|
Foreign Policy and Disability August
1, 1996
National Council on Disability
1331 F Street, NW
Suite 1050
Washington, DC 20004-1107
(202) 272-2004 Voice
(202) 272-2074 TT
(202) 272-2022 Fax
The views contained in the report do not necessarily
represent those of the Administration, as this document has not
been subjected to the A-19 Executive Branch review process.
NATIONAL
COUNCIL ON DISABILITY
MEMBERS AND STAFF
Members
Marca Bristo, Chairperson
John A. Gannon, Vice Chairperson
Yerker Andersson, Ph.D.
Larry Brown, Jr.
John D. Kemp
Audrey McCrimon
Bonnie O'Day
Lilliam R. Pollo
Debra Robinson
Shirley W. Ryan
Michael B. Unhjem
Rae E. Unzicker
Hughey Walker
Kate P. Wolters
Ela Yazzie-King
Staff
Ethel D. Briggs, Executive Director
Speed Davis, Executive Assistant to the Chairperson
Billie Jean Hill, Program Specialist
Jamal Mazrui, Program Specialist
Mark S. Quigley, Public Affairs Specialist
Brenda Bratton, Executive Secretary
Stacey S. Brown, Staff Assistant
Janice Mack, Administrative Officer
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The National Council on Disability wishes to express
its gratitude to Todd Groves, World Institute on Disability, Research
and Training Center on Public Policy and Independent Living, for
his hard work and valuable suggestions in preparing this report.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROBLEM STATEMENT
A Personal Account
OBJECTIVES
METHODOLOGY
Review of Written Resources
Interviews
Survey of Embassies
Definitions
FINDINGS
Review of Existing Laws and Regulations
Agency Review: Programs and Policies
Peace Corps
Foreign Service
Agency for International Development
United States Information Agency
Department of State
Embassy Awareness
Analysis of Embassy Awareness
CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX A: POLICIES OF OTHER COUNTRIES
APPENDIX B: MISSION OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL
ON DISABILITY
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY Does the United States maintain a
coherent disability policy within its foreign policy? In 1995 the
National Council on Disability (NCD) was designated by the Department
of State to be the official contact point within the U.S. government
for disability issues. Through this study, NCD has sought to measure
the extent to which U.S. disability rights laws are extended in
international settings through the activities of three key U.S.
foreign policy agencies: Department of State, Agency for International
Development (AID), and United States Information Agency (USIA).
The study examined the employment, accessibility, and outreach policies
and programs of these agencies and the attitudes of their officials
in light of U.S. disability rights law and democratic principles.
The primary objective was to assess the impact of American foreign
policy and programs on individuals with disabilities, both U.S.
citizens and residents of other nations.
Researchers used both primary and secondary sources
of data. They reviewed laws and federal regulations protecting people
with disabilities at home to determine how these laws and regulations
apply to U.S.-sponsored activities abroad. Officials at the three
target agencies as well as others active in foreign affairs were
interviewed. A database of projects funded by AID was searched to
identify those that are disability-related. A questionnaire was
sent to 135 U.S. embassies, and the 62 valid responses were assessed
to evaluate programs and policies and to identify gaps in awareness
of disability issues. Obvious noncompliance with U.S. disability
laws was encountered in some cases.
The study found that the United States does not have
a comprehensive foreign policy on disability. Those responsible
for creating and implementing U.S. overseas policies and programs
generally lack awareness of disability issues, cannot articulate
our national policies with respect to people with disabilities,
do not incorporate the interests of people with disabilities into
U.S. foreign policy objectives, and do not see the importance of
U.S. disability advances and achievements for people with disabilities
in other countries.
Recommendations include:
- creating a comprehensive foreign policy on disability
to advocate for people with disabilities through activities on
international levels;
- extending U.S. disability law by legislation or
executive order to include unambiguously the international operations
of the U.S. government;
- employing domestic standards of nondiscrimination
in U.S.-sponsored international activities;
- training U.S. foreign affairs agencies and their
contractors to plan for programmatic accessibility; and
- establishing the principle that no U.S. international
activity should have a lower standard of inclusion than its domestic
correlate.
PROBLEM
STATEMENT In 1973 the U.S. Rehabilitation
Act barred federal funds from programs or projects that discriminated
against people with disabilities. In its 1986 report Toward Independence,
NCD first recommended "a comprehensive law requiring equal opportunity
for individuals with disabilities." This protection was further
extended when President Bush signed the Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) in 1990, establishing a national commitment to independent
living, equality of opportunity, and economic self-sufficiency for
people with disabilities. Never before had a country so clearly
and comprehensively set as a national goal the full participation
of all its citizens by proscribing discrimination on the basis of
disability.
The unparalleled legal protection given Americans
through the Rehabilitation Act, ADA, and other disability rights
laws won the admiration of people with disabilities, human rights
activists, and people of goodwill around the world. These laws underscored
the authority of the United States to speak not only as a rich and
powerful nation but also as a good and moral one. By demonstrating
its strong commitment to the equality of all people, including those
with disabilities, the United States strengthened its global position.
Disability policy fit naturally with foreign policy.
Advocating equality is a U.S. foreign policy tradition.
In the course of its more than two centuries, the United States
has justified its overseas actions as a way to extend the freedoms
enjoyed at home. This tradition is consistent with our democratic
values and with what the people demand. U.S. policymakers have found
they have to distinguish their goals and actions from Old World-style
behind-the-scenes statecraft if they want to garner the public support
they need for overseas actions. When Americans get involved overseas,
they do so because they believe their actions will help political
and personal liberties prevail everywhere. This democratic base
for U.S. foreign policy gives it a uniquely moral tone. Americans
want to do not only the smart thing but the right thing. Thus it
is right and proper to ask if the actions and activities of U.S.
foreign policy agencies and their programs reflect this country's
consensus that people with disabilities are fully equal and should
be allowed to make their maximum possible contribution to society.
