Disabled Peoples' International (DPI) Reports on the UN Standard Rules

Government Implementation of the Standard Rules
As Seen By Member Organizations of
Disabled Peoples' International - DPI

© Dimitris Michailakis 1997

Organizations of Persons With Disabilities

Table 20 (Question No. 20)
National umbrella organization

National umbrella organization Frequency Valid Percent
There is a umbrella organization 23 71,9

There is no umbrella organization 9 28,1

Total 32, No answer 1

As Table 20 shows, the majority of the DPI organizations are reporting that there is an umbrella organization of organizations of persons with disabilities. There are only minor differences in the percentage reported, compared with NGO's in general. There are minor differences in the percentage reported also when compared with government responses.

Table 21 (Question 21)
Participation in policy making

Participation in policy-making Frequency Valid Percent
DPI organizations reporting participation 13 41,9

DPI organizations reporting no participation 18 58,1

Total 31, No answer 2

As Table 21 shows, 58% of the DPI organizations report that there are no legal provisions mandating the representatives of persons with disabilities to participate in policy-making or to work with governmental institutions. Minor differences appear compared with the percentage reported by the NGO's in general. There are, however, clear differences when compared with the percentage reported by the government. DPI organizations report a lower percentage regarding participation in policy-making.

Table 22 (Question 22)
Consultations with organizations of persons with disabilities

Organizations are consulted: Frequency Valid Percent
Never 2 6,7

Sometimes 11 36,7

Often 10 33,3

Always 7 23,3

Total 30, No answer 3

Table 22 shows that a majority of the organizations report that consultations take place sometimes, while 7% of the DPI organizations are reporting that consultations with organizations of persons with disabilities never take place when laws, regulations and/or guidelines with a disability aspect are being prepared. The main difference in percentage compared with NGO's in general is that DPI organizations are reporting a higher percentage when consultations always are taking place. When compared with the governments, DPI organizations are reporting a higher percentage when consultations take place sometimes but a lower percentage when consultations with the organizations take place always.

Table 23 (Question 23)
Level of consultations

Level of consultations Frequency Valid Percent
National 26 89,7

Regional 13 44,8

Local 18 62,1

Total 29, No answer 4

Table 23 shows that consultations, when taking place, occur most frequently at the national level. Great differences appear in the percentage reported concerning the regional and local levels. The percentage reported by NGO's in general is almost 10% lower. There are also clear differences concerning the local level, when compared with government responses. DPI organizations report a considerably higher percentage.

Table 24 (Question 24)
Support to organizations of disabled people

Kind of support Frequency Valid Percent
Financial 22 75,9

Organizational/logistic 8 27,6

No support at all 5 17,2

Total 29, No answer 4

The majority of the DPI organizations are reporting that the government gives financial support to organizations of persons with disabilities. There are, however, 17% of the DPI organizations reporting that no support at all is given to organizations of persons with disabilities. Minor differences appear when compared with the percentage reported by the NGO's in general. There are clear differences, when compared with the government responses, concerning organizational/logistic support and where no support at all is provided. In the former case, DPI organizations report a lower percentage but a higher one, where no support to the organizations is given.

Table 25 (Question 25)
Participation in political and public life

Areas of political and public life Number of countries reporting participation

Limited Some Great

Government 22 4 2

Legislatures 22 4 3

Judiciary 25 1 1

Political parties 19 7 2

NGO's 5 6 17

1 and 2 = limited extent
3 = some extent
4 and 5 = great extent

Table 25 shows that the majority of DPI organizations are reporting that persons with disabilities to a very limited extent participate in government, legislatures, judicial authorities and political parties but to a great extent in NGO's. The pattern is the same as that reported by the NGO's in general, even when compared with government responses.

