Digital Development For All: Leveraging Digital Accessibility in International Development

Digital Development
for All
Leveraging
Digital Accessibility
in International Development
Contents
Attributions 1
Acronyms and Abbreviations 3
Executive Summary 4
Introduction 8
Chapter 1: Make Digital Accessibility a Priority 11
Chapter 2: Develop Guidelines for Digital Accessibility 19
Chapter 3: Create Knowledge Base on Digital Accessibility 25
Chapter 4: Engage External Stakeholders 31
Recommendations 37
References 47
Appendix: Methodology 52
Attributions
This report was written by Dr. Victor Santiago Pineda and Alison
Moore of the Inclusive Cities Lab (ICL). ICL is an initiative of
the Institute of Urban and Regional Development (IURD) at
the University of California, Berkeley.
DISCLAIMER
The views expressed in this publication are individuals’ own and
may not reflect opinions of their organization.
Recommended citation: Inclusive Cities Lab, Institute of Urban

and Regional Development. October 2019. “Digital Development
for All: Leveraging Digital Accessibility in International
Development.”
Digital Development for All 1

We thank individuals from the following organizations for their insight:
African Development Bank (AfDB)

Asian Development Bank (ADB)
Bank Information Center
Charities Aid Foundation of America (CAF)
Department for International Development (DFID)
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ)
G3ict
Global Alliance on Accessible Technologies and
Environments Network (GAATES)
Inter-American Development Bank (IDB)
International Disability Alliance (IDA)
Islamic Development Bank
Multilateral development bank (MDB)
Smart Cities for All Network
The World Bank
United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF)
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization (UNESCO)
United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
University of Massachusetts School for Global Inclusion
and Social Development
US Department of State
Special thanks to the following individuals who contributed

substantially to this report: Laura Ruby, Megan Lawrence,
Deepti Raja, Federico Batista Poitier, Astrid Natalia Garcia, Laura
Fernandez, Lisa Herron, Anderson Lanham, Silvan Doyle, Fedra
Britvic, Stefanie Malzyner, Blair Webb, Winston Li.
2 Leveraging Digital Accessibility in International Development

Acronyms and
Abbreviations
ADB Asian Development Bank

AfDB African Development Bank
CAF Charities Aid Foundation of America
CRPD Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (United Nations)
Dev Development
DFID Department for International Development (United Kingdom)
DPOs Disabled Persons Organizations
EIB European Investment Bank
GIZ Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (Germany)
ICT Information and communication technology
IDB Inter-American Development Bank
IFC International Finance Corporation
IsDB Islamic Development Bank
ITU International Telecommunication Union
JAWS Job Access with Speech (computer screen reading program)
Mgmt Management
PWDs People with disabilities
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals (United Nations)
UN United Nations
UNDESA United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VfM Value for money
WB World Bank
WCAG Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
WHO World Health Organization
WSIS World Summit on the Information Society

Executive
Summary
Digital development programs are growing rapidly at the global

Problem scale. This creates unprecedented opportunities for governments,
statement citizens, and technology companies to improve human rights,
ensure good governance, enhance civic engagement, and further
inclusive economic growth.
However, many people cannot reap these benefits due to lack of

accessibility. The World Report on Disability (WHO and World
Bank, 2011) highlights two important findings: there are more
than 1 billion people in the world with disabilities; and too many
persons with disabilities have poorer health, lower educational
achievements, fewer economic opportunities, and higher rates of
poverty than people without disabilities (2011).
As technology continues to be incorporated into various types of

development and aspects of daily life, a lack of consideration for
access, accessibility, and context of use for persons with disabilities,
older people, and other marginalized groups risks exacerbating
these inequities.
International development frameworks and human rights

commitments such as the Sustainable Development Goals, the
New Urban Agenda, and the UN Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities, among others, highlight the importance
of accessibility and digital inclusion. Multilateral development
agencies are currently creating safeguards, policies, standards,
and key performance indicators for digital development programs
worldwide and often influence critical technology decisions and
investments. This study aims to answer the following general
research question: How and to what extent are multilateral
development agencies addressing digital inclusion and
accessibility in their work?

What were the findings?
This research shows that although tremendous opportunities

exist to scale up digital inclusion for persons with disabilities and
older persons, development agencies have a long way to go to
sufficiently address digital inclusion in their internal policies
(e.g., procurement, human resources, internal communications,
training) and external operations (e.g., lending and non-lending
development assistance operations).
This report contains four chapters, each exploring the evidence

emerging from 20 development practitioner interviews, a review of
over 1189 project documents, and a short survey of stakeholders
working in digital development (see full methodology in the
appendix). Significant findings include:
Themes Key Findings
Chapter 1: 95 percent of interview respondents stated that

Make Digital raising awareness of the importance of digital
Accessibility a inclusion and ICT accessibility was the most
Priority important factor in increasing its incorporation into
policy and projects.
86 percent of development practitioners

interviewed think that digital accessibility is
important and should be embedded in
internal policies and external operations.
Chapter 2: In a selected review of active digital development

Develop projects, 96 percent had no specific reference to
Guidelines for persons with disabilities as target beneficiaries.
90 percent of development practitioners
interviewed were not aware of internal policies
including procurement policies, human reources,
and/or safeguards that specifically mention digital
accessibility.
Chapter 3: 75 percent of development practitioners

Create Knowledge interviewed stated that they lack the knowledge and
Base on Digital tools to adequately deploy ICT accessibility through
Accessibility their internal and external programs.
Chapter 4: Half of development practitioners interviewed feel

Engage External constraints from member country demands/requests.
Stakeholders

There are many ways to generate a greater commitment to digital
What key accessibility in internal and external operations. Though challenges
recommendations remain, experts interviewed were optimistic and expressed
excitement and interest in ensuring that digital inclusion is included
emerged from the
in their organization’s efforts.
research?
While this publication is primarily aimed at development agency
practitioners, it has wide utility for other development practitioners.
This includes government leaders from donor or recipient
countries, implementing partners who work with IT managers or
technology specialists to implement development programs with
governments, civil society, and the private sector. All have a role to
play in elevating digital accessibility in international development.
Checklist for inclusive digital development:
Frame digital accessibility as a co-benefit. Not only does digital accessibility

have co-benefits for all types of development agency departments, it can
help countries meet their global development agendas and human rights
obligations, serve as a tool for civil society to advance equality, and aid the
private sector in accessing larger markets.
Utilize existing guidelines and policies as frameworks. A number of existing

guidelines and resources exist for agencies’ easy adoption. All actors can
play a role in promoting best practices, such as universal design or inclusive
procurement, and raising awareness about international standards.
Develop technical knowledge and capabilities for better outcomes.

Development agencies would benefit from a cross-departmental task force
to assess inclusivity across internal and external operations. Development
agencies see capacity to address digital accessibility as a value-add for their
member countries, but don’t have to develop expertise alone: civil society
and the private sector have existing knowledge and experience. Government
can create enabling policy environments through incentives or grants.
Create communities of practice. Development agencies can play a

connecting role and facilitate partnerships with the private sector, civil
society, and disabled persons organizations (DPOs) to enhance awareness
and build local communities of practice. UN agencies, particularly, can
utilize their wide reach and network, and governments and the private
sector can participate in pilots and public-private partnerships.

How are key terms defined?
This report defines terms using the following definitions:
Development agencies:
National and multilateral aid agencies (such as the World Bank, or DFID)
and other relevant multilateral development agencies affiliated with the
United Nations.
Digital accessibility:
Shorthand for Information and Communications Technology (ICT) accessibility
and for describing the accessibility of technology products or services.
Development practitioners/key informants:

Development agency staff interviewed as part of this report.
Stakeholders:
Stakeholders who work across the broader field of ICT, including technologists,
policy experts, disability rights and digital accessibility leaders, and others who
participated in the online survey.

Introduction
Over the past 40 years, the role of development agencies as

The Promise key actors in shaping global agendas and implementing major
of Digital projects has expanded and evolved. In addition to providing
financial support, development agencies provide technical
Development
guidance and the necessary human resources to develop capacity,
forge partnerships, launch knowledge platforms, and develop
communities of practice on critical and emerging issues.
Leading national and multilateral development agencies can play

a significant role in elevating the issue of digital accessibility by
narrowing the “digital divide”, defined as: 1) differences in access
to technology; 2) differences in infrastructure that enables access
and networking of technology, and 3) differences in capacities to
meaningfully use technology and understand their content across
socioeconomic and geographic dimensions (McNamara, 2003).
These digital divides exist across gender, age, geography, and
disability (World Bank, 2016).
In addition to considering the opportunities and challenges of

deploying new technologies in development efforts, development
practitioners have also taken up the mantle of “leaving no one
behind”, a pledge encompassed in the Sustainable Development
Goals to address the needs of the “poorest and most vulnerable”,
which includes persons with disabilities (PWDs). These two
cross-cutting directives create tremendous opportunities for
development agencies to usher in a new and exciting area of
innovation and inclusion.