The U.S. government maintains thousands of international
programs administered by a number of agencies at a cost of roughly
$22 billion annually. Determining exactly how many of these programs
specifically address disability is difficult because they are distributed
through a number of agencies at different levels of funding. It
is even more difficult to identify those programs that do not specifically
address disability yet include, or could include, people with disabilities
in their activities. Because people with disabilities are a significant
portion of the world's population, with estimates ranging from 5
to 15 percent, any sizable government program overseas has the potential
to attract participants with disabilities or have an influence upon
them.
A Personal Account When
examining the U.S. foreign policies and programs that affect individuals
with disabilities in other countries, it is useful to begin with
an example taken from the experience of a U.S. delegation. Certainly,
the participation of Americans with disabilities in U.S. delegations
to working meetings (such as the UN World Program of Action and
the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for People
with Disabilities) and meetings (such as the UN World Summit for
Social Development in Copenhagen) has contributed significantly
to enhancing America's reputation as a democratic leader, while
at the same time inspiring people with disabilities abroad to advance
democratic principles in their own countries.
Given the fundametal importance of this effort, U.S.
foreign policy agencies could be expected to lend as much practical
support as possible. However, the following firsthand account from
an American with a disability attending the recent UN Fourth World
Conference on Women, held in Beijing, suggests that is not the case.
Although both the official conference and the concurrent NGO (nongovernmental
organization) Forum were supported with U.S. government funds, government
agencies were largely indifferent to the needs of U.S. participants
with disabilities. It should be noted that the Beijing meetings
marked the first time Americans with disabilities attended an international
forum in substantial numbers. The following account was taken from
a report written by Jennifer Kerns, an American with a disability:
In August and September of 1995 a group of women
with disabilities from the U.S. joined the thousands of participants
at the Fourth World Conference on Women NGO Forum in Huairou,
China, to address issues of concern to women worldwide. These
women were assured in writing that the conference site would be
as barrier-free as possible. Skeptical of having real accessibility,
however, various women with disabilities approached the Department
of State and AID to try to resolve accessibility issues in advance.
Such efforts to work with U.S. agencies to assure access before
the conference were unsuccessful because the government believed
that extraterritorial accessibility was not the responsibility
of the U.S. or of AID contractors.
Despite notification to the U.S. government and
new construction at the actual NGO Forum site, meaningful participation
in the NGO Forum for women with disabilities was extremely limited
due to the lack of both program and architectural accessibility.
Approximately 90 to 95 percent of the workshops were scheduled
in buildings with stairs, without elevators or ramps. Even events
by participants with disabilities with the word disability in
the title were scheduled in rooms accessible only by climbing
up to 75 stairs, which essentially excluded all women with wheelchairs
or mobility impairments. For half the conference, even the tent
designated for women with disabilities was located in a remote
area impossible to reach in a wheelchair without planning and
assistance. For those with mobility disabilities who did not have
wheelchairs, the trek to the tent was even more difficult and
often hazardous. At this tent site, participants were essentially
insulated from the vast majority of events. This remained true
even after the disability tent was moved to a more central location.
The new architecture built for the purpose of the NGO Forum and
even the newly designated disability tent had four- to five-inch
curbs surrounding them, limiting the access for wheelchair users.
In addition, only one sign language interpreter
was available.
These types of barriers exemplify the lack of planning
and consideration for allowing the full participation of people
with disabilities. The U.S. played a minimal advocacy role in
negotiating on behalf of these women with disabilities. The government's
primary consideration seemed to be to limit its liability instead
of playing a leadership role in the world.
The low priority given disability issues within the
U.S. foreign policy establishment is not typical of many other industrialized
nations. In Scandinavian countries and in Canada, disability is
a significant part of foreign assistance programs and overseas policy,
and disability organizations take part in shaping and executing
these programs (see the appendix).
OBJECTIVES
This study sought to (1) discover if the United
States maintains a coherent disability policy within its foreign
policy and (2) assess how this policy, or its absence, affects individuals
with disabilities, both U.S. citizens and foreign nationals.
To this end the study asked the following questions:
- Do laws protecting people with disabilities at
home extend to U.S.-sponsored activities abroad?
- Do officials of U.S. overseas agencies understand
U.S. disability law and how it affects their activities?
- Does U.S.-sponsored international programming ensure
accessibility for and seek to involve participants with disabilities?
- Do U.S. agencies abroad treat people with disabilities
in other countries in the spirit of U.S. commitment to full equality?
METHODOLOGY
The study focused on the projects and activities
of three of the four main U.S. government agencies authorized to
execute foreign policy: the Department of State, AID, and USIA.
The following methods were used.
Review of Written Resources
The Development Information System, a database of
AID-funded projects, was searched on disability-related keywords.
The search was restricted to projects that (1) either had a disability
focus or mentioned people with disabilities in the text of the abstract
and (2) began between 1989 and 1995 and were scheduled to conclude
between 1989 and 2003.
The Foreign Affairs Manual, which provides guidelines
for overseas personnel of the Department of State, AID, and USIA,
was searched for disability-related subjects. Reports of USIA activities
and policies were taken from a 1994 report to Congress from the
USIA administrator and the United States Code and Code of Federal
Regulations underwent keyword searches.
Interviews
Project staff conducted 11 interviews with foreign
affairs officials from December 1994 through July 1995. Those interviewed
were officials of the Multilateral Development Bank in the Department
of the Treasury; program officers in the Asia Foundation, the African
Development Foundation, and the Inter-American Development Foundation;
program and placement officers in the Peace Corps; officials in
the Office of the United States Director of the World Bank; program
officers and officers in the legal departments of the Department
of State, AID, and USIA; officials in the Department of Justice;
and foreign affairs experts with disabilities.
