Disability KaR Programme (2003-2005),

Lessons from the
Disability Knowledge
and Research
Programme

Disability K R
Knowledge and Research

Lessons from the Disability Knowledge and
Research (KaR) Programme

Contents
1. Overview of the Programme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. What is disability? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3. Disability and poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4. Disability and the Millennium Development Goals . . . . . . . . 13

5. Mainstreaming disability in development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

6. Disability and the new aid instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

7. Disability, education and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

8. Disability research: breaking the mould . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

9. Engaging with disabled people’s organisations in
development cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
10. DFID and disability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

About this publication
This publication summarises the findings and broader ‘lessons learned’ from
the second phase of the Disability KaR Programme (2003–2005), managed by
the Overseas Development Group at the University of East Anglia and
Healthlink Worldwide. This phase of the Programme developed a strong focus
on mainstreaming disability in development, saw partnerships grow between
organisations in developed and developing countries, and saw disabled people
taking a lead in research.
Each section of this publication is designed to stand alone or be read in
conjunction with the other sections. Research papers and reports produced
by or for the Disability KaR Programme are referenced throughout, with a
letter and a number (e.g. Ref. B3). These correspond to the references listed
in pages 41-42, where you will find the full details. The papers and reports
themselves appear on the CD-ROM at the back of this publication.

Acknowledgements
Author: Bill Albert
Editing, design and production: Georgina Kyriacou
Planning: Bernard Trude and Philippa Thomas
Programme Director: Mark Harrison

Overview of the
1 Programme
Introduction

The Disability Knowledge and Research Programme (Disability KaR), funded by
the UK’s Department for International Development (DFID), is one of the most
ambitious, wide-ranging and innovative projects on disability and development
ever carried out.
In 2000 the Knowledge and Research Programme on Disability and
Healthcare Technology was launched and ran until 2003. A budget of £1.2
million was spread over 20 projects.1 An evaluation report commissioned in
2002 recommended that a second phase focus less on healthcare technology
and more on disability as a human rights issue in development.
Although a number of healthcare technology projects continued to be
supported, the main emphasis of Disability KaR Phase II 2 shifted to issues to
do with disability, poverty and development. With this change came the more
direct involvement of disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) in both the UK
and the ‘South’, or developing countries.
This section introduces this ‘lessons learned’ publication, outlining the main
components of the second phase of the Disability KaR Programme and a few of
its more significant outputs.

Competition projects

Photo: Motivation
Six projects took place in this phase of the
Programme, having bid successfully in a competitive
process at the end of the first phase. Their focus
was on sustainable new technologies that combat
the detrimental effects of disability on the lives of
poor people in developing countries.3 The largest
single proportion of the Programme budget (38%)
was allocated to these projects, which were:
● Low-cost technologies for accessible
One of Motivation’s new wheelchair
information on public transport
designs, developed with Disability
● Dissemination of a series of practical health KaR funding
care technology management procedure guides
● Development and sharing of wheelchair design knowledge in Africa
(see photo)
● Improving access to disability information
● Developing membership recording, tracking and management systems
for disability organisations
● Research into health information systems, processes and technologies

www.disabilitykar.net 1

Overview of the Programme

The Policy Project

A Disability Policy Officer was appointed, which was pivotal to the entire
Programme. The post provided expert technical policy analysis and support to
DFID on disability issues, while ensuring that the other parts of the Programme
were responsive to DFID’s needs.
The Officer’s first task was a detailed mapping of DFID and disability issues,
the report of which (Ref. A3) concluded that although there were scattered
disability initiatives, disability had not been mainstreamed within the
Department. This finding corresponded with that of another report
commissioned by the Programme at around the same time: Disability KaR:
assessing connections to DFID’s poverty agenda (Ref. A2). Subsequently the
mainstreaming of disability became a central concern of the entire Programme
and underpinned the Policy Officer’s three country-level research reports on
disability and development in Rwanda, Cambodia and India.
A final report by the Policy Officer, Disability, poverty and the Millennium
Development Goals: relevance, challenges and opportunities for DFID (Ref. A7),
brought together all this work as well as findings from other parts of Disability
KaR in a comprehensive set of recommendations on the way forward for DFID
on disability.

The roundtables

Three roundtable discussion forums, held in Malawi, Cambodia and India, were
organised by Healthlink Worldwide and a national DPO or disability organisation
in each country. They were preceded and followed by an electronic discussion
forum which have gave participants the opportunity to develop ideas to discuss
at the meetings and keep the discussions alive after the events.
The overall aim was to share learning and research about the relationship
between disability and poverty, and mainstreaming disability in development.
The meetings provided an opportunity for decision makers to learn from
disabled people, DPOs and organisations and institutions working on disability
in the South. Participants also came up with practical ideas for taking forward a
disability agenda. For example, the Malawi roundtable (Disability, poverty and
the Millennium Development Goals) developed guidelines for research as well
as a list of priority research topics on disability and development. These then
fed directly into the Disability KaR commissioned research projects. In India the
roundtable (Mainstreaming disability in development) set in motion an
international campaign to get disability included when the Millennium
Development Goals are reviewed in September 2005. Finally, the roundtable in
Cambodia (Mainstreaming disability in practice: the case of inclusive education)
came up with a series of recommendations and action plans for taking forward
inclusive education.
Full reports of each roundtable and their outputs can be found at:
www.disabilitykar.net/roundtables.rt_intro.html.

