Resources search

Globally, Indigenous people, also known as First Peoples, have the poorest health outcomes of all population groups, resulting in significantly higher rates of chronic disease, ill-health, and disability. Recent research strongly suggests that Australian First Peoples and the Sami peoples of the Nordic region are positioned at opposite ends of the disability–health spectrum. Australia’s First Peoples, now experience the highest rates of disability in the nation’s recorded history, despite the significant government investment over recent decades in national Indigenous policy. Yet, Nordic Indigenous populations appear to have similar health outcomes and living conditions as the rest of the population in the region. In this paper, we compare some of the global assumptions of the two leading countries of the United Nations Human Development Index– Norway (ranked first) and Australia (ranked second)– and examine the ways in which such rankings act to hide the disparities of life trajectories and outcomes for Indigenous persons living with disability compared to the rest of the population in each country. The findings of the comparative analysis illustrate core areas for consideration when undertaking in-depth comparative research with First Nation’s peoples. This includes issues surrounding the differentiated political significance of national population data systems for local Indigenous peoples in their struggles for recognition, and the nuanced processes of population data categorisation that are developed as a result of First Nation’s localised struggles for recognition, respect and rights under processes of European colonisation.

Disability and the Global South, 2018, Vol.5, No. 2

Purpose: Conflict and disability are closely associated; it is therefore significant to examine strategies at the grassroots-level for restoring the human rights of people with disabilities living in post-conflict societies. The aim of this study is to reveal the impact of and issues with community-based rehabilitation (CBR) in the Northern Province of Sri Lanka that was ravaged by civil war from 1983 to 2009.

Methods: The research was implemented in October 2016, in collaboration with a local NGO in the Mullaitivu district. A mixed-methods approach was followed, which included quantitative analysis of the NGO’s registration database of people with disabilities in the area (n=964), group interviews with 9 community rehabilitation committees (CRCs) of people with disabilities and their family members (n=118), and semi-structured interviews with clients of the CBR programme (n=5). Thematic analysis was applied to the narrative data.

Results: The quantitative analysis on clients of the NGO revealed that 60.9% of disabilities were related to war. Livelihood assistance was the most common type of self-reported need (44.6%). The qualitative analysis revealed that in communities with inadequate local resources, CRCs that had access to livelihood assistance made a positive impact on the socioeconomic conditions of people with disabilities and their family members. Potential issues were observed, such as the expectation of and dependence on the financial aid without self-help. Some people with disabilities would not attend CRCs if there were no financial benefits. As most of the participants had war-related disabilities, it is also possible that participation of people with intellectual and psychiatric disabilities unrelated to war may not have been promoted in some CRCs.

Conclusions: The CBR programme has had positive impacts on the living conditions of participants, albeit with some potential issues such as financial expectations and aid dependency. The authors argue that empowerment of people with disabilities and addressing socioeconomic inequality should be considered simultaneously.

Participatory and emancipatory approaches in disability research are addressed through three research questions related to: the extent the participatory approach can encourage an active citizenship paradigm for the involvement of disabled people; the extent emancipation through research can contribute to the affirmation of a civil rights model of disability; and the extent it is possible to consider these approaches as tools that can support the design and implementation of socially innovative actions. The paper considers the academic literature and a reviews international documents, assuming a disability perspective

Considering Disability Journal. DOI: 10.17774/CDJ12015.2.2057584

This paper analyses the current (as of 2012) state of global human rights funding. Through the use of tables, graphs and other methods of data presentation, the International Human Rights Funders Group​ (IHRFG) outline the largest grants foundations, where and how the money is spent by these foundations, and the causes which these funds are spent on

In this paper I problematize knowledge on reducing the ‘gap’ in treatment produced by 14 national mental health policies in Africa. To contextualize this analysis, I begin with a historic-political account of the emergence of the notion of primary health care and its entanglement within decolonization forces of the 1960s. I unpack how and why this concept was subsequently atrophied, being stripped of its more revolutionary sentiments from the 1980s. Against this backdrop, I show how, although the 14 national mental health policies are saturated with the rhetoric of primary health care and associated concepts of community participation and ownership, in practice they tend to marginalize local meaning-systems and endorse a top-down framework heavily informed by colonial medicine. The policies thus end up reproducing many of the very Eurocentric assumptions that the original primary health care notion sought to transcend. More specifically, the paradigms of evidence-based research/practice and individualised human rights become the gatekeepers of knowledge. These two paradigms, which are deeply embedded within contemporary global mental health discourse, are legislating what are legitimate forms of knowing, and by extension, valid forms of care. I argue that a greater appreciation of the primary health care concept, in its earliest formulation, offers a potentially fruitful terrain of engagement for developing more contextually-embedded and epistemologically appropriate mental health policies in Africa. This in turn might help reduce the current ‘gap’ in mental health care treatment so many countries on the continent face.

Disability and the Global South (DGS), 2015, Vol. 2 No. 3

"This report contains information gained in situation analyses exploring the SRH needs of women with disabilities in three Pacific Island countries: Kiribati, Solomon Islands and Tonga. This work was carried out over a four-month period spread out between October 2010 and September 2011. UNFPA undertook these situation analyses to gain greater understanding of the opportunities and needs experiencedby women with disabilities in relation to their ability to realize their sexual and reproductive rights"

“This paper presents a practical framework for integrating different tools and techniques in order to provide a more comprehensive assessment of how public policies comply with the obligation to fulfill ESC rights. The OPERA framework (so called because it triangulates Outcomes, Policy Efforts and Resources to make an overall Assessment) articulates relevant human rights standards and principles to take into account when monitoring ESC rights fulfillment and offers practical guidance on which tools and techniques might be employed to evaluate them. These range from simple descriptive statistics that summarize data to more complex fiscal policy and budget analysis that assess the availability and allocation of resources. By making explicit this crucial link between the various human rights standards and principles that underpin the obligation to fulfill and the different assessment methods available to monitor them, the framework enables a systematic approach to building evidence of failures to fulfill ESC rights”