Historically, PWDs have largely been excluded in development
Addressing the efforts. A robust body of literature discusses many of the challenges
Digital Inclusion including invisibility of PWDs within monitoring and evaluation/
lack of disability-inclusive monitoring systems; stigmatization
Gap
within conceptual models of disability; and lack of meaningful
participation and representation during all stages of development
processes (Kett et al, 2009).
Other academic research, industry white papers, and reports

describe the enormous potential for ICT to improve the lives
of persons with disabilities. They also address the significant
challenges across the ecosystem of societal, legislative, personal,
and infrastructural factors. This includes: the lack of enabling legal
and regulatory frameworks; stakeholder awareness, knowledge,
and capacity; and concerns about cost and affordability
(Raja, 2016; World Bank, 2016).
However, to our knowledge no studies have examined to what

extent development practitioners and the national and multilateral
development agencies they work for are addressing digital inclusion
and accessibility in their work. This research was developed using a
mixed methods approach to answer the following questions:
Policies:
To what extent are national and multilateral development agencies adopting
or including digital accessibility in internal policies? Do organizational
priorities specifically reflect persons with disabilities and older persons as
direct beneficiaries?
Operations:
To what extent are national and multilateral development agencies
incorporating digital accessibility in active digital development programs?
Keys to success and challenges:

What are the main facilitators and/or barriers to fully embedding digital
accessibility in internal policies or external operations?
Opportunities from the field:

Which active digital development projects include digital accessibility
effectively? What are examples of active digital development projects
currently that do not explicitly mention persons with disabilities and older
persons as beneficiaries but could easily support their inclusion?

Each of the chapters in this report explores the evidence emerging
Report Structure from 20 development practitioner interviews, a focus group, a
review of over 1189 project documents, and a short survey of
stakeholders working in digital development. The four chapters are
structured around the key themes that emerged in the study:
Chapter 1: Make Digital Accessibility a Priority

Chapter 2: Develop Guidelines for Digital Accessibility
Chapter 3: Create a Knowledge Base on Digital Accessibility
Chapter 4: Engage External Stakeholders
Since the development ecosystem is an interconnected web of

actors, not just development agencies themselves, the report
ends with recommendations for action that each actor (multilateral
agencies, government, civil society, and the private sector) can take
to support digital inclusion and accessibility.

Make Digital
Accessibility
a Priority
The most significant barrier to elevating digital accessibility as a
90 percent of key priority within development agency efforts is awareness of the
informants stated issue. Development practitioners interviewed for this report
identified a range of factors that contribute to a lack of
that raising
progress, including:
awareness of the
importance of 1) Lack of awareness and understanding of digital inclusion and
digital inclusion accessibility as an issue for PWDs among leadership and staff.
and ICT 2) PWDs are seen as small, separate target groups, or often
accessibility under-prioritized among other vulnerable groups.
was the most 3) Framing the “digital divide” in terms of access to technology
important factor and digital infrastructure rather than accessibility and other
in increasing its social dimensions.
incorporation
into policy
and projects. Lack of awareness among leadership and staff
The Agenda 2030 and Sustainable Development Goals call for all
parties to “integrate information and communications technologies
into their approaches to implementing the Goals”, describing them
as “vital in driving progress towards achieving each and every one
of [them]” (United Nations, 2016). Indeed, development agencies
have taken this to task. Based on a review of 11 development
agency website landing pages, 90 percent include ICT or digital
development as a main topic or strategy. However, the same
attention for PWDs remains lacking, with only approximately 55
percent featuring commitment to persons with disabilities as a
topic area or strategic pillar (see Table 1).

Table 1: Development agency website landing page review
Landing Page for

Landing Page for Digital
Agency Disability in Development,
Development/ICT
or Accessibility Statement
Inter-American Yes
Development (mentioned as part No
Bank of innovation strategy)
World Bank Yes Yes
African
Development Yes No
Bank
Asian
Development Yes No
Bank
GIZ Yes Yes
Yes, Yes
DFID
(specific reference to PWD) (through Bond website)
CAF Yes No
UNICEF Yes Yes
UNESCO Yes Yes
Islamic
Development No No
Bank
USAID Yes Yes

Several key informants noted that discussion of the overlap
80 percent of between the two areas-- digital inclusion and digital accessibility for
survey persons with disabilities and older populations-- is happening even
less. 90 percent of key informants stated that raising awareness of
respondent
the importance of digital inclusion and ICT accessibility was the
stakeholders most important factor in increasing its incorporation into policy and
said the most projects. A diverse range of policy experts, technologists, disability
significant advocates, industry leaders, and academics involved in ICT, support
barrier to this finding: 80 percent of survey respondent stakeholders said
ensuring that ICT the most significant barrier to ensuring that ICT accessibility is
deployed in development programs was awareness of the issue.
accessibility is
As one national development practitioner noted, “Awareness is
deployed in even more important than money. If awareness is there, you can
development start with the first step of the planning process of the program and
programs was integrate the issue of accessibility in your program cycle.”
awareness of
the issue. This awareness-raising is needed across all departments and
levels of leadership. One manager at a multilateral development
bank noted, “Digital accessibility is not something mentioned in
the discussions we have - we need it in my division, my sector,
bank headquarters, country offices - pretty much everywhere.”
One multilateral development bank practitioner noted that their
leadership obliquely understood ICT accessibility as important, but
had not taken concrete actions, noting that “In my opinion, people
will say that inclusion is important, but no one is committed.”
Another multilateral development bank practitioner noted the
gap in understanding digital inclusion and accessibility among
leadership: “Younger people understand it, for older people who
make decisions it’s harder. There is a generational gap. You can see
a stark contrast, it’s like you’re speaking [another language].”
Other stakeholders also discussed the challenges in the variability
of political agenda setting, in which new leaders can interrupt or
redirect strategy.
Lack of policies and frameworks with disability-inclusive language

often means the onus falls on individuals within development
agencies to incorporate a disability-inclusive perspective into
project design and implementation modalities.

One multilateral development bank practitioner noted the
importance of informed program officers in the absence of
standardized policy: “Right now [this consideration] is processed
by people, if the person is aware enough of accessibility issues and
how these can be included in a project, they can do that without
a policy. [But] a policy will be a good thing, to help standardize
the approach.” Even among organizations with higher reported
organizational awareness of the issue, one development agency
practitioner conceded that “Not everyone is at the same
level-- while those in ICT communications and the education sector
might have higher levels of awareness, this may not be the case for
other departments.”
Conceptualization of “target groups” among vulnerable populations

Perceptions of also represents a challenge to prioritization. Despite the fact that
persons with disabilities make up 15 percent of the population
PWDs as small
worldwide and will only increase as populations age, four multilateral
target groups development bank stakeholders described their perception of
persons with disabilities as a small target group, or often left out
of understandings of “vulnerable populations”. Part of this false
perception of persons with disabilities as a small group is partly due
to lack of accurate, disaggregated data (Mitra et al., 2013).
One multilateral development bank practitioner noted, “We are not

currently focusing on specific needs, or conceptualizing the
[variability of the] end user.” This reflects the perception of PWDs
as being “separate” from mainstream markets, despite the fact that
accessibility features can benefit all people. Two other practitioners
described how women and children seemed to be more top of
mind within their organizations but noted that “It is important for us
to remind people that they should think of the specific perspective
of persons with disabilities.” Another multilateral development
bank practitioner echoed this sentiment by stating that “The
disability population is seen as a minority.” Online survey findings
reflect the consequences of this barrier, with 56 percent of survey
stakeholders noting that limited financial resources were one of
the most significant barriers to ensuring that ICT accessibility is
deployed in international development programs.

