Of 20 core technical publications published by USAID concerning economic 

development, including both technical briefs and publications of USAID’s chief 

 

262 Note that other USAID strategies likewise are directed at promoting economic 

growth, including agricultural development; infrastructure improvement such as the 

upgrading of energy, telecommunications, and water and sanitation services; workforce 

development; education; and health.

263 USAID, Economic Growth and Trade (2009), http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/

economic_growth_and_trade/.
102

economic advisor, none addressed disability inclusion.264 Even in publications where 

the disproportionate impact of poverty and joblessness on women was repeatedly 

referenced and highlighted, no mention was made of people with disabilities and their 

unique vulnerability, even in the 2009 publication, A Guide to Economic Growth in PostConflict Countries.

265

Economic Development Solicitations

This study reviewed numerous economic development solicitations and found that very 

few solicitations included people with disabilities at all or in any meaningful way. The 

RFPs reviewed did include the USAID Disability Policy, but failed to list people with 

disabilities in the statement of work. Further, twelve economic development RFAs were 

reviewed, but five failed to include the USAID Disability Policy. This is a major issue, as 

it points to the fact that some Acquisition Officers remain unaware of the policy and fail 

to include it in RFAs altogether, some seven years after the adoption of the USAID 

Disability Policy. In RFAs where the policy is included, there were very few that 

meaningfully mentioned people with disabilities in the program description section. 

Further, out of six economic development RFPs, only two contained additional 

information related to people with disabilities in the statement of work.

Examples from USAID Programming

The following examples of USAID economic development programs in countries where 

interviews were undertaken provide a useful lens through which to review and 

conceptualize the various types of programs being implemented, as well as whether 

and how USAID economic development programs are accessible to and inclusive of 

 

264 The 20 technical publications were selected from USAID’s website on economic 

growth and trade. 

265 USAID, A Guide to Economic Growth in Post-Conflict Countries (January 2009), 

http://pdf.usaid.gov/pdf_docs/PNADO408.pdf.
103

people with disabilities. The review combines the in-country interview responses that 

mentioned economic development programs with the desk-based research into 

economic development programs in the 20 countries included in this study.

In Armenia, the USAID mission supports labor market interventions aimed at providing 

support to Armenia’s jobless population, and the program specifically includes people 

with disabilities as one of the targeted beneficiary groups.266 According to Program 

Officers at the mission, there has been a recent push to include people with disabilities 

in all programs, and the officers emphasized the importance of including people with 

disabilities in job-skills workshops.267

USAID’s “Assistance to Persons with Disabilities” program in Ecuador”

268 supports job 

placement services and information technology training for people with disabilities to 

improve their labor profiles.269 The main objectives of the program are (a) to promote 

the participation and equalization of opportunities of people with disabilities; (b) to 

increase awareness of issues of people with disabilities; (c) to engage other U.S. 

Government agencies, host country governments, implementing organizations, and 

other donors in fostering a climate of nondiscrimination against people with disabilities; 

and (d) to support international advocacy for people with disabilities.

270 In 2007, the 

program trained approximately 1,000 people with disabilities, and 860 found permanent 

jobs.271 While this is an example of targeted economic development programming for 

people with disabilities that has achieved measurable results, the investment for the 

 

266 USAID Armenia, Country Profile, http://armenia.usaid.gov/en/node/37.

267 USAID interview, Armenia, supra note 231.

268 USAID Ecuador, Assistance to Persons with Disabilities, 

http://ecuador.usaid.gov/portal/content/view/207/175/.

269 Id. 

270 Id.

271 Id. 
104

entire project from 2006 to 2009 was only $766,000.272 General economic development 

programming that receives more funding and staff that is accessible to people with 

disabilities has the potential to benefit even more people with disabilities. 

In Egypt, the USAID mission funds a disability-inclusive microfinance program. The 

mission partners with a microfinance institution that provides loans to people with 

disabilities and trains them on financial management. There have been more than 3,500 

program beneficiaries. 

In contrast to the inclusive programs referenced above, USAID Serbia supported a 

microfinance program, but it did not include people with disabilities. According to an 

officer at the mission, “we had a microfinance program and handicapped people were 

not prevented from applying for a loan, for example.” This response points to a major 

misconception in international development programs—the absence of an express 

prohibition on the participation of people with disabilities does not mean that the 

program is actually accessible to or inclusive of people with disabilities. The central idea 

around American federal disability law, and the international standards that have 

emerged from it, is that disability inclusion requires reasonable accommodation and 

modification.

Economic Development Sector Conclusion

In reviewing the USAID economic development sector, it is evident that USAID has the 

capacity and existing framework to create inclusive economic development 

programming. Deepening efforts at inclusion in this context, including through the 

provision of technical guidance and more meaningful attempts at highlighting the 

disability dimension in relevant solicitations, will help narrow equity gaps and eliminate 

worldwide poverty, advance the goals of USAID’s Disability Policy while complying with 

 

272 Id.
105

American disability rights laws, advance the principles of the CRPD, and further prove

that the United States is a leader in the inclusive development field.

Democracy and Governance: Achieving the Full Participation of 

People with Disabilities and Their Representative Organizations in 

Politics and Public Life

The central goals of USAID’s democracy and governance programming include the 

equal application of the law, transparent and accountable government systems,

impartial electoral frameworks, and citizen participation.273 USAID organizes its 

democracy and governance work around four core pillars: (1) Rule of Law; (2) 

Governance; (3) Elections and Political Processes; and (4) Civil Society programming.

These programming pillars are essential advocacy entry points for groups subject to 

discrimination in their societies generally, and for people with disabilities in particular.

The fundamental aim of the USAID Disability Policy as applied to these spheres of work 

is for people with disabilities to be fully included as beneficiaries in any democracy and 

governance strategy. The following sub-sections review disability inclusion in the four 

core pillars of USAID democracy and governance programming. Research conducted 

as part of this sector analysis consisted of a review of democracy and governance 

solicitations, desk-based research reviewing USAID’s Center for Democracy and 

Governance technical publication series launched in 1998, in-country interviews, and 

focus-group discussions.

 

273 See USAID, Democracy and Governance User’s Guide (2010),

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/publications/pdfs/DG_User

Guide_November10.pdf. 
106

Rule of Law

In the interest of promoting and expanding order and security—essential prerequisites 

to the Rule of Law—USAID prioritizes the establishment and expansion of justice 

institutions to ensure the maintenance of public order.274 Laws must be legitimized in 

the eyes of the citizenry in order to be successful and lasting. USAID emphasizes the 

importance of citizen inclusion in legal reform processes, the harmonization of 

customary law with existing or proposed state-based law, the formation of justice 

mechanisms to address past abuses, and systems of checks and balances to prevent 

future abuses.275 USAID seeks to strengthen rule of law by promoting equal application 

of the law, protection of human rights and civil liberties, and access to justice for all 

citizens—especially the poor, people with disabilities, and women.276

National disability legal frameworks remain underdeveloped throughout the world, 

notwithstanding rapid ratification of the CRPD in more than 100 countries. In many 

countries, domestic law contains blatant discriminatory provisions that seriously 

undermine access to justice and full participation in society for people with disabilities. 

The provisions that discriminate against people with disabilities include arbitrary 

exclusions in electoral codes, sweeping plenary guardianship laws with no due-process 

protections, discriminatory banking practices, and inaccessible court proceedings. 

These discriminatory provisions represent a small fraction of the standard practices that 

USAID should address in general Rule of Law programs. To this end, it is important for 

Rule of Law programs to include disability-specific technical assistance to promote 

development of domestic disability laws and policies. Currently, disability-specific 

guidance is conspicuously absent from technical publications, statements of work, and, 

consequently, from Rule of Law programming implemented in developing countries.

 

274 USAID, Rule of Law: Our Strategic Focus, http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/

democracy_and_governance/technical_areas/rule_of_law/.

275 Id.

276 Id.
107

Governance Programming

Through its governance programming, USAID aims to develop the effectiveness and 

accountability of government institutions through increasing transparency and universal 

public participation.277 By providing technical expertise and leadership—learned and 

honed through research, trainings, and best practices developed in the field—USAID 

actively supports country-level governance development programs. USAID prioritizes 

programs that endeavor to address anticorruption, accountable security-sector systems, 

the decentralizing and localizing of governance activities, improvements to legislative 

procedures and processes, democratizing executive branch offices, and the inclusion of 

democratic structures and precepts into state building.278

The inclusion of people with disabilities in governance programming is a necessary 

precondition to the greater participation of people with disabilities in government. 

Additionally, the removal of actual or perceived barriers blocking people with disabilities 

from freely participating in or benefiting from governance programming actualizes 

USAID’s governance-programming mission: “the mere act of governing is not 

democratic unless the institution and individuals charged with governance...are 

accessible to everyone.”

279

Elections and Political Processes Programming

USAID election programming assists governments in developing consensus-building 

practices that promote more inclusive and participatory political processes; election 

 

277 See USAID, Governance: Our Strategic Focus, http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/

democracy_and_governance/technical_areas/governance/index.html.

278 See USAID, Governance: Our Strategic Goals and Programs, http://www.usaid.gov/

our_work/democracy_and_governance/technical_areas/governance/gov_strategy.html.

279 See USAID, Democracy and Governance: Technical Areas,

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_and_governance/technical_areas/.
108

processes that democratically and accurately reflect the will of the people; oversight 

mechanisms to stifle corruption and ensure that election management bodies operate 

independently; and multiple political parties that aggregate the interests of different 

constituencies and ensure that elections are truly contested.280 Democracy requires free 

and fair elections occur on a consistent basis and be accessible to all citizens.

People with disabilities have faced many barriers to participation in election 

programming throughout the world. These programming barriers undermine USAID’s 

strategic focus to promote free and fair elections. Current USAID technical publications 

on elections and political processes make no mention of people with disabilities. Where 

programming references people with disabilities as potential beneficiaries, generally no 

solutions are offered to address the inaccessibility of elections. USAID needs to provide 

guidance on how to include people with disabilities as beneficiaries of and participants 

in elections programming so that mission officers are aware of how to design 

programming that includes and is accessible to the participation and benefit of people 

with disabilities.

