INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ÓAAIDD

2017, Vol. 55, No. 4, 234–246 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-55.4.234

Disability Policy Implementation From a Cross-Cultural

Perspective
Miguel A. Verdugo, Cristina Jenaro, Isabel Calvo, and Patricia Navas

Abstract
Implementation of disability policy is influenced by social, political, and cultural factors. Based on
published work, this article discusses four guidelines considered critical for successful policy
implementation from a cross-cultural perspective. These guidelines are to: (a) base policy
implementation on a contextual analysis, (b) employ a value-based approach, (c) align the service
delivery system both vertically and horizontally, and (d) engage in a partnership in policy
implementation. Public policy should be understood from a systems perspective that includes
cross-cultural issues, such as how different stakeholders are acting and the way they plan and
implement policy.
Key Words: disability; cross-cultural; policy implementation; values; alignment; partnerships; systems
approach

The rationale for taking a cross-cultural perspective
regarding policy implementation is that the suc-
cessful implementation of disability policy is
influenced by a number of cultural factors. These
include the country or region’s level of socioeco-
nomic development, its democratic tradition, and
the political will and predominant ideology of the
current government. Additionally, policy imple-
mentation is influenced by a number of issues,
including the approach to understanding disability,
the structure and function of the service delivery
system, the degree of organization and system
transformation, and the content and focus of
professional education and staff development
(Schalock & Keith, 2016).
In addition, many disability policies are
developed and implemented within a large geo-
graphical area. For example, the European Union
Disability Strategy 2010-2020 (EU 2020; European
Commission, 2010), which includes social- and
disability-related policies, encompasses 28 coun-
tries that differ socially, politically, and culturally.
This strategy tries to ensure effective implementa-
tion of the United Nations Convention on the
Rights of Persons With Disabilities (UNCRPD;
United Nations, 2006), and focuses on eliminating
barriers and setting out a program in eight main
areas of action: accessibility, participation, equality,
employment, education and training, social pro-
tection, health, and external action.
Given the sociopolitical factors and cultural
issues that affect policy implementation, this article
discusses four guidelines considered critical for
successful policy implementation from a cross-
cultural perspective. These guidelines are to: (a)
base policy implementation on a contextual
analysis, (b) employ a value-based approach to
services and supports, (c) align the service delivery
system both vertically and horizontally, and (d)
base policy implementation on a partnership. These
four guidelines are based on published work
regarding the role of context in policy develop-
ment, implementation, and evaluation (Shogren,
Luckasson, & Schalock, 2015, in this issue;
Shogren, Schalock, & Luckasson, in press), the
factors involved in organization transformation
(Schalock & Verdugo, 2012b; Schalock & Verdu-
go, 2013; Schalock, Verdugo, & Lee, 2016), and the
use of a systematic approach to policy development
and systems change (Schalock & Verdugo, 2012a;
Schippers, West, & Dawson, 2015).
Subsequent sections of the article discuss each
of these four guidelines and incorporate examples
from the EU 2020 Strategy to explain how the
respective guidelines can positively impact policy
implementation. The main topics and subtopics of
the EU 2020 are summarized in Table 1.