Commissioned research

A number of specified research projects were part of the initial contract for the
Disability KaR Programme, Phase II. These included substantive studies on



poverty, disability and development and a comparative analysis of disability and
gender mainstreaming. There were also briefing notes prepared on the social
model of disability and the disability policies of national and international
development agencies.
After the UK disability movement became more directly engaged in Disability
KaR, and supported by the Programme Advisory Group (PAG), in which disabled
people were in the majority, a new research agenda was formulated. This was
firmly rooted in the research priorities and modalities of Southern DPOs, as
expressed at the Malawi roundtable. It resulted in the production of seven
short-term but ambitious projects, all of which were characterised by
collaborative working between disabled people in the North and South and the
active involvement of Southern DPOs. Reports were delivered on the following
subjects (Refs D1-7):
● Research gaps on the topic of disability and development
● Disability policy and legislation
● Mainstreaming disability in development cooperation
● Whether disabled people’s voices are being heard in the development
process
● The collection and use by disabled people of statistical data
● Inclusive education in Asia and Africa
● Disabled people in conflict and emergency situations

A further four research projects were commissioned by the Policy Officer. The
first three of these were carried out by disabled researchers in the South and
the fourth involved disabled people in every aspect of the work. These projects
(Refs B1-4) looked at:
● Capacity building of disabled people’s organisations in Mozambique
● The role and effectiveness of disability legislation in South Africa
● Participation of disabled people in the PRSP/PEAP process in Uganda
● Developing participatory rural appraisal approaches with disabled
people in Cambodia

Training course on mainstreaming disability in development

A two-week training course was held at the University of East Anglia, UK, which
brought together leaders from the disability movements in Kenya, Fiji, Namibia,
Bangladesh, Cameroon, Cambodia, the Netherlands and Malawi, as well as
those working for international non-government organisations in Uganda and
Bolivia. All aspects of mainstreaming disability were explored, practical tools
and guidelines were developed and participants devised action plans to take
forward what they had learned.

Communication strategy

Healthlink Worldwide produced a communication strategy for the Programme.
The aim was to disseminate information, knowledge and research generated by
Disability KaR, as well as to encourage dialogue between the Programme and
other national, regional and international programmes, projects, institutions and
organisations with an interest in disability. By drawing on the Disability KaR



research findings and the outcomes of the three roundtables, it promoted
practical ways of mainstreaming disability and highlighted best practice
techniques and strategies.

Conclusion

The Disability KaR newsletter (‘DisabilityKaReport’5), produced by Healthlink
Worldwide, has helped to make an international audience aware of what the
Programme was doing, but neither it nor this section can do justice to the
richness and variety of the activities carried out under the second phase of
Disability KaR.
The face-to-face events, including the roundtables and training events, brought
together representatives of DPOs and others not only to share experiences and
formulate new ideas but also to put those ideas into action. The Policy Project
made a major impact within DFID and helped initiate a more informed and
purposeful disability agenda within the Department. Finally, the scope and
quality of the research carried out under Disability KaR is truly remarkable, as
is the fact that it drew on a novel emancipatory approach, was for the most
part carried out by disabled people, and was informed by the basic unifying
notion of disability as a fundamental human rights issue.

Notes
1. See www.kar-dht.org/index.html for more information
2. The second phase received £1.4million for two years from September 2003
and was managed by the Overseas Development Group at the University of
East Anglia (UEA) and Healthlink Worldwide
3. For project details, see www.disabilitykar.net/projects/projectintro.html
4. Available at www.disabilitykar.net/karreport/karintro.html

Note about references
The reference numbers (‘Ref. X’) that appear after the names of the papers
cited in this section correspond to the references listed in pages 41-42,
where you will find the full details. They are all papers and reports produced
by or for the Disability KaR Programme. The papers and reports themselves
appear on the CD-ROM that comes with this publication.


2 What is disability?
Introduction

It might appear surprising that something apparently as obvious as the
meaning of disability should excite controversy. Nonetheless, for many years
this question has been the subject of passionate debate. These debates are
directly addressed in two Disability KaR projects (cited below) and figure in one
way or another throughout all the work done under the Programme. The aim of
this section is to outline the findings and to consider why the arguments are
important for shaping policies and practices concerned with disability issues in
developing countries.

Medical understanding

What most often passes for a ‘common sense’ understanding of disability is
that it is what ‘is wrong’ with someone. So, ‘disabilities’ would include
blindness, deafness, the various conditions that make it difficult or impossible
to walk or to speak, mental illnesses and such things as Down’s Syndrome and
epilepsy.
Those viewing disability through this medical lens concede that it is
unfortunate that many disabled people face social exclusion or poverty but
these are seen as the result of the natural functional limitations imposed by
their ‘disabilities’. Furthermore, as the problem is primarily medical, solutions
are generally given over to various caring professionals either to cure,
rehabilitate or to protect the individual with a disability. In disability and
development these processes usually take place within a charitable context.

Social understanding

‘As an individual, I don’t have any regret but others underestimate me, they
keep reminding me of what I cannot do.’ Young man who had polio,
training to be a horticulturalist in India (Ref. A7)

The international disability movement (as represented by disabled people’s
organisations – DPOs) has offered a radical alternative to the medical
conception of disability by asserting that people are disadvantaged not by their
impairments, but as a result of the limitations imposed on them by attitudinal,
social, cultural, economic, and environmental barriers to their participation in
society. Rejecting the idea of abnormality, although not the importance of
medical intervention or impairment prevention, this ‘social model’
understanding points to the normality of impairment within any population.


What is disability?

What is not normal, it is argued, is being discriminated against and socially
excluded because of having an impairment. This is what is disabling.

Nothing about us without us!

In the Disability KaR paper The social model of disability, human rights
and development (Ref. C1) it is argued that by seeing impairment as an
ordinary part of life, and disability as the result of discrimination and exclusion,
the social model underpins efforts to move disability from the medicalised,
‘special needs’ ghetto and into the mainstream of development policies and
practices.

