Chapter 4. Pursuing Disability-Inclusive Development through the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities


The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD or the Convention),[1] 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 instruments[2] and has been celebrated as the “Declaration of Independence” for people with disabilities worldwide.[3] 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.[4]
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.[5] 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.[6] 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.”[7] 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.[8]

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”[9] and acknowledges that many people with disabilities experience multiple forms of discrimination based on economic or other statuses.[10] 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.[11] The obligation on a state that has signed a treaty but whose consent is subject to ratification is clear.[12] In such cases, the signatory state is required to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the treaty.[13] 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).[14] 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.”[15] 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 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.[16] The President negotiates treaties; however, treaties are also subject to the advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate.[17] Once a treaty is so approved by the Senate, the President may ratify the treaty.[18] When the President ratifies a treaty, it becomes binding law in all 50 States under the Supremacy Clause.[19]

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.[20] Note that much of the treaty derives from U.S. disability law. The sections below give a more detailed 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.[21] 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.”[22] 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 equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms.”[23] 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.[24] 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.[25] 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.[26] In order to achieve accessibility, Article 9 requires States to identify and eliminate obstacles and barriers to accessibility.[27] 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.[28]

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.”[29] In other words, although the Convention is not directly legally binding on private actors (as only States can be bound 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.[30] 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.[31] 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.[32] Further, Article 32 makes it clear that all international cooperation efforts, including international development programs, should be accessible and fully inclusive of people with disabilities from design through implementation.[33]

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,[34] employment,[35] living in the community,[36] accessibility,[37] health,[38] and access to justice,[39] among others,[40] 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.

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.[41] 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.”[42] 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 to “clean water services” and “public housing programmes.”[43] Article 25 requires equal access to health care,[44] while Article 26 makes certain the provision of habilitation and rehabilitation,[45] and Article 20 facilitates access to mobility aids and training.[46] 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.[47] 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 programming[48] 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.[49] In other words, the provision requires States Parties to ensure that people with disabilities have the right to make their own legal decisions.[50] 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.[51] 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. Government-funded 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.[52]

Closely related to the right to make legal decisions is Article 13, on access to justice for people with disabilities.[53] 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 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.[54] 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.[55] 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.[56] 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.[57]

Finally, U.S.-funded democracy and governance programming includes targeted efforts to strengthen civil society and citizen mobilization.[58] 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.[59] The CRPD provisions on international cooperation likewise recognize the role of civil society organizations,[60] as do the national-level monitoring provisions in the CRPD.[61]

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.[62] 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 work environment that is open, inclusive and accessible to persons with disabilities.”[63] 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.[64] 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.[65] 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 programs[66] 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.


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.[67] 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.[68] The emergence of disability-inclusive 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.


[1] CRPD, supra note 9.

[2] 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).

[3] 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).

[4] 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 Michael Ashley Stein and Penelope J. S. Stein, Beyond Disability Civil Rights, 58 Hastings L. J. 1203, 1206 (2007).

[5] Id.

[6] CRPD, supra note 9, at preambular para. (e).

[7] Id. at art. 2.

[8] Id. at art. 3.

[9] Id. at preambular para. (t).

[10] Id. at preambular para. (p).

[11] 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),; United Nations, UN Enable Rights and Dignities of Persons with Disabilities, Convention and Optional Protocol Signatures and Ratifications,

[12] 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].

[13] §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).

[14] 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), 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.

[15] Aust, supra note 99, at 119.

[16] U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.

[20] 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),

[21] See CRPD, supra note 9, at art. 5.

[22] Id. at art. 2.

[23] Id.

[24] See id. at art. 9.

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] Id.

[28] Id.

[29] Id.

[30] Id. at art. 4(1)(e).

[31] See Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Global Development Program,

[32] CRPD, supra note 9, at art. 32(1).

[33] Id. at art. 32.

[34] Id. at art. 24.

[35] Id. at art. 27.

[36] Id. at art. 19.

[37] Id. at art. 9.

[38] Id. at art. 25.

[39] 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).

[40] See id. at art. 8–30.

[41] 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), 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.

[42] CRPD, supra note 9, at art. 11.

[43] Id. at art. 28, 28(2)(a), 28(2)(d).

[44] Id. at art. 25.

[45] Id. at art. 26.

[46] Id. at art. 20.

[47] Id. at art. 16.

[48] For more on USAID’s democracy and governance programming, see “Overview,”

[49] See CRPD, supra note 9, at art. 12.

[50] Id.

[51] Id.

[52] 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), publications/pdfs/pnacf631.pdf.

[53] See CRPD, supra note 9, at art. 13.

[54] Id. at art. 29.

[55] Id.

[56] Id.

[57] Id.

[58] See generally USAID, A Guide to DCHA/DG Activities [hereafter DG User’s Guide], DG_Activities_Feb09_508c.pdf.

[59] 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.

[60] See id. at art. 32.

[61] Id. at art. 33.

[62] See id. at preamble para.

[63] Id. at art. 27.

[64] See generally Hervé Bernard et al., Handicap International, Good Practices for Economic Inclusion of People with Disabilities: Funding Mechanisms for Self-Employment (August 2006),; 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).

[65] See DOS, “Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs,”

[66] 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).

[67] 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),; UK Department for International Development, How To Note: Working on disability in country programmes (2007),

[68] USAID, “Disability and development,” ; See also USAID, “Disability in Australia’s aid program,” ; 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, (CRPD status).

National Council on Disability • 1331 F Street, NW, Suite 850 • Washington, DC 20004