Survey of Embassies
A questionnaire was sent to each of 135 major diplomatic
missions in U.S. embassies throughout the world. To ensure
a high level of responsibility for the responses, the questionnaire
was addressed to the chief of mission (ambassador, consul general,
or charge d'affaires). Questionnaires were sent on March 3, 1995;
responses received by May 30, 1995, were used to compile data for
this report.
Definitions
This study uses the following definitions:
Disability is "a physical
or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of
the major life activities...of an individual" (from the ADA).
Programs are the sum of
activities conducted abroad under the auspices of the United States.
Current policies and programs are those extant as of fiscal year
1994-95.
Policy is the active expression
of not only explicit laws, rules, or guidelines but of all factors
governing the actions of the United States.
FINDINGS
Review of Existing Laws and Regulations
Key disability rights laws are of ambiguous applicability
outside the United States. In a landmark 1991 decision (Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC] v. Arabian American Oil
Co.), the principle of statutory construction limited legislation
enacted by Congress to the territorial jurisdiction of the United
States unless there was evidence of legislative intent to the contrary.
The laws giving the greatest protections to individuals with disabilities
generally do not demonstrate such an intent. ADA and the Air Carriers
Act specify some specific overseas applications, but laws prohibiting
the U.S. government or its agents from discriminating against people
with disabilities do not have provisions extending their protections
abroad. It is important to note, however, that the jurisdiction
of disability rights laws has never been specifically tested in
court.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is the most significant
legislation affecting federal practices and policies toward individuals
with disabilities. No court decisions have been rendered on the
applicability of the Rehabilitation Act outside of the United States.
Barring specific decisions, it is probable that the principle of
statutory construction would limit the protections of the Rehabilitation
Act to U.S.-based components of international federal programs that
affect individuals with disabilities, whether or not they are physically
located in the United States.
ADA extends its protections to U.S. citizens working
for U.S. companies abroad under Title VII, Section 2001(e). This
coverage does not include foreign nationals nor does it embrace
public accommodation rules. Title II, which protects individuals
with disabilities from discrimination by state and local governments,
may apply to the international activities of these entities regardless
of citizenship or territorial location. In essence, a foreign national
with a disability enjoys the same protection as a U.S. citizen when
participating in the international activities of state and local
governments.
The Architectural Barriers Act requires all federal
facilities constructed or altered after 1968 to provide physical
access to people with disabilities. Because no evidence exists to
establish legislative intent to apply the act outside the United
States, there may be no direct mandate to make overseas federal
facilities accessible. However, the law covers all federal facilities
and does not exempt those overseas. No court decision on this subject
exists.
In the light of recent court cases, many experts,
including officials in the Department of Justice, find little evidence
that disability rights laws cover federally sponsored activities
conducted outside the territory of the United States. In interviews
with officials of the Department of State, the General Services
Administration, and the Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board, these sources distinguished between federal activities
and policies carried out inside and outside the United States. In
a few recent incidents, people with disabilities were told by government
officials and contractors that antidiscrimination laws did not compel
U.S. international programs to provide programmatic accessibility
or auxiliary aids such as personal assistance.
With regard to federal regulations, the nondiscrimination
regulations of the Department of State, USIA, and AID, as well as
the Uniform Federal Access Standards, do not differentiate between
programs that occur inside and outside the territory of the United
States. A decision rendered by EEOC has determined that the Rehabilitation
Act protects an individual from being denied placement in the Foreign
Service on the basis of a dependent's disability. This decision
implies that the Rehabilitation Act protects individuals seeking
employment in the international programs of the U.S. government.
Americans working for American companies overseas are protected
from employment-related discrimination by ADA.
Particularly contrary to U.S. antidiscrimination policy
is Title VIII, Section 1182 of the United States Code. This provision
authorizes the Immigration and Naturalization Service to exclude
admission and deny visas to classes of aliens who "have a physical
or mental disorder and behavior associated with the disorder that
may pose, or has posed, a threat to the property, safety, or welfare
of the alien or others" or "have had a physical or mental disorder
and a history of behavior associated with the disorder, which behavior
has posed a threat to the property, safety, welfare of the alien
or others and which behavior is likely to recur or to lead to other
harmful behavior." This provision, and another that specifically
bars entry to the United States of foreign nationals with HIV/AIDS,
are directly at odds with the protections of ADA. Under this section,
people with disabilities from outside the United States are subject
to discrimination by the U.S. government that is thoroughly illegal
at home.
Agency Review: Programs and Policies
Although the three foreign affairs agences
examined in this study are each an instrument of the president's
overall policy and often coordinate their activities, the agencies
themselves are autonomous. Each agency head is accountable only
to the president, and each organization has its own management structure.
The following disability-related federal regulations
apply to the agencies studied:
- A directive from the Secretary of State requires
the inclusion in the Department's Annual Report on Human Rights
of country-by-country reports on the human rights status of people
with disabilities.
- The Foreign Service Act of 1981 authorizes the
Department of State to exclude from or limit participation in
the Foreign Service applicants whose medical condition may require
not available at many posts. The medical condition of eligible
family members is no longer considered for preemployment purposes.
Family members are, however, required to obtain appropriate medical
clearances before traveling overseas to accompany an employee
on assignment at U.S. government expense.
- Public Law (P.L.) 103-236 directs USIA to issue
an annual report on agency efforts to promote the inclusion of
people with disabilities in the general exchange activities of
the agency and to detail disability-specific exchanges.
- P.L. 97-113 directs the Peace Corps to administer
programs that "give particular attention to programs, projects,
and activities which tend to integrate people with disabilities
into the national economies, thus improving their status and assisting
the total development effort."
Peace Corps
Among U.S. agencies with an overseas mandate, the
Peace Corps has the most accomplished record of placing Americans
with disabilities in its programs. The Peace Corps is the only U.S.
international agency to have a disability-specific program area,
i.e., special education. It also places volunteers with disabilities
in-country to staff its programs. People with disabilities in the
communities where Americans with disabilities serve as Peace Corps
volunteers have benefited immensely from these role models. The
overwhelming number of Peace Corps volunteers with disabilities
have visual or hearing disabilities.