‘International Development Targets can only be achieved with the
engagement of poor people in the decisions and processes which affect
their lives. Human rights are a central part of work to achieve the
International Development Targets because they provide a means of
empowering all people to make effective decisions about their own lives.’
DFID, Realising human rights for poor people, 2001

The social model has also promoted the idea that disabled people should be
actors in their own lives, rather than passive recipients of care or charity. This
equates almost exactly to current thinking on a human rights-based approach
to development, increasingly adopted by government and international
development agencies throughout the world. This is explored in the Disability
KaR paper, Disability and a human rights approach to development (Ref. C4).
The Disability KaR Programme exemplifies this approach. When disabled people
were brought in to manage the Programme, active engagement with Southern
DPOs increased. This resulted in a quantum shift in the quality and depth of
understanding of disability. The research clearly reflects this.
By projecting disabled people into a leading role in defining and controlling
their lives, the social model also offers a powerful device for the liberation of
those who remain the poorest of the poor in all countries, both developed and
developing.
The model is so powerful because it illuminates the fact that the roots of
poverty and powerlessness do not to reside in biology but in society. The
former is, for most disabled people, immutable; the latter, through collective
action, can be transformed. A human rights approach to development offers
both the platform for such societal transformation and a way for disabled
people to transform their sense of who they are – from stigmatised objects of
care to valued subjects of their own lives. For people who are poor and
oppressed this is a key starting point of any meaningful process of social and
economic development.

Lessons from gender and development

In the Disability KaR paper Mainstreaming disability in development: Lessons
from gender mainstreaming (Ref. C3) it is argued that a social-model conception
of disability provides a clear parallel with the Gender and Development
paradigm in terms of understanding disability as socially constructed, as


What is disability?

resulting from barriers to equal access, as well as from the reality of unequal
power relationships across the entire spectrum of development work from
policy to practice. As with gender, seeing disability in this way is fundamental to
devising effective strategies to tackle the disabling consequences of
discrimination and social exclusion.

Trying to capture an illusive concept

Although a social-model conception has helped to change the emphasis of
development interventions, uncertainty remains when the term ‘disability’ is
used, as it is often applied to ‘impairment’, rather than the process of
becoming disabled. This is due partly to the dogged persistence of
stereotypical assumptions about disability and partly to the different realms
(i.e. social welfare, health, impairment prevention) in which the concept is
applied. Also, because disability is socially constructed, it has been difficult to
capture in a way that allows simple cross-cultural comparisons. This has made
international agreement on meaning virtually impossible and, therefore, has
undermined attempts to collect uniform statistical information.
Recently the World Health Organization devised new guidelines (the ICF –
International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health) in an attempt
to both overcome some of the aforesaid difficulties, and to harmonise the
competing models outlined above.
The ICF takes into account the complicated interrelationships between health
conditions, personal aspects and negative environmental (in the broadest
sense) factors that, it claims, determine the extent of disablement in any given
situation. Although it has been widely seen as a definition, the ICF is more of a
framework for making different assessments of disability for different purposes.
The new ICF has been accepted by the World Bank and many other key
development organisations and seems set to become the gold standard for
understanding and measuring the extent of disability. However, as pointed out
in the Disability KaR paper Is disability really on the development agenda? (Ref.
C2), critics have argued that the ICF represents little more than medical model
thinking clothed in social model language, particularly as many professionals
continue to pay little attention to environmental impacts and focus instead on
impairments.
Nonetheless, it is claimed in the ICF that it ‘… provides an appropriate
instrument for the implementation of stated international human rights
mandates as well as national legislation.’ It remains to be seen whether it will
be used in a way that is helpful in the practical business of designing
mainstream development policies and practices that break with traditional
medical approaches, challenge accepted power relations and seek to promote
human rights by bringing disabled people into the heart of their societies.
The question raised above is tackled in the Disability KaR report on data and
statistics (Ref. D5). Researchers working with DPOs in Southern Africa on
assessing the living conditions of disabled people have in previous studies
attempted to operationalise the terminology in the ICF and apply a disability
concept that is founded on activity limitations and restrictions in social
participation. Their research under Disability KaR was aimed at exploring the
mechanisms needed to ensure how these findings can be used in the best
interests of disabled people.


What is disability?

Conclusions

Despite the existence of the ICF, disability continues to be a deeply contested
concept. The variety of cultural settings in which it is defined and the different
purposes to which such definitions are put would be enough to insure this is
true. Added to this is the fact that disability, widely recognised as being the
result of systematic discrimination, raises difficult and often uncomfortable
personal, social and political questions.

So what is disability?

Disagreements over the answer to this question will continue. However, all the
work done under the Disability KaR Programme has adopted, in one form or
another, a social model understanding of disability as a starting point. This is
not only consistent with what the international disability movement has been
arguing for decades, but also with the stated policies of an increasing number
of multi- and bi-lateral development agencies.



3 Disability and poverty
Introduction

For decades the international disability movement has been saying that
disability is a cause of poverty, that poverty often leads to disability and that
disabled people are among the poorest of the poor in any country. However, it
is only recently that a solid platform has been found from which to advance this
argument. This has come about through the promotion of the UN’s Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs), which have prioritised poverty reduction in
developing countries, and the establishment by the World Bank and
International Monetary Fund of various new aid instruments and procedures,
also built ostensibly around reducing poverty.
Unfortunately, those who constructed this platform did so without making
disability part of the framework. Disability is not, for example, explicitly
mentioned in any of the eight MDGs or the documentation for the new aid
instruments or procedures (see Section 3). It has been left to disabled people’s
organisations (DPOs) and their allies to campaign to get disability onto the
development/poverty agenda.
This process is ongoing and has been considerably facilitated by the World
Bank, whose former president was an outspoken disability champion. In 2002
a Disability and Development Team was set up at the Bank. Its members have
been proactive in supporting research into disability and poverty and finding
ways to get DPOs more involved in Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, one of
the main new aid instruments (see section 5). They have also been pushing
hard to get the tackling of disability issues recognised as essential for
achieving almost all of the MDGs.

