What went wrong?

Dear Debriefers,

Earlier in the year I wrote about the crisis at the International Disability Alliance (IDA), the leading organisation representing persons with disabilities on the global stage. It sent shockwaves through our international movement fighting for disability rights.

In order to move forward we need a shared reference on what happened. It's painful to explore, but without knowing what went wrong, we don’t know what needs to be fixed.

It was a crisis that was years in the making and that came to a head in an independent review. This edition sheds light on a complex picture of governance failures, challenges of providing disability support, and exclusive commentary from those involved.

In my view the lack of oversight of IDA was a collective failure of its alliance. But now there's a genuine opportunity for course correction.

In a follow-on edition I explore IDA's responses to the crisis and what I think the disability movement needs next.

Disability Debrief can take an independent view thanks to your support. With thanks to Nayeem for a new contribution.

“Suspicions of serious inadequacies”

Sida, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, has funded IDA since 1999. Last year they questioned some of IDA’s spending on staff – through salaries, reasonable accommodation allowances and bonuses – particularly as related to the Executive Director and the President.

IDA’s response to these enquiries did not alleviate Sida’s concerns. As a result Sida commissioned an independent Special Review, undertaken by the professional services firm KPMG. The Review was finalized in January this year and Sida found it to confirm their suspicions of “serious inadequacies”. 

I report on the Review in the public interest. It has been widely distributed, but still isn’t available online. Sida are sharing it when they’re asked. Last week, IDA shared their summary of the key findings and how they’re going forward. 

Understanding IDA: IDA is an alliance of 14 global and regional organisations of persons with disabilities. Its governing Board is made of representatives of these organisations, usually their President. The Board chooses a subset of its members to form an Executive Committee. 

“Signals of mismanagement” and alleged “abuse of power”

The Special Review of the International Disability Alliance outlines ballooning costs of IDA’s Executive Director position, broken governance processes, and multiple allegations of unethical behaviour. Its executive summary alleges: 

“The findings presented in this report are, in our view, signals of mismanagement – confirmed by the lack of transparency, void of supporting information necessary for Board approval of the [Human Resources] decisions, identified financial irregularities, and several reported cases of abuse of power and authority exerted by especially the [Executive Director] and the President of the Board.” 

At the heart of the Review is an investigation of expenses relating to the Executive Director. It shows the total cost of his remuneration, benefits and disability-related assistance increasing over 40% from 2020 to 2022. 

Sida told me that the “serious inadequacies” they see in IDA are summarised in the Review’s table on “identified financial irregularities”. Over a period of four years these amounted to 720,507 CHF (around $850,000 USD in today’s exchange). 

The majority of costs in this table are related to the Executive Director position: an “unduly compensated vacation”, reasonable accommodation allowances, school fees, relocation expenses to Madrid, and family travel, among others. Outside of these are bonuses or untaken leaves paid to staff as well as other consultant fees.

Quickly after the report was finalized the Executive Director resigned and IDA’s Board appointed a new Executive Committee and elected a new President. The new leadership confirms the findings of the Review. Interim Executive Director Jose Viera says they chose to “accept the report in full and move on quickly in putting a plan to fix all the problems.”

Scrutiny of IDA’s leadership

As the Review unpicks the expenses on the Executive Director, it exposes extensive concerns in the way the organisation was run. Information was not presented to the Board or policies didn’t get approved in the right ways. Decision chains related to human resources are “concentrated on a few individuals”. Policies, practices and documentation are inconsistent or have serious gaps.

The Review particularly scrutinises the role played by the former IDA President, Yannis Vardakastanis, and the former Executive Director, Vladimir Cuk. Their roles in the organisation are set out by IDA’s Articles of Association. The President chairs the organisation, has a political role, and is responsible to oversee the activity of the Secretariat. The Executive Director heads up daily management of the organisation and its staff.

Findings regarding ethics, integrity and accountability are particularly grave. The Review alleges that:

“Cases of self-interest and interference by the [Executive Director] are clear signs of mismanagement and corrupt behaviour.”

