Rehabilitation International (RI) Reports on the UN Standard Rules

Government Implementation of the Standard Rules
As Seen By Member Organizations of
Rehabilitation International - RI

© 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 11 73,3

There is no umbrella organization 4 26,7

Total 15, No answer 0

As Table 20 shows, the majority of the RI organizations are reporting that there is an umbrella organization of organizations of persons with disabilities. Minor differences appear in the percentage reported, compared with those reported by the NGOs in general. There are no clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported by governments.

Table 21 (Question 21)
Participation in policy making

Participation in policy-making Frequency Valid Percent
RI organizations reporting participation 7 46,7

RI organizations reporting no participation 8 53,3

Total 15, No answer 0

As Table 21 shows, 53% of the RI organizations are reporting that no legal provisions exist mandating the representatives of persons with disabilities to participate in policy-making or to work with governmental institutions. There are only minor differences, compared with the percentage reported by the NGOs in general. There are clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported by governments. The RI 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 0 0,0

Sometimes 3 20,0

Often 6 40,0

Always 6 40,0

Total 15, No answer 0

Table 22 shows that a majority of the organizations reports that consultations often/always take place, while the percentage is 0 for the RI organizations 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. There are main differences in the percentages compared with NGOs in general. The RI organizations are reporting a higher percentage when consultations are often and always taking place. There are clear differences in the percentages reported by governments. The RI organizations report a higher percentage when consultations often take place.

Table 23 (Question 23)
Level of consultations

Level of consultations Frequency Valid Percent
National 15 100,0

Regional 8 53,3

Local 8 53,3

Total 15, No answer 0

Table 23 shows that consultations, when taking place always occur at the national level. Great differences appear in the percentage reported concerning the regional and local levels, when compared with the NGO's in general. The percentage reported by NGOs in general are lower. There are clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported by the governments. The RI organizations report a higher percentage concerning consultations on the national and regional level.

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

Kind of support Frequency Valid Percent
Financial 12 92,3

Organizational/logistic 2 15,4

No support at all 0 0,0

Total 13, No answer 2

The majority of the RI organizations are reporting that the government gives financial support to organizations of persons with disabilities. There are no RI organizations reporting that no support at all is given to organizations of persons with disabilities. None of the RI organizations report that support is not given to organizations of persons with disabilities. The pattern is the same, but there are differences, when compared with the percentage reported by the NGOs in general, namely regarding financial and organizational/logistic support, the RI organizations report higher percentages for the former and lower for the later. There are clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported by the governments. The RI organizations report higher percentages concerning financial support but lower ones concerning organizational/logistic support.

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 6 5 4

Legislatures 5 3 5

Judiciary 9 3 0

Political parties 6 6 0

NGO's 1 2 12

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

Table 25 shows, that the majority of the RI 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; no significant difference in the percentage. The same pattern emerges when compared with the responses from the governments.

Table 26 (Question 26)
The role of organizations

Areas in which organizations are involved Frequency Valid Percent
Advocating rights and improved services 14 93,3

Mobilize persons with disabilities 12 80,0

Identify needs and priorities 10 66,7

Participate in the planning, implementation 10 66,7

Contribute to public awareness 14 93,3

Provide services 14 93,3

Promote/organize income generating activities 10 66,7

Total 15, No answer 0

Table 26 shows, that according to the RI organizations, the organizations for persons with disabilities are foremost involved in: advocating rights and improved services, contributing to public awareness, providing services and mobilizing persons with disabilities. The RI organizations are reporting that the areas, in which these organizations are least involved, is: identifying needs and priorities, participating in the planning, implementing and evaluating services and measures concerning the lives of persons with disabilities, and promoting/organizing income generating activities. Nonetheless, the rates in all areas concerning organizations, the involvement are high implying that this group of NGOís apprehend their role to involve in a wide range of tasks. The pattern is the same as with NGOs in general. Although there are differences in the percentage reported concerning the role of organizations to identify needs and priorities and to promote/organize income generating activities. The percentages reported by the RI organizations concerning the former is lower, but concerning the latter higher. There are clear differences in two areas, when the percentages reported by governments are compared to those reported by the RI organizations. The RI organizations report a lower percentage regarding involvement to identify needs and priorities but a higher percentage concerning provision of services.