Civil Society Programming

USAID seeks to strengthen the ways in which citizens are freely and openly able to 

organize and communicate with one another and their government, protections of 

tolerance and respect for human rights, and the citizenry’s capacity to mobilize reform 

and civic action efforts.281 Civil society activities help inform public opinion, mobilize 

voting blocs, and challenge politicians and political parties through policy debate. Often 

in postconflict countries, civil society organizations lead reconciliation and 

reconstruction efforts, assisting USAID programming by conducting and commissioning 

 

280 See USAID, Elections: Our Strategic Goals, http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/

democracy_and_governance/technical_areas/elections/epp_strategy.html.

281 See USAID, Civil Society: Strategic Focus, http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/

democracy_and_governance/technical_areas/civil_society/civ_strategy.html.
109

research to improve programs; performing assessments of government programs; 

managing NGO cooperative agreements; and providing localized and unique technical 

expertise.282 The full participation of people with disabilities in civil society is a marker of 

an open and free society. 

Democracy and Governance Technical Guidance in Featured 

Publications

A review of key democracy and governance publications from the USAID Center for 

Democracy and Governance and successor publications, intended to provide best 

practices, lessons learned, and guidelines for practitioner consideration, revealed scant 

attention to disability inclusion. Further, there were numerous missed opportunities to 

provide salient guidance to democracy and governance practitioners, even in 

publications with a “marginalized” population focus or theme. The inclusion of people 

with disabilities in democracy and governance programming is an essential first step 

toward the full realization of the rights of people with disabilities; however, USAID 

program officers and mission staff cannot be expected to understand how best to 

incorporate people with disabilities into their programming without specific guidance. 

People with disabilities and disability inclusion are not addressed in the wide range of 

core democracy and governance publications, whether in Rule of Law,283 governance 

 

282 See USAID, Civil Society, http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/democracy_

and_governance/technical_areas/dg_office/civ.html.

283 See, for example, USAID, Rebuilding the Rule of Law in Post-Conflict Environments;

Guide to Rule of Law Country Analysis: The Rule of Law Strategic Framework;

Reducing Corruption in the Judiciary; Guidance for Promoting Judicial Independence 

and Impartiality, Case Tracking and Management Guide; Achievements in Building and 

Maintaining the Rule of Law; Alternative Dispute Resolution Practitioners’ Guide;

Weighing in on the Scales of Justice Independence and Impartiality; USAID Handbook 

on Legislative Strengthening; Understanding Representation: Legislative Strengthening;

USAID Experience Strengthening Legislatures.
110

(anticorruption,284 decentralization, policy implementation285), elections and political 

processes,286 or civil society.287

The provision of appropriate guidance on how to include people with disabilities as 

beneficiaries of and participants in all aspects of democracy and governance 

programming is essential so that mission officers are able to design, implement, and 

oversee concrete programming that is inclusive of and accessible to people with 

disabilities. 

Democracy and Governance Solicitations 

The review considered the meaningful inclusion of people with disabilities in solicitations 

and their statements of work to assess, for example, whether people with disabilities 

were referenced as a vulnerable population or potential beneficiaries in relevant 

program descriptions. While many failed to include people with disabilities or otherwise 

reference disability inclusion, there are examples of solicitations that did mention people 

with disabilities. For example, the recently issued International Rule of Law Technical 

Assistance Services RFP listed people with disabilities as program participants in the 

 

284 See USAID, A Handbook on Fighting Corruption; Promoting Transparency and 

Accountability: USAID’s Anti-Corruption Experience; USAID Anti-Corruption Strategy.

285 See USAID, Policy Implementation: What USAID Has Learned

286 See USAID, Money in Politics Handbook: A Guide to Increasing Transparency in 

Emerging Democracies Managing Assistance in Support of Political and Electoral;

Electoral Security Framework; Political Party Assistance Policy; Political Party 

Development Assistance.

287 See USAID, A Mobile Voice: The Use of Mobile Phones in Citizen Media;

Community Media Sustainability Guide; New Media and International Media 

Development: A Resource Guide for Europe and Eurasia; The Enabling Environment for 

Free “ Independent Media: Contribution to Transparent “Accountable Governance;

Media Sustainability Index for Middle East and North Africa; The Role of Media in 

Democracy: A Strategic Approach; Approaches to Civic Education: Lessons Learned;

Civil Society Groups and Political Parties: Supporting Constructive Relationships;

Constituencies for Reform: Strategic Approaches for Donor-Supported Civic Advocacy.
111

statement of work and in subsections on the equal application of the law and access to 

justice.288

A recently released RFA from USAID Liberia includes people with disabilities in the 

program description: “Progress in the Rule of Law sector will continue to be impeded 

without tangible and large scale efforts to incorporate marginalized groups, including the 

poor, women, disabled, youth, and those living in rural areas of the country.”

289 It also 

recognizes that “[m]arginalized groups such as the poor and disabled often lack access 

to the instruments of governance” and that legal literacy outreach programs can provide 

basic access to justice training and peaceful avenues for recourse.290 Although the 

program description meaningfully mentions people with disabilities as beneficiaries, it is 

noteworthy that this RFA does not include the Disability Policy.291 USAID Indonesia 

included people with disabilities in a recently issued Annual Program Statement, noting 

that “to the extent it can accomplish this goal within the scope of the program objectives; 

the Recipient should demonstrate a comprehensive and consistent approach for 

including men, women and children with disabilities.”

292

Democracy and Governance Program Examples

Democracy and governance program examples were elicited from in-country interviews 

with USAID program officers. The in-country interview questions specifically addressed 

 

288 USAID, RFP International Rule of Law Technical Assistance Services, SOL-OAA-11-

000011 (December 7, 2010). “Support to ensure that laws are applied equally to all 

persons and entities, including women, youth, people with disabilities, the poor and 

disadvantaged, and other vulnerable populations, and that impunity of privileged 

individuals is reduced.”

289 USAID Liberia, RFA 669-11-001, Rule of Law.

290 Id.

291 Id.

292 USAID Disability Policy, USAID Indonesia, APS-497-10-000001 “IKAT-US: Civil

Societies Innovating Together.”
112

the four pillars of democracy and governance to determine the level of inclusion and 

accessibility across the various subsectors: 

● The USAID mission in Egypt funds a grant program that is establishing a 

complaints office to train lawyers on how to draft and file legal complaints. 

Notably, the grant has been used to train lawyers on the legal rights of people 

with disabilities, “with a special focus on women.”

● USAID Serbia has Rule of Law programming that focuses on judicial reform and 

the capacity of courts to act independently and transparently. The USAID officer 

interviewed stated there was no disability-related component in this program and 

that no trainings included discussion of people with disabilities in the court 

system.

● USAID Russia worked with Perspektiva, a local disability organization, and its 

regional partners to develop and implement a training course on advocating the 

rights of people with disabilities for law students in five Russian universities. 

● USAID Vietnam has been proactively including disability components in Rule of 

Law programs. As part of its disability program, the mission worked with the 

Vietnam National Assembly to enact the National Disability Law, Vietnam’s first 

comprehensive law for people with disabilities.293 The mission also worked with 

various government ministries to address and develop barrier-free codes and 

standards for public construction and transportation and included training for 

government officials on the rights of people with disabilities.294

● Prior to the last national election in Bangladesh, USAID provided training to 

DPOs to ensure that polling stations were accessible to people with disabilities 

 

293 USAID interview, Vietnam, supra note 236.

294 USAID Interview, Vietnam, supra note 236.
113

and also to inform people with disabilities about their right to cast their vote in 

secret.295

● USAID Serbia has funded election programs, but people with disabilities were not 

included. According to a Program Officer, “the emphasis was more on 

professionalizing party systems and strengthening their platforms. In regards to 

specific groups, we worked on creation of a coalition of ethnic minorities, but 

persons with disabilities were not included.”

● USAID Serbia is in the final year of the Civil Society Advocacy Initiative , a fiveyear, $18 million program that includes various disability components. Although 

this program includes people with disabilities, neither the mission nor the prime 

implementing partner could provide information about how many people with 

disabilities participated in program activities. The mission and the prime 

contractor, the Institute for Sustainable Communities, pointed to the fact that no 

“disability indicators” were included in the program’s monitoring and evaluation 

plan. This points to the lack of monitoring and evaluation efforts that track people 

with disabilities discussed in Chapter 5. Large-scale civil society programs must 

develop indicators in order to monitor and evaluate disability inclusion.

● USAID Indonesia has been proactively including people with disabilities in 

election programs. Prior to the 2009 general election, the mission worked with 

the International Foundation for Electoral Systems and the Center for Citizens 

with Disabilities Access to Election, an Indonesian DPO that focuses on election 

access for people with disabilities. In this program, USAID supported the 

development of a voting template for people who are blind or low vision. The 

template allowed people who are blind or low vision the ability to vote 

independently at polling stations for the first time in Indonesia and represented a 

first step toward ensuring the right of all people with disabilities in Indonesia to 

vote in secret. Additionally, an advocacy toolkit for people with disabilities was 

developed in consultation with international disability experts, election experts, 

 

295 USAID interview, Bangladesh, supra note 212.
114

and DPOs. These activities were part of a much larger election project with a 

total budget of $3 million.

● Notably, in 2006, USAID funded a two-year project implemented by Disability 

Rights International, the Initiative for Inclusion of Citizens with Mental Disabilities 

and their Families in Kosovo, which helped to support one of the most innovative 

and effective self-advocacy efforts for people with intellectual disabilities and 

serves as a useful example for future programming. The self-advocacy 

organization that was established during the project, Ne per Ne (We for 

Ourselves), has—

 Conducted workshops and panel discussions aimed at policymakers and the 

public on the rights afforded to all people under the CRPD.

 Opened the doors of Shtime Institution and taken people out to the Ne per Ne 

meetings and events—people who have spent decades segregated from 

society and locked behind the doors of the institution.

 Challenged discrimination. After being denied official identification cards in 

the former Yugoslavia, members of the self-advocacy groups were among the 

first citizens of Kosovo to receive the new ID cards.

 Held a candidate’s question-and-answer forum during the political campaign 

season during Kosovo’s first election as an independent state, allowing 

persons with intellectual disabilities to vote for the first time.