Though many multilateral development banks and national
Access vs. agencies have made efforts to balance their primary missions
accessibility of economic development with environmental and social
considerations, the primary lens for viewing ICT and digital
development is still one of access. As scholar Mario Marais notes,
“Many ICT4D initiatives are still technocentric and focus only
on providing ICT and access to it. They tend to ignore “socially
led” strategy (are not sociocentric), are mostly top-down, expect
development to happen if access to technology is provided, and in
practice disregard the actual needs of people (Chigona, Pollock, &
Roode, 2009, cited in Marais, 2015).
While universal access to ICTs is undoubtedly an important factor, the

lack of consideration for how ICT impacts the capabilities of PWDs
hinders the meaningful application of ICT within individuals’ contexts.
Two practitioners echoed this, noting that “The mental models in the
ICT world do not foster a sense of inclusiveness and what inclusion
means” and that “most of the projects are designed to benefit industry
and economic development but not social development”.
Accessibility is broadly defined by ISO TC 159 as the “Extent to which

products, systems, services, environments and facilities can be used by
What is people from a population with the widest range of characteristics and
accessible capabilities to achieve a specified goal in a specified context of use.”
technology? When it comes to ICT more specifically, accessibility is generally accepted
as being the quality of a mainstream technology such as a computer,
mobile phone, self-service kiosk, or piece of software, to be used by the
widest range of users possible, regardless of their abilities or disabilities.
Accessibility makes it easier for anyone to see, hear, and use a device and
to customize their digital environment according to their own preferences,
needs, and abilities. For many people, accessibility is what makes accessing
programs and digital services possible.

One senior development practitioner noted that “There is a risk
“Focus on users with ICT of focusing on solutionism. ICT by itself is seen as a
not simply the solution, rather than a resource for providing solutions; it gets back
to a narrow technocratic approach.” The success of ICT projects is
technology“
also dependent on supportive policies, adequate funding, and
systems-level capacity. For example, one development bank
stakeholder described the challenges in introducing ICT in
education: “[Positive change] also requires huge reform in the
education system and large investments in training; [governments]
are skipping these training and reform stages, so technology
acquired is sometimes not correctly used.”
As the United Nations describes, all components of everyday

life must be accessible for persons with disabilities; “If any one
element of the network fails in this obligation, persons are not
able to reap the benefit from the other elements. In order for them
to be integrated and included in the development agenda, a
comprehensive and holistic approach is required.” (United Nations
n.d.) To aid in this framing, a large body of research builds upon
Amartya Sen’s capability approach, which frames development
as expansion of peoples’ capabilities (Sen, 1999; Mitra, 2003)
The work calls for development agencies to consider more
meaningfully how ICT can improve capabilities and functioning of
individuals within development frameworks and country contexts,
beyond mere access (McNamara 2003).

Opportunities
from the field:
DFID’s Digital Development Strategy exemplifies awareness of digital

DFID: accessibility and its importance, especially for persons with disabilities.
Digital Strategy From its opening remarks, the strategy emphasizes the role of digital
development in improving the lives of persons with disabilities,
2018-2020:
asserting that “[DFID] will harness the power of digital technologies to
Doing include, putting disability at the heart of our agenda.”
development
in a digital world Relevant passages include language related to the potential of
digital development to “Increase inclusion by providing access
to services previously out of reach to marginalized groups such
as girls and women, and persons with disabilities”, to “[support]
financial independence: E-commerce and e-work platforms are
helping women, girls and persons with disabilities gain a degree
of financial independence, overcoming the social norms, mobility
or time constraints which can confine them to their homes and
exclude them from economic activities.”
This strategy sets out a vision and approach for ‘doing development
in a digital world’. It seeks to establish DFID as a global leader in
using digital solutions in development programmes, and promoting
good practice and common standards for digital development
through the aid system. It commits DFID to helping realize a world
where the development benefits of digital technology will be
accessible to all: where the internet will be more widely available,
and more digital products and services will be scaled to reach,
empower and improve the lives of poor people, particularly those at
risk of being left behind.

From DFID Digital Strategy:
Bridging the disability divide through digital technologies
“Over 1 billion people around the world have disabilities, and 80 percent of
them live in developing countries. Persons with disabilities face barriers to
communicate, interact, access information, and participate in civic activities.
Digital technologies are helping overcome some of these barriers. Voice
recognition, magnification, and text-to-speech functionality benefit people
with visual, cognitive, learning , and mobility disabilities. Text messaging,
telephone relay, and video captions reduce communication barriers for
persons with hearing and speech disabilities. Hands-free navigation
and gesture-controlled interfaces assist people with severe mobility
impairments in using digital devices.”

Develop
Guidelines for
One of the greatest challenges to incorporating universal digital
accessibility in ICT products or services is the lack of
disability-responsive policies. The broad category of “vulnerable
persons” is not sufficient to ensure mainstream program benefits
for persons with disabilities (Edmonds, 2005). Historically,
paternalistic development narratives, lack of data, and lack of
participation rendered persons with disabilities virtually invisible
and excluded from target group interventions (Mitra, 2013).
Despite many development agencies’ best intentions to “leave no
one behind”, considerations of disability are still largely absent from
digital development operations, including project conception and
planning of implementation modalities, monitoring and evaluation
safeguards documents, and procurement (Mitra, 2013).
In a 2016 review of the World Bank project portfolio (2,576 total

Lack of disability- projects), researchers found that only two percent of these projects
(n=52) were coded as inclusive of persons with disabilities (Karr et
inclusive
al., 2016).This report’s analysis of 1189 active digital development
language in projects found that just four percent (n=48) included specific
project reference to persons with disabilities as target beneficiaries.* This
documents and indicates that 96 percent of active digital development projects
safeguards identified did not reference persons with disabilities as beneficiaries.
*Limitations of this type of review: development banks lack a “disability”

tag to determine proportion of projects with complete accuracy; some
projects that conduct inclusive work in practice may not be captured if
they do not include language/details in their documents. Projects also do
not include technical assistance, knowledge and capacity building, which
may include more disability-specific focus.

As one 2004 study of US accessibility policies noted, “a
“96 percent of significant array of stakeholder groups have been effectively
active digital excluded, not so much by active intent as by inadvertent oversight
and lack of awareness” (Baker and Bellordre, 2014).
development
projects Practitioner interviews support this finding. While several
identified did practitioners from development banks and agencies mentioned
not reference their organization’s commitment or awareness of the importance of
persons with inclusivity of persons with disabilities, 90 percent of interviewed
disabilities as development practitioners noted that no explicit directives or
policies exist to address digital accessibility within their internal
beneficiaries.“
policies or in their projects. Eighty-six percent thought that digital
accessibility was important and should be embedded in internal
policies and external operations.
Despite the efforts of these well meaning practitioners to “leave

no one behind”, digital accessibility is, in the words of a senior
director for policy at a regional development bank, “Often not
planned or accounted for without specificity in policy frameworks.”
Another practitioner working on evaluation noted that “There is no
coherent way to assess the digital components of projects, and it
is not mandatory”. Yet another stressed the lack of directive; “If you
don’t have the time or resources, people will drop the first thing
not mandatory - a clear set of guidelines, rules and compliance
mechanisms are important to generate an impact.” Another
practitioner who has worked with several development agencies
on governance noted the importance of leadership commitment to
inclusive policy: “If the executives ask it will be measured, if no one
asks it won’t be measured. We need to make the invisible visible; if
it’s not included in the documents, then it’s not going to be involved.”
These findings and desire for more specificity in language are also
reflected among organizations that work on digital accessibility
issues. Among survey stakeholders, 58 percent felt that model
policies for ICT accessibility would most contribute to ensuring that
development programs are fully accessible.

Some multilateral development banks such as the World Bank, and
Language in national development agencies such as USAID and DFID have long
environmental standing commitments to accessibility and have included specific
language in their environmental and social safeguards/frameworks.
and social
According to the data we collected from our respondents only
safeguards DFID, USAID, and UNESCO require specific digital accessibility
standards be followed.
Though a 2015 report demonstrated that only the AfDB, IFC, and
EIB included specific language in their safeguard systems and
operational policies (Himberg,2015), the World Bank approved a
new framework with disability-specific language in 2016. As the
Bank Information Center, a watchdog organization pushing for
this language notes, “these references to persons with disabilities
specifically, and to concepts that are essential for the inclusion
of persons with disabilities, provide many hooks to ensure that
projects address the needs of persons with disabilities. Given that
the language is now in the policy, disability must be looked at
systematically rather than in an ad hoc manner as before.” (n.d.)