When deciding whether to place a candidate with a
disability, the Peace Corps informs and confers with medical authorities,
the Peace Corps office in the host country, and host country officials
to determine the suitability of a given post. In this respect the
Peace Corps treats disability differently from other considerations
in that host countries may not reject proposed volunteers on the
basis of race, gender, religion, or other protected status.
Foreign Service
Foreign Service officers with disabilities make invaluable
contributions in demonstrating U.S. commitment to the equality of
people with disabilities. Unfortunately, people with disabilities
can encounter significant barriers when seeking to serve as U.S.
diplomats. Because there are few known cases of people with significant
disabilities applying for the Foreign Service, it is difficult to
draw final conclusions. Overseas work in the Foreign Service can
present particular physical challenges to all employees.
Medical screening is a prerequisite for applicants
to the five foreign affairs agencies, State, AID, USIA, Department
of Agriculture, and the Department of Commerce. For these agencies
worldwide availability is a condition of employment. If the applicant
has a disqualifying medical condition, the case may be appealed
to the Employment Review Committee which may grant an administrative
waiver. An applicant with a medical condition who received an administrative
waiver will be given a modified medical clearance. Applicants in
this category can only be assigned to posts with appropriate medical
facilities and generally have fewer assignment possibilities available
to them.
Applicants to the other agencies participating in
the overseas medical program are brought in on a post-specific basis,
i.e., Drug Enforcement Administration agents assigned to Bangkok
and Peace Corps Volunteers assigned to Mali do not have to be worldwide
available.
A distinction should be made between a medical disability
and a medical condition in the screening process. A medical disability
that requires no medical treatment, blindness for example, will
not preclude a full medical clearance. The disability is not considered
during the medical clearance process. When the applicant is hired
personnel decides which posts can make reasonable accommodation
to the disability.
The current process of medical evaluation for foreign
placement may be too arbitrary to avoid discriminating against people
with disabilities. A nurse in the office that conducts medical evaluations
for the Department of State and AID cited as a disqualifying medical
condition one in which the applicant needs a medical treatment not
available in many posts. Another point of disqualification could
be a medical condition that might worsen or develop secondary complications.
The nurse cited as an example the pressure sores that she saw in
Africa. Based on that personal experience, she said sending people
with spinal cord injuries to tropical posts was risky.
Agency for International Development
AID was created in 1961 with the dual purposes of
stemming the tide of communism and developing poorer nations through
economic assistance. AID remains a foreign affairs agency, and it
distributed around $6 billion of overseas economic assistance in
fiscal year 1995. The agency has thousands of projects in its major
program areas of
- improving health and population conditions;
- promoting economic growth;
- protecting the environment; and
- supporting democracy.
In keeping with the agency's development mandate,
projects are supposed to target people at the lowest socioeconomic
levels. People with disabilities suffer an astronomically high rate
of unemployment and poverty. Yet, among those embassies responding
to this study's survey, less than half of those with AID-funded
programs reported funding disability-related projects.
Moreover, a search of several thousand projects in
the agency's database of project abstracts yielded only 14 that
specifically targeted disability as a component. Only two of these
(scholarship programs administered by Georgetown University) purposefully
included people with disabilities among other categories of participants.
The remaining projects were primarily medical model, that is, medical
or vocational rehabilitation with specified audiences such as amputees
or people who are blind.
The U.S. embassy survey found great regional differences
in AID funding for disability-related projects. Of the 62 responding
embassies, 45 reported AID project funding in their countries. Of
these, 22 reported AID funding for disability-related projects.
United States Information Agency
USIA's mission is to promote U.S. national interests
by understanding, informing, and influencing foreign publics. In
keeping with its mission, USIA operates the government's educational
and cultural foreign exchange programs. The best known is the Fulbright
program, which embraces 140 countries. In addition, each year approximately
3,000 foreign leaders come to the United States as USIA's guests
and another 2,000 come at their own or their government's expense
for periods of up to 30 days. Under the Arts America program, USIA
carries out the government's overseas performing and fine arts programs.
USIA exchange activities involve a wide variety of
partners--the academic community, U.S. private sector organizations,
foreign governments, and American volunteers. However, the agency's
record is faulty in establishing viable partnerships with participants
with disabilities. Those persons needing personal assistance have
been subjected to excessive medical verification, been told to pay
for services themselves, and not received payment for promised services.
In one particularly troublesome case, a visiting foreign scholar
was compelled to use a home health agency for personal assistance
services after the USIA-sponsored program would not cover the airfare
and salary of her chosen assistant. The scholar was told that because
she was not a U.S. resident the protections of the Rehabilitation
Act did not apply to her. Another fellowship recipient was denied
a salary for his personal assistant while traveling under USIA auspices.
Also, exchange program participants have been denied sign language
translator services.
The new P.L. 103-236 disability mandate for
USIA is expected to increase the number of people with disabilities
participating in USIA programs; this mandate, in turn, will reveal
previously unseen gaps in agency disability policy. USIA is in the
process of instituting a committee to review requests for accommodation
and create policy consistent with that of agencies more experienced
with participants with disabilities, such as the Department of Education.
Department of State
As representatives of the United States in other countries,
U.S. embassies are at the center of official U.S. overseas activities.
The embassy is headed by a chief of mission, and its staff may include
specialists in commerce, economics, natural resources, agriculture,
animal and plant health inspection, the environment, science and
technology, financial affairs, consular activities, immigration
and naturalization, regional security, AID, politics, labor, post
administration and information systems, military assistance, and
public affairs. Thus the embassy is a complex bureaucracy capable
of presenting many different faces to both foreign nationals and
U.S. citizens seeking services.
The limited scope of this study precluded a comprehensive
assessment of U.S. embassy-centered activities with regard to disability.
