We need new leadership

Dear Debriefers, 

Last week I uncovered what went wrong in the management and governance of the International Disability Alliance (IDA).

There’s a lot to welcome in the efforts IDA have made to address its previous mismanagement. But there are still limitations in its transparency about important information.

And there’s a shocking continuity in the leadership responsible for the failures. The majority of IDA’s Board remains the same. And IDA’s previous President remains President of the European Disability Forum (EDF).

The threads of this crisis run through the wider disability movement. It has ramifications for how power is concentrated, the governance of organisations meant to be representative of disabled people, and how we respond when shortcomings come to light. 

In my view, the international disability movement needs renewal and a more open approach to leadership.

Disability Debrief can take an independent view thanks to your support. With thanks to Cara and Trinh for new contributions.

Impact of the crisis

IDA was hit hard by the results of the Special Review commissioned by Sida, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency.

As well as the damage to IDA’s reputation and trust in the organisation, key donors – including Sida itself and Finland’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, among others – stopped or suspended funding. The impact of the budget cuts resulted in the Secretariat downsizing by over 25%, from 42 to 30 people (approximately).

At the same time, wider discontents with the organization have come out. In January, anonymous authors claiming to represent organisations of persons with disabilities brought together concerns felt by many others. They sent an email to key staff in international organisations, asking how IDA became “focused on accumulating money and running behind projects often without strategic direction?” For them, IDA had lost touch with its members and priorities of the movement. 

There’s also an emotional impact of this crisis. Many feel frustrated or hurt by their experience with IDA. There’s anger and disappointment about how the cause of disability rights could be diverted for self-interest. And there’s a fear for the future of international disability advocacy.

Will the crisis undermine trust in organisations representing persons with disabilities? How will our movement fare at a moment when international cooperation faces deep challenges and wider cuts?

“Steady progress in a positive direction”

IDA accepted the results of the Review and are taking on wide-ranging measures in response. They are working for “transformative reforms” with a “fit for purpose program” to strengthen the organisation’s “governance, financial management, human resources, and overall operational efficiency.” To IDA’s credit, these are key areas where the Review identified serious shortcomings.

Among the policies that they’d been missing, IDA now have a policy on providing reasonable accommodation. It applies to staff and Board members though does not provide for personal assistance outside of work, an important area for staff with disabilities working internationally. 

The Secretariat itself, alongside its downsizing, has been reshaped with “a strict prioritisation of advocacy, capacity building, and alliance strengthening.” Jose Viera, the interim Executive Director, tells me they will “focus more on activity and supporting our members, instead of having a quite high cost Secretariat.”

As such, governance reforms are accompanied by a repositioning of the organisation and its way of working. Viera tells me they are going forward more “collaboratively”. He describes it as a “clear shift” from the model of IDA “having the monopoly of the disability sector” towards playing a “facilitating” or “convenor” role.

Indeed, IDA’s new leadership is also open to imagining ways to structure the alliance. They mention the possibility of wider membership, reformation of its Board and a new constitution. With a view to “solidify its legitimacy”, IDA have also launched a listening exercise to canvas input from members, allies and the broader community. 

Sida tell me they released the suspended funds and welcome IDA’s “steady progress in a positive direction”. Sida conclude that “IDA’s Secretariat will not waiver in its resolve to fully act on the findings.”

Transparency increasing, but still limited

After a crisis in management, transparency is one of the key tools with which to rebuild trust. Back in February, Nawaf Kabbara, IDA’s new President, told me they were going forward in the “spirit of transparency and accountability”. Fernando Riaño, a new member of the Executive Committee told me that “open, transparent dialogue within our sector is more critical now than ever”. 

IDA do seem to be taking steps in this direction. According to the Review, previously there had not even been transparency of information to their own Board, let alone to the wider world. In some ways the organisation comes across as changing the way they talk to others in the sector and openness to talking to me as a journalist is a welcome example of this. 

But there are still important limitations. It took IDA almost 8 months after the Review was finalised to explicitly say on their website that it had even taken place. They still haven’t published it, and their website doesn't say it's available from Sida. The remuneration of the previous Executive Director was one of the key motivations of the Review, but IDA declined to share with me that of their interim Executive Director.

IDA’s plans for reform are guided by a new internal review from Ernst & Young, which is not published on their website. But it’s a document essential for members and the wider movement to understand what is needed in the organisation’s reform and to evaluate its progress.

I pushed the leadership on transparency. Viera acknowledges that the “broader public” expected more open communication. Kabbara said it’s a “question of timing” because they want to “come to the public with concrete results”. And Riaño declined to comment on why there hadn’t been more open dialogue with the wider sector.

Continuity in IDA’s leadership

The majority of IDA’s Board members remain the same as those responsible for the governance failures identified by the Review. 11 of the 14 members of the current Board were also on it last year. The new interim Executive Director, Viera, was also picked from within the organisation, where he'd been working as Advocacy Director.