 Published Success Stories, a book of personal narratives describing the 

experience of disability in Kosovo and how lives have been transformed 

through self-advocacy. The book is now part of the curriculum of middle and 

high schools throughout Kosovo.

 Established an internship program with the University of Prishtina that 

introduces for all psychology students a required internship placement with 

the self-advocacy group.

 Lectured at schools and the university and conducted television and 

newspaper interviews as part of their advocacy effort for inclusive education 
115

and to break down barriers and reduce the stigma and discrimination against 

people with intellectual disabilities.

Democracy and Governance Sector Conclusion

The foregoing review reveals some good examples of inclusive programming in the 

democracy and governance sector but also reveals numerous missed opportunities to 

provide important guidance on disability inclusion, even in areas where USAID has 

considerable good practice, as in election access. USAID’s Democracy and 

Governance Technical Publication Series, an excellent resource for democracy and 

governance practitioners, has not been used to forward the USAID Disability Policy, 

either through disability-specific publications or through disability inclusion in key 

publications. Moreover, USAID solicitations routinely fail to capture even the most 

rudimentary opportunities to advance disability inclusion in statements of work, often 

missing people with disabilities as specifically identified beneficiaries in programs 

targeting the most vulnerable groups in society. Achieving the aims of the QDDR to 

ensure full inclusion in USAID democracy and governance programming will therefore 

require changes that provide democracy and governance practitioners, whether USAID 

personnel or its implementing partners, with disability-specific best practices, lessons 

learned and guidelines, and a more nuanced approach to inclusion in statements of 

work and solicitations generally.
116
117

CHAPTER 7. Review of Department of State: Country 

Reports on Human Rights, Embassy 

Accessibility, and Cultural Exchange 

Programs 

The U.S. Department of State (DOS) is the government agency responsible for foreign 

diplomacy.296 The head of DOS, the Secretary of State, is the President’s lead foreign

policy advisor. The agency’s mission is to “[a]dvance freedom for the benefit of the 

American people and the international community by helping to build and sustain a 

more democratic, secure, and prosperous world composed of well-governed states that 

respond to the needs of their people, reduce widespread poverty, and act responsibly 

within the international system.”

297

The current priorities for DOS are to protect the United States and its citizens; promote 

democracy and human rights; protect and promote U.S. interests, values, and policies; 

and support all of those in the field implementing the foreign policy initiatives that help 

make these other goals a reality.298 More concretely, DOS day-to-day duties include 

managing all U.S. embassies and consular offices in foreign countries, negotiating 

treaties and agreements on issues ranging from trade to weaponry, organizing the 

international activities of other departments and hosting official visits, and managing the 

U.S. foreign relations budget.299 Of particular relevance for the purposes of this report 

are the roles that DOS plays in monitoring country human rights conditions through its 

Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL). Also, DOS oversees embassy 

and mission accessibility and implementation of cultural exchange programs, most 

notably those of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. 

 

296 See DOS, “Mission,” http://careers.state.gov/learn/what-we-do/mission.

297 See DOS, “Bureau of Research Management,” http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/index.htm.

298 See DOS, “Diplomacy: The U.S. Department of State at Work” (June 2008), at 1, 

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/46839.pdf.

299 Id.
118

In June 2010, the Obama administration created a new position within DRL to further its 

commitment to supporting the CRPD, the Special Advisor on International Disability 

Rights.300 The purpose of the Special Advisor is to “include issues affecting people with 

disabilities across the world in all aspects of [DOS] work.”

301 The National Council on 

Disability commends this appointment and recommends that DOS provide adequate 

resources in order to achieve the objectives of that office.

The sections that follow address disability inclusion within the context of the DOS 

Country Reports on Human Rights, embassy accessibility (premises and information), 

and accessibility of cultural exchange programs funded by DOS.

Country Reports on Human Rights

The Office of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL) within DOS submits Country 

Reports on Human Rights Practices annually to Congress in compliance with sections 

116(d) and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and section 

504 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.302 These laws require the Secretary of State 

to provide to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

Foreign Relations of the Senate “a full and complete report regarding the status of 

internationally recognized human rights, within the meaning of subsection (A) in 

countries that receive assistance under this part, and (B) in all other foreign countries 

which are members of the United Nations and which are not otherwise the subject of a 

human rights report under this Act.”

303 According to DRL, “[t]he reports cover 

internationally recognized individual, civil, political, and worker rights, as set forth in the 

 

300 See DOS, “Conversations with America: International Disability Rights,”

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/plrmo/cwa/156916.htm. 

301 Id.

302 See DOS, “Human Rights Reports,” http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/.

303 Id.
119

Universal Declaration of Human Rights,”

304 and consist of some 5,000 pages on human 

rights conditions in more than 190 countries that is respected globally for its objectivity 

and accuracy.”

305 Critically, for people seeking asylum, DRL also provides relevant 

information on country conditions to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and 

immigration judges in asylum cases.306

In 2003, NCD recommended that Congress require DOS to document human rights 

violations against people with disabilities in the Country Reports.307 In follow-up, this 

study reviewed the 194 Country Reports on Human Rights from 2009 to determine 

whether and how violations were documented. Information on disability can be found

under Section 6: Discrimination, Societal Abuses, and Trafficking in Persons in these 

reports, within a subsection entitled “Persons with Disabilities,” usually following 

subsections on “Women and Children.”

308 Of the 194 reports, all except Western 

Sahara include the “Persons with Disabilities” subsection.309 The introduction to Section 

 

304 Id.

305 See DOS, “Human Rights,” http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/index.htm.

306 Examining the implications of the country human rights reports and other human 

rights documentation provided by DOS to the Immigration and Naturalization Service for 

asylum seekers is beyond the scope of this report. It stands to reason, however, that 

gaps in reporting on the human rights situation of marginalized populations is likely to 

have a chilling effect on successful asylum claims. Unfortunately, there is evidence to 

suggest that the lack of information on the human rights of people with disabilities is a 

barrier to successful asylum claims. See, for example, Arlene S. Kanter, Chisam, and 

Nugent, ”The Right to Asylum and Need for Legal Representation of People with Mental 

Disabilities in Immigration Proceedings,” 25 Mental & Physical Disability L. Rep. 511 

(2001).

307 NCD, Foreign Policy and Disability, supra note 50.

308 See DOS, 2009 Human Rights Report: Israel and Occupied Territories (March 11, 

2010), http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/nea/136070.htm.

309 Although the territory is claimed by Morocco, Western Sahara’s sovereignty is 

disputed. Presently, the country falls under Moroccan jurisdiction, and the Moroccan 

kingdom extends its laws, civil liberties, and restrictions to the Western Saharan 

population. The report’s information about Western Sahara was obtained through the 
120

6 provides an overview as to whether certain populations are protected by law and 

states generally, and whether these laws are enforced or not, sometimes with 

references to people with disabilities.310 In addition, each Country Report begins with a 

summary introduction to the full report, which may or may not mention people with 

disabilities.311

In-Depth Review of Reports

The disability subsections in the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices reviewed 

for the purposes of this report ranged widely in scope, specificity, and length. Some 

were cast in very general terms and were therefore of little utility.312 Other reports used 

government information or other data to provide statistics on the status of people with 

disabilities in employment, education, health care, and other spheres.313 Statistics about 

people with disabilities in the legal system were informative,

314 and information about 

government agencies responsible for disability issues315 improved the usefulness of the 

report. The more informative reports provided illustrations of specific human rights 

 

diplomatic mission to Morocco. It is also important to note that the United States does 

not have a diplomatic mission in Iran. All available information in the country report was 

gathered through nongovernmental sources.

310 For instance, the Kazakhstan report states, “Violence against women, trafficking in 

persons, and discrimination against persons with disabilities, homosexual activity, and 

nonethnic Kazakhs in government were problems.” DOS, 2009 Human Rights Report: 

Kazakhstan (March 11, 2010), http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/sca/136088.htm.

311 See DOS, 2009 Human Rights Report: Romania (March 11, 2010), 

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eur/136053.htm.

312 See DOS, 2009 Human Rights Report: Cameroon (March 11, 2010), 

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/af/135942.htm

313 See DOS, 2009 Human Rights Report: Kenya (March 11, 2010),

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/af/135959.htm

314 Id.

315 See DOS, 2009 Human Rights Report: Kosovo (March 10, 2010), 

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eur/136039.htm
121

violations and actions to prevent such violations in the future.316 There was a correlation 

between the number of sources referenced in the report, including media sources, 

government sources, DPOs, and NGOs, and the depth and development of the 

report.317

In order to perform a more complete analysis of the overall breadth of the 2009 reports, 

the inclusion of information from nine categories was examined for each country: (1) 

concrete statistics on employment, education, and health care; (2) the rights of workers 

with disabilities; (3) laws that prohibit discrimination or require accommodations for 

people with disabilities; (4) specific government agencies or departments; (5) specific 

international and domestic NGOs and DPOs; (6) specific examples of human rights 

violations; (7) political/civic participation; (8) additional information on women or children 

with disabilities; and (9) additional information located outside the “Persons with 

Disabilities” subsection. The number of country reports that contained information from 

each category was recorded and calculated as a percentage of total country reports.

The review does not evaluate each country’s human rights record; it simply assesses 

the inclusion of information in the reports.318 For example, although 98.5 percent of the 

country reports mention whether there are laws regarding discrimination against people 

with disabilities, not every country in this group has or enforces such laws. The table

below illustrates the review with a description of each category and the percentage of 

total country reports that include information from these categories.

 

316 See, e.g., DOS, 2009 Human Rights Report: Thailand (March 10, 2010), 

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eap/136010.htm.

317 See, e.g., DOS, 2009 Human Rights Report: India (March 10, 2010), 

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/sca/136087.htm; see also DOS, 2009 Human 

Rights Report: Russia (March 10, 2010), 

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eur/136054.htm.

318 It is not within the scope of this study to fully review the human rights situation of 

people with disabilities in each country; rather, this report aims to review whether and 

how DOS investigates and reports on such violations in country reports.
122

Category Description of Category

% of

Country Reports

That Include 

Information

from Category

Concrete statistics on 

employment, 

education, and health

care

N/A 23.20%

The rights of workers 

with disabilities

Policies that require a certain percentage of 

employees with disabilities. Also includes 

the mention of any discrimination against 

employees with disabilities. Some reports 

included information on workers with 

disabilities in Section 7, Workers’ Rights.