Table 26 (Question 26)
The role of organizations

Areas in which organizations are involved Frequency Valid Percent
Advocating rights and improved services 32 97,0

Mobilize persons with disabilities 29 87,9

Identify needs and priorities 29 87,9

Participate in the planning, implementation 23 69,7

Contribute to public awareness 33 100,0

Provide services 24 72,7

Promote/organize income generating activities 19 57,6

Total 33, No answer 0

Table 26 shows that organizations are foremost involved in advocating rights and improved services, contributing to public awareness, mobilizing persons with disabilities and identifying needs and priorities. DPI organizations report that the area in which they are least involved is participating in the planning, implementation and evaluation of services and measures concerning the lives of persons with disabilities and promoting/organizing income generating activities. Nonetheless, the rates in all areas concerning organizational involvement are high implying that the DPI organizations apprehend their role to involve a wide range of tasks. The same pattern prevails as with NGO's in general. There are minor differences in the percentage reported. The same pattern prevails even when compared with government responses. No clear differences in the percentages are reported.

Co-ordination of Work

Table 27 (Question 27)
Co-ordinating committee

Co-ordinating committee Frequency Valid Percent
There is a co-ordinating committee 21 65,6

There is no co-ordinating committee 11 34,4

Total 32, No answer 1

Table 27 shows that the majority of the organizations belonging to DPI report the existence of a co-ordinating committee. However, 34% report that there is no such committee. Minor differences in the percentage are reported when compared with NGO's in general, as also when compared with the government responses.

Table 28 (Question 28)
Where the co-ordinating committee is reporting

The co-ordinating committee is reporting to: Frequency Valid Percent
A particular Ministry 14 73,7

The Prime Minister's office 3 15,8

Other 2 10,5

There is no co-ordinating committee 11 34,4

Total 30, No answer 3

According to the DPI organizations, the authority to which the co-ordinating committee is usually reporting, to is the Ministry of Social Affairs or any other Ministry. Minor differences in the percentage are reported, when compared with NGO's in general, as well as when compared with government responses.

Table 29 (Question 29)
Representation in the co-ordinating committee

Representatives of: Frequency Valid Percent
Ministries 20 95,2

Organizations of persons with disabilities 16 76,2

Other NGO's 10 47,6

Private sector 4 19,0

There is no co-ordinating committee 11 34,4

Total 32, No answer 1

According to the DPI organizations, the co-ordinating committee usually includes representatives from Ministries and from organizations of persons with disabilities. Representatives from other NGO's and from the private sector are not so often included in the co-ordinating committee. The same pattern prevails when compared with the NGO's in general, with minor differences in the percentage reported. But, regarding representation of the private sector in the co-ordinating committee, there are clear differences in the percentage reported, when compared with government responses.

Table 30 (Question 30)
Participation in policy-development

Involvement of the co-ordinating committee Frequency Valid Percent
Participation in policy development 16 80,0

No participation in policy-development 4 20,0

There is no co-ordinating committee 11 34,4

Total 31, No answer 2

Table 30 shows that 80% of the DPI organizations are reporting that the co-ordinating committee is expected to participate in policy development. There are only minor differences in the percentage reported, when compared with those reported by the NGO's in general. There are clear differences in the percentage reported, when compared with the governments. DPI organizations are reporting a lower percentage regarding involvement of the co-ordinating committee in policy development.

Table 31 (Question 31)
Participation in performance of other tasks

Involvement of the co-ordinating committee Frequency Valid Percent
Reporting performance of other tasks 8 44,4

Reporting no performance of other tasks 10 55,6

There is no co-ordinating committee 11 34,4

Total 29, No answer 4

44% of the DPI organizations are reporting that the committee is expected to perform other tasks. The percentage reported by the NGO's in general is 57,1. There are clear differences when compared with government responses. DPI organizations are reporting a lower percentage regarding performance of other tasks.

Table 32 (Question 32)
Effects of the establishment of the co-ordinating committee

Effects Frequency Valid Percent
Improved co-ordination of programmes 10 62,5

Improved legislation 7 43,8

Improved integration of responsibility 7 43,8

Better dialogue in the disability field 10 62,5

More accurate planning 6 37,5

More effective use of resources 4 25,0

Improved promotion of public awareness 7 43,8

Too early for assessment 5 31,3

There is no co-ordinating committee 11 34,4

Total 27, No answer 6

Among others, the effects of the establishment of the co-ordinating committee, according to the DPI organizations, are involved co-ordination of measures/programmes and better dialogue in the disability field. 31% of the DPI organizations report that it is too early for assessment regarding the effects of the co-ordinating committee. There are only minor differences in the percentage reported when compared with NGO's in general. There are clear differences in almost all of the effects listed above - except regarding more accurate planning - when compared with the government responses. DPI organizations report a lower percentage when compared with those reported by the governments.

