Resources search

Developed by Social Protection Approaches to COVID-19: Expert Advice (SPACE) in collaboration with the UNPRPD joint program on inclusive Social Protection, the UNPRPD global initiative on COVID 19 inclusive response and recovery, and Humanity & Inclusion.

The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that countries which have disability identification mechanisms and registries already in place have been in a better position to provide fast relief and expand shock responsive support to persons with disabilities and their families. 

This guidance note includes:

• Brief introduction to the definitions and terminology surrounding disability and the concept of inclusive social protection
• Summary of the rationale for the inclusion of persons with disability in social protection programming
• Examples for overcoming the challenges for outreach, identification, and registration, and needs assessment
• Some country examples
• Overall implications for future programming.

Emerging evidence suggests that people with disabilities are amongst the groups most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic in all aspects of their lives. In order to provide more systematic evidence, narrative interviews were conducted with a diverse group of 40 jobseekers with disabilities in Bangladesh, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda who are involved with the Inclusion Works programme. The first round of interviews were conducted in July and August 2020. Initial key findings are given.

SUMMARY

This report presents the findings from telephone interviews with 91 representatives from 15 Disabled People’s Organisation (DPO) partners in Bangladesh, to ask about the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on persons with disabilities in Bangladesh.

The report finds that, in the Covid-19 pandemic, some persons with disabilities experience double jeopardy—not only are persons with disabilities disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, but they are also disproportionately excluded from protection and survival support.

Persons with disabilities report being disproportionately excluded from Covid-19 support. 63% of respondents report not receiving the same protection and survival support as others. Two-thirds of those who described their personal experiences reported supply shortage or diversion of essential food and medical supplies as reasons for why they had been excluded.

Relief that has been provided has not met need. Many respondents (84%) report that survival support does not meet their basic needs. Support received has mostly been food instead of cash. Some (17%) report difficulty in following Covid-19 advice, mostly because they cannot afford protection materials.

Persons with multiple disabilities are being left further behind. Respondents with multiple functional difficulties experience more exclusion than respondents with one functional difficulty. This finding of disproportionate exclusion is statistically significant and consistent with qualitative responses, which show that most of those that did report challenges in following received advice were persons with multiple functional difficulties. This strongly suggests that persons with multiple functional difficulties experience more barriers. Persons with multiple functional difficulties who were excluded tended to report difficulties in communicating, remembering, self-care and walking.

The economic impact of the pandemic is acute for persons with disabilities. On average, respondents report losing 65% of their income since the Covid-19 crisis began, which in absolute terms, after adjusting for purchase power parity, is the equivalent of moving from £167 to £58 in monthly earnings.

Some respondents report that they are skipping meals and going hungry. Anecdotal reports reveal that families are reverting to one main meal every two days, or two main meals every three days. Many are borrowing and relying on family support to meet their daily needs to survive, and some of those who already depended on family support have had that support reduced or withdrawn. On balance, future plans reflect a sense of precarity due to uncertainty, ranging from feelings of hope with specific plans to powerlessness with no plans.

Government can do more. Many respondents said government should prioritise persons with disabilities and provide more relief. Many voiced concerns about how relief was being distributed or stolen, and that it is not reaching those most in need. The majority of respondents said that NGOs and wealthy people should play a role in support efforts.

This situational analysis (SITAN) addresses the question: “what is the current situation for persons with disabilities in Nepal?”. It has been prepared for the Disability Inclusive Development programme (which works on access to education, jobs, healthcare, and reduced stigma and discrimination for persons with disabilities in Bangladesh, Jordan, Kenya, Nepal, Nigeria, and Tanzania), to better understand the current context, including COVID-19, and available evidence in Nepal. It will be helpful for anyone interested in disability inclusion in Nepal, especially in relation to stigma, employment, education, health, and humanitarian issues. This SITAN has been briefly updated from the April 2019 SITAN.

This situational analysis (SITAN) addresses the question: “what is the current situation for persons with disabilities in Bangladesh?”. It has been prepared for the Disability Inclusive Development programme (which works on access to education, jobs, healthcare, and reduced stigma and discrimination for persons with disabilities in Bangladesh, Jordan, Kenya, Nepal, Nigeria, and Tanzania), to better understand the current context, including COVID-19, and available evidence in Bangladesh. It will be helpful for anyone interested in disability inclusion in Bangladesh, especially in relation to stigma, employment, education, health, and humanitarian issues.

Question & problem

The COVID-19 pandemic and strategies essential for its containment are resulting in severe strains on economies, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). These impacts will be felt most by groups already in or at risk of poverty, including the estimated 1 billion people with disabilities globally. Interventions to address the short- and long-term economic effects of the pandemic are urgently needed. Some countries have begun implementing or announced plans for interventions addressing the economic impacts of COVID-19, such as food assistance, emergency cash transfers, unemployment assistance or expansions to existing social protection programmes. As these programmes are developed, it is important to consider the extent to which their design and delivery is inclusive of people with disabilities. Failure to adequately include people with disabilities in this process will lead to widening inequalities.

This guideline is intended to be a tool for Organisations of Persons with Disabilities (OPDs) and their allies on how to advocate for the rights of persons with disabilities within the global development framework known as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The thematic focus of this guideline is on an adequate standard of living and social protection.

The guideline has three main parts:

• Introduction and overview
• Assessment tool to evaluate where your country or sub-national region is in terms of implementation of CRPD Article 28
• Advocacy strategies to support implementation of CRPD Article 28 within the SDGs

The guideline also includes Annexes with further tools, resources and good practice case studies

Purpose: An ageing population presents a challenge for municipal eldercare in Sweden due to difficulties recruiting staff and there being a strained economy. A strategy involving welfare technology is presented as one such solution. An important group to carry out this strategy involves those who work with welfare technology in municipal eldercare. In this paper we describe their perception of welfare technology, and the challenges and opportunities they perceive in utilizing it.

Methods: A self-administered online questionnaire was distributed to all Swedish municipalities and answered by 393 respondents. Analyses show that the respondents were representative of the different professions who work with welfare technology within municipal eldercare.

Results: Welfare technology was perceived as being more reliable and safer than humans with regards to supervisions and reminders. The respondents acknowledged factors that slowed down the implementation of welfare technology in municipal eldercare organizations, such as resistance to change, lack of finances, lack of supporting evidence, lack of infrastructure, high staff turnover, difficulties with procurement and uncertainties about responsibility and laws.

Conclusions: We found that the people who work with and make decisions about welfare technology in municipal eldercare organizations were generally very positive about the deployment and use of such technology, but there appear to be problems within municipal eldercare organizations to realize this vision. The lack of structured implementation processes and coherent evaluation models indicates inequality of the access to welfare technology and, as a result, even though Swedish eldercare is publicly funded, the availability of welfare technologies and their usage differ between municipalities.

This is a rapid assessment of the Kenyan labour market which was commissioned to understand how the labour market functions in Kenya within the context of disability. This assessment provided opportunity to validate existing data on employment of persons with disabilities thus generating a solid baseline on which to anchor the programme’s targets and assumptions.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the UK government or members of the Inclusion Works consortium.