234 Policy Implementation

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2017, Vol. 55, No. 4, 234–246
Contextual Analysis
Contextual analysis is a method for examining
relevant characteristics of the environment that
help to understand the barriers and opportunities
for action. A contextual analysis can be done at the
individual, organization, or systems level. The
analysis identifies contextual factors making an
impact on policy development and its application,
and involves: (a) identifying contextual factors that
hinder change; (b) conducting a discrepancy
analysis that identifies the discrepancies between
where a person, organization, or system is and
where they would like to be, (c) identifying the
forces for change that will increase momentum and
receptivity, (d) identifying ways to promote policy
implementation, and (e) identifying ways to
increase stakeholder participation.
A contextual analysis is completed by knowl-
edgeable respondents, including individuals with a
disability, and is coordinated by a person with
knowledge and experience in policy-related ser-
vice/support planning and delivery. This collabo-
rative approach is consistent with assessment
approaches such as participatory evaluation, utili-
zation-focused evaluation, and empowerment eval-
uation. The advantages of a collaborative approach
to contextual analysis is that it not only provides an
understanding of contextual factors that either
facilitate or hinder change, but also fosters learning
among participants and increases the likelihood
that information obtained from the analysis will be
incorporated into policy implementation and
policy evaluation. Templates and examples of
contextual analyses are presented in Schalock and
Verdugo (2012a; in press), Shogren et al. (2015),
and Shogren, Schalock et al. (in press).
Results from a contextual analysis provide
important information for policy development
and its implementation. Those involved in policy
development, for example, will be most interested
in addressing the factors that hinder change, the
differences between what is desired and what is
seen, and the powerful mechanisms available for
creating change. Those focusing on policy imple-
mentation will find useful information related to
the analysis of the powerful forces facilitating
implementation, the specific strategies/mechanisms
that promote implementation, and how major
stakeholders can be involved. Table 2 presents an
example of a contextual analysis of supported
M. A. Verdugo et al.
ÓAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-55.4.234
employment in Europe, based on the implementa-
tion of EU 2020 Disability Strategy.
Value-Based Approach
Policy implementation should employ a value-
based approach that establishes and defines core
values and principles to guide the implementation
agenda across countries. The UNCRPD focuses on
rights to avoid discrimination against persons with
disabilities and promotes participation and full
inclusion in society. The content included in the
convention comprises all aspects of a person’s life.
The UNCRPD establishes that governments
should report and monitor the application of the
convention, but how to do that can vary among
signatories. In order to be useful to service and
support professionals and organizations, and to
simplify its implementation, the goals, objectives,
and contents of the UNCRPD can be aligned with
core quality of life (QOL) domains (Claes,
Vandenbusshe, & Lombardi, 2016; Navas, Gómez,
Verdugo, & Schalock, 2012; Verdugo, Navas,
Gómez, & Schalock, 2012).
Because quality of life domains can be assessed
at an organization level and aggregated at the
systems level, alignment of policy goals to specific
interventions and supports to enhance human
functioning will maximize individual, family, orga-
nizational, and societal outcomes. The supports
paradigm, aligned with value framework such as
quality of life, is the main approach to advance the
recognition of rights and to achieve good results in
improving personal well-being of persons with
intellectual disability and closely related develop-
mental disabilities (IDD). The supports paradigm is
based not only on paying attention to the views,
dreams, opinions, and preferences of persons with
IDD, but also involves ‘‘arranging systems of support
that effectively address the mismatch between what
people are able to do without extraordinary
supports, and the requirements for human perfor-
mance’’ to participate fully in society (Thompson,
Schalock, Agosta, Teninty, & Fortune, 2014, p.
91). The main elements of a system of supports are:
natural supports, technology, prosthetics, education
across the lifespan, reasonable accommodations,
dignity and respect, personal strengths/assets, and
professional services (M. Lombardi, personal com-
munication, January 17, 2017).
The increasing importance of the QOL
concept as a value-based framework is already
235
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ÓAAIDD
2017, Vol. 55, No. 4, 234–246 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-55.4.234

Table 1
European 2020 Disability Strategy: Areas of Action

Topics Subtopics
A. UN Convention status A1. Ratification or conclusion of the UNCRPD
A2. Ratification or accession to the optional protocol
A3. Declarations, reservations, and objections
A4. Comprehensive review
A5. Focal point
A6. Coordination mechanism
A7. Independent mechanism
A8. Official reporting
A9. Shadow reporting
B. General legal framework B1. Antidiscrimination legislation
B2. Recognition of legal capacity
B3. Accessibility of voting and elections
B4. Official recognition of sign language
B5. National disability strategy and action plan
C. Accessibility C1. Transport accessibility
C2. Built environment accessibility
C3. ICT and Web accessibility
D. Independent living D1. Choice of living arrangements
D2. Deinstitutionalization
D3. Quality of social services
D4. Provision of assistive devices at home
D5. Availability of personal assistance schemes
D6. Income maintenance
D7. Additional costs
D8. Retirement income
E. Education E1. Special schools
E2. Mainstream schools
E3. Sign language and braille in school
E4. Vocational training
E5. Higher education
F. Employment F1. Nondiscrimination in employment
F2. Public employment services
F3. Workplace adaptations
F4. Financial incentives
G. Statistics and data collection G1. Official research
G2. Census data
G3. Labour Force Survey
G4. Disability equality indicators
H. Awareness and external action H1. Awareness raising programs
H2. Training for teachers
H3. Training for lawyers
H4. Training for doctors
H5. Training for engineers
H6. International development aid
Note. UN ¼ United Nations; UNCRPD ¼ United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities; ICT ¼
information and communication technology.