‘… disabled people are also more likely than other people to live in grinding
poverty. More than 1.3 billion people worldwide struggle to exist on less than
[US]$1 a day, and the disabled in their countries live at the bottom of the
pile.’ James D. Wolfensohn, former president of the World Bank, 2002

The links between poverty and disability figured prominently in the Disability
Knowledge and Research Programme. They were a priority issue in all of the many
reports by the Disability Policy Officer and the subject of one of the Programme’s
major research projects.

Disability and poverty: trying to capture illusive concepts

Although the various connections between disability and poverty might appear
to be relatively straightforward, the Disability KaR paper Disability, poverty and
the ‘new’ development agenda (Ref. C5), has argued that the linkages are in
fact deceptively complicated. The hard statistical evidence is also limited and


Disability and poverty

very sketchy. The report poses some fundamental questions about how the two
concepts of disability and poverty are understood and what that understanding
means in terms of an analysis of their convoluted interrelationship.
The researchers point out that disability and poverty are highly contested
political concepts. Furthermore, because different meanings are used, and there
is insufficient care taken to recognise this, commentators are often at cross
purposes when debating the issues. For example, disability and impairment are
frequently conflated: the latter is confused with how a person with an
impairment becomes disabled through complex social processes. As discussed
in the Disability KaR paper Data and statistics on disability in developing
countries (Ref. D5), this definitional problem is compounded by statistical
surveys which invariably fail to ‘… detach the issue of disability prevalence from
an impairment-based approach to disability.’ Poverty too throws up similar, and in
many respects more multifaceted, uncertainties of meaning.

Why are so many disabled people poor? Why are so many poor
people disabled?

Bearing in mind the points made above,

Photo: Philippa Thomas/Healthlink Worldwide
the Programme’s Policy Officer’s country
reports on Rwanda, Cambodia and India
(Refs A4-6) provide excellent case
studies of the social factors that make it
more likely that poor people will contract
impairments and why people with
impairments are likely to become or
remain poor.
Disabled people struggle to find
employment in all three countries.
Having a physical impairment makes it
difficult to work in the agricultural sector,
which dominates in all the economies. Mine field warning, Cambodia
Vocational training opportunities are
limited, tend to be in urban areas and are not generally linked to gainful
employment. Because they are seen as presenting a high risk, disabled people
are also usually denied access to micro-credit schemes.
It was found that in Cambodia poor people tend to live near areas that had
been mined, are forced to use more risky means of transport, have more
dangerous jobs and cannot access health care so that minor illness or injury
can become more permanent impairments. Malnutrition, which makes having
a whole range of impairments more likely, is also closely associated with
being poor.
However, another Disability KaR report from Cambodia, Developing
participatory rural appraisal approaches with disabled people (Ref. B3), found
that ‘…the highest disability (impairment) prevalence rate appears to be in the
least isolated village with the best social and economic opportunities, which
raised questions about the links between poverty and disability.’ This mirrors
the way that the prevalence of impairment is significantly higher in the more
economically privileged countries of the North and highlights how complex the
poverty-disability-poverty question really is.


Disability and poverty

Disability and social exclusion

The prevention of impairment, through mine clearance, inoculation, better
health care and/or nutrition, is vital in developing countries, but needs to be
clearly distinguished from interventions aimed at combating the social
exclusion and denial of human rights that disable people with impairments.

‘Rwandan society places little value on disabled people; they are seen as
useless and incapable and are stigmatised and discriminated against.’
Country-level research – Rwanda country report (Ref. A5)

The reality and extent of the social exclusion of disabled people is brought
out starkly in the three country reports mentioned above, as well as the Policy
Officer’s final report, Disability, poverty and the Millennium Development Goals
(Ref. A7).

Conclusion

On this and related topics, the Disability KaR Programme’s research has
provided ample evidence of the interconnected and multi-layered symbiotic
relationship between poverty, impairment and disability. This is succinctly
summed up in the report Disability, poverty and the Millennium Development
Goals (Ref. A7):
● Disabled people are typically among the very poorest, they experience
poverty more intensely and have fewer opportunities to escape poverty
than non-disabled people.
● Disabled people are largely invisible, are ignored and excluded from
mainstream development.
● Disability cuts across all societies and groups. The poorest and most
marginalised are at the greatest risk of disability. Within the poorest
and most marginalised, disabled women, disabled ethnic minorities,
disabled members of scheduled castes and tribes, and so on will be
the most excluded.
● DFID cannot be said to be working effectively to reduce poverty and
tackle social exclusion unless it makes specific efforts to address
disability issues.



Disability and
4 the Millennium
Development Goals
Introduction

Disability is not mentioned in any of the eight Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs), the 18 targets set out to achieve these goals, or the 48 indicators for
monitoring their progress. Nonetheless, the former president of the World Bank,
James Wolfensohn, has said that ‘Unless disabled people are brought into the
development mainstream, it will be impossible to cut poverty in half by 2015 or
to give every girl and boy the chance to achieve a primary education by the
same date – goals agreed to by more than 180 world leaders at the United
Nations Millennium Summit in September 2000.’ This statement is often
reproduced by disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) and their allies when
lobbying, but it seems to carry little real weight. Disability continues to be large-
ly ignored as an MDG issue.
With respect to DFID, this lack of attention to disability in relation to the
MDGs is brought to light in the Disability KaR paper Disability KaR: assessing
connections to DFID’s poverty agenda (Ref. A2), and in the Programme Policy
Officer’s disability mapping exercise, DFID and disability (Ref. A3). The question
of disability and the MDGs is also referred to in a number of the Programme’s
research reports, was the central focus for the first Disability KaR roundtable in
Malawi (see page 2), was a key action point at the second roundtable in India
and a major question in the Policy Officer’s final report, Disability, poverty and
the Millennium Development Goals (Ref. A7).
This section outlines why the MDGs are so important for disability and
development, why an explicit disability dimension is vital for achieving the MDGs
and how the work carried out under the Disability KaR Programme has helped to
highlight both of these points and taken the debate forward into action.

