Implementation of the Standard Rules - Organizations of Persons With Disabilities

Government Implementation of the Standard Rules
As Seen By Member Organizations of
Inclusion International (ILSMH)

© 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 32 72,7

There is no umbrella organization 12 27,3

Total 44, No answer 2

As Table 20 shows the majority of the ILSMH organizations are reporting that there is an umbrella organization of organizations of persons with disabilities. No differences in the percentage reported compared with those reported by the NGOs in general. Furthermore there is no difference when compared with government responses.

Table 21 (Question 21)
Participation in policy making

Participation in policy-making Frequency Valid Percent
ILSMH organizations reporting participation 21 47,7

ILSMH organizations reporting no participation 23 52,3

Total 44, No answer 2

As Table 21 shows, 52% of the ILSMH 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 NGOs in general. There are clear differences, when compared with government responses. The percentage reported by the ILSMH organizations concerning participation in policy-making is considerably lower.

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

Organizations are consulted: Frequency Valid Percent
Never 4 9,1

Sometimes 24 54,5

Often 12 27,3

Always 4 9,1

Total 44, No answer 2

Table 22 shows that a majority of the organizations report that consultations sometimes take place, while 9% of the ILSMH organizations are reporting that consultations with organizations of persons with disabilities when laws, regulations and/or guidelines with a disability aspect are being prepared never take place. Compared with government responses, the percentages reported by ILSMH organizations are higher, when consultations sometimes take place but lower, when consultations always take place.

Table 23 (Question 23)
Level of consultations

Level of consultations Frequency Valid Percent
National 36 92,3

Regional 12 30,8

Local 16 41,0

Total 39, No answer 7

Table 23 shows that consultations, when taking place, occur most frequently at the national level. Compared to NGOís in general there are great differences in the percentage reported concerning the regional and local levels. The percentage reported by NGOs in general are almost 10% lower. When compared with government responses, the percentages reported by ILSMH organizations are lower concerning the regional level.

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

Kind of support Frequency Valid Percent
Financial 23 57,5

Organizational/logistic 13 32,5

No support at all 11 27,5

Total 40, No answer 6

The majority of the ILSMH organizations are reporting that the government gives financial support to organizations of persons with disabilities. However, 17% of the ILSMH organizations report that no support at all is given to organizations of persons with disabilities. Minor differences appear when compared with the percentage reported by the NGOs in general. When compared with government responses there are great differences in the percentages reported. ILSMH organizations report a lower percentage regarding financial and organizational logistic support, but a higher percentage when organizations are not given any support at all.

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 29 3 4

Legislatures 26 6 5

Judiciary 27 3 2

Political parties 20 5 7

NGO's 6 5 29

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

Table 25 shows that the majority of ILSMH 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 NGOs. The same pattern prevails as that reported by the NGOs in general, even when compared with the governments.

Table 26 (Question 26)
The role of organizations

Areas in which organizations are involved Frequency Valid Percent
Advocating rights and improved services 39 88,6

Mobilize persons with disabilities 37 84,1

Identify needs and priorities 37 84,1

Participate in the planning, implementation 25 65,9

Contribute to public awareness 42 95,5

Provide services 29 65,9

Promote/organize income generating activities 29 65,9

Total 44, No answer 2

Table 26 shows that organizations are foremost involved in contributing to public awareness, advocating rights and improved services, mobilizing persons with disabilities and identifying needs and priorities. According to ILSMH organizations the areas in which organizations are the least involved are 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 ILSMH organizations apprehend their role to involve a wide range of tasks. The same pattern prevails as with NGOs in general. There are minor differences in the percentage reported. When compared to the government responses the ILSMH organizations are reporting a lower percentage regarding participation in the planning, implementation and evaluation of measures and services.

Co-ordination of Work

Table 27 (Question 27)
Co-ordinating committee

Co-ordinating committee Frequency Valid Percent
There is a co-ordinating committee 30 69,8

There is no co-ordinating committee 13 30,2

Total 43, No answer 3

Table 27 shows that the majority of the organizations are reporting the existence of a co-ordinating committee. However, 30% are report that there is no such committee. Minor differences appear in the percentage reported, when compared with NGOs in general. There are no clear differences when compared with the percentages reported by the governments.

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

The co-ordinating committee is reporting to: Frequency Valid Percent
A particular Ministry 20 71,4

The Prime Minister's office 4 14,3

Other 4 14,3

There is no co-ordinating committee 13 30,2

Total 41, No answer 5

According to the ILSMH organizations, the authority to which the co-ordinating committee is usually reporting is the Ministry of Social Affairs or any other Ministry. Minor differences appear in the percentage reported, when compared with NGOs in general. There are no clear differences when compared with the percentages reported by the governments.

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

Representatives of: Frequency Valid Percent
Ministries 24 85,7

Organizations of persons with disabilities 26 92,9

Other NGO's 16 57,1

Private sector 6 21,4

There is no co-ordinating committee 13 30,2

Total 41, No answer 5

According to the ILSMH organizations, the co-ordinating committee usually includes representatives from Ministries and from organizations of persons with disabilities. Representatives from other NGOs and from the private sector are not that often included in the co-ordinating committee. The same pattern prevails when compared with the NGOs in general, with minor differences in the percentage reported, except regarding the representation of other NGOs, where the percentage reported by ILSMH organizations is higher. There are no clear differences when compared with the responses provided by the governments, except regarding representation of the private sector.

Table 30 (Question 30)
Participation in policy-development

Involvement of the co-ordinating committee Frequency Valid Percent
Participation in policy development 26 89,7

No participation in policy-development 3 10,3

There is no co-ordinating committee 13 30,2

Total 42, No answer 4

Table 30 shows that 90% of the ILSMH 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 NGOs in general. There are no clear differences when compared with the percentages reported by the governments.