236 Policy Implementation

 Table 2
A Contextual Analysis of Supported Employment in Europe
Analytic Component Microsystem
M. A. Verdugo et al.
Contextual factors that  Low level of training of
hinder change (What people with disabilities
are the factors that  Poor employment-related
hinder change?) training for people with
disabilities
 Lack of visibility of people
with disabilities in
employment, as there are
low activity rates for this
population
Discrepancy analysis  Analysis of user
(What is the preferences in employment
difference between alternatives versus actual
what is desired and employment data
what is seen?)  Analysis of family
preferences in employment
alternatives versus actual
employment data
 Analysis of preferences of
professionals in
employment alternatives
versus actual employment
data
237
Mesosystem
 Shortage of training for available jobs
 Lack of quality training for people with disabilities
 High levels of unemployment
 High percentage of temporary or short-term
contracts
 Numerous contract types that hinder recruitment
 Scarce incentives for companies and employers
 Lack of reasonable accommodation for individuals
with a disability in workplaces
 Shortage of funding for integrated employment
programs for people with disabilities
 Segregated vs. integrated employment data,
obtained from public employment services
 Statistics on recruitment in different employment
alternatives by private and public employment
services
 Statistics on reasonable accommodations in the
workplace (e.g., passageways, staircases,
washbasins, lavatories, and workstations used or
directly occupied by workers with disabilities) vs.
actual contracts for workers with disabilities
Macrosystem
2017, Vol. 55, No. 4, 234–246
 State regulations promoting segregated
protected employment
 Absence of rules on integrated or
supported employment
 The nonbinding European Union (EU)
regulations (in the field of employment
or related aspects)
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
 Comparison of the European
regulations on principles and rights
regarding employment and what is
being done in the countries
 Comparison of state regulations and
state actions regarding training for
employment, recruitment (quantity and
quality)
(Table 2 continued)
ÓAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-55.4.234
238
Table 2
Continued

Analytic Component Microsystem Mesosystem Macrosystem

Driving forces for  Professionals working in  Disability organizations that promote integrated  The Employment Equality Directive
2017, Vol. 55, No. 4, 234–246

change (What are employment with employment (2000/78)

the powerful knowledge of supported  Disability-related professional organizations that  EU staff regulations include provisions

mechanisms employment and other promote integrated employment on equality of opportunity and
available to facilitate integrated employment  Public and private employment services reporting reasonable accommodation for EU staff
application?) alternatives and training on integrated employment with disabilities
 Professionals, parents and  Research on best practices  Antidiscrimination laws from the

users with disabilities different countries, and specific laws

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

sharing values for the on equal treatment in the labor market

importance and value of  People With Disabilities

work, as well as the  National Action Plans on Disability in

possibility that people with the different countries

even more significant  Labor codes and worker statutes from

disabilities can work every country emphasizing equal

opportunities, nondiscrimination, and
universal accessibility
 Monitoring of the Europe 2020

Strategy throughout the European

Semester must include references to the
situation of people with disabilities and
the impact of different policies
 National reform programs and country-

specific recommendations should

include disability issues from a cross-
cutting perspective
(Table 2 continued)
ÓAAIDD

Policy Implementation
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-55.4.234
M. A. Verdugo et al.
2017, Vol. 55, No. 4, 234–246

Table 2
Continued

Analytic Component Microsystem Mesosystem Macrosystem

Promoting application  Employment-related  Employment services adapted to the needs of  Force compliance with job reserve
(What are the training programs for people with disabilities (accessible in terms of regulations, quota systems, and
strategies/ parents, professionals, and material, spaces, and supports) alternative measures to promote
mechanisms to users offering economic or  Transition programs from school to work with employment that give priority to
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES

promote similar incentives performance indicators for employment in integrated employment alternatives
application?) integrated alternatives  Employment services are receiving
 Development of flexible mechanisms for transitions funding from the EU Social Fund and
between jobs, guaranteeing the social protection of must comply with accessibility and
unemployed with disabilities nondiscrimination requirements
Increasing stakeholder  Training all involved (i.e.,  Increase the visibility of organizations that promote  Ensure that EU programs and
involvement (Who families, employers, training and employment of workers with recommendations to different countries
are the major professionals, workers with disabilities, especially if those initiatives are rooted include cross sectional disability
stakeholders and disabilities) on supported employment policies in training, employment, social
how can they be  Promotion of networking service, and health
involved across  Promotion of the claim of
system levels)? rights, and the empowerment
of people with disabilities
Note. EU ¼ European Union.
ÓAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-55.4.234