And, further:

“The lack of accountability and control in relation to the information supporting the [Executive Director’s] decision requests increases the risk of fraud and misuse of funds”. 

The Review reports allegations about the President and Executive Director:

“Examples of bullying, harassment, and undue/inappropriate interference by the IDA President and [Executive Director] were verbally reported during our interviews.”

Furthermore, the Review cites claims from the then Treasurer, Sue Swenson of Inclusion International. She alleged:

“The Treasurer reported not being able to fulfil the function’s role and fiduciary responsibility due to the lack of transparency exercised by the President as well as the [Executive Director].”

And:

“[The Treasurer] reported duress and bullying remarks by the President and the silent treatment of other [Executive Committee] members when questioning the remuneration package and decision procedures”. 

Further, among the expenses examined by the Review, it notes an arrangement with the President’s home organisation, the National Confederation of Disabled People of Greece (NCDP). IDA was to pay NCDP a yearly advance of €36,000 supposedly as reasonable accommodation and administrative support for the President. NCDP repaid the allowance for 2022 during the period of the Review.

A “total failure of governance”

For a perspective external to the disability sector, I spoke with Tobias Denskus, a Development Studies academic in Sweden. Asked about the seriousness of these findings, he told me that, in terms of accountability, the Review is “one of the most terrible things I've read in a long time.” In his view it shows a “total failure of governance” and that “the organisation was really taken advantage of. A lack of routines and governance opens up for a bad actor.”

“One-sided”

A serious limitation of the Review is that it seldom includes the perspective of those accused of wrongdoing. Replies are not shown from either the President or the Executive Director. 

Vardakastanis, the then President of IDA characterises the Review as “one-sided”. He tells me about distributed responsibilities in the Board (including that of the Treasurer), decisions made unanimously by the Executive Committee, and that his own approval came after others. He describes the Review’s findings relating to him as “allegations, no concrete examples”. And he flatly denies them: 

“I have never interfered and I have never bullied or harassed anybody. Full stop here. Full stop. It is not me. It's not my character.”

Cuk, the then Executive Director, declined to comment on the Review’s contents. 

The Review’s findings about “financial irregularities” also need some context. They represent a small percentage of the organisation’s budget. In 2022 and 2023 IDA had annual expenditure of over $10 million USD. Further, financial audits were approved for the years in question. As such, the “irregularities” weren’t accounting discrepancies. Rather the Review presents evidence to show them as made with insufficient justification or process. And its authors note that a wider investigation may have found further irregularities. 

Another concern raised about the Review is that it comes in a context of Sida terminating its agreements with many civil society organisations. However, there is no indication in the report that it was motivated in that way, and it was commissioned significantly before that change.

Sida reiterates to me their confidence in the integrity of the Review and, in response to the suggestion it was “one-sided”, says:

“Neither IDA itself nor the stakeholders who have received/reviewed the report - e.g., numerous other donors, including their investigative units – have pointed to any in this context shortcomings that would reduce the gravity of the findings.”

The challenge of disability-related support

A particularly sensitive area at the centre of the Review is that many of the costs related to the Executive Director are supports related to disability. They included personal assistance provided 24-hours a day, every day of the year.

The Review is motivated by the concern that the costs were excessive and not supported by rules, assessment, or sometimes even basic documentation. Sida summarised to me that IDA’s approach to reasonable accommodation was an “abuse” of the concept, and that it lacked a Board-approved policy.

As such, it is important to be clear about what the concepts should be, outside of how they were (mis)used in this case. This is especially important for other persons with disabilities making international careers and for organisations with international staff to understand. There are in fact two concepts in play.

First, employers have a duty to provide reasonable accommodation – adjustments for work purposes. Some of these might extend to, say, commuting to and from work, but not to supports related to daily life outside of work. Reasonable accommodation is a legal requirement in many jurisdictions. Having a clear policy on it is the bare minimum for an organisation focussing on disability.

Second, employees who move countries for work may have further needs. Many disabled people rely on national benefits and support networks that aren’t available after moving to a different country. In the same way that organisations support expatriates with housing or other allowances, I believe they should consider disability-related supports to meet needs of daily life.