Procurement policies are another area where development
Procurement agencies have significant influence. Among online survey
and “value for stakeholders, 65 percent identified “Ensuring that ICT procurement
procedures explicitly require accessibility” as a strategy to ensure
money”
ICT accessibility. However, practitioners note that challenges to
adapting procurement policies in digital development still exist.
Procurement policies that incorporate accessibility standards
could exclude startups or other digital companies that don’t yet
have capacity to develop products according to industry and
compliance standards. Procurement standards also may not be
able to keep pace with rapid technological change.
One practitioner noted “If we do not want to exclude businesses

from competition, we have to consider how to help them get there
- I think their views on digital inclusion may be very open, especially
in the startup and seed funding phase; conquering new and
emerging markets means being open to a lot of considerations.”
State-owned development agencies also face pressure to justify

procurement decisions that may not yet be evidence-based; that is,
will they get value for money (“VfM”)? As one national development
practitioner described, “We need to show that accessibility won’t
actually mean an increase in costs.” Empirical evidence shows that
the adoption of ICT accessibility guidelines improves user
experience and accessibility for all persons, regardless of disability
and only represents a minimal increase in project cost if incorporated
from the very beginning (stakeholder interview; Bruijin et al. 2015).

Opportunities
from the field:
The Inter-American Development Bank recently funded an evaluation
IDB: project to “Design and apply a methodology based on indicators for
“Smart Cities diagnosis and evaluation of Smart Cities in the region in order: (i) to
know the progress status of cities in the region through quantitative and
Evaluation
qualitative values; (ii) to identify in greater depth the main challenges
Project” and opportunities; and (iii) to develop implementation plans of Smart
Cities components in the region through lending operations.”
This project represents an opportunity to include indicators related

to targeted beneficiaries with disability inclusive language. Other
banks should consider inclusive approaches to evaluation, especially
as ICT applications across projects increase. ITU’s report, “The ICT
Opportunity for a Disability-Inclusive Development Framework”,
includes suggested indicators- more generally and for specific sectors
- that MDBs could integrate into project documents and evaluations.
The African Development Bank’s financing of the Central Africa

AfDB: fibre-optic Backbone (CAB) project describes beneficiaries of the
project, explicitly mentioning persons with disabilities. While the
Fibre-Optic
description of institutional support and capacity building mentions
Backbone Project “ knowledge building through the implementation of planned
activities to popularize ICT for the benefit of the general public,
particularly vulnerable groups (women, visually impaired persons,
hearing-impaired persons, etc.)”, the project could be strengthened
even further by describing accessible technology, or including
language in its procurement documents.

DFID’s digital spend guidelines explain DFID’s standards for the
DFID: use of digital in international development programs. The document
Digital Spend requires partners to describe how they will adhere to the principles
of digital development, and how they will make data that is
Guidelines
produced open, defined as “data that anyone can access, use or
share.” An opportunity to strengthen a digital spend document even
further would be to ask how partners will be adhering to digital
accessibility standards, or how they intend to make user interfaces
and digital services accessible to all.
“On completion, the project is expected to improve access of the

population to ICT services; reduce the cost of access to telecoms and
ICT services with a more than 60 percent reduction in international
bandwidth costs; contribute to social, economic and financial
inclusion within the country (with e-post beneficiaries of 5,000 per
year by 2020, and the number of indigenous people benefiting from
community radio to increase from 0 to 90,000 by 2020); improve
the availability of training and ICT access in institutions of higher
education and to women, and those with disabilities (10,000 women
and 350 blind and deaf people with access to IT training by 2020);
and improve government administration.”
-Guidance on digital spend advice and controls for DFID partners
and suppliers
DFID’s Value for Money (VfM): DFiD is developing equity-rooted

DFID: VfM decisions as “an opportunity to build a better evidence base
with every new programme, so that future VfM judgements are
Value for informed by an ever more specific and nuanced range of
Money Approach information.” DFID’s recent tool on inclusive approaches to VfM
mentions accessibility-related procurement processes as a strategy
that ensures equity and value for all people (Bond 2016). A senior
manager at a multilateral development bank suggested that digital
accessibility could offer greater value for money and should be
immediately measured and “piloted in active digital development
projects in order to build a case for scaling up accessibility as part
of the bank’s current digital inclusion efforts.”

Create Knowledge
Base on Digital
Accessibility
Beyond awareness and policies, a majority of development
Fragmentation/ agency staff discussed capacity challenges, including a lack of
sector-based departmental coordination, confusion over how to implement
ICT accessibility and digital inclusion, challenges with pilots and
approaches
intellectual property, and lack of compelling data to drive initiatives.
Practitioner interviews described the tendency of development

efforts to be sectoral and highlighted proliferation of ICT within
education, e-governance, financial services, and Smart Cities.
Though each sector should develop capacity to address the unique
issues that come with ICT incorporation, the broader issue of digital
accessibility is cross-cutting.
Research suggests that organizations and governments would

benefit from internal shifts and should adopt adaptive capacity-
building within and between departments and their goals (Karr et
al., 2016). As some researchers note, an “Absence of a...holistic
perspective can result in fragmented and inequitable services,
uncoordinated and parallel systems for their delivery, and
inefficient use of available resources (Borg et al., 2010).”

Other studies find that knowledge and capacity building are more
Lack of effective as part of more directive policies, noting that “Even
if [development banks] have strong legacies of inter-agency
knowledge and
coordination and transdisciplinary work, the lack of language and
capacity frameworks around disability, accessibility, and inclusivity can mean
accessibility will continue to be an issue that falls by the wayside”
(Pick et al. 2010).
Capacity-building internally and among donor countries around ICT

accessibility is another key factor for success. Among online survey
stakeholders, 58 percent felt that the lack of trained accessibility
professionals is one of the most significant barriers to ensuring that
ICT accessibility is deployed in international development programs,
and about 66 percent of stakeholders agree that development
programs can ensure ICT accessibility by training technical and
management teams in disability and ICT accessibility.
Seventy-five percent of development practitioners interviewed

75 percent of stated that they lack the knowledge and tools to adequately deploy
ICT accessibility through their internal and external programs.
development
One noted that “development agencies don’t know how to go
practitioners about implementing digital accessibility - even when development
interviewed projects might be inclusive, projects are not being evaluated using
felt they lacked indicators specific to disability.”
capacity to
deploy ICT in Building capacity also elevates the awareness of development
practitioners on how disability-inclusive policy and language should
programs.
be addressed in projects. Some of the factors where stakeholders
identified need for more knowledge and skill-building include:
1) Guidance on ICT accessibility standards and available

technologies (see call-out box)
2) Processes for implementation
3) Indicators for monitoring and evaluation of digital inclusion
and ICT accessibility

Another development agency practitioner noted, “There is not a
clear baseline and target about digital inclusion for children with
disabilities, and there isn’t clarity for technology providers on how
they can be inclusive of persons with disabilities.” Another described
the skills a potential partner would need to implement digital
accessibility; “Whichever partner is developing that digital service
would need to have technical skills and a priority/mandate to make
sure code and interface has standards on accessibility, similar to the
way you design a building.”
Three accessibility standards every development agency should know

According to the Smart Cities for All Global Initiative, the following three
standards are the most important in defining what accessibility means
for ICT and the web. They are critical to city government procurement
officials, technology suppliers to Smart Cities, accessibility experts, Smart
City program managers, policy makers, and disability organizations and
advocates. See the Smart Cities for All Toolkit for more information.
1) ETSI EN 301 549
2) Section 508
3) Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 (ISO/IEC 40500:2012)

Multilateral development bank practitioners and consultants
Need for data noted that lack of research and data related to digital accessibility
and intellectual and digital inclusion was a major hindrance in allowing them to
advocate for and support outreach. One consultant encouraged
property
other practitioners to think: “Where we can use evidence to drive
challenges the conversation? Is there evidence this has worked, or had an
impact?” Pilot projects are one way that development agencies
can develop a proof of concept and generate data needed to
scale digital accessibility. However, challenges around intellectual
property costs remain.
Four development agency stakeholders described the

unaffordability of intellectual property and challenges with patents
and ownership. One development agency stakeholder gave the
example of their capacity building and job-skilling programs where
they taught persons with disabilities how to use JAWS software (a
screen reading program) using a software license for over 1000
people. Noting the license and cost challenges, he lamented, “we
can train people, but how many businesses can afford JAWS?”
Despite these challenges, the same stakeholder noted that a
number of open source products are entering the market, one
potential solution to scaling access to technology.