239
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ÓAAIDD
2017, Vol. 55, No. 4, 234–246 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-55.4.234

Table 3
Quality of Life-Related Outcome Indicators

Quality of Life Domain Exemplary Outcome-Related Indicators

Personal Development
Self-Determination
Interpersonal Relations
Social Inclusion
Rights
Emotional Well-Being
Physical Well-Being
Material Well-Being
 People engage in a range of meaningful activities
 People try new things and have new experiences
 People express preferences and make choices
 People take part in person-centered planning and other decision-making
processes
 People experience positive and respectful interactions
 People are positively regarded by staff
 People have a presence in the local community
 People have a valued role and are known in the community
 People are treated with dignity and respect in all their interactions and have
privacy
 People can physically access transport and community facilities that they would
like to or need to access
 People appear content with and comfortable in their environment
 People appear at ease with staff presence and support
 People live healthy lifestyles
 People access healthcare promptly when ill
 People have their own possessions
 People have enough money to afford the essentials and at least some
nonessentials

influencing policies and professional and organiza-
tional practices internationally (Brown, 2016;
Keith & Schalock, 2016). The inclusion of the
paradigm as the vision and mission of many
organizations facilitates their transformation to be
more effective and efficient policy implementers.
Additionally, the use of evidence-based indicators
of QOL domains also facilitates the evaluation of
policies based on the UNCRPD articles (Schalock,
Gómez, Verdugo, & Claes, in press; Schalock,
Verdugo, & Gómez, 2011).
The role that professionals play to improve the
quality of life of persons with IDD is paramount.
Professionals (including direct support profession-
als) should become engaged with a value-based
approach that focuses on personal well-being,
combining the traditional clinical approach with
a support approach based on the environmental
variables on which a contextual analysis focuses.
Ethics and professional responsibility should also be
an important part of vocational training and
professional values (see later section on Partnership
in Policy Implementation).
As a part of their professional responsibilities,
professionals need to believe that the quality of life
of persons with disabilities can improve. To this
end, behaviorally based QOL-related indicators can
be used to reflect growth, development, and change
(Bigby, Knox, Beatle-Brown, & Bould, 2014;
Reinders & Schalock, 2014). These indicators
can also guide observations and decisions about
treatment or intervention options, and to develop
in themselves and others the expectation that
quality enhancement strategies will have a positive
effect. Exemplary outcome indicators related to
each of the core QOL domains are summarized in
Table 3.
Horizontal and Vertical Alignment of the
Service Delivery System
Alignment focuses on placing critical system and
organization functions into a logical sequence of
activitieswith the intention of facilitating descrip-
tion, explanation, and systematic analysis. A
program logic model that connects input, through-
put, output, and outcome components of a system
can be used to establish critical indicators
involved in conducting a discrepancy analysis as