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

Involvement of the co-ordinating committee Frequency Valid Percent
Reporting performance of other tasks 14 53,8

Reporting no performance of other tasks 12 46,2

There is no co-ordinating committee 13 30,2

Total 39, No answer 7

54% of the NGOs are reporting that the committee is expected to perform other tasks. The percentage reported by the NGOs in general is 57,1. There are clear differences with the percentages reported by governments. ILSMH organizations report a lower percentage regarding the involvement of the co-ordinating committee in other tasks.

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

Effects Frequency Valid Percent
Improved co-ordination of programmes 14 53,8

Improved legislation 12 46,2

Improved integration of responsibility 10 38,5

Better dialogue in the disability field 15 57,7

More accurate planning 7 26,9

More effective use of resources 8 30,8

Improved promotion of public awareness 9 34,6

Too early for assessment 11 42,3

There is no co-ordinating committee 13 30,2

Total 39, No answer 7

According to the ILSMH organizations the establishment of the co-ordinating committee has had the following effects: a better dialogue in the disability field, improved co-ordination of programmes and improved legislation. 31% of the NGOs report that it is too early for an assessment regarding the effects of the co-ordinating committee, compared to 42% of the ILSMH organizations. When compared with the percentages reported by the governments, ILSMH organizations report a lower percentage regarding improved co-ordination of programmes, improved legislation, better dialogue in the disability field, more accurate planning and more effective use of resources. However, they report higher percentages than the governments concerning improved integration of responsibility and improved promotion of public awareness. More ILSMH organizations than governments are also indicating that it is too early for an assessment concerning the effects of the co-ordinating committee.

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

The effects of the Standard Rules Frequency Valid Percent
ILSMH organizations reporting rethinking 12 38,7

ILSMH organizations reporting no rethinking 18 58,1

Total 31, No answer 15

Table 33 shows that 39% of the ILSMH organizations are reporting that the adoption of the Standard Rules has led to a rethinking of the approach to disability policy while 58% report that this is not the case. The percentage reported by ILSMH organizations to no rethinking is much higher than NGOs in general. There are great differences compared to the percentages reported by the governments. As much as 81% of the governments report that the adoption of the Standard Rules has lead to a rethinking.

Conclusion
There are 8 questions in which a broad convergence of views exists between ILSMH organizations, the NGOs in general and the governments, namely the following: 2, 8, 9, 20, 25, 27, 28, 30.

There are a number of areas where divergent views exist between ILSMH organizations and governments. In these areas there are no divergent views between ILSMH organizations and NGOs in general. Divergence in views is at least three times more frequent between ILSMH organizations and governments than between ILSMH organizations and NGOs in general.

There are also a number of areas where divergent views exist between ILSMH organizations, NGOs in general and governments. Divergence is not occurring over the whole range of issues in these areas, but in most of them.

Contents of the ILSMH Report

National umbrella organization	Frequency	Valid Percent
There is a umbrella organization	32	72,7
There is no umbrella organization	12	27,3

Participation in policy-making	Frequency	Valid Percent
ILSMH organizations reporting participation	21	47,7
ILSMH organizations reporting no participation	23	52,3

Organizations are consulted:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Never	4	9,1
Sometimes	24	54,5
Often	12	27,3
Always	4	9,1

Level of consultations	Frequency	Valid Percent
National	36	92,3
Regional	12	30,8
Local	16	41,0

Kind of support	Frequency	Valid Percent
Financial	23	57,5
Organizational/logistic	13	32,5
No support at all	11	27,5

Areas of political and public life	Number of countries reporting participation
	Limited	Some	Great
Government	29	3	4
Legislatures	26	6	5
Judiciary	27	3	2
Political parties	20	5	7
NGO's	6	5	29

Areas in which organizations are involved	Frequency	Valid Percent
Advocating rights and improved services	39	88,6
Mobilize persons with disabilities	37	84,1
Identify needs and priorities	37	84,1
Participate in the planning, implementation	25	65,9
Contribute to public awareness	42	95,5
Provide services	29	65,9
Promote/organize income generating activities	29	65,9

Co-ordinating committee	Frequency	Valid Percent
There is a co-ordinating committee	30	69,8
There is no co-ordinating committee	13	30,2

The co-ordinating committee is reporting to:	Frequency	Valid Percent
A particular Ministry	20	71,4
The Prime Minister's office	4	14,3
Other	4	14,3
There is no co-ordinating committee	13	30,2

Representatives of:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Ministries	24	85,7
Organizations of persons with disabilities	26	92,9
Other NGO's	16	57,1
Private sector	6	21,4
There is no co-ordinating committee	13	30,2

Involvement of the co-ordinating committee	Frequency	Valid Percent
Participation in policy development	26	89,7
No participation in policy-development	3	10,3
There is no co-ordinating committee	13	30,2

Involvement of the co-ordinating committee	Frequency	Valid Percent
Reporting performance of other tasks	14	53,8
Reporting no performance of other tasks	12	46,2
There is no co-ordinating committee	13	30,2

Effects	Frequency	Valid Percent
Improved co-ordination of programmes	14	53,8
Improved legislation	12	46,2
Improved integration of responsibility	10	38,5
Better dialogue in the disability field	15	57,7
More accurate planning	7	26,9
More effective use of resources	8	30,8
Improved promotion of public awareness	9	34,6
Too early for assessment	11	42,3
There is no co-ordinating committee	13	30,2

The effects of the Standard Rules	Frequency	Valid Percent
ILSMH organizations reporting rethinking	12	38,7
ILSMH organizations reporting no rethinking	18	58,1