22.70%

Laws that prohibit 

discrimination or 

require 

accommodations for 

people with disabilities

Whether laws exist that prohibit 

discrimination against people with 

disabilities and/or require reasonable 

accommodations for people with disabilities.

98.50%

Specific government 

agencies or 

departments

Identifies specific departments, agencies, or 

ministries that provide services to people 

with disabilities, or provide support to DPOs 

and NGOs that work with people with 

disabilities.

67.50%
123

Category Description of Category

% of

Country Reports

That Include 

Information

from Category

Specific international 

and domestic DPOs 

and NGOs

Discusses specific DPOs and NGOs that 

advocate for the rights of people with 

disabilities; provide aid, funding, and 

services to people with disabilities; or 

conduct research on human rights violations 

against people with disabilities.

34.50%

Specific examples of 

human rights violations

Discusses specific and individual examples 

of human rights violations against people 

with disabilities (e.g., provides names of 

victims, specific dates, locations, and the 

type of discrimination).

13.90%

Political/civic 

participation

Election access for people with disabilities. 

This category includes reports that discuss 

access to polling places and voting ballots 

for people with disabilities. It also includes 

reports that mention 

congressional/parliamentary quotas 

(positions that are designated for people 

with disabilities).

10.80%

Additional information 

on women or children 

with disabilities

Reports that specifically mention the status 

of women or children with disabilities. This 

information could be found either under the 

“Persons with Disabilities” section or 

elsewhere in the report.

20.10%
124

Category Description of Category

% of

Country Reports

That Include 

Information

from Category

Additional information 

located outside 

“Persons with 

Disabilities” section

This category is included to show the 

number of country reports that mention 

disability issues in other sections. The 

sections that are most likely to include such 

information are Section 5, Governmental 

Attitude Regarding International and 

Nongovernmental Investigation of Alleged 

Violations of Human Rights, Section 2,

Respect for Civil Liberties, Section 1,

Respect for the Integrity of the Person, and 

Section 7, Workers’ Rights.

24.70%

Selected Country Analysis

The following are summaries of both good models for reporting on the human rights of 

people with disabilities and examples of human rights reporting on people with 

disabilities that could be improved through deeper research garnering detail from 

additional sources; going into greater detail and depth; and eliciting information directly 

from in-country DPOs or international organizations working in country or having 

knowledge of the local disability community.
125

In Ghana, the Country Report drew on different sources to give a complete and 

illustrative picture of discrimination against people with disabilities.319 The report drew 

from news sources, government agencies, NGOs, and disability and human rights 

activists.320 It highlighted the mechanisms of Ghana’s legal system through mentioning 

the role of its constitution, courts, and legislature.321 In addition, the report drew 

attention to both societal/religious views on disability and specific cases of abuse and 

disability discrimination.322

Uganda also provides a useful example of detailed reporting, as the Country Report 

critically and thoroughly evaluated human rights violations against people with 

disabilities.323 The report noted that while legislation prohibits discrimination and 

protects people with disabilities, the law was seldom enforced.324 The report also noted 

that several complaints had been filed with the Uganda Human Rights Commission and 

described specific cases of discrimination and action taken to eliminate discrimination 

against people with disabilities.325 Notably, the embassy communicated with DPOs to 

create the report and also researched the role of several government agencies, which 

enhanced the coverage.326

The embassy in Russia, likewise, undertook a detailed review in its reporting on people 

with disabilities. The Country Report for Russia was well documented and included 

 

319 See DOS, 2009 Human Rights Report: Ghana (March 10, 2010), 

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/af/135956.htm

320 Id. 

321 Id. 

322 Id. 

323 See DOS, 2009 Human Rights Report: Uganda (March 10, 2010),

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/af/135982.htm.

324 Id.

325 Id.

326 Id.
126

population statistics, news sources, and material from government agencies, DPOs, 

and NGOs.327 It also included a detailed analysis of disability law (or lack thereof) in 

Russia, including building accessibility, voting, education, and employment.328 Further, 

the report highlighted failed mechanisms of preventing discrimination in access to 

employment and education and procedures for contesting institutionalization.329

Significantly, the links between the embassy and USAID mission in Russia to disability 

groups are strong, suggesting a correlation between engagements with DPOs and 

detailed reporting.

The Country Report for Armenia provided more detailed coverage of disability issues 

than other reports. Notably, the Armenian report was one of the very few to specifically 

reference people with disabilities in its introductory summary.330 Sources for the report 

varied, including material from NGOs, government agencies, and news sources, 

disclosing a depth of research that few of the reports matched.331 The report 

documented specific instances of discrimination and abuse against people with 

disabilities.332 It also addressed shortcomings in implementation: While Armenian law 

prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities in employment, education, 

access to health care, building access, and other services, discrimination still remained 

a significant problem.333

 

327 See DOS, 2009 Human Rights Report: Russia (March 10, 2010),

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eur/136054.htm.

328 Id.

329 Id.

330 See DOS, 2009 Human Rights Report: Armenia (March 10,, 2010),

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/eur/136018.htm.

331 Id.

332 Id.

333 Id.
127

The 2009 Country Human Rights Report for India also served as a useful example of 

detailed reporting on the human rights situation of people with disabilities. The report 

used a variety of sources, including information from NGOs, government agencies, 

statistics from the World Bank, universities, news sources, and relevant disability law.334

The report also cited information disclosing government action plans to combat 

discrimination in employment and education and also provided details on different

projects and resources implemented by agencies, DPOs, and NGOs.335

While the above represent examples of disability rights reporting that clearly meet 

human rights reporting standards, other reports fall below these standards and are, in 

some instances, of little value. Thus, in Namibia, while the embassy’s report did 

reference the previous year’s report, the report only mentioned the role of one 

government agency and included mostly generalized statements.336 More depth into 

legal mechanisms of action and specific examples of discrimination would be helpful.

Similarly, Zambia’s 2009 Country Report was extremely brief and provided little useful 

information on the status of people with disabilities.337 The report only referenced one 

news source and one government agency.338 The embassy did not reach out to local 

DPOs and thus did not properly address the human rights of people with disabilities in 

its research.339 This is surprising given that Zambia’s umbrella DPO coalition, the 

Zambian Federation of Persons with Disabilities, is very well known to USAID and other 

donors for its work in the area of disability inclusion in HIV/AIDS programming and for 

 

334 See DOS, 2009 Human Rights Report: India,

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/sca/136087.htm.

335 Id.

336 See DOS, 2009 Human Rights Report: Namibia,

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/af/135968.htm.

337 See DOS, 2009 Human Rights Report: Zambia,

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/af/135983.htm.

338 Id.

339 Id.
128

its active role in ensuring that the new Zambian Constitution explicitly references 

disability as a prohibited ground of discrimination, among other disability rights 

advocacy efforts.

The sparseness of the disability section in Nepal’s 2009 Country Report was even more 

remarkable, consisting of only one paragraph.340 Brief mention was given to the lack of 

disability laws and enforcement of law to prevent discrimination in employment, 

education, health care, and access to other state services.341 No coverage was 

provided of the ongoing efforts of the local disability community to establish independent 

living centers and engage in national law reform, nor was any attention given to the 

well-known efforts on the part of the disability community to engage in the constitution 

drafting process. More specific examples of discrimination, an in-depth review of 

disability law, and the use of additional sources would very likely have uncovered some 

of these details and made for a more enlightening read.

A final illustration underscoring the limitations of scant disability rights coverage is the 

Colombian 2009 Country Report.342 The “Persons with Disabilities” section only 

mentioned the government agency designated to protect the rights of people with 

disabilities and that some disability law preventing discrimination existed.343 There was 

no mention of communication with DPOs or NGOs.344 It stands to reason that 

communication between the Human Rights Officer at the embassy and the democracy 

and governance staff at USAID might foster the kind of information flow that is essential 

to meaningful human rights reporting. 

 

340 See DOS, 2009 Human Rights Report: Nepal,

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/sca/136091.htm. 

341 Id.

342 See DOS, 2009 Human Rights Report: Colombia,

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/wha/136106.htm.

343 Id.

344 Id.
129

In reviewing the level of detail and information provided in the various reports, it is clear 

that embassy officials should use the resources available to them. In particular, they

should be encouraged to reach out to local DPOs and international disability 

organizations to ensure that the situation of people with disabilities is accurately 

reflected and included in these reports.345 Many Human Rights Officers reported being 

unaware of any DPOs in the country in which they worked and therefore did not consult 

with a DPO while drafting the report.346 To be sure, Human Rights Officers cannot be 

expected to possess expert, in-depth knowledge of all human rights matters in the 

country in which they work. They can, however, adhere to best practices in human 

rights reporting in the areas they do cover and achieve a baseline of quality reporting for 

those human rights issues. Ensuring disability rights training and materials in Human 

Rights Officer development is one approach that could, over time, make quality 

disability rights reporting the norm in all country human rights reports.

Embassy Accessibility 

Local advocates conducted interviews and assessments in 14 U.S. embassies in 

developing countries to determine the accessibility of the facilities, programs, and 

employment opportunities administered by the embassy for people with disabilities. 

Security Concerns Trump Accessibility 

The main finding from the site visits by local advocates was that security concerns 

trumped accessibility for people with disabilities. Repeatedly, as local advocates 

 

345 Even where local disabled people’s organizations are not readily identifiable to 

embassy personnel, one or two well-placed e-mails, either to the disability human rights 

advisor at DOS, the disability advisor at USAID, or to any number of international 

organizations working on disability rights (many of them in developing countries), would 

yield local DPO contact information. 