Opportunities
from the field:
As DFID focuses on inclusion and digital technologies, they are

impleemnting a modular digital curriculum which considers the
DFID’s Digital needs of people with disabilities. This helps build staff capability to
Learning Offer support:
1) Doing development in a digital world, focusing on the

opportunities and risks presented to international development by
an increasingly digital world, and the implications for operational
planning, policy and research, and programme design, delivery,
monitoring and evaluation.
2) Focuses on guidance for procuring digital solutions in line with
the Principles for Digital Development.
3) The curriculum builds a basic understanding of various digital
solutions, combined with in-depth modules focusing on particular
functions, sectors or groups.
4) Transforming as a digital department - this will focus on building
capability in open internet tools and systems, effective use of data
management platforms, online safety and security, and digital
communications and social media.
The digital curriculum adds to DFID’s existing capability offer,

which includes:
1) Digital Ninjas - a peer network of over 200 digital experts across

all teams and offices in DFID that supports staff in improving their
digital capability.
2) Digital Quiz - digital skills self-assessment tool that measures
knowledge and experience and refers individuals to resources to
learn about new digital tools and techniques; available for open
source reuse by anyone.

GIZ’s “Digitalisation in Development Cooperation and International
GIZ: Cooperation in Education, Culture and Media” toolkit offers a
ICT and Digital number of ICT case studies, guidance on strategic planning and
implementation of ICT projects, and guidelines on deployment
Development
of digital solutions in specific contexts and scenarios. The toolkit
Toolkit describes the importance of considering target groups’ needs,
as illustrated in this checklist example (right). The opportunity to
emphasize ICT accessibility as a part of access here could draw
more attention to the needs of persons with disabilities, or people
experiencing a temporary disablement.
From GIZ’s Digital Development Toolkit:
Target Grouped Relevance Checklist

Key question: Are the ICT solutions to be deployed suitable, available and
accessible for your target groups?
Diverse target groups may have little or no access to certain technologies (due
to language barriers, illiteracy, costs, discrimination, etc.) or may be exposed
to increased risks when using technologies (data protection and monitoring).
The World Bank, DFID, GIZ, and numerous other development

Principles agencies have endorsed the “Principles for Digital Development”.
One of the framework principles, “Design with the User”,
for Digital
encourages designers to consider the unique needs, challenges,
Development and characteristics of the populations they are designing for,
and emphasizes a collaborative and continuous-feedback
approach with users. As development practitioners implement
these principles, they should consider the accessibility needs of
vulnerable populations and involve persons with disabilities and
aging populations in project and policy design.
From Principles for Digital Development:
Design with the User in Mind

Successful digital initiatives are rooted in an understanding of user
characteristics, needs and challenges. By designing with the users, and not
for them, you can build digital tools to better address the specific context,
culture, behaviors, and expectations of the people who will directly interact
with the technology. Designing together means partnering with users
throughout the project lifecycle, co-creating solutions, and continuously
gathering and incorporating users’ feedback.

Engage
External
Stakeholders
Development agencies do not operate in isolation: they are part
Member countries of a larger ecosystem that includes member countries, the private
sector, civil society, and other key players continuously shaping
the ICT landscape (Raja, 2016). Engagement of these other players
is a critical part of influencing the supply and demand for digital
accessibility and ensuring development projects and policies are
inclusive of persons with disabilities and older populations.
Both the literature and the stakeholder interviews illustrate that

About half of development agencies may feel a perceived lack of demand from
development member countries for digital accessibility and digital inclusion.
agency practitioners About half of development agency practitioners mentioned feeling
mentioned feeling constrained by member country requests, but also discussed
constrained by their leadership role in guiding member countries’ understanding
member country around ICT accessibility, especially as part of their commitment to
requests or lack of “leave no one behind”.
demand.
One development practitioner noted that countries often want to
develop inclusive plans as part of their CRPD obligations, yet
their plans frequently do not mention accessibility. G3ict’s 2012
“Accessibility Progress Report” estimated that only 36 percent of
countries have a definition of accessibility that includes ICT or
electronic media in their laws or regulations compliant with the
definition of accessibility in UNCRPD Article 9.

However, interview subjects also mentioned that this figure may
also be increasing rapidly. One development agency practitioner
described his organization’s strategy for cultivating country
leadership, noting, “Most important is finding champions. Having
strong leaders backing these initiatives make it easy to create
policy. At [our development agency], when we identify champions,
we try to build their capacity.”
Within countries, the private sector also plays an important role.

The private sector Many are increasingly seeing ICT accessibility as a way to grow
the labor pool, reduce unemployment, and inject billions into
the global economy. Private sector entities already play a key
role in creating ICT-accessible solutions, but they could increase
research and development efforts, champion universal design
principles such as engaging persons with disabilities in the design
of products, and push countries to prioritize accessible technology
in procurement. However, development agency stakeholders
identified that cost or capacity barriers still exist, and noted some
businesses may view ICT accessible products as a small market.
One development agency practitioner described challenges

around language and disability issues, noting that “Partners who
are purveyors of digital infrastructure and tools don’t get what their
role is in supporting PWDs. Language around disability can be
confusing to them.” MDBs can advise governments on enabling
policies and reframe the issue as one of market opportunity.
Raising awareness of the issue among the private sector means that
they can, in turn, raise awareness among policy-makers and civil
society organizations, helping to build demand in countries.

Other essential demand-builders and action coordinators include
Persons with organizations of persons with disabilities and civil society
disabilities and organizations. Inclusion of persons with disabilities in all stages
of policymaking and development efforts is a cornerstone of
civil society
inclusive practice. One development practitioner asserted that
organizations “For every digital initiative there [should] have to be PWDs on the
advisory board, staff, and any program that has beneficiaries.”
This report’s digital accessibility stakeholder survey also
supported this finding, with 77 percent of respondents agreeing
that development programs can ensure ICT accessibility by
involving persons with disabilities and older persons in the design
and deployment of digital development initiatives.
Civil society organizations can play a key role in influencing

policies as part of national consultation, promoting digital
accessibility as part of disability-inclusive development,
and shaping international development standards. As one
development practitioner noted, “There needs to be pressure
from the disability community, both to identify the role the
government has in establishing standards at the local level,
and what monitoring requirements there are…[and] putting
pressure on development agencies.” Another development bank
practitioner described the necessity and strength of external
pressure in motivating policy change; “a motion from the task
force [is] something the Bank could not ignore.”

Multi-stakeholder partnerships across all levels can encourage peer
learning and sharing of best practices, especially since much of the
knowledge and expertise in implementation is at the field level.
One development practitioner noted that “the practical solution
would be to identify local associations that work with PWDs. They
are the ideal natural facilitator; ideally the countries should have a
list of associations to work with from the planning stage.”
However, for groups to become more engaged and demand

change, awareness must be raised at all levels. One development
bank watchdog agency lamented the lack of transparency in
development projects and complex priority setting; “It can be
difficult for people to know when these processes [for input] are
happening. There are limited people from civil society that are
incorporated into these processes. We work to provide a full range
of what’s going on in a country, but also default to what partners are
most interested in looking at, and how far they can get with their
governments. In disability-specific work, there is also a confluence
of issues within what projects are currently [happening] within a
country, and at what stages it is good to engage. Technology has
not yet come up at this stage.” Finally, awareness raising must work
as a reciprocal process. While development agencies can help with
capacity-building, they must learn about needs and barriers faced by
countries, organizations, and citizens who are part of marginalized
groups, through their direct involvement and participation.

Opportunities
from the field:
UNESCO, in cooperation with the University of Rwanda and DAISY
UNESCO: consortium, organized a training workshop from 26 to 29 May 2015
Accessible ICT on inclusive publishing and web accessibility. Representatives of
educational institutions and the National Council of People Living
Training and
with Disabilities attended the training, which focused accessibility
Workshop problems identified in educational portals in Rwanda.
UNESCO conducted a web accessibility audit of educational portals

from the Ministry of Education, the Rwanda Board and the Workforce
Development Agency. As a result, a four-day training workshop
was organized focusing on common web accessibility barriers,
guidelines, best practices, and coding of snippets for the retrofitting
of inaccessible websites.
The workshop provided hands-on training on inclusive publishing

and the production of digital content that conforms to international
standards to be accessible to everyone including persons with
disabilities. A participant from the College of Education, Kigali, said
that in the training he learned how to prepare materials for people
living with disabilities (text, pictures, and sound records).