The importance of including disability in the MDGs

The exclusion of disability is grievous because the policies of most multi-lateral
and bi-lateral development agencies (except USAID) are geared to a greater of
lesser extent, to reaching the MDGs. The lack of explicit reference in the MDGs
makes it easy for disability to become either peripheral to or to fall entirely off
the policy agenda.
For example, when asked why disability seemed to have such a low profile at
DFID, staff pointed to the department’s policy focus on the MDGs and the fact
that disability had not been identified as a key concern (reported in Refs A3
and D7). Disability is therefore not mentioned in the two MDG-focused White


Disability and the Millennium Development Goals

Papers which inform policy or the Public Service Agreement which details
DFID’s aims and objectives.

‘In the South Asian context the MDGs look like stars and moon up in the
sky. Most of the goals in the past have failed to move beyond mere catchy
slogans. Education for All, Health for All, Hunger Free Society are mere
slogans. One of the reasons is [that] these goals still need to come from the
heart of local policy makers. Are they really committed? Do they see people
as valued human beings rather than mere targets and beneficiaries?
Absence of political will is the single most important problem…’ Indumathi
Rao, message on the Disability KaR e-forum

At the Disability KaR

Photo: Healthlink Worldwide
roundtable in Malawi the
participants made some
apparently contradictory
discoveries. DPOs were
not very knowledgeable
about the MDGs and the
disabled people they
represented were often
completely unaware of
them. However, by
getting together to
discuss the issues they
soon found out that
much of their work, and At the Malawi roundtable participants examined their
that of some international knowledge of the Millennium Development Goals
non-governmental
organisations was in fact contributing to the achievement of certain MDGs.
Roundtable participants decided that donors and governments must be made
aware of exactly why ignoring disabled people would undermine efforts to
attain the MDGs and of what was already being done by DPOs and others.
This was set out in goal-by-goal detail at the roundtable, and this, together
with other Programme findings, is brought together in the Policy Officer’s final
report (Ref. A7).
Below six MDGs of relevance (out of the total of eight) are briefly discussed
with respect to disability issues.

MDG 1 Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
Disability and poverty are mutually reinforcing and disabled people and their
families represent a very substantial proportion of the poor, especially the
extremely poor.
MDG 2 Achieve universal primary education
This is the only absolute goal and with 98% of disabled children in developing
countries not in school it will be impossible to achieve unless they are explicitly
brought into the equation.
MDG 3 Promote gender equality and empower women
Disabled women and girls face a complex and layered experience of


Disability and the Millennium Development Goals

discrimination and disadvantage. The target of eliminating gender inequality in
all levels of education by 2015 will not be reached without considering
disability.
MDG 4 Reduce child mortality
In the developing world mortality for disabled children under five can be as high
as 80%.
MDG 5 Improve maternal health
Disabling impairments associated with pregnancy and childbirth affect up to 20
million women a year.
MDG 6 Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
Disabled people are particularly vulnerable to these diseases, which are also a
major cause of disabling impairments.

Conclusions

Even if the MDGs represent little more than another set of empty promises, as
many critics have claimed, it is clear that to get a foothold on the international
development agenda and into donor policies and practices, disability needs to
find its place within them. Furthermore, unless disability is included, the
prospects for achieving these goals will be substantially diminished.
Arriving at this conclusion, participants at the second Disability KaR
roundtable in India, set in motion an action plan to lobby the United Nations
and other agencies to get disability recognised within the MDGs. A petition to
that effect has been drawn up and an international campaign is in progress to
bring the issue to the attention of the five-year review of the MDGs to be held
by the UN in September 2005.



Mainstreaming disability
5 in development
Introduction

Mainstreaming disability into development has been the overarching theme of
the Disability KaR Programme. This focus was recommended in the first report
commissioned for the Programme (Ref. A2). Subsequently, mainstreaming has
been the subject of two research papers, three reports, the main topic for two
of the Programme’s roundtables (see page 2), as well as the primary focus of
the Policy Officer’s work, including her three country research reports. This
section considers why mainstreaming is of such importance and looks at some
of the most significant findings.

What is disability
mainstreaming?

The concept of disability
mainstreaming is not clearly
defined in most writing on the
subject. In fact, at the Disability
KaR roundtable in India
participants could not agree on
whether inclusion was the
outcome of mainstreaming or
whether mainstreaming flowed
from inclusion. The India roundtable debated whether inclusion was the
However, the definition below, outcome of mainstreaming or vice versa
adopted in the Disability KaR
paper Mainstreaming disability in development: lessons from gender
mainstreaming (Ref. C3), while not totally uncontested, can be said to be broadly
applicable across the entire range of the Programme’s outputs. It is derived
from the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) definition of gender
mainstreaming and in that arena has found broad international consensus.

‘Mainstreaming disability into development cooperation is the process of
assessing the implications for disabled people of any planned action,
including legislation, policies and programmes, in all areas and at all levels.
It is a strategy for making disabled people’s concerns and experiences an
integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation
of policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres
so that disabled people benefit equally and inequality is not perpetuated.
The ultimate goal is to achieve disability equality.’ (Ref. C3)


Mainstreaming disability in development

Disability equality, like gender equality, is a vital outcome with respect to
disabled people realising their human rights. A human rights approach has, in
turn, been identified by many agencies, including DFID, as what is required to
combat poverty in the developing world.
The constraints on disability mainstreaming vary considerably depending on
how and where implementation is attempted. Work coming out of Disability KaR
has focused for example on mainstreaming in education, in government policy
and in the policies of bi-lateral and multi-lateral development agencies. The first
is looked at in section 7 on education, while the second two are outlined below.

