Resources search

In order to show the scale and scope of shackling of people with real or perceived psychosocial disabilities worldwide, Human Rights Watch conducted a study of mental health legislation, relevant policies, and practices across 60 countries around the world.

This report includes research and testimonies collected by 16 Human Rights Watch researchers in their own countries. We worked closely with partner organizations to visit private homes and institutions in Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Liberia, Mexico, Mozambique, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Palestine, Russia, the selfdeclared independent state of Somaliland, South Sudan, and Yemen. Human Rights Watch researchers interviewed more than 350 people with psychosocial disabilities, including those who were shackled at the time of research or had been shackled at least once in their lives, and more than 430 family members, caregivers or staff working in institutions, psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses and other mental health professionals, faith healers, lawyers, government officials, representatives of local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), including organizations of persons with disabilities, and disability rights advocates. The testimonies were collected between August 2018 and September 2020 through in-person and phone interviews.

Desk research and consultation with international disability experts was also undertaken

This study explored how participation constitutes and is constituted by practices of power in group homes for people with intellectual disability. The study used disciplinary power as theoretical perspective and was based on 50 h of observation in two group homes with a total of 15 residents. The analysis identifies practices of power and their relationship to individual agency and participation. The results show that institutional structures construct practices of power that define codes of conduct for the group home residents and their possibility for participation. This study offers implications for the daily lives of residents in group homes for people with intellectual disability.

Question & problem

Students with disabilities are bullied more often than their typically developing peers. Students in schools for children with disabilities may be victimized more often than students with disabilities in inclusive settings. Being bullied, which can take forms which are physical, verbal, indirect (relational, emotional, or social), and/or sexual, is associated with negative academic, social, and psychological outcomes for the victim. This evidence brief summarises what we know about how to prevent bullying of children with disabilities.

This article draws from an ethnographic study of a group of school-aged disabled white working-class and self-proclaimed ‘bad boys’ in one Alternative Provision (AP) in an English further education college. These young disabled students’ disabilities contribute to the formation of their revalorised – yet stigmatised – identities. Stigma also facilitates the governance of their educational careers. The article considers how this group understands its precarious existence in and beyond AP and how these young men resist the conditions of their devaluation. Despite multiple, stigmatising experiences, the article shows how they appropriate space and (social) capital, often in tension with other students and college staff. The article suggests that there are questions about AP as an appropriate means to confer value upon young disabled students.

• White, disabled, working-class male students are increasingly placed into Alternative Provisions intended for young people who would otherwise not receive suitable education for various reasons. The experiences of such students have received limited research attention.
• This article is based on research conducted with young people who attend a provision located within an English further education college. The research found that these young people experience a lack of support, low trust and disregard from peers and some professionals at a crucial time in their educational careers.
• It is important to understand disability in relation to other social differences – social class and gender, for example – as the combined impact of these in educational settings may undermine future career prospects and life chances.
• The article emphasises the importance of education practices that develop reciprocity, trust and cooperation in improving the often oppressive circumstances young disabled people face in post-school settings.

Purpose: Persons with a developmental disability have the lowest rate of labour force participation relative to other disabilities. The widening gap between the labour force participation of persons with versus without disability has been an enduring concern for many governments across the globe, which has led to policy initiatives such as labour market activation programs, welfare reforms, and equality laws. Despite these policies, persistently poor labour force participation rates for persons with developmental disabilities suggest that this population experiences pervasive barriers to participating in the labour force.

Materials and methods: In this study, a two-phase qualitative research design was used to systematically identify, explore and prioritize barriers to employment for persons with developmental disabilities, potential policy solutions and criteria for evaluating future policy initiatives. Incorporating diverse stakeholder perspectives, a Nominal Group Technique and a modified Delphi technique were used to collect and analyze data.

Results: Findings indicate that barriers to employment for persons with developmental disabilities are multi-factorial and policy solutions to address these barriers require stakeholder engagement and collaboration from multiple sectors.

Conclusions: Individual, environmental and societal factors all impact employment outcomes for persons with developmental disabilities. Policy and decision makers need to address barriers to employment for persons with developmental disabilities more holistically by designing policies considering employers and the workplace, persons with developmental disabilities and the broader society. Findings call for cross-sectoral collaboration using a Whole of Government approach.

Background: A disability grant is the financial assistance given by the government to South African citizens and bona fide refugees who have debility that results in inability to work. Doctors in state hospitals and clinics are tasked with the duty of assessing applicants for this grant. Ideally, the assessment is done by an institutional committee consisting of a doctor, physiotherapist, social worker, occupational therapist and specialised nurses. However, this is not always the case because of a shortage of personnel, particularly in rural areas. A lack of clear guidelines for the assessment process has led to confusion and differences in the outcomes. This poses major problems for the doctors, as well as the applicants, who often are dependent on the grant for survival. The aim of this study was to explore the factors that influence doctors in the assessment of applicants for a disability grant.

Methods: A qualitative study using free attitude interviews was conducted amongst doctors involved in the assessment process in Limpopo province. Content analysis was used to identify themes from the interviews.

Results: The assessment process was not entirely objective and was influenced by subjective factors. These included the mood of the doctors, emotions such as anger and sympathy, and feelings of desperation. Perceptions by the doctors regarding abuse of the system, abuse of the grant, the inappropriateness of the task, lack of clear guidelines and the usefulness of the committees were important in decision making. The doctors’ personal life experiences were a major determinant of the outcome of the application.

Conclusion: The assessment of applicants for a disability grant is a subjective and emotional task. There is need for policy makers to appreciate the difficulties inherent in the current medicalised process. Demedicalisation of certain aspects of disability assessment and other social needs that doctors do not view as a purely clinical functions is necessary. In addition, there is a need for clear, uniform policy on and guidelines for the management of the grant, the role of the doctor has to be defined, healthcare practitioners must be trained in disability assessment, institutional committees should be established and intersectoral initiatives should be encouraged to address issues of poverty and dependence.