Co-ordination of Work

Table 27 (Question 27)
Co-ordinating committee

Co-ordinating committee Frequency Valid Percent
There is a co-ordinating committee 12 85,7

There is no co-ordinating committee 2 14,3

Total 14, No answer 1

Table 27 shows that the majority of the RI organizations are reporting the existence of a co-ordinating committee. Only 14% are reporting that there is no committee. There are differences in the percentage reported, when compared with NGOs in general. The RI organizations are reporting a higher percentage regarding the existence of a co-ordinating committee. The same pattern prevails when compared to governments. The RI organizations report a higher percentage of countries with a co-ordinating committee than 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 7 58,3

The Prime Minister's office 3 25,0

Other 2 16,7

There is no co-ordinating committee 2 14,3

Total 14, No answer 1

According to the RI organizations, the authority to which the co-ordinating committee is usually reporting, is the Ministry of Social Affairs or any other Ministry. There are differences in the percentage reported, when compared with NGOs in general. The RI organizations report a lower percentage regarding reports to Ministries and higher regarding reports to the Prime Ministerís office. There is a clear difference in the percentages reported, when compared with governments. The RI organizations report a lower percentage regarding co-ordinating committeesí reports to a particular Ministry.

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

Representatives of: Frequency Valid Percent
Ministries 12 100,0

Organizations of persons with disabilities 10 83,3

Other NGO's 7 58,3

Private sector 5 41,7

There is no co-ordinating committee 2 14,3

Total 14, No answer 1

According to the RI 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 so often included in the co-ordinating committee. The same pattern prevails, when compared with the NGOs in general, but there are differences in the percentage reported concerning the representation of other NGOs and from the private sector. There is only one difference, when compared with the percentages reported by governments. The RI organizations report a higher percentage concerning the representation of Ministries in the co-ordinating committees.

Table 30 (Question 30)
Participation in policy-development

Involvement of the co-ordinating committee Frequency Valid Percent
Participation in policy development 10 90,9

No participation in policy-development 1 9,1

There is no co-ordinating committee 2 14,3

Total 13, No answer 2

Table 30 shows that 91% of the RI 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 6 50,0

Reporting no performance of other tasks 6 50,0

There is no co-ordinating committee 2 14,3

Total 14, No answer 1

50% of the NGOs are reporting that the committee is expected to perform other tasks. The percentage reported by the NGOs in general is 57. There are clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported by the governments concerning involvement of the co-ordinating committees in other tasks. The RI organizations report considerably lower percentage.

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

Effects Frequency Valid Percent
Improved co-ordination of programmes 10 83,3

Improved legislation 9 75,0

Improved integration of responsibility 7 58,3

Better dialogue in the disability field 10 83,3

More accurate planning 8 66,7

More effective use of resources 5 41,7

Improved promotion of public awareness 8 66,7

Too early for assessment 1 8,3

There is no co-ordinating committee 2 14,3

Total 14, No answer 1

According to the RI organizations, the establishment of the co-ordinating committee has had the following effects: improved co-ordination of programmes and a better dialogue in the disability field. 8% of the RI organizations report that it is too early for an assessment regarding the effects of the co-ordinating committee. There are differences in the percentage reported, when compared with NGOs in general for all the effects listed above. There are clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported by the governments. The RI organizations report a higher percentage concerning the involvement of the co-ordinating committees in improvement of legislation and in the more accurate planning but a lower percentage regarding the more effective use of resources.