Mainstreaming disability at the level of the state

The mainstreaming of disability in government policy and practice has been the
key demand of the international disability movement for decades. It also the
central plank in the UN’s Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities
for Persons with Disabilities (1996). But, as of yet, nowhere in either the North
or the South has mainstreaming happened. The Disability KaR country reports
on Cambodia, Rwanda and India (Refs A4-6) show that although some slight
progress has been made, particularly with respect to education, in all these
countries disabled people remain almost totally divorced from the social,
economic and political mainstream.
But evidence from the Programme (Ref. D7 and report on India roundtable)
shows that the mainstreaming of disability issues by their governments
continues to be seen by disabled peoples organisations (DPOs) in India,
Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Zambia and Malawi as the key
strategy for achieving equality.

‘Mainstreaming is about disabled people participating at all levels of society
according to his/her choice without facing any barrier. Disabled people will
live with dignity in the society where there would be no obstacle, and walls
for inclusion and… will able to establish/enjoy their rights and give their
opinions.’ DPOs in Bangladesh at workshop on mainstreaming (Research
gap analysis report for DFID – Ref D1)

However, even where disability mainstreaming policies have been developed,
the results have been disappointing. For example, in the Disability KaR report
The role and effectiveness of disability legislation in South Africa (Ref. B1), it is
shown that the country has perhaps the most comprehensive legislation and
policy framework for fully integrating disabled people of any country in the
world. Nonetheless, its author says that ‘...with the exception of a few policies
such as the Social Assistance Act, the implementation of these policies has
had marginal impact on the lives of a majority of disabled people in South
Africa.’

Mainstreaming disability in development cooperation

There has been an impressive catalogue of policy initiatives around disability
mainstreaming in development cooperation. The US Agency for International
Development (USAID) took the lead in 1996 and was followed a few years later



by DFID and the Nordic development agencies. A casual reading would suggest
that disability had finally broken through and was now on the development
agenda.
In the Disability KaR paper Is disability really on the development agenda?
(Ref. C2) it is shown that even the most progressive disability policies have not
been implemented. It was this disconnection between promise and results
which led to more detailed research presented in the Disability KaR report Has
disability been mainstreamed into development cooperation? (Ref. D7). This
found that of all the many development agencies only USAID was beginning to
implement a comprehensive strategy of mainstreaming disability. Elsewhere, for
example at the World Bank, disability had become much more prominent, but
had yet to make a substantive impact on the Bank’s core policies or practices.
At DFID too, despite the impressive issues paper Disability, poverty and
development (2000), which contained proposals for mainstreaming disability, a
mapping report (Ref. A3) by the Disability KaR Policy Officer concluded that
although there were some significant disability projects, mainstreaming had not
been implemented in the department.

‘The challenge of mainstreaming disability should not be underestimated.
DFID has not lived up to the expectations that were created with the
publication of the Issues paper, but research for this report reveals that there
are considerable internal and external opportunities for DFID to move
forward on this to once again take the lead among development agencies.’
DFID and disability (Ref. A3)

Conclusions

Mainstreaming, whether in the policies of governments or development
agencies, is too often viewed as simply a question of ensuring the inclusion
of disabled people. There are similarities here to the debates over the Women
in Development (WID) approach which was an attempt to give women a role
within existing development initiatives. The problem with the latter was that it
did not consider why or how women had been systematically excluded in the
first place.
There is a danger of the same thing happening in the process of partially
institutionalising disability. Here, de-politicised and technocratic approaches
tend to be favoured by bureaucrats and the cutting-edge issues implicit in the
UNDP-adapted definition of disability mainstreaming, especially to do with
institutional discrimination, unequal power relations and the denial of human
rights, are too readily forgotten.
It is understandable that the culture and practices of institutions or states
cannot be transformed at a stroke, but the challenge for governments and
development agencies is to begin the journey by bringing disabled people into
the development tent as equal partners. The work done under the Disability
KaR Programme provides ample evidence of why this is needed. It has also
offered many examples of how it can be done.
The challenge for DPOs and their allies is to realise that after many years of
hard campaigning they have finally got the attention of those in power. Now is



the time to hold that attention and keep up the pressure to get disability
mainstreamed into the development agenda in a way that makes a real
difference to the lives of disabled people.



Disability and the new
6 aid instruments
Introduction

For the last few years Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSP) together with
associated aid instruments have been the main multi-lateral mechanisms for
providing debt relief and, therefore, development aid, to the world’s poorest
countries. They also have a major influence on domestic economic and social
policies as well as budgets. Unfortunately, disability issues have, on the whole,
been ill served by these new procedures.
How to address this problem and move disability onto this new aid agenda
was a primary concern of the first two reports produced under the Disability
KaR Programme (Refs A2 and A3). Subsequently, it was identified as a major
question by disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) meeting at the Disability
KaR Malawi roundtable (see page 2). As a result, the Programme
commissioned a special report on the participation of DPOs in the PRSP
process in Uganda. Other Disability KaR studies looking at disability
mainstreaming and gaps in research on disability and development also
concerned themselves with this question from an international perspective.

The new aid instruments and their importance for disabled
people

Since 1996 the World Bank and IMF have attempted to encourage economic
strategies that give consideration to poor people, with a package of aid
instruments that offer debt relief through budgetary support for the poorest
countries. To be eligible a country needs to prepare a PRSP that sets out the
polices it intends to follow in order to reduce poverty and foster economic
development.
These papers are supposed to be drawn up through a process of engagement
with civil society, as well as foreign donors, to become, in effect, a blueprint for
a country’s social and economic policies. It is for this reason that DPOs have
recognised that unless they are included in the discussions and their views
taken seriously, disability will continue to be ignored. Furthermore, because
disabled people make up a substantially disproportionate number of the
poorest in any country, to be effective, poverty reduction strategies must
include a clear disability perspective capable of being monitored.