240 Policy Implementation

INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2017, Vol. 55, No. 4, 234–246
a basis for policy implementation (Schalock &
Verdugo, 2012a).
In Figure 1, we expand a logic model policy
framework to encompass the three ecological
systems (individual-microsystem, organization-mes-
osystem, and system-macrosystem) that influence
human functioning and impact individual-, orga-
nization-, and systems-level performance. In addi-
tion, we have depicted horizontal alignment within
each ecological system (individual, organization,
and system) and among system components (input,
throughput, output, and outcome), and vertical
alignment within each system component and
across ecological systems.
In reference to the use of Figure 1, and if we
focus on accessibility and independent living (two
important areas of action of the EU 2020 Disability
Strategy), we can observe the importance of
establishing measures at the three ecological levels
(micro, meso, and macro) through the different
Figure 1. Components of a horizontally and vertically aligned service delivery system. EU ¼ European
Union. AROPE ¼ at risk of poverty or social exclusion. ICT ¼ information and communication technology.
M. A. Verdugo et al.
ÓAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-55.4.234
components of the program logic model. In this
sense, independent living in the input component
could be promoted by establishing personal goals
regarding living arrangements (micro); allocating
professional, financial, and services resources (me-
so); and developing directives and resources at the
national and European level (macro). The other
alignment components (throughput, output, and
outcome) are also organized with measures that
facilitate independent living. We also include
accessibility measures in all the components and
levels (see Figure 1).
Aligning a supports/service delivery system
both horizontally and vertically will enhance policy
implementation in three significant ways. First,
horizontal alignment positions the supports/service
delivery components into a logical sequence that
will increase not just policy implementation but
also allow for clearer communication and monitor-
ing, reporting, evaluation, and continuous quality
241
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2017, Vol. 55, No. 4, 234–246
improvement. Second, vertical alignment increases
the effectiveness and efficiency of policy imple-
mentation through the benefits derived from non-
duplication, technical and administrative support,
outcomes-focused rules and regulations, and strate-
gic execution. Collectively, horizontal and vertical
alignment enhances both policy implementation
and policy evaluation (Schalock & Verdugo,
2012b; Schalock, Verdugo, Gómez, & Reinders,
2016). Success is the result of improving the
connection among the critical functions of each
system level, and a coordinated effort among the
three different levels of the system.
A Partnership in Policy Implementation
Policy implementation needs to be both culturally
sensitive and partnership based. A partnership is
critical to successful policy implementation. In this
section of the article, we discuss five key players
and their respective roles in such a partnership:
policy makers, professionals, support providers,
consumers, and researchers.
Policy makers. In addition to basing disability
policy on societal values, desired outcomes, and
best practices, policy makers need to incorporate a
‘‘built environment framework’’ into disability
policy. Such a framework provides the setting for
human activity; mediates physical and social access
to community resources; facilitates participation in
community life and everyday activities and rela-
tionships; provides opportunities for self-determi-
nation; and allows individuals to build social
capital, engage in competitive employment, and
be more independent (Christensen & Byrne, 2014).
An important partner in developing European
policy, besides the governments of each country,
has been the European Disability Forum (EDF;
http://www.edf-feph.org/). EDF is an independent
nongovernmental organization that brings together
the main representative organizations of persons
with disabilities across Europe. The role of EDF has
been decisive for promoting the United Nations
Convention, rights, antidiscrimination legislation,
accessibility, education, employment, health, and
independent living of persons with disabilities.
Professionals. Professionals, including direct
support professionals, play a significant role in the
lives of persons with a disability. They diagnose,
they support, they recommend, and they influence
attitudes, actions, and policies. Professional respon-
sibility starts with respect for the individual and is
242
ÓAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-55.4.234
characterized by giving focused attention to the
person, showing concern for the person, emphasiz-
ing the person’s human and legal rights, and
engaging in person-centered practices that facili-
tate personal well-being. Respect involves support-
ing personal autonomy; informing people about
important matters in their lives; involving people
in individual supports planning and provision;
providing opportunities for personal development
and involvement; and ensuring an individual’s
emotional, physical, and material well-being (Ari-
as, Arias, Verdugo, Rubia, & Jenaro, 2016). Critical
components of professional responsibility involve
being aware of current international trends im-
pacting the field, being well trained in current best
practices, acting in accordance with a code of
ethics, and exercising the critical thinking skills of
analysis, alignment, synthesis, and systems thinking
(Schalock & Luckasson, 2014).
EU 2020 Disability Strategy contains two
important domains where professionals are of
maximum importance: statistics and data collec-
tion, and awareness and external action. Research
development, sophisticated analysis of data, and use
of equality indicators are some of the more
important areas of action to know and improve
the actual situation of persons with disabilities.
Without data, one cannot distribute resources
appropriately per different support needs, train
professional and support staff, nor evaluate results
and outcomes of public policies.
Support providers. Support providers include
organizations (including community-based rehabil-
itation programs), front line staff, and the families
of individuals with a disability. To be maximally
effective in policy implementation, support provid-
ers need to do two things. First, they need to
believe that the quality of life of persons with
disabilities can improve, as reflected in the
outcome indicators listed in Table 3. Second, they
need to implement value-based practices related to
a policy framework (see Table 1; Schalock, this
issue). Four such practices are to: (a) view the
person with a disability as central; (b) align
individual-, organization-, and systems-level input,
throughput, output, and outcome components both
horizontally and vertically; (c) provide individual-
ized supports that are aligned with personal goals
and assessed support strategies; and (d) focus on
personal and societal outcomes.
These four practices are based on the premise
that any disability-related and person-environment
Policy Implementation
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2017, Vol. 55, No. 4, 234–246