346 DOS, 2009 Human Rights Report: Mexico, http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/

2009/wha/136119.htm; DOS, supra note 337. 
130

identified accessibility issues with embassy officials, embassy officials responded by 

citing security as the main reason a facility or service was not accessible. Interview 

responses disclosed no case in which discussion about how accessibility for people with 

disabilities could be achieved within the framework of ensuring the security of facilities 

and information. One prominent example reported in many of the in-country interviews 

described the inoperability of push-button doors—which accommodate people who use 

wheelchairs and other people with mobility disabilities—in embassies or missions as a 

result of security concerns. Local advocates noted that there were electronic push 

buttons for many entranceway doors, but in many instances those push buttons were 

turned off due to “security concerns” that the door might open on its own after the button 

was pushed. The concerns cited did not offer reasoning or actual data concerning 

threats to security, but rather highlighted the fact that security trumps accessibility.

Security concerns were also cited as the reason that certain materials on websites 

remain inaccessible. The main websites for embassies were all accessible for screenreading technology used by people who are blind, have low vision, or have print 

disabilities, but certain information and materials that were links off the main page were 

not accessible. Embassy officials noted that some documents had to be “locked,”

making them inaccessible to screen-reading technology, for security purposes. The 

embassy officials did not purport to have a great deal of knowledge about “open-source”

documents that are accessible to screen-readers versus “locked” documents, but they 

did believe that documents were locked owing to security concerns (e.g., because it is 

easier to replicate information from open-source documents, thus it is easier to alter 

information on important forms, such as visa applications, if the document is opensourced). This is another example of security concerns trumping accessibility and points 

to the fact that DOS and other U.S. Government agencies need to ensure accessibility 

for people with disabilities and reconcile this issue with security measures. 
131

Information and Materials Are Not Provided in Accessible Formats

Taking appropriate measures to ensure that people with disabilities enjoy equal access 

to information and communications, including information and communication 

technologies and systems, is surely part of effective diplomacy, development, and 

conflict prevention and resolution. The provision of information and services in 

accessible and usable formats for people with disabilities is one area where, in 

response to the query of the Secretary of State in the QDDR (“How can we do 

better?”),347 DOS can and should do better.

A key finding resulting from the in-country assessments was that embassies are not 

providing information and materials in accessible formats to people with disabilities with 

any degree of consistency. There are various manifestations of this shortcoming. The 

majority of embassy assessments found that U.S. embassies do not provide sign 

language interpreters for visa applicants. In Zambia, the embassy noted that it does not 

provide sign language interpreters on the basis that language interpreters are not 

provided to visa applicants. Follow-up questions regarding this issue revealed that 

embassy officials may not have an awareness of the distinction between providing 

language interpreters for people who do not speak English and sign language 

interpreters as an accommodation for applicants with disabilities. Further, not every 

embassy assessed provides visa applications in an accessible format to people who are 

blind, have low vision, or have print disabilities. While paper visa applications are still 

standard in many embassies, there is a shift toward electronic applications. The 

embassy officials interviewed could not answer questions about the accessibility of 

electronic visa applications, but they all expressed interest in making sure those 

documents are provided in an accessible format online. More must be done to address 

the prevalence of PDF documents, as these are very difficult for persons who use

screen-reading technology to access.

 

347 QDDR, supra note 14.
132

With specific regard to website accessibility, all of the main embassy websites reviewed 

as part of the assessment were accessible to screen-reading technology; however, not 

all of the links from the main website were accessible to various screen readers.348

Further, many embassy websites failed to list TTY (teletypewriter) numbers for people 

who are deaf and who use this technology. 

The local advocate in Nepal drafted a detailed and informative summary of the embassy 

assessment that reflects many of the issues that were pointed out in other embassy 

assessments:

The U.S. Embassy and USAID are in the same building. The building, 

constructed in 2007, is on the same level which allows access to 

wheelchair users, but, although they claim they follow the ADA completely, 

we could not find any consideration for visually impaired persons, like 

tactile block, signage size, text design, color and contrast, sign positioning, 

handrail texture, railings, lighting and switches to find the way, the use of 

colors combination in the interior design. There was not any sound system 

in the elevator and the elevator did not make it possible for a wheelchair 

user to get out without turning the chair. The toilet is accessible to 

wheelchair users, but the level of washbasin and urinals is too high for 

wheelchair users. There was a small library for the general public, but we 

could not find any materials for visually impaired people (but they show 

interest to add material for visually impaired people). We could not find 

any system, programs or even the future plan to address the issues in 

accessibility for other kind of disability like people who are deaf or hearing 

impaired, intellectual disability, blind and physical disabilities. Most 

interestingly when we asked to show the VISA interview section to assess 

whether the sill height of the VISA interview window is suitable for 

 

348 Twenty-two embassy websites were reviewed.
133

wheelchair users or not, they did not show any interest to address our 

request although the visa section is open to the general public.349

The advocate in Armenia noted that the embassy was fairly accessible to people who 

use wheelchairs but expressed other accessibility concerns similar to those raised in the 

Nepal assessment: “[T]here were no specific facilities for people who are deaf or blind. 

We did not notice any yellow signs, no voice commands in elevators.” The local 

advocate in Colombia was allowed to view the visa interview window and noted that it 

was not accessible to people who use wheelchairs. He also noted that while the visa 

office does have an accessible window (placed at a height reachable for a wheelchair 

user), it was not being used for this purpose: It was serving as a bookcase. This issue 

was brought to the attention of embassy officials and they immediately opened the 

window for visa interviews.

Cultural Exchanges: Ensuring Inclusion of People with Disabilities in 

the Design and Implementation of Cultural Exchange Programs

The United States has a long and justifiably proud history of facilitating cultural 

exchange programs around the world.350 Indeed, for more than half a century the United 

States has supported a wide variety of international educational and cultural exchange 

programs to enhance cross-cultural understanding and to build bridges between 

communities as a means of peace-building.351 These programs take many forms and 

have been particularly successful in bringing future leaders from around the world to the 

United States to experience the American educational system, enhance their knowledge 

 

349 Local advocate interview, U.S. embassy, Nepal.

350 “About the Bureau [of Educational and Cultural Affairs],”

http://exchanges.state.gov/about.html. 

351 See DOS, “History of the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs,”

http://www.dipity.com/ecawebsitesmail/History-of-the-Bureau-of-Educational-andCultural-Affairs-U-S-Department-of-State/. 
134

in major fields of study, and explore American culture and values.352 At the same time, 

cultural exchange programs provide Americans with invaluable experiences and insight 

from other countries.353 The cultural exchange programs funded by the U.S.

Government are extensive and far-reaching and, in line with the stated objectives of the 

Obama Administration, are likely to be incrementally increased over time.354 As such, it 

is vital that cultural exchange programs be accessible to and inclusive of people with 

disabilities.

Various educational and cultural exchange programs are sponsored and operated 

through U.S. embassies abroad, many in partnership with governmental and 

nongovernmental institutions. These include the variety of exchanges falling within the 

J-1 Private Programs and include programs to the United States, such as au pair 

programs, internships, and summer/work and travel programs.355 In addition, there are a 

variety of academic exchange programs, which differ by region, embassy, and 

supporting organization. The DOS Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs funds 

several prestigious exchange programs (Fulbright, Humphrey, State, and Muskie)356

that are offered out of nearly every U.S. embassy in the world.

The Fulbright Program, a prestigious grant program for international educational 

exchange for scholars, educators, graduate students, and professionals,

357 is an 

example of a cultural exchange program that has developed policies to include people 

 

352 See DOS, “About the Bureau,” supra note 350.

353 Id.

354 See President’s Committee on the Arts and Humanities, “Cultural Exchange,”

http://www.pcah.gov/cultural-exchange. See also, DOS, Bureau of Educational and 

Cultural Affairs [hereafter ECA], “About the Bureau,”

http://exchanges.state.gov/about.html. 

355 See DOS, “Exchange Visitors,” http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/

types_1267.html#1.

356 See DOS ECA, http://www.exchanges.state.gov/.

357 Id.
135

with disabilities.358 The program includes staff training on the inclusion of people with 

disabilities in cultural exchange programs, and uses the resources and manuals from 

Mobility International USA (MIUSA), an organization specializing in international 

exchange programs for people with disabilities.359 Training resources from MIUSA 

include recruitment materials,360 participant advising,361 overseas placement,362 and 

general suggestions363 for including students with disabilities in exchange programs. 

The Fulbright Program also refers people to a MIUSA-administered webinar on inclusive 

cultural exchange programs that is funded by DOS.364 Additionally, Fulbright applicants 

are subject to the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961,

365 which 

prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability.366 The Fulbright Program is a good 

example of a cultural exchange program that is accessible to and inclusive of people 

with disabilities, and DOS should be commended for its implementation and 

encouraged to ensure that all cultural exchange programs run out of embassies are 

accessible to people with disabilities.

In addition to the aforementioned cultural exchange programs, DOS funds a MIUSA 

program to implement high school exchange programs for students with disabilities. 

 

358 See DOS, “Fulbright,” http://fulbright.state.gov/.

359 MIUSA National Clearinghouse on Disability and Exchange, “Tools for Exchange 

Professionals,” http://www.miusa.org/ncde/tools/index_html.

360 Id.

361 Id.

362 Id.

363 Id.

364 Council for International Exchange of Scholars, “Fulbright Specialist Program,”

http://www.cies.org/Webinar/2010/030310_Disabilities.pdf.

365 “[N]o qualified disabled candidate will be subjected to discrimination on the basis of 

disability....” Mutual Education and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, as amended, 22 

U.S.C. § 2450 (2010).

366 Id.
136

These programs work with international high school students with disabilities on 

developing their advocacy skills and assist with their transition to living in the United 

States.367 These programs not only help to prepare students with disabilities to benefit 

the most from DOS-funded cultural exchange programs, but they also provide an 

important guiding practice for the inclusion of students with disabilities in exchange 

programs. 

Conclusion

The foregoing findings reveal some considerable progress in embassy accessibility, in 

disability inclusion in the context of cultural exchange programs funded by DOS, and in 

the coverage of the human rights of people with disabilities in the DOS Country Human 

Rights Reports. At the same time, the review revealed gaps and areas where more 

progress can and should be made, particularly in light of the strong commitment to 

inclusion of people with disabilities reflected in the QDDR.

The DOS Country Human Rights Reports have strengthened their coverage of disability 

human rights issues. Still, there is considerable room for improvement as coverage 

remains inconsistent across the Reports. Providing Human Rights Officers with a userfriendly basic template that tracks key components of the CRPD coupled with improved 

training on disability human rights issues would no doubt help standardize reporting. 