Disability and PRSPs: the story so far

Most development agencies, including the World Bank, are officially committed
to mainstreaming gender in their work. Nonetheless, the Disability KaR paper
Mainstreaming disability in development: lessons from gender mainstreaming
(Ref. C3) reported that like gender, disability has been sidelined in the new aid


Disability and the new aid instruments

modalities. This is not a very hopeful sign for the inclusion of disability in the
PRSP process.
The overall evidence to date, presented in Disability KaR’s Research gap
analysis report (Ref. D1), confirms this has been the case. While there has
been some improvement since the first round of PRSPs, a World Bank report
(2004) characterised the coverage of disability as limited and a ‘… patchwork
of fragmented and uncoordinated interventions.’ 1 It was also apparent that
most references to disability in PRSPs were about social protection rather than
social inclusion.
The DPO representatives at the Disability KaR roundtable in Malawi observed
that because of dependence on aid, their countries were obliged to concentrate
on PRSPs, but that the DPOs did not have the necessary skills or resources to
take part in the civil society consultations that are meant to underpin the
process. Also, in Uganda, the one example where DPOs were able to
participate, they had to fight other civil society organisations and the
government for the privilege. This is all the more disheartening because
Uganda has an extremely strong disability movement and, more then anywhere
in the world, North or South, disabled people are officially integrated at all
levels of the state.

DPOs and the PRSP process in Uganda

The most substantial piece of work on disability and PRSPs was that
commissioned by Disability KaR on Uganda, looking at the participation of
disabled people in the PRSP/PEAP process (Ref. B2). The commission came in
direct response to what was learned at the Malawi roundtable and the request
from DPOs to find out more and profit from the Ugandan experience.
The study closely follows how the National Union of Disabled Persons of
Uganda (NUDIPU) engaged in the process. It is important to note that the
Poverty Eradication Action Plan (PEAP), as the PRSP is called in Uganda, was
the third such plan, but the first that had an input from disabled people.
NUDIPU, supported by Action on Disability and Development (ADD) and the
Danish Council of Organisations of Disabled People (DSI), put together a
comprehensive submission, drawing on data relating to disability and poverty
as well as consulting widely with DPOs in the country.
Besides limitations imposed by the lack of technical expertise, NUDIPU faced
difficulties because of donor and government pressure to complete the PRSP
quickly. ‘As a result, the PEAP process, in which civil society had been
meaningfully involved, became constricted into a six month PRSP process from
which they found themselves, to some extent, squeezed out’ (Ref. B2). It was
also felt that the government was using DPO involvement as a way of
legitimising the PRSP process, rather than out of any genuine interest in the
rights or needs of disabled people.
The main lessons learned were that DPOs needed to be properly resourced to
develop their technical capacity to a much higher level in order to make a real
impact on the PRSP process. Also, more time and money were needed to inform
and engage disabled people so as to lobby more effectively. Finally, in order to
ensure the PRSPs were not simply filled with empty promises, cross-cutting
disability indicators and performance benchmarks had to be put in place.


Disability and the new aid instruments

Conclusions

At present, governments in poor countries are desperate for aid and there is no
commitment from them or donors to support DPOs or other civil society
organisations (CSOs). As a result, PRSPs are in danger of becoming what some
critics say they have always been – little more than the traditional exercise of
World Bank/IMF structural adjustment hidden behind a façade of national and
civil society ownership. Only by CSOs working together to exert pressure on
their governments can this be turned around.
Donors also have a role to play in making the democratic processes in PRSPs
a reality. Disability KaR’s initial mapping of disability initiatives at DFID (Ref. A3)
observed that because an increasing proportion of aid was being channelled
through the new instruments and these gave less scope for imposing
conditions on developing countries, the prospects for mainstreaming disability
were correspondingly limited. It was suggested that an example should be set
to national governments by including DPOs in DFID’s consultation processes
and supporting them in building their capacity to represent the disabled
constituency. This would encourage the creation of a legitimate space for
dialogue and engagement in PRSPs/social programmes, and in turn would help
disabled people lobby governments more effectively for their rights. The
research carried out under the Disability KaR Programme, particularly research
by and with DPOs in Africa, has provided well-grounded evidence to support this
proposal and demonstrate in detail what is needed to put it into action.

Note
1. World Bank, Disability and Development Team, Poverty reduction strategies:
their importance for disability, July 2004



Disability, education
7 and development
Introduction

The Millennium Development Goal (MDG) education target is that by 2015 all
children will be able to enjoy a full course of primary schooling. It is the only
absolute MDG and without the inclusion of disabled children it will be one that
is impossible to reach. The extent of the task is demonstrated by the fact that
there are over 150 million disabled children in developing countries, only 2% of
whom attend school (UNESCO estimates).
Disability KaR Programme research on this topic has looked at issues to do
with bringing disabled children into mainstream education. This was highlighted
as a key area of concern in the Disability KaR Policy Officer’s mapping report of
DFID and disability (Ref. A3) and identified as a major research priority at the
first Disability KaR roundtable in Malawi (see page 2). It was also the main
theme of the third roundtable in Cambodia. Furthermore, inclusive education is
the subject of one of the Disability KaR research reports and figures
prominently in a number of the Programme’s other commissioned studies.
Before outlining some of the findings of the Disability KaR research and
roundtables it is necessary to indicate what inclusive education is and why it is
important for disabled people and for a human-rights-based approach to
development such as that espoused by DFID.