related mismatch that results in needed supports
can be addressed through the judicious use of
individualized supports rather than ‘‘fixing the
person.’’ Individualized supports help to bridge
the gap between ‘‘what is’’ and ‘‘what can be’’ and
result in approaching people based on their types
and intensities of support needs, rather than their
limitations or diagnoses (Nussbaum, 2011; Thomp-
son et al., 2014).
The delivery of individualized supports needs
to be done in a rational way. Depending on the
circumstances, some type of individual supports
plan is developed for the person and implemented
by one or more support providers. As commonly
employed, an individual support plan includes: (a)
an organizing framework (e.g., life activity areas,
human functioning domains, quality of life do-
mains); (b) prioritized support areas based on what
is important to and for the individual; (c) support
strategies reflecting components of a system of
supports; (d) support objectives that integrate the
specific strategy used and the intended result of
that strategy; and (e) personal outcome categories
(e.g., life activity areas, human functioning dimen-
sions, or quality of life domains).
Strengthening an organization’s commitment
to supporting and assisting persons with IDD is
essential in improving consumers’ personal well-
being. Only if organizations assume a leadership
role in implementing changes toward new ap-
proaches that are based on supports needed and
environmental variables, can the lives of persons
with disabilities improve. In Europe, the trend
toward community services based on supports is
progressing. The national disability strategies and
plans of each country, as well as the actions of the
more representative nongovernmental disability
organizations (e.g., European Disability Forum,
European Association of Service Providers for
Persons with Disabilities), are aligned in planning
and implementing different actions to increase
opportunities and exercise individual rights.
Consumers. An essential member of the
partnership is the consumer. Although their critical
and essential role is often overlooked, persons with
a disability are increasingly becoming more actively
involved in policy implementation. This increase is
due to several factors, including the increased rights
of persons with a disability, the inclusion of the
QOL concept in service delivery policies and
practices, and the findings that people with a
disability have competencies and capabilities that
M. A. Verdugo et al.
ÓAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-55.4.234
are frequently ignored or stymied (Keith &
Schalock, 2016; Mostert, 2016; Nussbaum, 2011).
What does it mean for consumers to be more
active in policy implementation? From a systems
perspective, it means that the individual is
involved in the input, throughput, and output
phases of support planning and implementation.
More specifically, during the input phase, a
dialogue should occur during which the individual
expresses their personal goals and support needs. At
the throughput stage, the individual is involved in
developing, implementing, and monitoring their
support plan. At the outcome phase, the individual
is involved in the assessment and evaluation of
valued, personal outcomes.
The European Platform of Self Advocates
(EPSA [http://self-advocacy.eu/], part of Inclusion
Europe [http://inclusion-europe.eu/]) has included
groups of self-advocates with IDD from more than
15 European countries since 2000. EPSA actively
promotes rights of people like any other citizen, and
develops actions related to many different topics,
such as independent living and deinstitutionaliza-
tion, empowering women and girls, accessible
transports, and access to culture and leisure.
Researchers. Researchers need to work with
organizations and systems to increase their imple-
mentation fidelity and their evaluation capacity.
This entails developing data systems and data
collection procedures that allow for the assessment
of policy-desired outcomes that can be used to
determine the relations between organization
services/supports and policy-desired outcomes. In
addition, researchers need to work with both policy
makers and service/support providers in imple-
menting an evaluation model that allows for both
formative and summative policy evaluation (see
Claes, Ferket, Vanevelde, Verlet, & De Maeyer,
this issue).
The Academic Network of European Disability
Experts (ANED) is an academic research network
of all European countries that was created by the
European Commission in 2007. ANED supports the
decisions of the commission and the different
European countries through the provision of
‘‘independent scientific advice, analysis and infor-
mation on EU and national disability policies and
legislation, links of national policies with the EU
level, as well as information about the situation of
persons with disabilities’’ (Academic Network of
European Disability Experts, 2017; http://www.dis
ability-europe.net/). ANED collaborates with ex-
243
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2017, Vol. 55, No. 4, 234–246
perts of the commission to advance objectives of
the European disability policy related to the
implementation of the UNCRPD, and present
research reports every year to assess the main-
streaming of disability in EU laws and policies on
different areas such as employment, education,
health, accessibility, and social protection. This
Disability Online Tool of the Commission (DOT-
COM; http://www.disability-europe.net/dotcom) is
a large database developed by ANED that includes
policies, laws, norms, strategic plans, and initiatives
of each European country.
Conclusion
Implementation of public policy for persons with
IDD should consider how different stakeholders are
acting and the way they plan and implement
actions. Public policy should be understood from a
systems perspective and focus, not only on
government and administration rules and tasks,
but also on the role social organizations play and
how value-based practices are being synchronized.
Thus, before any policy is implemented, a contex-
tual analysis should be completed at the individual,
organization, and systems level. Analysis of
available data along with perceptions and opinions
of main stakeholders, including persons with
disabilities and their families, is of critical
importance. A collaborative assessment and plan-
ning approach is the best way to involve the key
persons who will promote or successfully lead the
implementation efforts.
Developing and implementing disability poli-
cies should be based on values and principles to
guide actions. Since 2006 in Europe and worldwide,
the UNCRPD has provided a framework and
principles based on human rights to avoid discrim-
ination against persons with disabilities and to
facilitate their inclusion in the community. As
proposed in this article, a quality of life approach is
a recommended values-based framework that aligns
with the UNCRPD Convention articles (Navas et
al., 2012; Schalock, Verdugo, Gómez, & Reinders,
2016; Verdugo et al., 2012). Thus, a QOL
framework is capable of simplifying the structure
of the convention by aligning the content of its
articles with QOL-related supports to be provided
and indicators to be measured.
Two important steps in implementing public
policies for persons with IDD are to align services
and supports horizontally and vertically through a