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

The effects of the Standard Rules Frequency Valid Percent
RI organizations reporting rethinking 7 58,3

RI organizations reporting no rethinking 4 33,3

Total 12, No answer 3

Table 33 shows that 58% of the RI organizations are reporting that the adoption of the Standard Rules has led to a rethinking of the approach to disability policy whereas 33% are reporting that it has not lead to a rethinking. The percentage reported by the RI organizations on the issue that the adoption of the Standard Rules has not led to a rethinking is much lower than that reported by the NGOs in general. There is a considerably lower percentage of RI organizations reporting a rethinking as an effect of the adoption of the Standard Rules than from the governments.

Conclusion
There are four questions in which a broad convergence of views exists between RI organizations, the NGOs in general and the governments, namely questions No 2, 20, 25 and 30. In none of the issues explored in these questions are there any divergent views between RI organizations, NGOs in general and governments.

There are a number of areas, where divergent views exist between RI organizations and governments. It is interesting to observe that the divergence in views is higher between RI organizations and NGOs in general than between RI organizations and governments.

There are also a number of areas, where divergent views exist between RI organizations, NGOs in general and governments. Divergence does not occur over the whole range of issues in these areas, but in most of them. The areas, where the divergence in views is most apparent, include the civil and political rights of persons with disabilities, the economic and social rights of persons with disabilities, the measures taken by the governments in order to facilitate accessibility in the built environment, the obstacles reported to facilitate accessibility in the built environment, the participation in political and public life, the effects of the establishment of the co-ordinating committee and the effects of the adoption of the Standard Rules.

Contents of the RI Report

National umbrella organization	Frequency	Valid Percent
There is a umbrella organization	11	73,3
There is no umbrella organization	4	26,7

Participation in policy-making	Frequency	Valid Percent
RI organizations reporting participation	7	46,7
RI organizations reporting no participation	8	53,3

Organizations are consulted:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Never	0	0,0
Sometimes	3	20,0
Often	6	40,0
Always	6	40,0

Level of consultations	Frequency	Valid Percent
National	15	100,0
Regional	8	53,3
Local	8	53,3

Kind of support	Frequency	Valid Percent
Financial	12	92,3
Organizational/logistic	2	15,4
No support at all	0	0,0

Areas of political and public life	Number of countries reporting participation
	Limited	Some	Great
Government	6	5	4
Legislatures	5	3	5
Judiciary	9	3	0
Political parties	6	6	0
NGO's	1	2	12

Areas in which organizations are involved	Frequency	Valid Percent
Advocating rights and improved services	14	93,3
Mobilize persons with disabilities	12	80,0
Identify needs and priorities	10	66,7
Participate in the planning, implementation	10	66,7
Contribute to public awareness	14	93,3
Provide services	14	93,3
Promote/organize income generating activities	10	66,7

Co-ordinating committee	Frequency	Valid Percent
There is a co-ordinating committee	12	85,7
There is no co-ordinating committee	2	14,3

The co-ordinating committee is reporting to:	Frequency	Valid Percent
A particular Ministry	7	58,3
The Prime Minister's office	3	25,0
Other	2	16,7
There is no co-ordinating committee	2	14,3

Representatives of:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Ministries	12	100,0
Organizations of persons with disabilities	10	83,3
Other NGO's	7	58,3
Private sector	5	41,7
There is no co-ordinating committee	2	14,3

Involvement of the co-ordinating committee	Frequency	Valid Percent
Participation in policy development	10	90,9
No participation in policy-development	1	9,1
There is no co-ordinating committee	2	14,3

Involvement of the co-ordinating committee	Frequency	Valid Percent
Reporting performance of other tasks	6	50,0
Reporting no performance of other tasks	6	50,0
There is no co-ordinating committee	2	14,3

Effects	Frequency	Valid Percent
Improved co-ordination of programmes	10	83,3
Improved legislation	9	75,0
Improved integration of responsibility	7	58,3
Better dialogue in the disability field	10	83,3
More accurate planning	8	66,7
More effective use of resources	5	41,7
Improved promotion of public awareness	8	66,7
Too early for assessment	1	8,3
There is no co-ordinating committee	2	14,3

The effects of the Standard Rules	Frequency	Valid Percent
RI organizations reporting rethinking	7	58,3
RI organizations reporting no rethinking	4	33,3