Resources search

CBM’s Disability and Gender Analysis Toolkit has been developed to support staff, partners and allies in strengthening capacity to address systemic and deeply entrenched discriminatory practices and specifically to meet their Programme Quality Standards. It provides practical tools for stronger disability and gender analysis to inform planning, practice and systems. The toolkit provides practical assessment templates and guidance for individuals, organisations and programmes to identify strengths and gaps and to develop focussed action plans to improve practice.

This Working Paper provides an overview of disability as a concept and relevant global treaties and statistics, including evidence of trends and complexities in promoting disability inclusive employment broadly and with some focus on formal employment specifically. We describe the current situation in each of the four focus countries, demonstrating the similarities and differences between them. We then discuss some promising interventions that have been tried, usually on a small scale, in diverse settings, and which may be applicable in our four focus countries (Bangladesh, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda). Finally, we present the potential interventions that will be trialled in the Inclusion Works programme, using an innovation-driven, adaptive management approach.

The Inclusion Works programme (2018–2022), funded by the UK Department for International Development, aims to improve employment rates for people with disabilities in Bangladesh, Kenya, Nigeria, and Uganda. 

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.

It is commonly assumed that there is a lack of disability data, and development actors tend to attribute lack of data as the reason for failing to proactively plan for the inclusion of people with disabilities within their programming. However, it is an incorrect assumption that there is a lack of disability data. There is now a growing amount of disability data available. Disability, however, is a notoriously complex phenomenon, with definitions of disability varying across contexts, as well as variations in methodologies that are employed to measure it. Therefore, the body of disability data that does exist is not comprehensive, is often of low quality, and is lacking in comparability. The need for comprehensive, high quality disability data is an urgent priority bringing together a number of disability actors, with a concerted response underway. We argue here that enough data does exist and can be easily disaggregated as demonstrated by Leonard Cheshire’s Disability Data Portal and other studies using the Washington Group Question Sets developed by the Washington Group on Disability Statistics. Disaggregated data can improve planning and budgeting for reasonable accommodation to realise the human rights of people with disabilities

Sustainability 2019, 11(11), 3091

https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113091

The area of assistive technology has a long history of technological ingenuity and innovation. In order to ensure that the benefits of assistive technology are equitably distributed across the population and life course, it is necessary to adopt a systemic approach to the area. We describe examples of systems thinking and non-systems thinking across 10 Ps. These Ps are People (or users, as the primary beneficiaries of assistive technology), Policy, Products, Personnel, Provision (as key strategic drivers at systems level); and Procurement, Place, Pace, Promotion and Partnership (as key situational factors for systems). Together these Ps should constitute a framework for an “open” system that can evolve and adapt, that empowers users, inter-connects key components and locates these in the reality of differing contexts. The adoption of a stronger systems thinking perspective within the assistive technology field should allow for more equitable, more resilient and more sustainable assistive technology across high, middle- and low-income contexts and countries.

Purpose: In low- and middle-income countries, reliable and disaggregated disability data on prevalence, participation and barriers is often not available. This study aimed to estimate disability prevalence, determine associated socio-demographic factors and compare access in the community between people with and without disability in Dehradun district of Uttarakhand, India, using the Rapid Assessment of Disability Survey.

Methods: A cross-sectional population-based survey was conducted on a sample of 2431 adults, selected using a two-stage cluster randomised sampling technique. The survey comprised an interviewer-administered household survey and an individual survey measuring disability, wellbeing and participation.  For each person with disability, an age and sex-matched control (without disability) was selected. In addition to prevalence, the difference in participation and barriers faced by people with and without disability were analysed.

Results and Conclusions: The prevalence of disability was 6.8% (95% CI 5.8-7.8) with significant associations with age, sex, economic status, education and employment. Psychosocial distress (4.8%) and mobility impairment (2.7%) were the most common disabilities identified. The study showed that people with disabilities had significantly less access to services than those without disability, and the barriers reported most often were lack of information, transport and physical inaccessibility.

Background: Disability grants in South Africa increased from 600 000 in 2000 to almost 1.3 million in 2004. This rise can be attributed to the HIV/ AIDS epidemic, South Africa’s high rate of unemployment and possibly an increased awareness of constitutional rights. The Western Cape, which has a disability prevalence of 3.8%, has also experienced an influx of applications. The study was conducted at Bishop Lavis Community Health Centre (BLCHC) in the Cape Town Metropole, Western Cape.

The primary aim of this study was to establish the profile of adults applying for disability grants at Bishop Lavis. The secondary aim was the determination of the degree of activity limitation and participation restriction by means of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) shortlist of activity and participation domains.

Methods: A descriptive study was conducted with emphasis on identifying and quantifying the relevant factors. The population studied included all prospective adult (18–59-year-old females and 18–64-year-old males) disability grant applicants in Bishop Lavis over a two-month period (April–May 2007). A structured, self-compiled questionnaire was administered during face-to-face interviews with applicants. The questionnaire included the demographic details of the applicants, disability/chronic illness/condition, educational level and social/living conditions. The second part of the questionnaire was based on the ICF shortlist of activity and participation.

Results: There were 69 respondents over the period of data collection. Of the 69 applicants who participated in the study, 45 (65%) received a temporary disability grant, 6 (8%) received a permanent grant and 18 (26%) applications were rejected. The results demonstrated that most applicants were females over the age of 50, were poorly educated with chronic medical conditions and were living in formal accommodation with good basic services but with minimal or no disposable income. The ICF questionnaire responses showed that the majority of respondents had no difficulty in most domains, except for the general tasks and demands (multiple tasks), mobility (lifting and carrying, fine hand use and walking) and domestic tasks domains, which showed high percentages of severe to complete difficulty. However, further statistical analysis showed no association between degree of difficulty in the above domains and eventual outcome of type of grant received.

Conclusions: This study confirmed that unemployment and a lack of income are the factors influencing patients to seek assistance in the form of disability grants. Most applicants had a chronic medical condition and reported functional restrictions but only received a temporary grant. This may be an indication that most patients require further evaluation before a final decision can be made. There is a need for a standardised, objective assessment tool for disability grant applications. A campaign to educate patients about disability grants could save patients and hospital medical services time and money.