UNESCO is one multilateral organization that has promoted ICT
accessibility as a key strategy. Its commitment to the implementation
of the Plan of Action adopted by the World Summit on the
Information Society (WSIS) and in line with UN Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities, UNESCO advocates the rights and
needs of persons with disabilities and fosters the effective use of ICT
that is accessible, adaptive, and affordable. It has developed policies
and worked to build capacity and awareness in varied countries/
policy landscapes, making it an ideal learning partner for MDBs.
Inter-American Development Bank’s Innovation Lab is one example

IDB: of a project that incorporates the perspective of persons with
Innovation Lab disabilities at all stages of the design process. This includes, defining
the problem, innovating, and development of solutions. One
(I-Lab)
example of a project that emerged from the I-Lab is the F123 Visual,
a small USB stick with open source software programs that can make
a computer accessible to those who are blind or have low vision. This
solves the problem of cost and distribution in developing countries.
From IDB’s Innovation Lab Description

“the Innovation Lab (I-Lab), born out of the Division of Competitiveness and
Innovation (CTI) at the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), has been
promoting innovative solutions that have been developed directly with
and for the excluded communities; people who find themselves outside of
markets and who are often marginalized. The I-Lab has co-financed over 20
projects that have addressed the needs of the excluded and have provided
solutions that are truly sustainable, most of which have won international
recognition and awards in innovation. For the I-Lab, while technology has
been the vehicle and interdisciplinary collaboration has been the fuel, the
addition of the excluded communities into the innovation process has
been the key ingredient.“

Recommendations
Findings reveal that most development agencies may be leaving

persons with disabilities and older persons behind in their digital
development efforts. Significant opportunities exist to generate a
greater commitment to digital accessibility in internal and external
operations for persons with disabilities and older people as well
as for other groups that may have little or no access to digital
technologies due to barriers including cost, language, illiteracy,
and marginalization.
Though challenges remain, experts interviewed were optimistic

and expressed interest in ensuring that digital inclusion forms
part of their development agency’s policies and operations. The
following recommendations provide strategies for development
agencies and other actors in the development ecosystem:
1) Frame ICT accessibility as a co-benefit

2) Utilize existing guidelines and policies as frameworks
3) Develop technical knowledge and capabilities for
better outcomes
4) Create communities of practice

Recommendation 1:
Frame ICT accessibility as a co-benefit
Development practitioners: Experts interviewed noted that framing

digital accessibility as a co-benefit is a best practice. Development
practitioners asserted that broad-based efforts to promote inclusion
have the potential to improve the socioeconomic status of persons
with disabilities (Raja, 2009; Pick et al, 2010).
They also identified ways that other departments within their

organizations can leverage ICT accessibility for a range of other
applications. Accessibility is then seen as a co-benefit and provides
a natural starting point to discuss how digital accessibility can also
amplify benefits for individuals without disabilities.
Co-benefits can start with what development agencies are already

familiar with; easily accessible conversations for a range of
stakeholders, no matter their expertise level. Departments focusing
on inclusion can use these co-benefit examples to increase
collaboration and alignment with other stakeholders working on
digital development. A selection of digital accessibility co-benefits
by sector can be found in Appendix A.
To address misconceptions about the number of PWDs as a target

population and the cost of accessible technology, development
practitioners can use the Smart Cities for All Toolkit to effectively
communicate the advantages of incorporating digital accessibility
into digital services. The toolkit lists business, human rights, and
technical arguments for a stronger commitment to the digital
inclusion of persons with disabilities. It also includes a database for
digital solutions in cities that showcases existing products and
services that can be deployed in digital development efforts to
positively impact citizens across multiple sectors such as
education and transportation.

Multilateral agencies: UN agencies can play a role in supporting
development agencies by communicating to member states
the importance of digital inclusion and accessibility in terms of
meeting their obligations under the Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities, the Post-2015 Framework for Disaster
Risk Reduction, the New Urban Agenda, and the Agenda 2030
Sustainable Development Goals. This awareness-raising can help
to address the lack of perceived demand discussed in Chapter 4.
Governments: Governments should discuss co-benefits of digital

accessibility with all ministries (not just social welfare) and/or
agencies of the State and work to ensure accessibility in all public
services offered. Operationalization of accessible technology
can be a tool to increase the quality of education, employment
opportunities, access to services, and increased participation in
civic society. This helps to improve self-sufficiency, quality of life,
and well-being among all citizens, especially for persons with
disabilities, older people, and marginalized groups.
Civil society: Disabled persons organizations (DPOs) and other

groups can help raise awareness of the importance of accessible
technology among peers, family, and others. Achievement of basic
rights/improved livelihoods and accessible technology need not
be competing priorities. Citizen participation in development
agency policy or program discussions can help to ensure that
technology is responsive to local context and serves as a tool to
address inequitable outcomes.
Private sector: In addition to helping bridge the digital divide,

accessible technology and universal design of products can also
bring the co-benefits of new/larger markets, product differentiation,
and awareness of future regulations. The private sector can
capitalize on the opportunities of accessible technology by raising
awareness at all levels of an organization and hosting training for
HR, procurement, and engineering. Accenture’s report, “Amplify
You”,, provides other recommendations for the private sector.

Recommendation 2:
Utilize existing guidelines and policies as frameworks
Development practitioners: Though a majority of practitioners

lamented a lack of guidance for implementing digital accessibility,
a number of existing resources can be adapted for digital inclusion
purposes. As a baseline, development agencies should take
inventory of their project documents, country strategies, and
safeguards documents. The World Bank’s Legal and Institutional
Resources for World Bank Staff on the Inclusion of Disability Issues
in Investment Projects represents a resource that should be revisited
and viewed through the lens of digital inclusion, as it provides best
practices for inclusion for a number of these documents.
Development agencies can develop more inclusive digital

accessibility policies using existing model policy templates. G3ict
and ITU’s policy toolkit offers general and more targeted policy
guidance and includes adaptable language for digital accessibility
policies. For example, the toolkit advises that policies and law “not
only focus on infrastructure access and affordability but also include
provisions relating to digital accessibility for end users, including
persons with disabilities. Likewise, the definition of “underserved
community” should be amended such that persons with disabilities
are specifically included amongst the beneficiaries.”

Multilateral agencies: UN Agencies like UNDESA, G3ict, UNESCO,
and others should continue to play active roles in promoting
adoption of standards and best practices. To supplement these
resources, UN agencies should work to develop monitoring and
evaluation guidance. The International Telecommunications Union
and other authors have produced a list of potential indicators (see
p. 49) to measure digital accessibility progress.
Governments: Accessible public procurement policies are gaining

traction among country and city governments. Governments can
take advantage of existing model policy and best practices to
develop effective policies for procurement of digital accessibility
products and services. A useful starting place is the Smart Cities for
All Procurement Policy Toolkit.
Civil society: Civil society can work with international standards

organizations to learn more about accessibility requirements
internationally. Civil society can demand accessible policies among
development agencies and country governments and advocate for
broader use of universal design in the private sector.
Private sector: The private sector should incorporate principles

of universal design and learn more about the tenets of accessible
design. One of the main principles of universal design is working
with target groups; the private sector should engage persons with
disabilities in all aspects of product research and design. CBM’s
digital accessibility toolkit offers guidance and best practices
related to accessible digital design.

Recommendation 3:
Develop technical knowledge and capabilities
for better outcomes as frameworks
Development practitioners: Development practitioners can

establish cross-institutional working groups on digital inclusion to
conduct an inventory of policies, raise awareness across agency
departments, capture and catalog digital accessibility aspects in
country and sector strategies, and identify cross-cutting priorities,
opportunities, and challenges. Development agencies can also
create incentives for collaboration, coordination, and joint
approaches to digital accessibility, especially within
multi-sectoral projects.
Capacity building around existing knowledge resources like the

Smart Cities for All Toolkit and CBM’s Digital Accessibility Toolkit
can also help development agencies develop technical knowledge
and add value to their member countries. In a focus group
discussion with 20 development practitioners, four mentioned
their organization’s position as a trusted leader, an innovator, and a
convener and saw digital accessibility expertise as a value-add for
their clients. Since the CRPD Committee requests that States Parties
report on their progress in implementing policies, development
agencies benefit from increased knowledge on how to guide
countries’ policies and strategies to incorporate digital accessibility,
including knowledge of international standards.