The recent appointment of a Disability Human Rights Advisor at DOS provides an 

opportune time for review and revisions to improve current practice.

Incremental improvements in embassy and mission accessibility are readily apparent, 

and yet the review revealed remaining gaps that require attention. These include 

ensuring that embassy services and information are readily accessible to persons with 

 

367 See MIUSA, “U.S. State Department High School Exchange Programs: A-SMYLE, 

FLEX, & YES,” http://www.miusa.org/exchange/flexyes.
137

disabilities. In addition, there must be continued review of security measures with the 

aim of introducing measures that mitigate barriers.

In the context of cultural exchange and with the aim of ensuring that programs funded 

by DOS are made accessible, DOS should support trainings for staff of cultural 

exchange programs on the inclusion of people with disabilities. The adoption of specific 

disability-inclusive mission statements and policies that encourage qualified people with 

disabilities to apply would likely attract greater participation. Improvements should be

made to ensure that all information on programs is in accessible alternative formats 

(website materials, print, and in person) and that accessible housing options are 

available, along with individualized accommodations.
138
139

CHAPTER 8. U.S. Department of Defense: A Review of 

Overseas Building and Infrastructure 

Efforts

Traditionally, U.S. civilian government agencies, such as DOS and USAID, have 

dominated the development sector abroad. However, in recent years, the Department of 

Defense (DOD) has played a more significant role in capacity and infrastructure building 

in developing countries.368 From 2002 to 2005, the Pentagon’s budget for official 

development assistance (ODA) increased from 5.6 percent to 21.7 percent.369 DOD now 

accounts for more than 20 percent of U.S. ODA.370 Examples of DOD ODA projects 

include the Iraqi Relief and Reconstruction Fund,

371 the Tsunami Relief and 

Reconstruction Funds,

372 the Global HIV/AIDS initiative,373; and Overseas 

Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid (OHDACA).374 DOD also supports other 

 

368 Stewart Patrick and Kaysie Brown, Center on Global Development, The Pentagon 

and Global Development: Making Sense of the DoD’s Expanding Role, 3 (2007),

http://www.cgdev.org/content/publications/detail/14815/.

369 Id. at 1.

370 Id. at 4.

371 The Iraqi Relief and Reconstruction Fund was established by the U.S. Congress on 

November 6, 2003. It allocated $18.4 billion to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure, damaged 

from years of neglect, sanctions, and war. U.S. Department of Defense, Iraq Rebuilding 

Shifts from Western Contracts to Iraqis (2007), http://www.defense.gov/News/

NewsArticle.aspx?ID=46592.

372 The White House, U.S. Support for Earthquake and Tsunami Victims (January 3, 

2005), http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/infocus/tsunami/.

373 Raymond W. Copson, Congressional Research Service, RS 21181, HIV/AIDS 

International Programs: Appropriations, FY 2002–FY 2004 (2003),

http://lugar.senate.gov/services/pdf_crs/foreign/Appropriations_HIV_AIDS.pdf; Kaiser 

Family Foundation, HIV/AIDS Policy Fact Sheet, U.S. Federal Funding for HIV AIDS: 

The President’s FY 2011 Budget Request (2010),

http://www.kff.org/hivaids/upload/7029-06.pdf. 

374 OHDACA funds humanitarian programs that support humanitarian assistance 

(nonlethal excess property; medical visits; minor construction; repair of roads, schools, 

clinics; well digging; disaster preparedness); foreign disaster relief and emergency 
140

humanitarian aid-related programming outside of ODA through counterterrorism and 

capacity-building commands such as the Africa Command (AFRICOM).

375 Therefore, it 

is extremely important to review DOD accessibility standards and practices to ensure 

that new U.S.-funded infrastructure efforts are accessible to people with disabilities. 

The chapter reviews DOD-funded infrastructure efforts and policies to determine the 

accessibility of newly constructed buildings, transportation systems, information 

systems, and other forms of infrastructure for people with disabilities. It is essential that 

newly constructed, DOD-funded infrastructure be accessible beginning with the design 

stages. When newly constructed infrastructure is built in an accessible manner, it sets a 

standard in the country for future projects. Additionally, when physical infrastructure is 

made accessible from the beginning, DOD and other U.S. agencies avoid substantial 

future costs associated with retrofitting. Accordingly, it is imperative that DOD adhere to 

accessibility standards and support the building of accessible infrastructure in 

postconflict and developing countries. 

 

response (logistics, airlift, search and rescue, humanitarian daily rations, plastic 

sheeting, tents, water, capacity building); and humanitarian mine-related activities (the 

Humanitarian De-mining Training Center at Fort Leonard Wood, MO, funds 

deployments outside the Continental United States for de-mining and clearance training 

for other explosive remnants of war, mine risk education and awareness, medical, 

safety, organizational management). Defense Security Cooperation Agency, Overseas 

Humanitarian, Disaster, and Civic Aid Appropriation (2011),

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2011/budget_justification/pdfs/01_Operation

_and_Maintenance/O_M_VOL_1_PARTS/OHDACA_FY11.pdf.

375 AFRICOM is one of six DOD regional military headquarters and was declared a fully 

unified command on October 1, 2008. AFRICOM has administrative responsibility for 

U.S. military support to U.S. Government policy in Africa, to include military-to-military 

relationships with 53 African nations. The other five regional commands and their 

locations are U.S. Central Command, Tampa, Florida; U.S. European Command, 

Stuttgart, Germany; U.S. Northern Command, Colorado Springs, Colorado; U.S. Pacific 

Command, Honolulu, Hawaii; and U.S. Southern Command, Miami, Florida. U.S. Africa 

Command, http://www.africom.mil/.
141

In December 2008, DOD adopted new accessibility standards under the Architectural 

Barriers Act of 1968 (ABA) for all DOD-funded construction projects.376 These standards 

define the requirements that must be “applied during the design, construction, additions 

to, and alteration of sites, facilities, buildings, and elements to the extent required by 

regulations issued by federal agencies under the ADA of 1990.”

377 The purpose of the 

new standards is to ensure that newly constructed facilities are accessible to people 

with disabilities.378 Although the standards generally apply to international projects, 

many overseas projects fall under an exemption and therefore are excluded. For 

example, “[f]acilities in other countries for which the United States contributes a portion 

of the construction cost but does not control design criteria (such as NATO-funded 

facilities) need not comply with these standards,”

379 but the exception goes on to state 

that “accessibility is recommended if obtainable.”

380 Another exception states, “[f]acilities 

leased by the United States in other countries need not be accessible pursuant to U.S. 

law.”

381

Facility accessibility exceptions laid out in DOD policy memoranda are problematic for 

various reasons. In programs where the United States is a contributing funder but does 

not control the design criteria, the language “accessibility is recommended if obtainable”

is unlikely to yield accessibility gains. If DOD or any other U.S. agency is contributing 

funds to new infrastructure, the language should not allow for voluntary compliance, but 

must require accessibility and, in light of rapid CRPD ratification worldwide, compliance 

 

376 United States Access Board, ABA Accessibility Standard for Department of Defense 

Facilities (2008) [hereafter ABA Accessibility Standard for DOD Facilities],

http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/aba-standards-dod.cfm.

377 Id. at 101.1.

378 Memorandum from deputy secretary of defense, “Dep’t of Def, Access for People 

with Disabilities” (2008), http://www.access-board.gov/ada-aba/dod-memorandum.htm.

379 Id.

380 Id.

381 Id.
142

with accessibility standards should be the norm. Further, if a U.S. Government agency 

is leasing buildings in another country, such buildings should be accessible, or easily 

made accessible, so that Americans and locals with disabilities can enjoy ready access 

to the building. Allowing DOD to comply with host country accessibility laws is also 

unacceptable because many host countries do not have accessibility laws or guidelines 

and the ones that do are often lacking in comparison to American accessibility laws and 

policies. For the United States to remain a leader in accessibility standards and their 

adherence, DOD should adhere to American accessibility standards for its overseas 

facilities. 

As ratification of the CRPD continues at a rapid pace, the inconsistencies in 

accessibility guidelines should lessen as ratifying countries adopt accessibility laws at 

the domestic level in line with the CRPD. However, in countries that have not ratified the 

CRPD, DOD’s policy of compliance with host country laws creates inconsistency in 

regional accessibility standards. Moreover, given the underdeveloped state of disability 

law frameworks, adhering to local accessibility standards often means ignoring 

accessibility altogether.

A further problem in this context is the permissible derogation from accessibility 

standards during times of emergency. Section F202.6 of the ABA Accessibility Standard 

for DOD Facilities applies to Federal Government leases and requires that leased 

buildings or new facilities comply with the ABA guidelines. However, “Buildings or 

facilities leased for use by officials servicing disasters on a temporary, emergency basis 

shall not be required to comply with F202.6.”

382 This loophole allows DOD contractors to 

avoid accessibility during times of temporary emergency or disaster response. Given 

the vast amount of ODA being apportioned to DOD for implementation, this gaping 

loophole sets an unacceptable standard of discrimination in times of emergency.

 

382 ABA Accessibility Standard for DoD Facilities, § F202.6 (1).
143

Conclusion

The foregoing review highlights the far-reaching implications of DOD-funded overseas 

building and infrastructure, a woefully understudied issue that is seriously in need of 

further research. The findings suggest that DOD waivers are undermining accessibility 

at the expense of inclusion and without justification. DOD should work to limit the 

number of waivers and exceptions permitted under its newly adopted ABA Accessibility 

Standards for DOD Facilities. In addition, DOD should review waivers and exceptions 

before authorizing them to ensure that they are used only in narrowly defined 

circumstances and only where necessary. DOD should also provide clear guidance to 

contractors on the appropriate application of the ABA Accessibility Standards in 

postconflict and developing countries and work to close the gap that allows contractors 

to apply for waivers or argue for an exception overseas. These standards must clearly 

indicate that DOD infrastructure projects in postconflict and developing countries are 

subject to the same provisions as other DOD infrastructure projects. Finally, DOD 

should take immediate action to ensure that its funding of living arrangements for the 

benefit of people with disabilities comports with federal disability-rights policy. To this 

end, DOD should move to adopt a specific policy that recognizes the need to end 

institutional bias and related forms of isolation and exclusion and create meaningful and 

affordable opportunities to receive community-based long-term services.
144
145

CHAPTER 9. Recommendations and Future 

Directions

The foregoing chapters have analyzed the application of U.S. federal disability law and 

policy in foreign assistance. Research has explored the implications of the adoption of 

the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, especially in the context 

of overseas foreign assistance. The review examined the application of disability 

inclusion in the following realms of U.S. foreign assistance programming: (1) 

employment opportunities for people with disabilities; (2) access and inclusion of people 

with disabilities in U.S.-funded development programs; and (3) accessibility for people 

with disabilities to U.S.-funded construction and infrastructure projects. This chapter

sets forth concrete recommendations flowing from the study and charts a strategy for 

the future. If followed, strategic implementation will position the United States to 

maintain a leadership role in disability inclusion in U.S. Government-funded overseas 

programs, facilities, and employment opportunities. 

