Resources search

Disability Inclusive Development Good Practices: Level of Commitment to Core Concepts of Human Rights

HENDERSON, Cheryl
MANNAN, Hasheem
POWER, Jessica
2017

Expand view

Aim: Good practices have been documented by International Non-Governmental Organisations (INGOs) to promote disability inclusive development and encourage the replication or scaling up of good practices that use rights based approaches. This study aimed to investigate the extent to which Core Concepts of human rights are illustrated in disability inclusive development good practices related to health.

 

Methods: This study analysed case studies of disability inclusive development good practices focusing on health that are available in the public domain using EquiFrame, an established content analysis framework in benchmarking health and social policies.

 

Results: A total of 42 health related good practices were identified from 3 different INGOs working in the field of disability inclusive development. The highest occurring human rights Core Concepts were; access 55%, individualised services 48%, capacity building 45% and participation 38%. The Core Concepts with the lowest levels of commitment were; autonomy 3%, cultural responsiveness 3%, accountability 3%, and efficiency 3%. Privacy and autonomy were not mentioned at all. The quality of reporting of the core concepts of human rights was low as they did not state specific programme actions or intentions to monitor Core Concepts.

 

Conclusion: Level of commitment to Core Concept coverage and quality of reporting was low. EquiFrame was successfully extended to analyse disability inclusive development good practices focusing on health. Its use in further analysis of inclusive good practice is advised.

 

Implications: These results can be used for advocacy in disability inclusive development and to guide programme staff training and documentation of disability inclusive development good practices.

The Impact of Community-Based Rehabilitation in a Post-Conflict Environment of Sri Lanka

HIGASHIDA, Masateru
2017

Expand view

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.

E-bulletin