Multilateral agencies: UN agencies and other international
organizations can provide technical assistance and capacity building
and lend support to systematize knowledge and create a network
of practitioners. These networks can include technologists, disability
advocates, and policymakers that cooperate with UN agencies.
UN agencies should ensure they work with local organizations/civil
society to develop capacity and tools in local languages.
Governments: Governments can partner with standards agencies,

UN agencies, and civil society to raise awareness, advance
knowledge and build capacity. Governments can also promote
public-private partnerships and offer start-up funding and grants for
increased local development of accessible technology (Raja, 2016).
Civil society: DPOs and other groups can provide expertise and
trainings on the importance of digital accessibility, offer context
on how digital accessibility impacts their daily lives, and make
recommendations on local groups to aid in program design,
monitoring and implementation, and evaluation of policies and
practices. Finally, civil society can aid in the training of PWDs and
others on accessible ICT use.
Private sector: The private sector can work to address the shortage
of information technology professionals with ICT accessibility skills
through the support of professional societies and development
of industry knowledge (ITU, 2013). Additionally, the private sector
can educate governments, civil society, and development agencies
about existing accessible devices and services.

Recommendation 4:
Create communities of practice
Development practitioners: Good practices in the development

community are elevated through communities of practice. Beyond
internal capacity, development practitioners can play a connecting
role and facilitate partnerships with the private sector, civil society, and
DPOs to enhance awareness and build local communities of practice.
Development practitioners can learn from other multilateral

agencies such as UNESCO that have been working on the issue
of accessibility for many years. Development agencies should
make use of existing networks and fund pilot projects to build the
evidence base and best practices using a radical incrementalist
approach. Finally, partnerships should make use of peer learning
networks and knowledge sharing. This can include consortiums
of development agencies. As demonstrated by this report, many
organizations are making good progress that can be adapted
across the field.

Multilateral agencies: UN agencies can leverage their reach and
resources (e.g., UNESCO’s member states) to support and scale
national pilot projects. They can also play a role in building
capacity, developing best practices, and showcasing examples of
successful sites.
Governments: Governments can play a role in facilitating partnerships

and public-private collaboration. Countries can also share experiences
in addressing their CRPD obligations as part of development agency
membership meetings.
Civil society: Across activities, the participation of DPOs should be

incorporated, both internally within development agency practices
(project planning and implementation, internal policy framework
development, procurement processes, etc.) and externally in
capacity-building, product design and implementation, and
national policymaking.
Private Sector: The private sector can engage with development

agencies and governments to develop pilots for accessible
technologies. The private sector can also partner with civil society
to incorporate the perspective of persons with disabilities and
older people as part of human-centered design cycles or other
learning collaboratives.

References
Baker, P. M. A., & Bellordre, C. (2004, January). Adoption of information

and communication technologies: key policy issues, barriers and
opportunities for persons with disabilities. In System Sciences, 2004.
Proceedings of the 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference. IEEE.
Bank Information Center, n.d. Disability and the World Bank Safeguards
Campaign. The Bank Information Center. Accessed at http://www.
bankinformationcenter.org/our-work/safeguards/disability/.
Bond (2016). Leaving no one behind: The value for money of

disability-inclusive development. Published by Bond, Society Building, 8
All Saints Street, London N1 9RL, UK. Accessed at https://www.bond.org.
uk/sites/default/files/resource-documents/leaving_no_one_behind_the_
value_for_money_of_disability-inclusive_development.pdf.
Bruijn, P., Regeer, B., Cornielje, H., Wolting, R., Veen, S. V., & Maharaj, N.
(2012). Count me in; Includepeople with disabilities in development projects.
Chigona, W., Pollock, M., & Roode, J. D. (2009). South Africa’s socio-
techno divide: A critical discourse analysis of government speeches.
South African Computer Journal, 44(December), 3–20.
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, G.A. Res 61/106,

U.N. DOC A/RES/61/106. 2006. New York: United Nations, December 13.
Edmonds, L. J. (2005). Disabled people and development.
G3ict (2012) “CRPD 2012 ICT Accessibility Progress Report”. Available

at: www.g3ict.org/resource_center/publications_and_reports/p/
productCategory_ whitepapers/subCat_0/id_244
Himberg, H. (2015). Comparative Review of Multilateral Development

Bank Safeguard Systems. World Bank Commissioned Report. Accessed
at https://consultations.worldbank.org/Data/hub/files/consultation-
template/review-and-update-world-bank-safeguard-policies/en/phases/
mdb_safeguard_comparison_main_report_and_annexes_may_2015.pdf.

Broadband Commission et al. (2013). The ICT Opportunity for a
Disability-Inclusive Development Framework.Accessed at https://www.itu.
int/en/action/accessibility/Pages/hlmdd2013.aspx.
Karr, V. L., Sims, J., Brusegaard, C., & Coates, A. (2017). No one left
behind: a review of disability inclusive development efforts at the World
Bank. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 27-42.
Kett M. et al. (2009). Disability, Development and the Dawning of a New

Convention: A Cause for Optimism?, J. INT’L DEV., Vol. 21.
Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jid.1596/pdf.
Marais, M. A. (2015). ICT4D and Sustainability. Wiley.
McNamara, K. S. (2003). Information and communication technologies,

poverty and development: Learning from experience. The World Bank.
Mitra, S. (2006). The capability approach and disability. Journal of
disability policy studies, 16(4), 236-247.
Mitra, S. (2006). The capability approach and disability. Journal of

Disability Policy Studies, 16(4), 236-247. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10442
073060160040501
Mitra, S., Posarac, A. & Vick, B. (2013). Disability and poverty in

developing countries: A multidimensional study. World Development, 41,
1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2012.05.024
The World Bank (2016). World Development Report 2016: Digital Dividends.
Accessed at http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2016.
The World Health Organization and World Bank (2011). World Report
on Disability. Accessed at http://www.who.int/disabilities/world_
report/2011/report/en/.

Appendix A:
Co-benefits of digital accessibility by sector
Sector ICT Application or Investment Digital Accessibility
Education Computer software and websites Electronic formats to ease access barriers
E-learning and distance learning Apps, online learning and participation
for PWDs
ICT-related skills development
Smart/accessible apps and devices
Teacher training
Differentiated learning materials
Interactions using other kinds of
communication devices
Employment Processing software Computing devices equipped with

text-to-speech, voice recognition, braille
Online applications
displays, optical character recognition
Web-based administration and other accessibility features
Communications Instant chat platforms and real-time text
Scheduling and process flexibility displays facilitate communication
ICT skills building Text and video telephony can facilitate

internal and external phone calls
through an interpreter
Live captions can be offered with
webcasts and video conferences
Schedule flexibility and working from
convenient accessible locations
Disaster Risk identification via remote sensing Accessible mobile apps and
preparedness and crowdsourcing mapping programs
Risk mitigation through mobile apps SMS for emergency messaging,
including warnings and alerts
Early warning systems
Accessible websites and tools
Disaster response and early recovery
Interactive mapping and data sharing

Sector ICT Application or Investment Digital Accessibility
Agriculture Access to information Text to speech applications accounting

for limited literacy
Access to training and devices
SMS availability for remote locations
Reduced information asymmetry
Accessible advisory services
Personal Finance Access to financial services for Branchless banking websites and portals
the unbanked using mobile and reduce access barriers
branchless banking
Electronic and phone-based money
National payment systems, mobile transfers, paperwork, and other financial
money, stored value cards, and transactions
internet banking
ATMs, kiosks, and services with
accessible features and multiple options
Mobile banking leads to
Increased independence, privacy,
and confidentiality
Health MHealth and telehealth for Web-based consultations and platforms

vulnerable communities reduce access barriers
Surveillance and public health Accessible mHealth and telehealth can
information systems improve treatment outcomes
Links with mobile money, insurance, Accessible eHealth records available to
service delivery, and HR patients and health professionals can
promote independence and enhance
doctor-patient communication
City Planning/ Smart Cities applications Accessible technology and platforms

Development and can increase public participation
Improved city governance,
Governance and service delivery Universal accessibility mechanisms in
transportation and wayfinding/kiosks
Digitalization of consumer-facing
benefit PWDs and tourists alike
infrastructure including utilities
and transportation
Transparency in open data
Citizen empowerment and social
intermediaries via social media

Appendix:
Methodolgy
Key informant interviews (N=20): A targeted outreach list of