There is not an established best practice to address this second concern. Sida themselves, for example, do not have a policy to cover supports for staff in foreign postings if they don’t have access to Swedish, or other, social benefits. Organisations that do make these provisions often do so on an ad-hoc basis. 

But IDA is not just any organisation. Even more than others, I believe they should have been careful to develop a systematic provision of these supports in a way that applied to all of their staff.

Board members “overwhelmed”

IDA’s Board members told me about the challenges they faced governing the organisation. 

Echoing concerns from others, Klaus Lachwitz, of the European Disability Forum, explained that IDA had grown “too fast” and this “overwhelmed the majority of Board members”, who work as volunteers.

Lachwitz, who initially joined the IDA Board in 2010 shared how over the years since then his work for IDA had evolved into a “full-time job for me… for a person with an old computer, poor internet connection” and no administrative support. He also pointed to division of labour in the Board and the organisation, and how financial reports were checked in advance by several people, including the Treasurer.

Board members tell me about bad internet connections, English not being their native language, intense work without remuneration and the challenge of work across diverse cultures and time zones. Joseph Murray, the former Secretary-General, tells me he joined during the pandemic and there was no on-boarding process for new executive officers.

Lachwitz also explained a further context, the profile of Board members themselves:

“All of them are experts in disability matters, but usually [not] experts in financial and administrative management issues.” 

Several Board members were surprised when Sida formally raised their concerns to IDA in October 2023. Vardakastanis, the former President, mentions that these issues had not emerged in financial audits or indeed Sida’s own evaluations.

But Swenson, the former Treasurer, had concerns from the first Board meeting she attended. She subsequently became Treasurer and tells me she tried to raise issues internally from that position but was blocked. As for what she shared with the Review:

“I felt it important to expose the way the [Executive Committee] and Board were operating and to explain why I had been unable to exercise my responsibilities as Treasurer.”

In her “professional opinion”, Swenson finds the Board was “too naïve to understand the importance of my concerns and they did not have the skills or training to exercise their responsibility.”

The Treasurer’s concerns were not the only internal signal. The long-serving Operations and Finance Unit Director submitted his resignation early in 2023 over disagreements with the Executive Director’s management.

The current President of IDA, Nawaf Kabbara, was a member of the previous Executive Committee. He acknowledges that the Treasurer raised concerns. According to Kabbara the the Board was alarmed, but the situation “blew up before we can keep the control of it.”

“Power without question”

Representative organisations such as IDA are meant to challenge hierarchies of power. But sometimes they reproduce them.

This is illustrated by the remarks of an anonymous Board Member cited in the Review, who says Board members were “too scared to raise their opinions”. As well as some feeling “bullied by management and leadership”, smaller organisations are dependent on IDA for financial support and travel opportunities. Indeed, IDA is the fiscal sponsor of several of its member organisations.

Another power imbalance running through this is gender. Diana Samarasan, former founding Executive Director of the Disability Rights Fund and now an independent consultant, commented on the international disability community having a gender problem. In her interpretation of the Review, IDA is an example of that:

“The Special Review shows typical systemic issues related to power concentrated among too few people, all male. It describes patterns of alleged bullying, harassment, favouritism, and unequal remuneration not backed up by policy. Together with lack of transparency in decision making and lack of clear processes they are classic ways that enable men at the top to hold power without question." 

Reactions of IDA’s former leadership

Cuk, the former Executive Director, declined to comment on the Review’s findings, but did share a statement. He expresses pride to have led IDA’s Secretariat through milestones in disability-inclusive development, and wishes IDA “all the best in the future”:

“International Disability Alliance has achieved much over the last decade while undergoing continuous transformation and growth in membership and scope of work. The Special Review of IDA came during another planned organizational transformation, which focused on human resources and strengthening reporting. I’m sure that time will tell more about the report itself.”

Even though Vardakastanis, IDA’s former President pushed back at the personal allegations made, he acknowledges that the Review usefully identifies gaps that need to be addressed. As for his own role, Vardakastanis concedes that “probably” some things escaped him because he was too involved in the political work of the organisation:

“I didn't look the way I had to look in the way the organization was internally managed. This I accept now I have thought about it, I didn't do the way I had to do it.” 