NCD Recommendations Directed to Congress

• Apply Federal Disability Standards to Overseas Programs and Employment

NCD recommends that Congress instruct USAID, DOS, DOD, and other U.S. 

Government agencies operating overseas that Sections 501, 503, and 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 apply to overseas programs and employment 

opportunities operated by the U.S. Government. This will ensure that Americans 

with disabilities working for the U.S. Government are afforded the same 

protections abroad as in the United States. It will also foster disability inclusion 

in U.S.-funded overseas development programs.

• Ensure Respect for Domestic Disability Laws in the Implementation of 

Overseas Programs in Host Countries

NCD recommends that Congress instruct USAID, DOS, DOD, and other U.S. 

Government agencies operating overseas to promote greater comparative 
146

knowledge and understanding of local disability law and policy frameworks, 

including the status of CRPD ratification in countries receiving foreign assistance. 

Enhancing understanding of local disability law and policy frameworks can foster 

opportunities for Rule of Law assistance and, importantly, foster compliance with 

host-country requirements, particularly in countries that have ratified the CRPD.

• Limit Accessibility Waivers and Exceptions in Infrastructure to Avoid 

Future Redevelopment Costs 

NCD recommends that the waivers and exceptions currently outlined in the 

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 and regulations for building temporary 

structures in time of emergency be narrowed. The current exceptions are overly 

broad and create a gaping loophole for U.S. Government agencies and their 

contractors. Qualifications for exceptions must be narrowed in order to promote 

accessible construction and to avoid future redevelopment costs in barrier 

removal. In addition, further clarity must be given to defining “emergency” and 

“temporary” pursuant to these exceptions.

• Ratify the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

NCD recommends that the Senate, upon receipt of the ratification package, 

consider and expeditiously provide its advice and consent to ratification of the 

CRPD.

NCD Recommendations Directed to USAID, DOS, and DOD

• Promote Employment of People with Disabilities in Overseas Offices and 

Programs

USAID, DOS, and DOD should promote employment opportunities for people 

with disabilities in missions, embassies, consular offices, and overseas programs. 

Americans with disabilities have the right to equal access to employment 

opportunities and are entitled to reasonable accommodations to perform their job 

duties. This should include the opportunity to work in U.S. embassies, missions, 
147

and U.S. Government-funded programs abroad. It is therefore important for U.S. 

Government agencies to ensure that Americans with disabilities are afforded the 

same protections and remedies overseas as in the United States. Further, where 

local nationals are utilized, local nationals with disabilities should be hired to work 

in U.S.-funded overseas programs and facilities. 

NCD Recommendations Directed to USAID

• Revise the USAID Disability Policy

NCD recommends that USAID review and update its 2004 Disability Policy. The 

current policy, drafted in 1997, is outdated and provides little to no guidance as 

to how USAID programs can be made inclusive across all sectors of its 

development portfolio. The emergence of disability-inclusive policies by 

numerous bilateral and multilateral donors, spurred by the adoption of the CRPD, 

makes such a review timely; it also offers an opportunity for USAID to emerge, 

once again, as a preeminent leader in disability-inclusive development. The 

Disability Coordinator at USAID, placed within the newly (re)established Bureau 

of Policy, Planning and Learning, is well positioned to undertake such a review.

• Provide Adequate Resources for the Coordinator on Disability and 

Inclusive Development

NCD recommends that USAID provide ample resources for the Coordinator on 

Disability and Inclusive Development to advance implementation of the USAID 

Disability Policy. USAID should provide proper staffing and finances for this 

work and should promote agency-wide coordination. Additionally, USAID should 

promote interagency coordination between this office and DOS to promote 

disability inclusion in all international diplomacy and development work.

• Introduce Mandatory Training in Disability Rights and Disability Inclusion 

in Development

NCD recommends that USAID, DOS, and DOD implement mandatory disability 

rights and disability inclusion in development training sessions for employees at 
148

all missions and embassies. The findings of this report indicate that personnel 

around the world are unfamiliar with strategies for disability inclusion in facilities, 

programs, and employment opportunities. Ensuring the participation of people 

with disabilities, DPOs, and inclusive-development experts should be a core 

component of any training strategy. Currently, USAID encourages employees to 

take the e-learning course. Introducing mandatory training would enhance 

participation across USAID. In addition, disability training should relate directly 

to inclusion strategies across specific sectors of development (e.g., economic 

development, democracy and governance, humanitarian assistance, public 

health, education) and connect to the specific responsibilities of various 

personnel (e.g., cognizant technical officers, budget officers). The development 

of any e-training course materials should be reviewed by inclusive-development 

experts and periodically updated to incorporate emerging best practices.

• Require Disability-Inclusive Guidance in Statements of Work

NCD recommends that USAID issue a policy directive for RFAs and RFPs that 

requires meaningful disability inclusion in solicitation statements of work. The 

current practice under AAPD 04-17—burying the Disability Policy in the “Special 

Contract Requirements” section—is unlikely to draw more than the superficial 

attention of applicants and offerors. Crafting statements of work to more 

meaningfully include a disability dimension—for example, including people with 

disabilities as program beneficiaries or requiring a detailed plan for inclusion in 

relevant programs—is far more likely to yield offeror responses. There is a 

ready model for this type of approach in gender statements in statements of 

work.383

 

383 USAID Sudan, Strengthening Governance Project (GOSS GOV Project), December 

3, 2010, Draft Solicitation 650-11-002.
149

• Incorporate Disability Inclusion in Technical Evaluation Criteria in USAID 

Solicitations

NCD recommends that, in order to foster meaningful disability inclusion in 

program design at the proposal stage, technical evaluation criteria must specify 

disability inclusion and must include a point allocation. Such an approach will 

compel applicants and offerors to emphasize their technical approach to 

disability inclusion and implementation of the disability policy. Disability inclusion 

in the technical evaluation criteria currently serve as the standard against which 

technical approaches are evaluated and indicate to applicants and offerors 

issues of significance for USAID. This could be accomplished in various ways, 

for example, through a disability-specific criterion of inclusion or as a component 

of the technical approach criteria. Consideration could also be given to the 

formulation of disability-specific criteria under the monitoring and evaluation 

criteria, for instance, by specifying disaggregation on the basis of disability in 

criteria concerning the clear definition of targets and relevant target populations.

• Develop Disability Indicators and Strengthen Monitoring of Inclusion

NCD recommends that USAID require applicants and offerors to develop and 

outline disability indicators for use in performance monitoring plans. Given the 

commitment to strengthening USAID’s monitoring and evaluation, as 

underscored in the QDDR, such an approach seems timely and readily 

achievable.

• Provide Specifications for Costing Reasonable Accommodations

NCD recommends that USAID provide specific instructions for applicants and 

offerors in the preparation of the cost proposal in all USAID solicitations for 

costing of reasonable accommodations and modifications for people with 

disabilities. A line item in the cost proposal for proper costing of reasonable 

accommodations should be specified in these instructions and in accompanying 

charts.
150

• Strengthen the Capacity of DPOs

NCD recommends that USAID fund capacity building for DPOs as a part of its 

civil society strengthening program within the Democracy and Governance 

Sector. Consistent with USAID’s work to mobilize constituencies for reform 

through CSO development, USAID should redouble its efforts to provide funding 

to DPOs to build their capacity to undertake disability law and policy reform, 

collaborate with partner organizations, manage funds, research funding 

opportunities, and draft proposals, among other skills that are essential to 

sustain inclusive development programs. Such results can be achieved through 

programming that targets DPO capacity building and as a component of largerscale CSO capacity building.

NCD Recommendations Directed to DOS

• Issue Policy Statement on Rehabilitation Act Compliance

NCD recommends that DOS issue an official policy statement on compliance 

requirements for Sections 501, 503, and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. DOS 

must make it clear to all federal employees that Sections 501, 503, and 504 

apply to all U.S. programs, facilities, and employment opportunities overseas.

• Provide Adequate Resources for the Office of the Special Advisor on 

International Disability Rights

NCD recommends that DOS provide ample resources for the Special Advisor on 

International Disability Rights to effectively promote disability inclusion across all 

DOS work. To this end, DOS should provide proper staffing and finances for this 

office and should promote agency-wide coordination. The office is situated in 

the DRL bureau and DOS should advance the work of this office across all DOS 

bureaus. Additionally, DOS should promote interagency coordination between 

this office and USAID to promote disability inclusion in all international 

diplomacy and development work.
151

• Improve Embassy Accessibility

NCD recommends that all embassies, consular offices, and missions be made 

accessible to people with disabilities. Entranceways, meeting rooms, 

bathrooms, and other areas must be accessible. Further, information and 

materials must be accessible and available to people with disabilities. This 

includes visa applications, websites, and informational pamphlets and 

brochures, among other materials distributed to the public by embassies, 

consular offices, and missions. Embassies, consular offices, and missions 

should provide sign language interpreters, readers, or other services as 

requested by people with disabilities who visit these facilities.

• Deepen Disability Rights Coverage in Country Human Rights Reports

NCD recommends that DOS strengthen its disability rights coverage in its 

Human Rights Reports. Human Rights Officers should be encouraged to consult 

with local DPOs when drafting Country Reports within its Human Rights 

Reports. Facilitating the participation of DPOs in information gathering for the 

Country Reports on human rights will add depth and breadth to the content of 

the reports and help ensure coverage of the human rights situation of people 

with disabilities. 