Table 33 (Question 33)
Effects of the adoption of the Standard Rules

The effects of the Standard Rules Frequency Valid Percent
DPI organizations reporting rethinking 11 39,3

DPI organizations reporting no rethinking 17 60,7

Total 28, No answer 5

Table 33 shows that 39% of the DPI organizations are reporting that the adoption of the Standard Rules has led to a rethinking of the approach to disability policy. 61% of the DPI organizations report that it has not lead to a rethinking and this figure is much higher than the one reported by the NGO's in general. When compared with the percentage reported by the governments, the percentage of no rethinking is also considerably higher in DPI organizations.

Conclusion
A broad convergence of views exists, in twelwe areas, between DPI organizations, the NGO's in general and the governments. Regarding a number of questions - question 1, 2, 5, 8, 9, 11, 15, 20, 25, 26, 27, 28 - there is no significant divergence.

Nonetheless, divergent views are manifest on a number of important issues between DPI organizations and governments but only to a lesser degree between DPI organizations and NGO's in general. Divergence in views is more frequent between DPI organizations and governments than between DPI organizations and NGO's in general.

There are also a number of areas, where divergent views exist between DPI organizations, NGO's in general and governments. However, even if there is a divergence in most of the areas, it is not found over the whole range of issues in these areas.

Contents of the DPI Report

National umbrella organization	Frequency	Valid Percent
There is a umbrella organization	23	71,9
There is no umbrella organization	9	28,1

Participation in policy-making	Frequency	Valid Percent
DPI organizations reporting participation	13	41,9
DPI organizations reporting no participation	18	58,1

Organizations are consulted:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Never	2	6,7
Sometimes	11	36,7
Often	10	33,3
Always	7	23,3

Level of consultations	Frequency	Valid Percent
National	26	89,7
Regional	13	44,8
Local	18	62,1

Kind of support	Frequency	Valid Percent
Financial	22	75,9
Organizational/logistic	8	27,6
No support at all	5	17,2

Areas of political and public life	Number of countries reporting participation
	Limited	Some	Great
Government	22	4	2
Legislatures	22	4	3
Judiciary	25	1	1
Political parties	19	7	2
NGO's	5	6	17

Areas in which organizations are involved	Frequency	Valid Percent
Advocating rights and improved services	32	97,0
Mobilize persons with disabilities	29	87,9
Identify needs and priorities	29	87,9
Participate in the planning, implementation	23	69,7
Contribute to public awareness	33	100,0
Provide services	24	72,7
Promote/organize income generating activities	19	57,6

Co-ordinating committee	Frequency	Valid Percent
There is a co-ordinating committee	21	65,6
There is no co-ordinating committee	11	34,4

The co-ordinating committee is reporting to:	Frequency	Valid Percent
A particular Ministry	14	73,7
The Prime Minister's office	3	15,8
Other	2	10,5
There is no co-ordinating committee	11	34,4

Representatives of:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Ministries	20	95,2
Organizations of persons with disabilities	16	76,2
Other NGO's	10	47,6
Private sector	4	19,0
There is no co-ordinating committee	11	34,4

Involvement of the co-ordinating committee	Frequency	Valid Percent
Participation in policy development	16	80,0
No participation in policy-development	4	20,0
There is no co-ordinating committee	11	34,4

Involvement of the co-ordinating committee	Frequency	Valid Percent
Reporting performance of other tasks	8	44,4
Reporting no performance of other tasks	10	55,6
There is no co-ordinating committee	11	34,4

Effects	Frequency	Valid Percent
Improved co-ordination of programmes	10	62,5
Improved legislation	7	43,8
Improved integration of responsibility	7	43,8
Better dialogue in the disability field	10	62,5
More accurate planning	6	37,5
More effective use of resources	4	25,0
Improved promotion of public awareness	7	43,8
Too early for assessment	5	31,3
There is no co-ordinating committee	11	34,4

The effects of the Standard Rules	Frequency	Valid Percent
DPI organizations reporting rethinking	11	39,3
DPI organizations reporting no rethinking	17	60,7