Government Implementation of
the Standard Rules
As Seen By Member Organizations of
Inclusion International (ILSMH)
© Dimitris Michailakis 1997
General Policy
Table 1 (Question No. 1)
Number of ILSMH organizations reporting an officially recognized disability policy:
| Disability policy expressed in: | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Having an officially recognized policy | 39 | 90,7 |
| Not having an officially recognized policy | 4 | 9,3 |
| Law | 30 | 69,8 |
| Guidelines adopted by the Government | 21 | 48,8 |
| Guidelines adopted by a disability council | 22 | 51,2 |
| Policy adopted by political parties | 9 | 20,9 |
| Policy adopted by NGO's | 23 | 53,5 |
Total 43, No answer 3
As Table 1 shows, the majority of ILSMH organizations are reporting an officially recognized disability policy. The majority of ILSMH organizations are reporting that disability policy is expressed in law and in guidelines, adopted by a disability council. The replies from the NGOs generally exhibit the same pattern. There are no clear differences regarding the percentage of countries with an officially recognized disability policy. There are, however, clear differences when compared with the percentages reported by the governments. ILSMH organizations report a lower percentage regarding guidelines adopted by the government, while they report a higher percentage regarding guidelines adopted by a disability council and concerning the policy adopted by NGOs.
Table 2 (Question No. 2)
The emphasis of disability policy
| Emphasis in national policy | Number of RI org. indicating respective emphasis |
| | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 |
| Prevention | 7 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 6 |
| Rehabilitation | 19 | 13 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| Individual support | 9 | 9 | 8 | 3 | 3 |
| Accessibility measures | - | 6 | 7 | 12 | 3 |
| Anti-discrimination law | 4 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 12 |
1 = very strong emphasis, 5 = very weak emphasis
According to ILSMH organizations the strongest emphasis is on rehabilitation while the weakest emphasis is on anti-discrimination law and accessibility measures. The same pattern prevails as with the NGOs in general. The government responses also display the same pattern and there are no differences concerning the percentages.
Table 3 (Question No. 3)
Government action to convey the message of full participation
| Conveying the message of full participation | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| ILSMH organizations reporting Gvt. action | 19 | 42,2 |
| ILSMH organizations reporting no Gvt. action | 26 | 57,8 |
Total 45, No answer 1
As Table 3 shows, there are 26 organizations out of 45 providing information on this issue, reporting that the government has not done anything to initiate or support information campaigns, conveying the message of full participation, since the adoption of the Standard Rules. There is no great differences in percentages reported, when compared with the NGOs in general. There are, however, clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported by the governments. ILSMH organizations report a considerably lower percent regarding a government action undertaken in order to convey the message of full participation.
Legislation
Table 4 (Question No. 4)
Types of legislation to protect the rights of persons with disabilities
| Types of legislation | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Special legislation | 10 | 23,3 |
| General legislation | 10 | 23,3 |
| Special and general legislation | 23 | 53,3 |
Total 43, No answer 3
As Table 4 shows, the most common type of legislation is to use a combination of special legislation and general legislation. There is, however, according to ILSMH organizations a high percent of countries where the rights of persons with disabilities are protected only by general legislation. Though the pattern is the same compared with the NGOs in general, there is a clear difference regarding the percentage of countries which only have general legislation. The valid percent for the NGOs in general is 32,5%. When compared with the figures reported by the governments, the percent concerning general legislation is on the same level. There are, however, differences regarding special legislation, where the percentage reported by ILSMH organizations is higher and concerning a combination of special and general legislation, where the percentage reported by ILSMH organizations is lower than the precentage reported the by governments.
Table 5 (Question No. 5)
Mechanisms to protect citizenship rights
| Judicial/no-judicial mechanisms | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Due process | 26 | 74,3 |
| Recourse procedure | 10 | 28,6 |
| Ombudsman | 15 | 42,9 |
| Governmental body (administrative) | 18 | 51,4 |
| Expert bodies | 5 | 14,3 |
| Arbitration/conciliation body | 3 | 8,6 |
Total 35, No answer 11
As Table 5 shows, the majority of ILSMH organizations are reporting that mechanisms have been adopted to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. The most frequent judicial mechanism adopted is legal remedy through the courts, while the most frequent non-judicial mechanism is a governmental body (administrative). It is interesting to note that 15 countries out of 29 providing information on this issue, have an Ombudsman in order to protect the rights of persons with disabilities. There is a clear difference as regards the percentage of countries reporting that they have an Ombudsman. The percentage reported from the NGOs in general is 36%. When compared with the percentage reported by the governments, ILSMH organizations report a higher percent concerning recourse procedure by a special agency, dealing with anti-discrimination issues and concerning the Ombudsman.