IDA’s board is made up of representatives of its member organisations, by default the President of each organisation. But member organisations are free to change their representative. The articles of association allow each a nominee and deputies of their choosing. And there is no obligation that they are chosen from within the member organisation itself.

Immediately after the Review’s findings were released, an election was called for new office holders of the Board’s Executive Committee. Even within the Board, some felt that this was a way for individuals to avoid accountability for what had happened. Two members of the outgoing Executive Committee shared concerns with me that the election was “imposed” or “coerced” by IDA’s outgoing leadership.

The election made Kabbara IDA’s new President a few weeks after the Review was released. Kabbara and Viera assure me the election followed IDA’s rules. And as to whether the previous President played a part in his being elected, Kabbara tells me that “many people intervened, not only one person.”

IDA’s new President is from the old guard

Kabbara himself was part of the previous Executive Committee, and has been on and off the Board for years. He is President of the Arab Organisation of Persons with Disabilities, which he cofounded in 1998.

Many people I’ve spoken to in the disability sector have raised questions about whether Kabbara is the right person to do the job. He replies that assessing capacity is down to “opinion”: 

“The result will say whether I was up to the job or not. If I deliver what we are promising, then I would’ve been good for the job. If I do not deliver, then they are right.”

When he asks to be judged by results, he does not mean those described in the Review and for which he shares responsibility. Rather, looking forward, Kabbara says he should be assessed on whether the reforms of the organisation are carried out, and in preparation of a new vision for IDA. 

Kabbara’s term runs for three years until 2027. But to me it seems premature to commit to a years-long leadership in an election held at the height of crisis.

And as with any leader, I think one of the most important ways to judge Kabbara’s leadership will be in the transition to his successor. Whether through a careful recruitment or an election that allows for scrutiny of candidates, IDA is a coalition that needs the credibility of a leader found through a robust and open process.

A Board is “only as strong as the people sitting around the table”

I asked IDA’s board members in what ways the current Board was more equipped to govern the organisation than the previous one. As well as new policies and procedures, they told me about renewed attention, “ears to the ground”, and trainings for Board members. Alongside other measures, they have a panel of three external experts acting as a “steering committee” to advise leadership.

One of the new board members is Carole Willans of the International Federation of Hard of Hearing People (IFHOH). IFHOH thought it was important to have a “clean slate” after their previous representative. For Willans, the Board “is only as strong as the people sitting around the table”:

“There is a mix on the board of persons who have in-depth experience with IDA, and new people coming in to ask questions about board assumptions and practices. […] In my view, it would be problematic to start anew with a board made up exclusively of people who have no history or prior understanding of IDA. You need a mix of the old and the new.” 

As for Sida, they expressed confidence in the Secretariat but are less committal about the Board. Sida are closely following reforms and remind that the Review “points to Board related challenges that will have to be fully addressed”.

Reshaping the Board

Sue Swenson, the former Treasurer, instrumental in exposing the disfunction in the previous Board, believes that it will continually evolve:

“In my view, the current Board will continue to be reshaped in the coming months and year as a result of the IDA members’ reflections, changes to their representatives, term limits, and the need for a Board that is more equipped to prevent potential mismanagement”. 

Some of these comments anticipate governance reforms in IDA's Fit for Purpose programme, which includes introduction of independent board members and fixed term limits. Swenson also identifies how the Review forces a consideration of a structural issue, namely:

“How a Board which is largely representative – established for advocacy purposes – can effectively fulfil its responsibilities to manage a growing organizational structure.”

This is a central challenge. Currently the Board serves two purposes: as a representative and as a governing body. But these are different functions that need different people with different skills to fulfil them.

The organisation could, for example, have a strategic council of the alliance’s members to ensure strong representation of their constituencies. And alongside that a more traditional governing board responsible for governance and financial oversight.

European Disability Forum downplay reputational risk

The former President of IDA, Yannis Vardakastanis faced intense critique in the Review. He remains President of EDF, a position he has held over six election cycles, since 1999. As a result of term limits set earlier this year, Vardakastanis’ mandate is set to end in 2026.

In terms of their Secretariat’s management, EDF are unrecognisable from the portrait painted of IDA in the Review. You can find many of their detailed policies on their website, along with results of board meetings. Their reasonable accommodation policy applies to all staff equally. The organisation does not pay an allowance to their President’s home organisation in Greece. They have salary scales for staff, set with input from an external organisation, and which they were willing to share with me.

I spoke to the EDF Vice-Presidents who both assert categorically that Vardakastanis’ leadership of EDF is unlike that described by the Review of IDA. Vice-President Gunta Anca celebrates the “great structure” of EDF and tells me that because of it “bullying is not possible”.

Further, both Vice-Presidents downplay the risks of the Review's revelations to EDF. Anca says she does not know “how much this research is true or not true”. Vardakastanis, as well as denying the allegations relating to him in the Review of IDA, agrees it “has not affected at all the reputation of EDF”. He notes that I am the first to ask if he considered resigning due to his role in the crisis. 