Interviews development agencies was developed based on internet research
and existing organizational relationships. Contacts were then
prioritized based on: 1) existing relationships/recommendations
of partners (personal contact); 2) the organization’s focus on
digital development; and 3) the organization’s position on
disability inclusivity. From this list, 20 semi-structured interviews
were conducted with stakeholders from various sectors including
multilateral development banks, disability inclusivity researchers,
national development agencies, and UN-affiliated agencies, all with
a range of expertise. Content expertise among each informant can
be summarized in the following table:

National
Outside
Multilateral Development Agencies Development
Stakeholders
Agencies
Bank
Areas of Research
IDB WB AfDB ADB IsDB CAF UNICEF UNESCO DFID USAID GIZ Information
Expertise Centers
Center
Housing and
1 1 1 1
Urban Dev
Organization
Policy and 1 1 1
Planning
Disability
1 1 1 1
Inclusive Dev
Sustainable
1
Dev
ICT, Digital Dev,
Science and 1 1 1 1 1
Technology
Social
1 1 1 1 1 1
Inclusion
Governance,
Accountability,
1 1 1 1 1
and Public
Mgmt
Knowledge
1 1 1
Mgmt
Infrastructure
1 1 1 1
Policy
Country Director,
Operations 1
Mgmt
Finance
1 1
Services

Interviews were coded using emerging sub-themes and then
grouped into major themes, which provided the basis of the
four chapters. Semi-structured interview questions included
the following; questions with the ** mark were prioritized for
practitioners with limited time:
1) Can you tell me about your experience with ICT and

digital development? **
2) For digital development specialists: can you tell me about
how your department interacts with social inclusion departments,
if at all?
3) For social inclusion specialists: can you tell me about how your
department interacts with digital development departments, if at all?
4) For other departments: Within your organization, can you
describe how your department interacts with digital development/
ICT/Smart Cities-focused departments, or with social inclusion
departments, on projects with a digital component?
5) How does your organization approach issues of accessibility and
inclusion of persons with disabilities, more generally?
6)How do you ensure that persons with disabilities benefit from
digital development programs? **

7) Does your organization have any internal policies on digital
accessibility or inclusion (for example, procurement, or safeguards)? **
8) Do any of your projects have explicit policies or guidelines related
to accessibility and digital inclusion of persons with disabilities? **
9) Within your organization, what factors are the main barriers to
addressing ICT accessibility and digital inclusion? **
10) How do you think accessibility and digital inclusion within ICT
development efforts might be increased?
11) What would be most helpful to you and your organization
to support incorporation of accessibility more fully into digital
development efforts? **
12) Is there anything that we didn’t cover in these questions that
you’d like to talk about?
For each organization interviewed, an analysis of project appraisals

Document and summary documents was conducted using available project
Review databases. If these documents were not available, project
summaries were analyzed. Inclusion criteria in the database review
included availability of project descriptions and access to PDFs/
word documents of project summaries and appraisal documents,
linked to project title. Using this criteria, six organization databases
were analyzed.

Online Project Documents
Development Agency Doc Review Reason for exclusion
Details Available
World Bank Yes Yes Included
Asian Development
Yes Yes Included
Bank (ADB)
Inter-American
Development Bank Yes Yes Included
Group (IDB, IADB)
African Development
Yes Yes Included
Bank (AfDB)
DFID Yes Yes Included
Included, project
GIZ Yes Yes descriptions but not
documents
Excluded, project
documents not grouped
USAID No Yes by project description
(appear to be two
separate databases)
Excluded, no project
Islamic
No No details or documents
Development Bank
available
CAF - Excluded, no project
Development Bank of No No descriptions or
Latin America (CAF) documents available
UNESCO No No No project database
UNICEF No No No project database
To determine the number of projects with a digital component,

each organization’s database was queried for active projects using
the following terms: “smart cities”, “digital inclusion”, “ICT”, “digital
accessibility”, “digital development”, and “digital transformation”,
resulting in 2471 projects. Within these “digital” projects, duplicate
projects were removed (resulting in 1189 projects) and, project
summary and appraisal documents were surveyed for explicit
reference to persons with disabilities and older populations using
the terms “disabled”, “disability”, “impaired”, “impairment”, “older”,
and “elderly”. Final counts of unique, active projects related to
digital development and with explicit reference to persons with
disabilities and older populations resulted in 48 projects.

Active Programs Total
African Asian
World
Search Term IDB Development Development GIZ DFID
Bank
Bank Bank
Smart Cities 230 6 6 15 5 2 264
Digital Inclusion 248 13 18 5 2 1 287
Digital Accessibility 239 40 18 4 0 0 301
Digital Transformation 243 3 29 0 5 0 280
Digital Development 266 47 266 12 25 6 622
ICT/ Information
Communication 443 203 1 49 12 9 717
Technology
TOTAL Digital
Development with 1669 312 338 85 49 18 2471
Duplicates
TOTAL Active Digital
Development Projects 632 247 223 37 26 14 1189
Without duplicates
TOTAL Active Unique
Digital Development
22 16 5 3 1 1 48
Projects with explicit
mention to disability
Percentage of Active
Digital Development
3.48% 6.48% 2.15% 8.11% 3.85% 7.14% 4.04%
Projects with explicit
mention of disability
An online survey was distributed to over 140 stakeholders.

Online Survey The survey scope, initially developed for MDB practitioners,
was expanded to other development stakeholders including
technologists, policy experts, government officials, disability rights
and digital accessibility leaders, and others after an initial low
response rate. The survey was distributed through various contacts,
and participants were encouraged to distribute the survey link to
other contacts they deemed relevant. While survey results will not
be generalizable to the entire field, they still represent a valuable
“snapshot” of how stakeholders working on these issues perceive
greatest needs and barriers.

......
.,.,....•• u
•, BERKELEY
INSTITUTE OF URBAN AND
REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Digital Development For All: Leveraging Digital Accessibility in International Development

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Digital Development For All: Leveraging Digital Accessibility in International Development

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Digital Development

Acronyms and Abbreviations 3

Chapter 1: Make Digital Accessibility a Priority 11

Chapter 2: Develop Guidelines for Digital Accessibility 19

Chapter 3: Create Knowledge Base on Digital Accessibility 25

Chapter 4: Engage External Stakeholders 31

Recommended citation: Inclusive Cities Lab, Institute of Urban

Digital Development for All 1

African Development Bank (AfDB)

Special thanks to the following individuals who contributed

2 Leveraging Digital Accessibility in International Development

ADB Asian Development Bank

Digital Development for All 3

Digital development programs are growing rapidly at the global

However, many people cannot reap these benefits due to lack of

As technology continues to be incorporated into various types of

International development frameworks and human rights

4 Leveraging Digital Accessibility in International Development

This research shows that although tremendous opportunities

This report contains four chapters, each exploring the evidence

Themes Key Findings

Chapter 1: 95 percent of interview respondents stated that

86 percent of development practitioners

Chapter 2: In a selected review of active digital development

Chapter 3: 75 percent of development practitioners

Chapter 4: Half of development practitioners interviewed feel

Digital Development for All 5

Checklist for inclusive digital development:

Frame digital accessibility as a co-benefit. Not only does digital accessibility

Utilize existing guidelines and policies as frameworks. A number of existing

Develop technical knowledge and capabilities for better outcomes.

Create communities of practice. Development agencies can play a

6 Leveraging Digital Accessibility in International Development

This report defines terms using the following definitions:

Development practitioners/key informants:

Digital Development for All 7

Over the past 40 years, the role of development agencies as

Leading national and multilateral development agencies can play

In addition to considering the opportunities and challenges of

8 Leveraging Digital Accessibility in International Development

Other academic research, industry white papers, and reports

However, to our knowledge no studies have examined to what

Keys to success and challenges:

Opportunities from the field:

Digital Development for All 9

Chapter 1: Make Digital Accessibility a Priority

Since the development ecosystem is an interconnected web of

10 Leveraging Digital Accessibility in International Development

Digital Development for All 11

Landing Page for

World Bank Yes Yes

GIZ Yes Yes

UNICEF Yes Yes

UNESCO Yes Yes

USAID Yes Yes

12 Leveraging Digital Accessibility in International Development

Lack of policies and frameworks with disability-inclusive language

Digital Development for All 13

Conceptualization of “target groups” among vulnerable populations

One multilateral development bank practitioner noted, “We are not

14 Leveraging Digital Accessibility in International Development

While universal access to ICTs is undoubtedly an important factor, the

Accessibility is broadly defined by ISO TC 159 as the “Extent to which