However, it was felt that an accurate global sampling could be obtained
by surveying 135 U.S. embassies as to inquiring into their disability-related
activities and attitudes. The five survey questions were open-ended,
allowing responding embassies to expand on answers as needed. Sixty-two
completed responses were received for a response rate of 46 percent.
The questions were as follows:
- Has the embassy contributed funds to projects directly
related to people with disabilities?
- Is the embassy in contact with indigenous NGO's
comprising people with disabilities?
- How does the embassy gather data on people with
disabilities for its annual human rights report?
- Does the embassy have an explicit policy on employing
people with disabilities from within the country?
- Does the embassy encourage participation by people
with disabilities in programs that are not specifically disability-related?
Of the 64 responses, 2 respondents provided no answers
to the questions and were not entered into the survey results. Some
respondents did not answer all questions; therefore, some questions
have sample sizes smaller than 62.
Of the 62 responses, 18 were signed by the chiefs
of missions, 7 by AID officials, 6 by political or economic officers,
3 by human rights officers, and 27 by others such as an administrative
secretary, science officer, and vice-consul. The relatively low
number of chiefs of missions responding may be significant because
they are usually the only ones aware of all U.S. activities within
host countries.
Embassies in South America had the highest rate of
response (74 percent), while those in South Asia and the Near East
had the lowest (30 percent).
Of the responding embassies, 36 said U.S. funds were
supporting disability projects in the host country. Two of the 36
respondents provided no further details. The remaining 34 provided
descriptions of projects in varying detail. We used this information
to categorize projects by region and by funding source. In measuring
whether respondents had contributed funds to disability-related
projects, we chose to include not only foreign assistance but a
broad range of projects, such as USIA exchanges and foreign commercial
service activities. It is important to note that not all diplomatic
missions have funds to contribute.
We also sorted projects by the following types: empowerment,
rehabilitation, prevention, and income generation:
- Empowerment programs in
general are directed at strengthening the ability of people with
disabilities to assert control of their lives in social, political,
and economic realms. The objective is usually to create change
at the societal level. Projects of this nature focus on organizations
of people with disabilities more than on individuals. Programs
are considered consistent with the goals of ADA when they strengthen
organizations directed by people with disabilities, facilitate
community employment, increase political participation or generally
fight discrimination, and foster the self-representation and economic
empowerment of people with disabilities.
- Rehabilitation activities
are designed to assist an individual with a disability with medical
or vocational needs related to disability. The objective is usually
change at the level of specific individuals or their families.
Projects may include assistive technology, special education,
sheltered workshops, or trade skills development. Current rehabilitation
activities encompass a trend toward disability-specific focuses,
i.e., training amputees or people who are blind. Another trend,
especially in vocational rehabilitation, focuses on regional and
national centers where people with disabilities and their families
may reside during training.
- Prevention activities
are aimed at limiting the number of people with disabilities in
a society through projects such as removing land mines or through
public health initiatives such as dispensing vitamin A to prevent
blindness. Prevention is not exclusively for people without disabilities.
Prevention may also address secondary disability effects in people
who already have disabilities.
- Income generation activities
provide resources to effectively integrate people with disabilities
into the local economy. The objective is change at the level of
individuals or small cooperatives or collectives. Although vocationally
or trade oriented, income generation is not traditional vocational
rehabilitation. Income generation is usually an entrepreneurial
activity in which the participant is the proprietor of an enterprise,
often a micro-enterprise. Project funds are often used for small
grants or loans to individuals or collectives to purchase such
items as sewing machines or grain mills. Unlike traditional rehabilitation,
income generation is not exclusively disability-related but rather
a common economic strategy for developing countries.
The other categories of funded projects reported by
respondents were a broad mix, ranging from special olympics and
para-sports to schools and institutions for people with disabilities.
Survey responses were classified by types of projects
reported and by funding source. Of the 10 countries with empowerment-type
projects, 5 were funded through AID; of the 15 countries with rehabilitation
projects, 13 were funded through AID. Four of the 10 countries with
empowerment projects also funded rehabilitation projects; and 4
of 15 countries with rehabilitation projects also funded empowerment
projects. The two countries specifying prevention programs used
AID funds for these activities. AID funded income-generation projects
in three of the six countries. Only one respondent provided funds
for empowerment, rehabilitation, and income generation projects.
The rehabilitation project mentioned in that response was an assistive
technology project.
The countries where the United States does not fund
disability-related projects tend to be those receiving relatively
smaller levels of assistance. Ten of the 28 countries (36 percent)
receiving less than $50 million in assistance do not fund disability-related
programs compared with 3 of 18 countries (17 percent) receiving
$50 million or more. Embassies in countries with higher economic
development are also less likely to fund disability-related projects.
In countries with a per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of $3,000
or higher, 7 of 14 (50 percent) did not fund disability-related
projects compared with 6 of 33 (18 percent) with a per capita GDP
below $3,000.
Embassy Awareness One
of the study objectives was to assess U.S. embassy awareness of
disability rights, organizations, and issues. To this end, question
2 asked embassies if they were in contact with indigenous NGOs comprising
people with disabilities. Forty-four of the 62 respondents said
they were in contact with disability organizations in-country. Although
a definition of organizations directed by people with disabilities
was provided in the survey, many respondents did not distinguish
between organizations of and for people with disabilities. Some
responding embassies were unaware of the existence of such organizations
within their host country, although the researchers knew of a substantial
number of organizations directed by people with disabilities in
these countries.
The Department of State requires embassy personnel
to investigate the status of human rights for people with disabilities
and include the findings in the Department's country-by-country
Annual Report on Human Rights. It is standard practice in
human rights data collection to seek information from nongovernmental,
as well as governmental, groups. This practice creates another potential
point of interaction between people with disabilities in other countries
and the U.S. government.
Survey responses were classified by source for the
people with disabilities component of the Department of State Annual
Report on Human Rights. Most respondents to question 3 said
they used both official and unofficial sources; however, a substantial
number cited data from only official sources. Fourteen embassies
collecting human rights data from unofficial sources had no contact
with organizations directed by people with disabilities.