Personally, I think EDF should reconsider their response to the IDA Review. As well as the “signals of mismanagement” and “financial irregularities” it contains allegations of abuse of power and bullying. I think the EDF Board should assess the findings of the Review, its implications for the integrity of their President and the organisation’s reputational risk. They should communicate publicly their decision in a way that reiterates zero tolerance for corruption or bullying.

A disconnect from disabled people

The crisis at IDA and response to it have brought up many issues central to the disability movement. One of the most striking continuities I see is the disconnect from persons with disabilities themselves. 

Representative organisations have to win the trust of governments and funders, but first and last they have to be trusted by the people they claim to represent. There has been a consistent focus on funders and stakeholders rather than openness with the wider movement. Let alone the majority of disabled people who are not connected with these organisations.

A striking example of this is in the distribution of the Review itself. One of the arguments not to discuss it more openly is that it would damage the reputation among funders. But funding organisations were among the first to receive it and be briefed on its contents. Those that didn't have it were the regular folk connected with the movement but more distant from centres of power.

Part of the reason for this disconnect comes from a structural distance. IDA is a coalition of organisations that are themselves also coalitions. In some cases there are several layers of nested organisation before those which have direct membership of individuals.

Each layer becomes more distant from those it represents. And, with a minimum of public information or decisions communicated through the chain, transparency reduces to zero. What is meant to be representative ends up having undemocratic abstraction.

Organisations that are strong without overpowering

For long-term change, advocacy by itself isn’t enough. Strong infrastructure is needed for organisations to be effective platforms for change.

But it’s not easy to build them, and the challenges IDA had in governance are all too frequent in the non-profit space. Organisations get co-opted by their leaders, become too dependent on funders’ whims, or lose track of the mission they were started with. And many of the patterns explored in Alberto Vasquez’s Debrief piece on gatekeeping in the disability movement are useful to understand IDA’s case. 

IDA’s leadership says the crisis is a result of growing too fast. It’s worth unpacking this. First it implies that the problems in governance weren’t there before it grew. That isn’t clear to me. And second there is the implication that the organisation shouldn’t have grown so fast. 

Certainly we don’t want every organisation to grow exponentially, as that does indeed take many off track. But our movement does need some that can, and to do so with guardrails in place. Otherwise how will we build the platforms we need to realise our ambitions for a more equal world?

IDA’s ideal size, and the speed of its growth, are among the issues that warrant more open discussion. The case can be made for it to be a smaller organisation focussed on coordination and human rights mechanisms. And a case can also be made for it to grow much larger, in order to invest and support in mobilisation of the wider movement.

We need new leadership

There’s a lot to welcome about how IDA have responded to the crisis. They’ve acknowledged the problems and are simultaneously undertaking reforms in multiple areas. It’s good that they’re reimagining the role of the organisation and many will appreciate a more collaborative approach.

But in my view this isn’t a crisis that can be solved just by putting policies in place.

It needs deeper changes in how the organisation is run and who runs it. A reshuffle of IDA's Board isn’t enough, and it makes the organisation appear unserious about deeper transformation. 

More Board members need to take responsibility for what went wrong, and the Board urgently needs to bring in people with skills needed for governance. Much of this can be done immediately. Beyond that there needs to be reform of how the Board is structured and where its members come from. 

These changes won’t be easy for the organisation or our movement. And it’s precisely because it’s hard that we need IDA to take on transparency as a more substantive practice. Openness is essential for more meaningful representation as we navigate complex changes.

The disability movement has to set high standards for our own leadership. We have to offer serious players to deal with the world’s challenges. It’s not enough to ask others to change without making a continual effort to keep our own house in order.

The need for dialogue

I’m trying to make a space where our movement is able to talk about hard things. 

Of course there’s a risk to talking. As well as the much-repeated concern about reputation of the disability movement, many people’s professional connections make it hard to intervene. And there’s certainly a personal risk. As the Review described, raising topics inconvenient to those in powerful positions can lead to bullying or harassment. 

But there’s also a risk to silence. Silence contributed to a loss of perspective and allowed the challenges to fester in the first place. Covering up wrongdoing can look like condoning it. And a reluctance to welcome scrutiny can look like there might be something else to hide. 

Doing this reporting has been painful, consuming and scary for me. I support the missions these organisations were built for and I respect the huge efforts of friends and colleagues fighting for their survival. I write out of that shared commitment.

Let me know what I’ve missed, or where your conclusions differ. I am more than happy to publish views that differ from my own. That’s the whole point: we can learn together to make our movement stronger.

Peter

Acknowledgements

I reiterate the acknowledgements I made last week. Opinions in this article are mine alone. I am grateful for support from many, and the extensive replies people gave to my questions.

Particular thanks again to those who reviewed and re-reviewed drafts, to Áine Kelly-Costello for guidance and editing, and to Sonaksha for their illustrations adding a visual dimension to this work.

And, of course, thanks to the readers and organisations whose support makes this reporting possible.