• Enhance Access to Information on Cultural Exchange Programs

NCD recommends that DOS support trainings for staff of cultural exchange 

programs on the inclusion of people with disabilities and consider adopting 

specific disability inclusive mission statements or policies that encourage 

qualified people with disabilities to apply. NCD further recommends that DOS 

undertake measures to ensure that all information on programs is in accessible 

alternative formats (website materials, print, and in person) and that accessible 

housing options are available for participants with disabilities, along with 

individualized accommodations. 
152

NCD Recommendations Directed to DOD

• Limit Accessibility Waivers and Exceptions in Infrastructure to Avoid 

Future Redevelopment Costs 

NCD recommends that DOD limit the number of waivers and exceptions 

permitted under its newly adopted ABA Accessibility Standards for DOD 

Facilities. Waivers and exceptions have been used throughout the world to build 

inaccessible infrastructure that later must be retrofitted to provide accessibility at 

a very high cost to American taxpayers. DOD should closely review waivers and 

exceptions prior to authorizing them to ensure they are used only in narrowly 

defined circumstances and only where necessary.

• Provide Clear Accessibility Guidelines for New Infrastructure in 

Developing Countries

NCD recommends that DOD provide clear guidance to contractors on the 

application of the ABA Accessibility Standards in developing countries. At 

present, the standards state they apply “worldwide,” but there is a gap in the 

standards that allows for contractors to apply for waivers or argue for an 

exception in developing countries. These standards must clearly indicate that 

DOD infrastructure projects in developing countries are subject to the same 

provisions as other DOD infrastructure projects.
153

ANNEX I. Country List

Sub-Saharan Africa:

Ghana

Mozambique

Namibia

Sierra Leone

Uganda 

Zambia

Europe and Eurasia:

Armenia

Russia

Serbia

Ukraine

Asia:

Bangladesh

India

Indonesia

Nepal

Philippines

Vietnam

Middle East:

Egypt

Latin America and the Caribbean: 

Colombia 

Ecuador

Mexico 
154
155

ANNEX 2. Question Set on Embassy Accessibility

NOTE: Two “desk-based” research questions before setting out to interview on site:

a. Is there a TTY number listed on the embassy’s website?

b. Is the embassy’s website accessible to screen-readers?

Accessibility of Embassy:

A. Is the embassy physically accessible? 

1. Can a person come into the U.S. embassy building at street level or are there 

stairs at the entry of the building?

1a. If there are stairs, is there a ramp leading into the building?

1. No

2. Yes

If yes, please look at the ramp and evaluate how accessible the ramp is. 

(Note: We are looking for general comments about the slope of the ramp, how 

easily accessible it is to the main or other entrance of the building, how easy it 

is to get to and from the street: i.e.: very steep slope descending into busy 

street; gentle slope from sidewalk to main entryway; moderate slope into back 

entryway).

1b. Please describe any alternatives in place to allow access to the building for 

those with mobility impairments (i.e.: neither street/floor-level entry, nor ramp, 

but lift available, etc.):

2. Once in the building, if the building is more than one story, is there an 

elevator that is wheelchair accessible?

3. If there is an elevator, does the elevator work?
156

4. Is the entire building accessible to people who use wheelchairs? If no, what 

sections are unavailable?

5. Are there accessible bathrooms?

6. Are doorways wide enough for a wheelchair user to pass through?

7. If the entire building is not accessible to people with mobility impairments, 

does the embassy have a policy of holding meetings in areas of the building 

that are accessible? Please describe: 

B. Is the embassy accessible to people who are deaf or hard of 

hearing?

8. Is a sign language interpreter available upon request? 

9. If a sign language interpreter is available, whom do you have to go to in order 

to arrange for the sign language interpreter to come?

10. If a sign language interpreter is available, how soon can the interpreter arrive 

at the embassy once called?

11. If a sign language interpreter is available, are funds available to pay for this 

person’s time?

12. Have you ever seen an interpreter at the embassy? (If yes, describe.)
157

13. Has the embassy employee ever called an interpreter in for any meeting he or 

she has run?

C. Is the embassy accessible to people who are blind or visually 

impaired?

14. Are informational materials and forms available in large print?

15. Are informational materials and forms available in Braille?

16. If information is available in either large print or Braille, how much and what 

types of information (i.e.: most/some/selected materials)? And if so, what 

materials are selected to be in large print or Braille?

17. Whom do you go to if you need something put in large print or Braille and how 

do you get this funded?

18. Does the embassy provide a reader upon request?

Part II: Programs in Embassies

19 Is there someone in this embassy who is the focal point for disability issues?

20. Has embassy staff ever received guidance/training on disability issues as part 

of their mission in working with the public or with the local government? If so, 

please describe the training:
158

21. How often do you see persons with disabilities coming to the embassy for 

programs, information, or meetings (that is, often/infrequently/never)? Please 

explain:

22. Can you describe any adjustments in programs or resource availability 

designed to ensure accessibility by persons with disabilities to events or 

programs run by the embassy?

23. Please describe any contact you or other members of the embassy staff 

have/had with local Disabled Peoples Organizations (DPOs) or NGOs that 

provide services to persons with disabilities?

24. Is any member of your staff—either U.S. embassy staff or local staff—

disabled? (We do not need names; we just want to know if people with

disabilities work there.)

25. To your knowledge, does the embassy have an explicit policy on employing 

people with disabilities from within the country?

26. To your knowledge, does the embassy encourage participation by people with 

disabilities in programs at the embassy that are not specifically disabilityrelated?

27. Are there any laws or rules that guide you or that you must follow regarding 

persons with disabilities at your embassy?

28. Are you familiar with the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 

and if so, can you tell me about this?
159

29. Do you here at the embassy receive directives, information, resources, or 

other communications or trainings on persons with disabilities through the 

State Department in Washington, USAID, or other U.S. agencies? If yes, 

could you describe these?

30. Are there any additional issues regarding accessibility and work or programs 

going on in the embassy related to persons with disabilities that I should be 

asking you about or anything else you would like to add related to this topic 

that I have not brought up?

31. Follow-up question: If this is the first time you have thought about either 

accessibility of your embassy building or accessibility of embassy programs 

for persons with disabilities, is there anything you would recommend be done 

to improve accessibility?
160
161

ANNEX 3. Question Set on USAID Programs and 

Policies 

Part I. Inclusion of People with Disabilities in Current Programming

1) Please describe how USAID programs in-country include people with 

disabilities routinely as members of the general populations reached by 

USAID programs:

1a) Please describe the efforts made to track the numbers of persons with 

disabilities reached or monitor or evaluate their opinion of your 

programs within the larger programs you offer:

2) Please describe any accommodations or modifications to programming made 

for people with disabilities to enable them to be included in non-disabilityspecific USAID projects or programs in this country:

3) Please describe any USAID programs geared specifically toward people with 

disabilities:

4) If these programs exist, how many people with disabilities do you think these 

USAID programs reach or impact?

5) What areas in the Democracy and Governance sector does your mission 

work on (for example, Rule of law, elections and political party building, civil 

society, governance, etc.)?

Note: Please only ask Questions 6, 7, and 8 if the persons indicated the mission runs 

that type of program. For example, if they tell you they do Rule-of-law work, then only 

ask them Question 6.
162

6) In the Rule-of-law sector, what training is provided on the legal rights of 

people with disabilities? 

6a) Further, what programs or activities were developed in relation to the 

legal rights of people with disabilities?

7) In the Elections sector, what programs have you developed to increase 

people with disabilities’ ability to participate in elections?

7a) Describe any specific accommodations made for people with disabilities 

to access electoral systems:

8) In the civil-society sector, how have you involved disabled people’s 

organizations in civil-society or capacity-building programs?

9) Please describe any programs in which the USAID mission contributed 

specific funds out of their annual budget to projects directly related to people 

with disabilities:

10) Please discuss whether the USAID mission in which you work sought funding 

for disability programs under the Disability Fund or other specific funds:

11) Please describe any contacts USAID has with local organizations that

advocate for the rights of people with disabilities, or provide services or 

program support for people with disabilities:
163

12) If you are in contact with local organizations that advocate for people with 

disabilities, or provide services for people with disabilities, are these 

organizations run by people with disabilities themselves (disabled people’s 

organizations, or DPOs)?

Or are they services run for people with disabilities? 

13) Please describe any USAID programs run at “group homes,” or USAIDfunded work dealing with “group homes” in any way:

Also, please describe any funding or programs that this mission has 

provided for local orphanages:

14) Please describe the mission’s recruitment procedure for people with 

disabilities from within the country:

15) What accommodations (or modifications to programs) are in place to ensure 

inclusion of people with disabilities in USAID programs?

16) Please describe any training you have received at USAID on disability issues:

17) Please describe where the focal point at USAID is at the country level for 

questions about people with disabilities or disability issues:

18) Please describe any resources, places to get information, or guidance on 

disability issues within USAID at the regional level or from Washington:
164

19) Please explain any other places you go/would go to find out about disability in 

development issues:

20) Please describe any discussions you have had about disability 

issues/inclusion of people with disabilities with your colleagues here in 

country: 

21) Please describe any USAID policies that pertain to people with disabilities:

22) Please describe U.S. laws that pertain to people with disabilities:

After they have answered, ask about the Americans with Disabilities Act 

if they do not bring it up or if they ask what relevance it has to the incountry work they are doing now:

23) Please describe international laws/laws in-country regarding people with 

disabilities:

After they have answered, ask if they have heard anything about the 

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. If they have 

heard of it, ask them to tell you more about it:

24) Is there anything else regarding in-country work and people with disabilities 

that I should be asking you about or that you think is important for me to 

know?
165

25) Follow-up question: If this is the first time you have thought about inclusion of 

people with disabilities in in-country work, is there anything you would 

recommend be done to ensure inclusion of people with disabilities in future 

programs? (What do you suggest would be beneficial?)

In 1995, NCD was designated by the Department of State to be the U.S. Government’s 

official contact point for disability issues.