The other day, my colleagues from United Disabled Persons of Kenya (UDPK) and I were selecting young advocates for the We Can Work programme in two rural counties in Kenya. This component of the programme supports young persons with disabilities to become disability advocates. It was interesting to see how deliberate the selection process was in ensuring that people who are often left behind had a seat at the table.
The young advocates were not selected on merit alone. Intersectionality was a key consideration. The type of disability, level of education, gender, location, age group, and whether or not someone had an income-generating activity were all taken into account.
Too often, persons with high support needs (discriminatorily referred to as persons with severe disabilities) and those with lower levels of formal education are viewed as incapable. We assume they are beyond support or that they cannot participate on an equal basis with others.
In reality, having high support needs should prompt us to think differently about programming. It should make us ask what adjustments, accommodations, and support are necessary so that everyone can participate fully and contribute in ways that reflect their abilities rather than the barriers around them.
Here are some of the lessons from the process.
-
1
Targeted Mobilization
Before the interviews, Organizations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs) played a central role in mobilising participants. OPD leaders were briefed on the profile of participants we hoped to reach and were encouraged to identify young people whose experiences reflected different forms of exclusion.
Targeted mobilization is not a gatekeeping strategy. It is about ensuring opportunities reach people who are often overlooked. It also helps avoid repeatedly selecting the same individuals for programme after programme while many others remain unreached. A wider pool of participants means more young people gain skills, confidence, and opportunities that match their realities.
Interestingly, most of the young people who came for the interviews were not members of OPDs. Through the process, they were connected with OPD leaders who can continue supporting and mentoring them long after the programme ends. In that way, the programme also strengthens the disability movement by reaching young people who might otherwise remain outside organized advocacy spaces.
-
2
Fitting the Context
Before the interviews began, the young people knew they were attending an interview. As we welcomed them, however, we explained that we simply wanted to have a conversation with each of them. We shared a few jokes, eased the tension, and created a relaxed environment.
That small intervention mattered. Formal interviews can intimidate participants, particularly those who have had limited access to education or who have previously experienced discrimination. Creating a comfortable environment allowed people to speak more openly and honestly about their experiences.
-
3
Merit
One by one, the potential advocates walked into the room, each bringing a different personality, energy and life experience. In many recruitment processes, a "good" candidate is expected to speak fluently, have certain educational qualifications, and fit an unspoken picture of competence. This process looked beyond those assumptions.
Several participants had high support needs and could easily have been overlooked if the assessment had been based only on first impressions.
The interview panel included colleagues with diverse disabilities, including one colleague with a psychosocial disability. She related naturally with some participants, simplified questions where necessary, and gave them enough time to express themselves. People who initially appeared hesitant gradually became more confident and were able to communicate what they wanted to say.
The process was a reminder that merit is not measured by how confidently someone speaks or how quickly they respond. Sometimes, people simply need the right environment and support to show what they are capable of.
-
4
Passion
Some of the advocates were already creating change in their communities without recognizing it as advocacy. Others were unfamiliar with the word "advocacy" itself.
Yet, as they spoke about challenging barriers in their communities, standing up for their rights, helping other persons with disabilities access services, or challenging unfair treatment, it became clear that they were already advocates in practice. What they needed was the knowledge, skills, and confidence to strengthen what they were already doing.
-
5
Support
One of the first questions we asked every participant was:
"What kind of support would you need to participate meaningfully in this interview and throughout the programme?"
It is a simple question, yet one that is rarely asked in programme interviews.
The answers varied. Some participants needed Sign Language interpretation. Others required information in accessible formats, additional time, or personal assistance. Rather than treating support as an exception, we treated it as a equal part of participation.
Sometimes inclusion is not determined by who is invited into the room. It is determined by whether they are given what they need to participate once they arrive.
If we genuinely want programmes to reach those who are most excluded, intersectionality has to shape how we mobilize participants, design interviews, make decisions, and provide support throughout implementation. Otherwise, the people we intended to reach may continue to be left behind, even when they are physically present.
Article by: Maryanne Emomeri