244
ÓAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-55.4.234
logical sequence, and to involve stakeholders as
partners. In all phases of the process, the active
participation through a partnership with policy
makers, professionals, support providers, research-
ers, consumers, and their families, is a prerequi-
site condition.
References
Academic Network of European Disability Experts.
(2017). The Academic Network of European
Disability Experts (ANED). Retrieved from
http://www.disability-europe.net/
Arias, V., Arias, B., Verdugo, M. A., Rubia, M., &
Jenaro, C. (2016). Evaluación de actitudes de
los profesionales hacia las personas con dis-
capacidad [Assesment of staff attitudes towards
people with disability]. Siglo Cero, 47(2), 7–41.
http://dx.doi.org/10.14201/scero2016472741
Bigby, C., Knox, M., Beatle-Brown, J., & Bould, E.
(2014). Identifying good group homes: Quali-
tative indicators using a quality of life frame-
work. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities,
52(5), 348–366. http://dx.doi.org/10.1352/193
4-9556-52.5.348
Brown, R. (2016). Quality of life: Challenges to
research, practice and policy. Journal of Policy
and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 14(1), 7–
14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jppi.12185
Christensen, K. M., & Byrne, B. C. (2014). The
built environment and community integration:
A review of states’ Olmstead plans. Journal of
Disability Policy Studies, 25(3), 186–195. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/1044207313493009
Claes, C., Ferket, N., Vandevelde, S., Verlet & De
Maeyer, J. (in press). Disability policy evalu-
ation: Combining logic models and systems
thinking. Intellectual and Developmental Disabil-
ities, 55(4).
Claes, C., Vandenbusshe, H., & Lombardi, M.
(2016). Human rights and quality of life
domains: Identifying cross-cultural indicators.
In R. L. Schalock & K. D. Keith (Eds.), Cross-
cultural quality of life: Enhancing the lives of
people with intellectual disability (pp. 167–174).
Washington, DC: American Association on
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
European Commission. (2010, November 15).
European disability strategy 2010-2020: A re-
newed commitment to a barrier-free Europe
Policy Implementation
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES
2017, Vol. 55, No. 4, 234–246
[COM (2010) 636 final]. Brussels, Belgium:
European Union.
Keith, K. D., & Schalock, R. L. (2016). The global
perspective on the concept of quality of life. In
R. L. Schalock & K. D. Keith (Eds.), Cross-
cultural quality of life: Enhancing the lives of
people with intellectual disability (pp. 183–189).
Washington, DC: American Association on
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
Mostert, R. (2016). Personal involvement and
empowerment. In R. L. Schalock & K. D.
Keith (Eds.), Cross-cultural quality of life:
Enhancing the lives of people with intellectual
disability (pp. 49–57). Washington, DC: Amer-
ican Association on Intellectual and Develop-
mental Disabilities.
Navas, P., Gómez, L. E., Verdugo, M. A., &
Schalock, R. L. (2012). Derechos de las
personas con discapacidad intelectual: Impli-
caciones de la Convención de Naciones
Unidas [Rights of people with intellectual
disabilities: Implications of the United Nations
Convention]. Siglo Cero, 43(3), 7–28.
Nussbaum, M. C. (2011). Creating capabilities: The
human development approach. Cambridge, MA:
Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Reinders, H. S., & Schalock, R. L. (2014). How
organizations can enhance the quality of life of
their clients and assess their results: the
concept of QOL enhancement. American
Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Dis-
abilities, 119(4), 291–302. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1352/1944-7558-119.4.291
Schalock, R. L. (in press). Introduction to the
special issue on disability policy in a time of
change. Intellectual and Developmental Disabili-
ties, 55(4).
Schalock, R. L., Gómez, L. E., Verdugo, M. A., &
Claes, C. (in press). Evidence and evidence-
based practices: Are we there yet? Intellectual
and Developmental Disabilities.
Schalock, R. L., & Keith, K. D. (2016). Setting the
cross-cultural quality of life agenda to enhance
the lives of people with intellectual disability.
In R. L. Schalock & K. D. Keith (Eds.), Cross-
cultural quality of life: Enhancing the lives of
people with intellectual disability (pp. 203–218).
Washington, DC: American Association on
Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
Schalock, R. L., & Luckasson, R. (2014). Clinical
judgment (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Ameri-
M. A. Verdugo et al.
ÓAAIDD
DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-55.4.234
can Association on Intellectual and Develop-
mental Disabilities.
Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (in press).
Policy development and its application in a
changing environment. In M. I. Guerrero, R.
I., Brown, G. Fabila, & R. Faragher (Eds.),
Living with Down syndrome. Mexico.
Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2012a). A
conceptual and measurement framework to
guide policy development and systems
change. Journal of Policy and Practice in
Intellectual Disabilities, 9(1), 70–79. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-1130.2012.00329.x
Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2012b). A
leadership guide for today’s disabilities organiza-
tions: Overcoming challenges and making change
happen. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2013). The
transformation of disability organizations. In-
tellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 51(4),
273–286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-
51.4.273
Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M. A., & Gómez, L. E.
(2011). Evidence-based practices in the field of
intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Evaluation and Program Planning, 34, 273–282.
Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M. A., Gómez, L. E., &
Reinders, H. S. (2016). Moving us toward a
theory of individual quality of life. American
Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Dis-
abilities, 121(1), 1–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.13
52/1944-7558-121.1.1
Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M. A., & Lee, T. (2016).
A systematic approach to an organization’s
sustainability. Evaluation and Program Planning,
56, 56–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eval
progplan.2016.03.005
Schippers, M. C., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F.
(2015). Team reflexivity and innovation: The
moderating role of team context. Journal of
Management, 41(3), 769–788. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0149206312441210
Shogren, K. A., Luckasson, R., & Schalock, R. L.
(2015). Using context as an integrative
framework to align policy goals, supports, and
outcomes in intellectual disability. Intellectual
and Developmental Disabilities, 53, 367–376.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1352/1934-9556-53.5.367
Shogren, K. A., Luckasson, R., & Schalock, R. L.
(in press). An integrated approach to disability
policy development, implementation, and
245
INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES ÓAAIDD
2017, Vol. 55, No. 4, 234–246 DOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-55.4.234

