In Part 1 of this blog, we shared lessons from our 2024 Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) learning series and how we used them to design the Access & Opportunity (A&O) Learning Lab—an effort to make entrepreneurial spaces more inclusive. In this second and final part, we reflect on the lab’s first year: the challenges, what we learned, and what comes next.

Launching the Access & Opportunity Learning Lab came with an unexpected set of challenges. We initially named the initiative the Diversity, Equity, and Social Inclusion Learning Lab. Soon after, we faced a difficult choice: pause this work, or risk losing colleagues working on USAID-funded projects amid potential funding cuts. Like many organizations grappling with similar pressures, we chose to continue—but under a different name. As one member noted, we also need to defend the language that names what this work is and why it matters. We recognize the tension in that decision and are committed to building the organizational resilience to respond more directly in the future.

We held two virtual meetings in March and April: a briefing call for co-chairs and core group members, and a meet-and-greet for cohort members, co-chairs, and the core group. In both sessions, we shared insights from the needs-assessment survey and gathered input on session design. We also invited co-chairs and core group members to volunteer to co-design and facilitate specific sessions.

The first session, “Exploring Intersectionality and Designing Inclusive Programs,” was facilitated by Shamha Naseer (Bangkok Regional Hub, UNDP) and Ian Jones (Mekong Inclusive Ventures). They explored intersectionality and how overlapping social identities can create heightened barriers—underscoring the need to co-create flexible programs that reflect lived realities.

In the second session, “Inclusive Programming with Tangible Examples,” Max Simpson (Steps) and Rashi Maharjan (Impact Hub Kathmandu) shared how they are making their programming and organizational practices more inclusive, stressing that co-creation must start from day one. In the final segment, Vinaya Chinnappa (Incluzza) introduced inclusive budgeting. She challenged the myth that accessibility is expensive, noting that it is far more cost-effective to budget for accessibility from the start than to retrofit later.

For the Asia chapters, inclusion moved from principle to practice. We began rethinking how we communicate by embedding alt text across images and graphs and ensuring social media outputs adhered to accessibility guidelines so our content could be used by a wider audience. We also turned our attention to physical spaces. Ahead of our 2025 Annual Conference, we conducted a structured accessibility audit of the venue using the checklist provided by Mekong Inclusive Ventures, and we created and circulated a digital accessibility checklist for session coordinators so accessibility was considered from the planning stage. We also resolved to prioritize inclusive dialogue by inviting representatives of affected communities to policy discussions that directly impact them, supported through language interpretation and early distribution of materials. At the same time, we quickly realized that lasting impact requires a collective shift in organizational culture rather than relying on a few individuals to hold this knowledge. While non-overlapping time zones and competing global priorities remain a challenge, we initiated knowledge exchange by hosting an internal session where the Asia team shared experiences and strategies with the wider organization. To keep these insights accessible, we shared all session resources and encouraged team-wide engagement with them.

In addition to regular post-session surveys, we held midpoint feedback to understand how we could do better. Participants appreciated the content, speakers, practical focus, and diversity of the cohort.

The final session of the series, “Policy Frameworks to Foster Inclusion,” was facilitated by Shamha Naseer, Tom Sebastian (Seedstars), and Bala Nagendran Marimuthu (Global Disability Innovation Hub). True to the spirit of the lab, Shamha discussed UNDP’s two-front approach: inclusion inward as a workplace, and inclusion outward—supporting partners and ecosystems to be more inclusive. Tom shared Seedstars practices used internally at the organizational level and externally at the programmatic level. He also discussed the role of monitoring, evaluation, research, and learning (MERL) in identifying where exclusion happens during delivery—format, structure, support mechanisms—and how to address it. Bala broadened the perspective by cautioning that inclusion should not stop at visible impairments and barriers. He also shared three frameworks for delivering inclusive programs: Inclusive Cities, Disability Inclusion in the Clean Energy Value Chain, and Disability Inclusive Local Climate Action.

We are currently exploring how to apply the practices shared by the facilitators at ANDE. While we are still working through the implications for our programming, we have identified the following near-term actions across the Asia chapters:

• Encourage entrepreneurship support organizations (ESOs) that receive ANDE funding and support to adopt inclusive practices, including alternative application formats, blinded early-stage interviews, and evidence-based scorecards.
• Look for barriers when examining participant performance in ANDE’s own capacity-building programs.
• Allow multiple application formats, including video pitches, for ANDE’s regrant facilities.
• Review applications for ANDE grants with an intersectional lens—for example, whether the proposed program is designed with inclusion at its core and whether the monitoring, evaluation, and learning (MEL) approach includes both qualitative and quantitative components.
• Where possible, disseminate knowledge produced by ANDE in both print and audio formats.
• Offer and accept multiple ways of providing input (written responses, voice messages, one-on-one calls, etc.).
• Collect and track data, and review organizational progress annually.