1-27-2026 4:28pm

Disability Policy Is Not Charity, It Is Public Responsibility

John Williams Editor

Photo by David Knudsen on Unsplash

By Dr Shellie Bowman Sr.

Disability policy is often discussed in fragments, such as compliance checklists, benefit thresholds, or narrowly defined programs tucked into administrative silos. But when disability policy is treated as a technical side issue rather than a core public responsibility, the consequences ripple far beyond any single statute or service.

In a recent conversation with John Williams, editor of the Spotsylvania Gazette and Patchnewspapers, and Seth Whitten, Deputy Director of the Disability Resource Center, one theme emerged with clarity and urgency: disability policy is not an act of charity. It is a civil rights obligation and a test of whether public systems are designed to support dignity, independence, and participation for all.

Disability Policy as a Systems Issue

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) established a powerful civil rights framework more than three decades ago. Yet as Williams and Whitten noted, implementation has too often devolved into a minimalist exercise. Accessibility is often treated as something to be requested, negotiated, or justified, rather than being embedded as a baseline design principle.

This is not a failure of intent. It is a failure of systems thinking.

Research consistently shows that when disability policy is treated as a specialized or charitable concern, implementation becomes reactive rather than proactive (Bagenstos, 2009). Grandfathering provisions, fragmented enforcement, and overreliance on individual self-advocacy allow institutions to technically comply while functionally excluding. As Whitten observed, accessibility becomes a checklist rather than a culture.

Public policy does not operate in isolation. Transportation, housing, workforce development, health care, and digital infrastructure all intersect with disability outcomes. When those systems fail to coordinate, the burden shifts to individuals to navigate complexity that was never designed with them in mind.

Administrative Burden and the Cost of Constant Advocacy

One of the most striking insights from the discussion was the role of administrative burden in shaping lived experience. Disability policy frequently assumes permanence in diagnosis but impermanence in eligibility. Individuals are required to repeatedly prove disability status, reapply for benefits, and navigate duplicative systems that do not share information.

Scholarly research confirms that administrative burden disproportionately harms people with disabilities by increasing compliance costs, psychological stress, and service discontinuity (Herd & Moynihan, 2018). Rather than enabling independence, systems often demand constant self-advocacy just to maintain baseline support.

Williams, speaking both as a person with a disability and as a guardian to a developmentally disabled sibling, highlighted how denials, delays, and program fragmentation create instability. These are not marginal inefficiencies. They are structural barriers that undermine trust in public institutions.

Disability Benefits and Economic Stability

Perhaps nowhere is the gap between policy intent and lived reality more visible than in disability benefits and employment. Income thresholds tied to Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Medicaid waivers, and related programs often penalize modest economic advancement. A slight increase in earnings can trigger the loss of essential supports such as personal assistance services, home modifications, or health coverage.

While programs like Ticket to Work were designed to encourage employment, evidence suggests they remain underutilized and insufficiently integrated with broader workforce systems (Livermore et al., 2015). The result signals a troubling policy message: stability is rewarded, growth is risky.

This dynamic reinforces what Whitten described as “stabilization over opportunity.” When policy frameworks assume low expectations, they inadvertently codify them.

Stigma, Expectations, and Workplace Readiness

Disability policy does not operate in a vacuum separate from culture. Workplace stigma, limited exposure, and employer uncertainty continue to shape outcomes more than formal compliance requirements.

During the conversation, Whitten shared an example involving a staff member with cerebral palsy whose capabilities were underestimated despite demonstrated competence. Research on disability employment echoes this pattern. Employer attitudes and organizational culture often present greater barriers than physical accessibility alone (Schur et al., 2017).

If public systems prioritize access without addressing readiness, inclusion remains superficial. True inclusion requires investment in education, employer support, and normalization of disability as a routine dimension of the workforce.

Toward Disability Justice and Universal Design

The conversation ultimately turned toward disability justice: an approach that frames disability policy as an ongoing public commitment rather than a one-time promise. Disability justice emphasizes intersectionality, autonomy, and systems designed for collective benefit.

Universal design principles offer a practical expression of this philosophy. When environments, services, and technologies are designed to be accessible from the outset, everyone benefits. Parents with strollers, aging adults, veterans, and workers with temporary injuries all benefit from systems that do not require exceptions to function.

As federal and state policies continue to evolve, vigilance matters. Disability policy outcomes must be monitored not only for compliance, but for impact. The measure of public responsibility is not whether a law exists, but whether it meaningfully enables participation, independence, and dignity.

A Public Responsibility, Ongoing

Disability policy is not ancillary to governance. It is central to how we define fairness, opportunity, and public value. As Williams and Whitten made clear, when disability policy is reduced to charity or compliance, public systems fail the very people they are meant to serve.

But when disability policy is treated as a shared responsibility, designed into systems, supported by evidence, and informed by lived experience, it strengthens society as a whole.

That is the standard public leadership must meet.

Author’s Note:
This article draws on a recent Public Agenda discussion with John Williams and Seth Whitten.Any errors or omissions in interpretation are my own.

References

Bagenstos, S. R. (2009). Law and the contradictions of the disability rights movement. Yale University Press.

Herd, P., & Moynihan, D. P. (2018). Administrative burden: Policymaking by other means. Russell Sage Foundation.

Livermore, G. A., Mamun, A., & Roche, A. (2015). Work activity and use of employment supports under the Ticket to Work program. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 42(1), 23–38. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-140730

Schur, L., Kruse, D., Blanck, P., & Blasi, J. (2017). Is disability disabling in all workplaces? Workplace disparities and corporate culture. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, 56(3), 381–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/irel.12187

U.S. Department of Justice. (2020). The Americans with Disabilities Act: A guide to disability rights laws. https://www.ada.gov/resources/disability-rights-guide/

Please Comment below and begin a conversation on this issue.

Clink on https://open.substack.com/pub/drshellieb

to read the other articles by Shiellie as of Public Agenda on Substack

Public Agenda is free today. But if you enjoyed this post, you can tell Public Agenda that the writing is valuable by pledging a future subscription. You won’t be charged unless payments are enabled.

Pledge your support

📢 Stay Connected with Public Agenda by Dr. Shellie M. Bowman