evaluation. Intellectual and Developmental Dis-

abilities, 55(4). Received 2/22/2017, accepted 3/22/2017.
Shogren, K. A., Schalock, R. L., & Luckasson, R.
(in press). The use of a context-based change
model to unfreeze the status quo and drive This study was supported in part with funding from the
valued outcomes. Journal of Policy and Practice Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness
in Intellectual Disabilities. (PSI2015-65193-P).
Thompson, J. R., Schalock, R. L., Agosta, J.,
Teninty, L., & Fortune, J. (2014). How the
supports is transforming service systems for
persons with intellectual disability and related Authors:
developmental disabilities. Inclusion, 2, 86–99. Miguel A. Verdugo, Cristina Jenaro, Isabel Calvo,
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of
and Patricia Navas, INICO-University of Sala-
persons with disabillities. Retrieved from http://
manca, Spain.
www.org/disabilitites/convention/con
ventionfull/sltm.
Verdugo, M. A., Navas, P., Gómez, L. E., &
Schalock, R. L. (2012). The concept of quality Correspondence concerning this article should be
of life and its role in enhancing human rights addressed to Miguel Angel Verdugo, Director,
in the field of intellectual disability. Journal of INICO, Professor of Psychology, Department of
Intellectual Disability Research, 56, 1036–1045. Personality, Assessment, and Psychological
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01 Treatment, University of Salamanca, Spain (e-
585.x mail: Verdugo@usal.es).

246 Policy Implementation