Embassies were asked in question 4 if they had explicit
policies regarding hiring people with disabilities from within the
host country. This question sought information about accessibility,
the number of staff with disabilities, unlawful practices, and so
on. The majority of respondents (35, or 56 percent) said either
that they did not discriminate (15) or that their embassy followed
U.S. government policies that prohibit discrimination (20). Two
embassies stated conformity to ADA, which does not apply to the
Federal Government. Two stated compliance with the Rehabilitation
Act of 1973, which does apply to the Federal Government.
By stating that their embassies have nondiscriminatory
policies, the respondents could well mean that the embassies do
not flatly reject people on the basis of disability. However, the
question sought to identify general conditions or policies that
would extend to foreign nationals with disabilities the employment
protections granted to U.S. citizens by U.S. disability rights laws,
such as reasonable accommodation. (The question provided a definition
of reasonable accommodation as an example of what such an explicit
embassy policy might be.) Few embassies (6 of 60) stated that reasonable
accommodation would be provided to employees with disabilities.
Of the eight respondents mentioning employees with disabilities,
only one also mentioned having a reasonable accommodation policy.
Two responding embassies mentioned practices that
do not comply with the Rehabilitation Act. One stated that a large
part of the embassy was inaccessible and that prospective employees
must be able to function within the section of the embassy in which
the open position was located. The other reported that the consular
section of the embassy had relatively few steps and that embassy
guards could carry people with disabilities in and out of it. Both
respondents volunteering noncompliance information also stated that
their embassies do not discriminate against people with disabilities
in employment, so it is possible that other embassies claiming nondiscrimination
also have discriminatory practices. In fact two major U.S. embassies
stating nondiscrimination were visited and found to have no wheelchair
access. One had even stated in its questionnaire response that "U.S.
embassies overseas are designed to provide access." Note that no
TDD numbers are listed for any embassy.
Question 5 sought to measure the inclusion of people
with disabilities in the general activities of embassies. All but
the smallest U.S. embassies conduct invitational programs such as
ambassador's receptions, U.S. trade shows, and cultural affairs
presentations. Those people invited represent constituencies in
which the United States is seen to have an interest. In the United
States, people with disabilities fully participate in every sector
and level of our society. Do our diplomatic missions regard the
participation of foreign nationals with disabilities in the same
way?
Of the 59 respondents to this question, 23 (39 percent)
reported that they encourage participation, 17 (29 percent) stated
nondiscrimination, and 17 (29 percent) had no policy. The remaining
five respondents either did not answer completely or did not understand
the question.
Analysis of Embassy Awareness
The five open-ended survey questions were designed
to encourage respondents to provide extended answers. These answers
were evaluated for quality and consistency with ADA principles,
using a level of awareness scale ranging from zero (lowest awareness)
to four (highest awareness). Respondents who answered all questions
but did not provide details were given an overall score of two,
those answering in detail received a three, and those providing
details that demonstrated an exceptional understanding of disability
issues received a four. Respondents omitting answers to any one
of the five questions were given a score of zero for that question
and an overall score of no more than one.
Respondents achieved the highest average score on
the human rights data collection process and the lowest on encouraging
the participation of people with disabilities in general embassy
programs. Embassies in wealthier countries consistently scored nearer
the mean (62 percent) than those in less wealthy nations, which
broadly ranged both above and below the mean score. The 14 countries
scoring above 75 percent on awareness vary greatly in geography,
development, political systems, and cultures.
CONCLUSIONS
The United States does not have a comprehensive
foreign policy on disability. Those responsible for creating and
implementing U.S. overseas policies and programs generally are unaware
of disability issues, cannot articulate our national policies with
respect to people with disabilities, do not incorporate the interests
of people with disabilities into U.S. foreign policy objectives,
and do not see the importance of U.S. disability advances and achievements
for people with disabilities in other countries. For example, many
of the officials interviewed in the course of this study contended
that U.S. accessibility standards do not apply overseas, but federal
accessibility regulations do not reflect this opinion. In fact accessibility
standards and federal disability rights compliance regulations make
no exemption for overseas U.S. operations, and there has been no
definitive jurisdictional test of disability rights statutes in
court.
Neither the spirit nor the letter of U.S. disability
rights laws is incorporated into the activities of the principal
foreign policy agencies. People with disabilities are rarely targeted
in U.S. foreign assistance programs, and few programs address disability.
The Peace Corps is the only agency with an entirely disability-oriented
program area (special education). Agencies typically present barriers
to the participation of people with disabilities in their programming,
particularly in medical screening and programmatic access elements
and in providing auxiliary aids. These barriers have not yet undergone
the scrutiny of disability rights advocates.
U.S. foreign policy structures currently do not advocate
for inclusion of people with disabilities through international
organizations in which the United States holds sway. Except for
some notable cases where exemplary work is being done, few U.S.
international activities assist people with disabilities or their
organizations. The United States does little to coordinate with
other countries on disability projects through foreign assistance
programs. Nor do most of these programs take access into consideration.
Isolated examples of inclusion of disability interests can be found
in some international bodies, such as the Organization of American
States and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe,
and in the U.S. position on recent UN meetings and summits. However,
the United States generally has not advocated for specific nondiscrimination
measures in programs of the World Bank, United Nations, and other
organizations.
The survey of U.S. embassies found few programs not
already disability-specific that attempted to involve people with
disabilities. This finding suggests that in general U.S. diplomatic
missions and their underlying policy infrastructure regard disability
as outside their bailiwick even though many of their activities
have strong implications for people with disabilities. Some embassy
officials demonstrated in their survey responses a keen appreciation
of the essence of U.S. national policy on disability, but on the
whole there was minimal understanding of disability and failure
to see the potential impact of U.S. overseas programs and policies
on people with disabilities.
