Rebuilding Trust in the Disability Movement: New Leadership, Accountability, and Grassroots Power

How can we rebuild trust in a movement shaken to its core? As someone deeply invested in the disability sector, I find myself reflecting on a fundamental question: How can we ensure that organizations meant to uplift our community are truly accountable to us?

Recently, Peter Torres Fremlin brought to light critical issues within the International Disability Alliance (IDA) through his insightful Disability Debrief series. His meticulous analysis revealed a crisis year in the making, exposing allegations of financial mismanagement, bullying, and abuse of power. An independent review unearthed distressing findings, including $850,000 in “identified financial irregularities” and severe leadership failures. IDA has responded with leadership changes and accepted all review findings, but Peter poignantly asks: How do we prevent this from happening again?

When leadership falters, it’s not just an organizational failure—it’s a betrayal of the very communities we fight for. We owe it to ourselves and the future of the disability movement to rebuild stronger, with empathy and accountability at the heart of our efforts.

As a thought leader in diversity, disability, and inclusion, I believe Peter's analysis is crucial for understanding the broader implications of the global disability movement. The crisis at IDA is not an isolated incident; it reflects systemic issues that resonate across all organizations representing people with disabilities.

However, if we aim to rebuild trust and foster long-lasting change, we must delve deeper and pose tougher questions. Here are some reflections and provocations to advance this dialogue:

1. The Hidden Role of Donor Influence

Are we unknowingly compromising our long-term goals for short-term wins?

Peter’s analysis rightly emphasizes leadership failures at IDA, but we must also consider how donor expectations may have shaped these governance issues. Too often, funding is tied to short-term project goals, trapping organizations like IDA in a cycle that prioritizes immediate outputs over sustainable, long-term impact.

When donors prioritize rapid results, organizations may divert focus from systemic change and deeper advocacy efforts. What if funding agreements emphasized grassroots development, long-term goals, and community engagement? Could we engage donors as partners in long-term advocacy, creating agreements that prioritize sustainable change and amplify local voices in decision-making?

2. The Structural Disconnect: Leadership and the Grassroots

Why are our leadership structures distancing us from the people we claim to represent?

Another critical point is the structural disconnect between IDA’s leadership and the grassroots communities it serves. As Peter highlights, the current governance model can create distance between leadership and the communities they represent. This isn’t merely about transparency; it’s about ensuring real grassroots influence over organizational direction.

How do we bridge this gap? Community-led models and digital tools could play a pivotal role. Imagine a feedback loop where local disability organizations don’t just provide input but actively shape the organization’s trajectory. Real-time feedback, public forums, and independent grassroots reviews of leadership would cultivate an ongoing dialogue between those at the top and those on the ground. This ensures that leadership decisions are rooted in the lived experiences of those they represent.

3. Non-Western Leadership Perspectives: A Missed Opportunity?

Are we reinforcing Western governance models in a global movement?

A significant area for exploration in Peter’s analysis is the lens through which we view leadership and governance. The crisis at IDA has frequently been analyzed through a Western governance model, emphasizing transparency, hierarchy, and accountability. While these are important, they don’t tell the complete story.

Globally, many non-Western models of leadership could inform a more inclusive and diverse governance structure. For instance, the African Ubuntu philosophy underscores community interdependence, where “I am because we are.” This could inspire a shift toward collaborative leadership in global organizations, focusing on shared responsibility rather than top-down authority. Similarly, Indigenous governance systems emphasize long-term sustainability, honoring elders' wisdom and future generations' needs. Asian consensus-building models highlight harmony and mutual respect.

Incorporating these perspectives into IDA’s leadership structure would foster inclusive decision-making processes resonating with diverse communities, particularly in the Global South. We must amplify non-Western voices in international conversations.

4. Trauma in the Disability Sector: Why Aren’t We Talking About It?

Can we advocate for inclusion without addressing the emotional toll on our community?

While Peter addresses the emotional strain caused by leadership failures, we must also recognize the deep trauma experienced by those within the movement. The disability community often overlooks the trauma endured by both those we represent and those advocating for change. Many leaders and activists within the OPD face deep-seated trauma from ongoing exclusion, discrimination, and isolation. The pressure of fighting within systems that resist change can lead to burnout, depression, and emotional exhaustion. Yet, we rarely acknowledge this trauma or create systems of care to address it.

A trauma-informed approach needs to permeate our leadership and organizational practices. This means acknowledging the emotional strain our members face and fostering environments where individuals feel safe, valued, and supported. This isn’t merely about providing mental health resources—it’s about cultivating a culture that prioritizes empathy, emotional safety, and peer support.

Other social movements are embracing trauma-informed care; it’s high time the disability sector follows suit. We should ask ourselves: How can we create leadership spaces that don’t just demand resilience but actively cultivate it? Emotional safety should become a cornerstone of leadership training, with organizations like IDA publicly acknowledging past mistakes and offering meaningful apologies to those harmed by systemic failures. This gesture would not only be symbolic; it’s a vital step toward rebuilding trust within our movement.

5. A Clear Vision for IDA’s Future: Beyond Crisis Management

Are we focusing too much on the present and not enough on the future?

As Peter highlighted, the current leadership crisis is pressing, but we must also envision what lies ahead. What is our vision for the future of the global disability movement? How can IDA evolve to serve its members and communities effectively in a rapidly changing world?

I believe our vision should focus on three key pillars:

• Empathy-based leadership, where leaders are trained not just in advocacy but in emotional intelligence.
• Community-driven accountability, ensuring local disability organizations directly evaluate leadership performance.
• Future-oriented advocacy prepares us for challenges like climate change, digital transformation, and an evolving global political landscape.

I envision a future for IDA where local impact and community trust are the primary measures of success—not merely funding or influence. A vision where IDA stands as a global leader in inclusive governance, deeply connected to grassroots communities, and prepared to face future challenges head-on.

Conclusion: Let’s Move Forward Together

As we navigate these complex challenges, I want to stress the importance of moving forward together, rooted in empathy, resilience, and inclusivity. Our movement has always been about challenging the status quo, but that must include how we lead and care for one another within the movement.

This is a call for deeper reflection and action. I hope these insights resonate with you and spark meaningful conversations about how we can build a more inclusive, emotionally intelligent, and future-proof disability movement.

Building a Movement that Lasts

Peter’s work on the IDA crisis is a clarion call for the entire disability movement. Our commitment to challenging the status quo must extend to how we lead and care for one another. We must strive for improvement—not just within IDA, but across all disability organizations worldwide. By integrating non-Western perspectives, addressing trauma within our sector, and forging stronger connections between leadership and grassroots movements, we can cultivate organizations that are not only accountable but also resilient and inclusive.

This isn’t about casting blame; it’s about fostering a movement that thrives beyond crises—a movement that learns from past mistakes embraces diversity in all its forms, and continues to advocate for the rights and dignity of people with disabilities globally.

Let’s continue this conversation. How can we build stronger, more inclusive leadership in the disability movement? What other perspectives and models should we consider? I welcome your thoughts, challenges, and reflections.

#DisabilityRights #HumanRights #InternationalDevelopment #DisabilityInclusion #DisabilityLeadership #InclusiveGovernance #TraumaInformedCare #NonWesternLeadership #GrassrootsAdvocacy #GlobalDisabilityMovement #ResilientLeadership #DonorAccountability #EmotionalIntelligence #FutureOfAdvocacy #DisabilityRights #LeadershipReform #CommunityEngagement #TrustAndHealing