Table 6 (Question 6)
Civil and political rights of persons with disabilities
ILSMH organizations reporting that general legislation
does not apply with respect to: | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Education | 1 | 2,5 |
| Employment | 10 | 25,0 |
| The right to marriage | 18 | 45,0 |
| The right to parenthood/family | 20 | 50,0 |
| Political rights | 20 | 50,0 |
| Access to court-of-law | 12 | 30,0 |
| Right to privacy | 17 | 42,5 |
| Property rights | 20 | 50,0 |
Total 40, No answer 6
As Table 6 shows, there is a considerable number of ILSMH organizations reporting that general legislation does not apply to persons with disabilities with respect to: the right to parenthood/family; political rights; property rights; the right to marriage; the right to privacy. General legislation applies in almost all countries with respect to the right to education. It is also interesting to note that general legislation applies with respect to the right of employment in 75% of the countries. The same pattern prevails as with the NGOs in general with minor differences in the percentages reported, except regarding the right to marriage, the right to parenthood/family, political rights and property rights, where the percentages are higher than for the NGOs generally. When compared with the governments, the ILSMH percentages are extremely higher concerning all the rights listed above (except the right to education, where the percentages reported by ILSMH organizations are lower). For instance, in 50% of the countries providing information on this issue there are persons with mental disabilities who do not have political rights.
Table 7 (Question No. 7)
Economic and social rights of persons with disabilities
| ILSMH organizations reporting that the following benefits are not guaranteed by law: | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| Health/medical care | 9 | 21,4 |
| Rehabilitation | 7 | 16,7 |
| Financial security | 17 | 40,5 |
| Employment | 26 | 61,9 |
| Independent living | 31 | 73,8 |
| Participation in decisions affecting themselves | 30 | 71,4 |
Total 42, No answer 4
According to ILSMH organizations, the following rights are less often guaranteed by law to persons with disabilities: independent living, participation in decisions affecting themselves and employment. The right most frequently guaranteed by law is the right to health and medical care, though 21% of the reporting ILSMH organizations claim that this is not the case. Regarding the right to employment and comparing the percentage in question no. 6 it is obvious that general legislation is not a sufficient guarantee forthe rights of disabled persons. Though, in ca 80% of the countries, there are no legal hindrances for disabled persons with regard to the right to employment, only 38% of the countries have this right guaranteed by law. There are no clear differences compared with the NGOs in general except regarding the right to employment and the right to participation in decisions affecting themselves. Concerning these rights the percentages reported by ILSMH are much higher than generally for the NGOs. Only regarding the right to rehabilitation the percentage reported by ILSMH is lower than that generally reported by NGOs. When compared with the government responses the percentages reported by ILSMH organizations are considerably higher regarding all of the above mentioned benefits, except for the benefit of rehabilitation, where the percentages reported are almost the same.
Table 8 (Question No. 8)
New legislation concerning disability since the adoption of the Rules
| Legislation on disability | Frequency | Valid Percent |
| ILSMH reporting enactment of new legislation | 18 | 43,9 |
| ILSMH reporting no enactment of new legislation | 23 | 56,1 |
Total 41, No answer 5
As Table 8 shows, the majority of ILSMH organizations are reporting that no new legislation concerning disability has been enacted since the adoption of the Rules. However, in 44% of the countries enactment of new legislation is reported. There are no clear differences compared with the percentages reported by the NGOs in general, neither compared with the percentages reported by the governments.
Contents of the ILSMH Report
www.independentliving.org |
About us | New in the Library |
Library | Links |
Radio |
Vacation Home Exchange | Global Networking |
Assistant Referral |
På svenska