Where people with disabilities participate in U.S.
international programming, this participation has been achieved
by
- the actions of enlightened U.S. government officials,
private voluntary organizations, and organizations directed by
people with disabilities working for inclusion;
- advocacy by organizations of people with disabilities
in other countries attracting U.S. attention;
- specific mandates for inclusion; or
- political and demographic factors in certain countries
that call for action by the U.S. government and private voluntary
organizations.
Currently, disability-specific provisions of foreign
operations laws exist for the Peace Corps, mandating it to conduct
programs to bring people with disabilities into the economic fabric
of society; the Department of State, directing inclusion of the
status of people with disabilities into its Annual Report on
Human Rights; and USIA, directing its administrator to report
to Congress on USIA's disability-related activities. When disability
is addressed in U.S. foreign policy through specific disability-related
mandates and directives, agencies have been motivated to improve
their programming and implement interaction with people with disabilities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Representatives of the national disability
advocacy community should work with foreign affairs agencies to
create measurable goals to increase the inclusion of people with
disabilities in U.S. international activities. The goals should
incorporate, at a minimum, the following points:
- The Rehabilitation Act protections should be extended
by legislation or executive order to include unambiguously the
international operations of the U.S. government.
- In concert with organizations directed by people
with disabilities, all U.S. government agencies active abroad
should carry out Rehabilitation Act self-evaluations to identify
barriers to participation and to establish transition plans to
eliminate these barriers.
- Medical requirements for participants in U.S. Foreign
Service or other international activities should be developed
more clearly to prevent discrimination against people with disabilities.
- Prominent disability organizations and community
representatives in cooperation with governmental bodies should
formulate and carry out a program to train senior foreign affairs
officials and their contractors in planning for programmatic accessibility.
- U.S. international activities should be evaluated
to ensure that no program has a lower standard of inclusion than
its domestic correlate. For example, activities supporting education
in developing countries should provide opportunities consistent
with those of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
- In keeping with its role as the world's democratic
leader, the United States should promote international disability
policy in international organizations; provide disability foreign
assistance; and set a high standard for accessibility and nondiscriminatory
employment by U.S. government agencies abroad.
AID should create a disability development policy
with measurable goals and timelines. Such a policy would
- develop goals and timelines in close cooperation
with U.S. and other disability organizations;
- develop mission strategic objectives that are disability-specific
in conjunction with indigenous organizations of people with disabilities;
- broadly increase participation by people with disabilities
in all aspects of the development process;
- identify and incorporate the successful strategies
of other nations (see appendix) into U.S.-sponsored development
projects; and
- routinely evaluate the agencys progress in achieving
goals and time lines.
The machinery of U.S. foreign policy-making should
be modified to include a mechanism for including disability objectives.
Such a mechanism would
- create disability policy standards to guide U.S.
delegations and permanent representatives to international organizations
in effectively and consistently advocating for positions and policy
that bring the spirit of ADA into international relations;
- coordinate with U.S. disability leaders, policymakers,
and relevant domestic agencies to identify the disability implications
of U.S. overseas activities;
- ensure consistency between U.S. national goals
toward people with disabilities and the government's activities
abroad; and
- enable the United States to assume its rightful
role as the world's leading proponent of equality for all people,
including people with disabilities.
APPENDIX
A: POLICIES OF OTHER COUNTRIES We have included
for consideration examples of policies from other countries with
proven records of involving people with disabilities in development
planning and projects. Both Canada and the Nordic nations have been
funding organizations directed by people with disabilities to conduct
development projects for over a decade. The Nordic nations have
policies in place governing disability in development. Canadian
disability organizations are still seeking to adopt the following
policies.
Below are some examples of foreign policies sought
by Canadian disability organizations (1).
- the inclusion of people with disabilities in key
staff positions and decisionmaking bodies;
- the development of project criteria along the lines
presently used to encourage women's participation in development;
- consultation with representative organizations
of people with disabilities in projects directly impacting this
sector;
- where advantageous to people with disabilities
and legally possible, the application of the disability standards
set by the donor country in the projects and programs designed
for the South; including physical and communication accessibility,
as well as the principle of de-institutionalization;
- certain financial incentives to promote programs
and projects in favor of people with disabilities;
- policies and guidelines for including people with
disabilities in emergency relief initiatives;
- the lifting of present barriers to people with
disabilities to access scholarship and refugee programs in donor
countries;
- adequate compensation for extra costs assumed by
people with disabilities to participate in international forums;
- accessibility of all embassies;
- definition of disability as a human rights issue;
- preference to disability-related projects where
people with disabilities have majority decisionmaking control;
and
- routine education of aid organization personnel
on disability and development.
The development ministers of the Nordic nations met
in 1991 in Hanaholmen, Denmark, and drafted the most comprehensive
policy statement on the inclusion of people with disabilities in
development assistance yet issued. The resolution, known as the
Hanaholmen Resolution, follows below in full:
The Council of Ministers recommends to the development
cooperation agencies:
- to work actively within the UN and other international
bodies and organizations to call attention to the cause of people
with disabilities,
- that disability issues should be a principal objective
of the development cooperation policies of the Nordic countries
in line with women, environment and democracy as well as human
rights, and
- that disability-oriented development programs should
be aimed at enhancing equality, full participation, and equal
opportunity for people with disabilities and at the same time
focus in particular on the situation of women with disabilities.