Vardakastanis remains President of the European Disability Forum, a position he has held since 1999.

“We took what happened seriously”

Among IDA’s current Board, some express concerns about the validity of the Review’s findings and/or way it was conducted. But others join the new leadership in welcoming it. Sanja Tarczay of the World Federation of the Deafblind thanks external partners for identifying issues in management and the recommendations that came with them:

“We are deeply appreciative of their contribution, as it has been one of the most positive recent developments for IDA.”

IDA’s current leadership goes furthest in expressing regret. As well as accepting the findings of the Review, Viera, the interim Executive Director, says:

“We acknowledge what happened is unacceptable. We apologize for any harm made or any damage made.”

Viera emphasises the alliance nature of IDA:

“IDA was the result of a collective effort. And as such, we all have part of the responsibility.”

I push him in particular on the alleged cases of bullying and harassment. Viera adds “nepotism” to these and states:

“At the Secretariat level, we apologize to those who were victims of those situations.”

Viera adds that staff are being offered external counselling and support.

As for Kabbara, the current President, his apology is more equivocal:

“There [was] bullying going on all the way, not from one side only. I think we all apologize for any kind of bullying toward any person. [It] was a time of tension, and things sometimes were too personal. This is not [the] way to handle an organization.”

Kabbara prefers to focus on the way forward:

“Our response to everyone is that we took what happened seriously. We admit that there are some things wrong we have to address: we are addressing it. And we're working hard to keep IDA as you know it, with the mission and vision it's been built for.”

My view: a collective failure

This section represents my own opinion of what went wrong.

Yes, IDA is a collective effort. And the lack of oversight described in the Review is the result of a collective failure. 

For me, IDA failed to put in place the governance mechanisms and culture that it needed to achieve its goals. It allowed some of its functioning to be diverted by self-interest. The Executive Director had excessive influence and unchecked control. The environment described makes me think there could have been much more going wrong inside the organisation than what was identified in the Review. 

My view is that IDA’s Board failed in their responsibility to manage the organisation. They did not adopt sufficient internal rules and regulations for its proper operation and sustainable growth. When presented with internal and external signals that things were remiss, they did not sufficiently course-correct.

Too few Board members acted on what was happening and too few acknowledged they could not adequately perform their responsibilities. IDA’s member organisations should have taken their role in governing the alliance more seriously. 

This crisis also raises questions for the organisations funding IDA. How were these problems missed by the extensive requirements funders set? Should they have focussed more on ensuring governance processes and financial controls? Did the relationships funders had with IDA’s leadership play a part in enabling their behaviour? 

It’s complicated and uncomfortable for me to write this article, and I’m sure many readers will feel discomfort reading it. But I do this reporting as a supporter of IDA and its mission. As well as its many important achievements, IDA still has an essential part in ensuring governments uphold the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

And we need IDA to flourish. For it to do so, we need to learn from these mistakes and ensure that they are not repeated. Silence was one of the contributing factors that allowed this to happen.

There is also a positive side of all this mess. When push came to shove, IDA’s Board and the organisation’s funders took action. The Review opens up what was going wrong and gives concrete areas for the leadership to work on. This is a genuine chance for course correction and renewing our efforts to further rights of persons with disabilities. 

In a following edition, I tell you more about those efforts, and what I think is needed in the leadership of our movement. See you then, 

Peter

Acknowledgements

There are many people to thank for this piece, but first I should make clear that the overall responsibility and editorial control is mine alone, and does not represent anyone else’s opinion.

Many thanks to Sonaksha for the illustration. 

I am honored by the time people gave to answering my hard questions and my thanks to everyone who gave on-the-record comment for this piece. 

This reporting comes out of months of countless conversations with people inside and outside of the disability sector. I am particularly grateful to the 10 people who looked over previous drafts of this article. Their feedback has strengthened the piece immeasurably.

I need to give especial thanks to Áine Kelly-Costello. Áine was a constant supportive presence and guide in this reporting, at every stage from its initial conception to the final proofreading.

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