To achieve these objectives, the following action
is recommended:
- that disability aspects should be taken into account
in all development cooperation, wherever there are no objective
reasons for not complying with this requirement,
- that better cooperation and coordination should
be ensured within Nordic development cooperation for people with
disabilities, in each country as well as at the Nordic level,
- that assessments should be made to uncover whether
separate bodies are required for this cooperation,
- that the organizations of people with disabilities
should be involved to a higher degree in the planning, implementation,
and assessment of measures in this area,
- that Nordic organizations of people with disabilities
should be given wider scope for assisting their counterparts in
developing countries,
- that the assistance rendered by these organizations
for disability-oriented development programs should be tuned to
the financial resources of the assisting organizations and not
exceed 10 percent,
- that propagation of knowledge about Nordic disability
cooperation measures should be improved through increased exchange
of experience and information,
- that training in disability issues should be improved
for the permanent staff as well as the field staff of development
organizations and that better scope for further training should
be provided,
- that people with disabilities should be given far
greater opportunity for active involvement in development cooperation,
- that people with disabilities in recipient countries
should be provided with possibilities for active participation
in all decisions concerning themselves,
- that development activity should be based to the
widest possible extent on existing structures and be planned in
cooperation with organizations and authorities of recipient countries,
- that long-term support is often a prerequisite
for making activities in recipient countries self-sustaining,
- that the needs of people with disabilities should,
above all, be met in the community and that further measures that
may be required must be a complement to action at the local level,
- that initiatives should be taken to lay down a
common Nordic policy for disability issues of multilateral development
cooperation programs, and
- that representatives of organizations of people
with disabilities should be integrated in national delegations
to the United Nations and other internationalbodies.
Now that the Nordic countries have ratified the UN
Convention of the Rights of the Child, it should also be endeavored
to realize this Convention in practical work for children with disabilities
in the Third World. The principal objective of the Convention is
outlined below:
The Convention reaffirms that education is a human
right and makes special reference, in article 23, to the right of
the mentally and/or [sic] physically handicapped child to receive
education and training conducive to the child's achieving the fullest
possible social integration and individual development.
The seminar calls on the Nordic ministers of development
cooperation to establish an overall objective for the development
cooperation policy for people with disabilities and to give a Nordic
working group the assignment of preparing a specified action plan
in accordance with the above recommendations and principles.
The organizations of people with disabilities are
prepared to act as a source of reference and resource for the continuous
work with these issues through the Nordic Council of Organizations
of People with Disabilities.
March 6, 1991
APPENDIX
B: MISSION OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON DISABILITY Overview
and Purpose
NCD is an independent federal agency led by 15 members
appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by
the U.S. Senate.
The overall purpose of NCD is to promote policies,
programs, practices, and procedures that guarantee equal opportunity
for all individuals with disabilities, regardless of the nature
or severity of the disability; and to empower individuals with disabilities
to achieve economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion
and integration into all aspects of society.
Specific Duties
The current statutory mandate of NCD includes the
following:
- Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis,
policies, programs, practices, and procedures concerning individuals
with disabilities conducted or assisted by federal departments
and agencies, including programs established or assisted under
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, or under the Developmental
Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act; as well as all
statutes and regulations pertaining to federal programs that assist
such individuals with disabilities, in order to assess the effectiveness
of such policies, programs, practices, procedures, statutes, and
regulations in meeting the needs of individuals with disabilities.
- Reviewing and evaluating, on a continuing basis,
new and emerging disability policy issues affecting individuals
with disabilities at the federal, state, and local levels, and
in the private sector, including the need for and coordination
of adult services, access to personal assistance services, school
reform efforts and the impact of such efforts on individuals with
disabilities, access to health care, and policies that operate
as disincentives for individuals to seek and retain employment.
- Making recommendations to the President, the Congress,
the Secretary of Education, the Director of the National Institute
on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, and other officials
of federal agencies, respecting ways to better promote equal opportunity,
economic self-sufficiency, independent living, and inclusion and
integration into all aspects of society for Americans with disabilities.
- Providing the Congress, on a continuing basis,
advice, recommendations, legislative proposals, and any additional
information that NCD or the Congress deems appropriate.
- Gathering information about the implementation,
effectiveness, and impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.).
- Advising the President, the Congress, the Commissioner
of the Rehabilitation Services Administration, the Assistant Secretary
for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services within the Department
of Education, and the Director of the National Institute on Disability
and Rehabilitation Research on the development of the programs
to be carried out under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended.
- Providing advice to the Commissioner with respect
to the policies and conduct of the Rehabilitation Services Administration.
- Making recommendations to the Director of the National
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research on ways to
improve research, service, administration, and the collection,
dissemination, and implementation of research findings affecting
persons with disabilities.
- Providing advice regarding priorities for the activities
of the Interagency Disability Coordinating Council and reviewing
the recommendations of this Council for legislative and administrative
changes to ensure that such recommendations are consistent with
the purposes of NCD to promote the full integration, independence,
and productivity of individuals with disabilities;
- Preparing and submitting to the President and the
Congress an annual report titled National Disability Policy:
A Progress Report.
- Preparing and submitting to the Congress and the
President an annual report containing a summary of the activities
and accomplishments of NCD.
Consumers Served and Current Activities
While many government agencies deal with issues and
programs affecting people with disabilities, NCD is the only federal
agency charged with addressing, analyzing, and making recommendations
on issues of public policy that affect people with disabilities
regardless of age, disability type, perceived employment potential,
economic need, specific functional ability, status as a veteran,
or other individual circumstance. NCD recognizes its unique opportunity
to facilitate independent living, community integration, and employment
opportunities for people with disabilities by ensuring an informed
and coordinated approach to addressing the concerns of persons with
disabilities and eliminating barriers to their active participation
in community and family life.
NCD plays a major role in developing disability policy
in America. In fact, it was NCD that originally proposed what eventually
became ADA. NCD's present list of key issues includes improving
personal assistance services, promoting health care reform, including
students with disabilities in high-quality programs in typical neighborhood
schools, promoting equal employment and community housing opportunities,
monitoring the implementation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act, improving assistive technology, and ensuring that persons with
disabilities who are members of minority groups fully participate
in society.
Statutory History
NCD was initially established in 1978 as an advisory
board within the Department of Education (Public Law 95-602). The
Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1984 (Public Law 98-221) transformed
NCD into an independent agency.
1
Fricke, Yutte, "Disability and Development: The Canadian Experience,"
unpublished paper, 1993. |