What is inclusive education and why it is important?

Inclusive education is an approach that seeks to meet the learning and
schooling needs of everyone and does not segregate some because they might
have different needs or abilities. It is based on the idea that segregated
education is almost always unequal education and that schools must change in
order to accommodate student diversity. Further, it is argued that this diversity
fosters an enriched learning environment for all students.

‘What we have accomplished in human rights … is the complete conceptual
switch stating that no child should be forced to adapt to education. The
principle requires compete reversal. Education should adapt to the best
interests of each child.’ Dr Katarina Tomasevski, Special Rapporteur on the
Right to Education, United Nations Commission on Human Rights, May 2004

With respect to disability, inclusive education was perhaps the earliest issue
recognised internationally as critical within the framework of development
cooperation. One reason is that the Education for All initiative, launched in
1990 at the World Conference on Education for All in Jomtien, Thailand, was
aimed at a wide range of marginalised groups, not just disabled pupils.


Disability, education and development

UNESCO has claimed that being included within mainstream education is a
basic human right, derived both from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(1949) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). Being able to
access this right is also widely seen as one of the most important gateways
through which to escape poverty and exclusion, the all too common lot of so
many disabled children and their families. This in turn is why the promotion of
inclusive education is so vital for development in general and disabled people
in particular.

From being ‘special’ to being included

Despite the evidence of its success and the high-level international support for
inclusive education, the efficacy of this approach as well as the practicality of
implementing it continue to be questioned. A wide range of related issues were
considered in the Disability KaR paper A Situation analysis and assessment of
education for children with disabilities in Bangladesh, South Asia, East Asia and
South Africa (Ref. D2).
Researchers compared the experiences of special, integrated (in which units
of disabled children are on a mainstream site) and inclusive education
programmes in four countries. While each system was judged to have
experienced many difficulties, overall the findings confirmed what has been
observed in other countries: education at special schools was more costly,
focused on vocational, rather than academic subjects and tended to isolate
disabled children from society and society from disabled children.
Despite the benefits of a more inclusive approach, it was not much in
evidence in the four areas. Also, only in South Africa was there a
comprehensive policy and action plan for educating disabled children. For
example, in Bangladesh the National Education Policy (2000) does not even
mention disabled children.
In South Africa, Disability KaR research into the role and effectiveness of
disability legislation (Ref. B1) found that while there appeared to be a high
proportion of disabled children in mainstream primary education, it was mainly
because, ‘There just are no other services and so disabled children are on the
whole ‘dumped’ into the mainstream schools whether by their parents or the
education system.’

Inclusive education: obstacles and opportunities

The Disability KaR paper cited above (Ref. B1), offers a detailed analysis of the
many challenges faced by those wanting to introduce an inclusive education
system. These were further highlighted, together with opportunities for inclusive
education, at the third roundtable, held in Cambodia.
One of the high points of the Cambodia roundtable was a presentation from
three disabled students attending mainstream schools. Participants observed
that they had been extremely effective advocates for their rights and that such
participation by children in workshops and conferences should be encouraged.
Interestingly, all the children wanted to be teachers. In Cambodia disabled
people cannot attend teacher training schools.


Disability, education and development

Sin Srey Neth, a blind Cambodian girl
(pictured), explained her experience of
mainstream education at the third Disability
KaR roundtable. She said that she had initial
difficulties. Her own and other parents did not
understand the abilities of children with
disabilities, and their children could not

understand how she could read. Some of her
classmates said that if they were disabled they
would commit suicide. However, she said that
she never gave up and that the children and
their parents eventually came to understand
clearly about her disability and her abilities.

The roundtable identified a host of barriers to inclusive education such as
lack of policies, funding and government commitment, and negative cultural
beliefs and attitudes. However, they ended their meeting on a positive note with
very clear action plans to take the inclusive education agenda forward. Among
these were: developing a step-by-step framework of action for implementing
inclusive education, suggestions for further research, ways to change negative
attitudes in the community and good practice guidelines.

Conclusions

Education is a precious key, for none more so than disabled people in the
developing world, the vast majority of whom are denied it as a matter of
course. Being effectively barred from education makes it difficult to find work
and in so doing perpetuates exclusion and poverty. This is why education
figures so prominently on the list of important disability and development
research themes of virtually every Southern DPO (see Ref. D1).
DFID’s policy is tied to the MDGs. The Department is set to spend £1 billion
on education between 2004 and 2008. One unambiguous message from the
Disability KaR Programme is that to meet its commitments to achieving the
MDGs within its avowed framework of human rights, disability must be robustly
mainstreamed within all educational initiatives.



Disability research:
8 breaking the mould
Introduction

Disabled people have always been involved in disability research in one way or
another, but usually as passive subjects, not as active participants or
researchers. Also, much of the research on disability and development has
been led either by international non-governmental organisations or by non-
disabled academics from the North. Sometimes they have worked with disabled
people or disabled people’s organisations (DPOs), but the latter have usually
been involved in a secondary capacity. The Disability KaR Programme has
actively challenged this traditional research paradigm and tried to model a
different way of engaging in disability and development research. This it has
done by building on existing work on emancipatory research, as well as
Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques.
This section outlines why this new approach is needed, its key characteristics
and how it has been applied in various projects within the Disability KaR
Programme. It also highlights two Disability KaR projects in which researching
the research process itself was a key objective.

Why a new research model for disability and development?

Many funders are now demanding that disabled people be included as a
condition for awarding disability project grants. In most cases what this has
meant is that Northern-based organisations with the resources and knowledge
to bid for such grants have developed research projects and then searched for
Southern DPOs willing to become ‘partners’. This downstream involvement can
result in tokenism, with the research agenda being pre-set, the unequal power
relationship between researcher and researched not being challenged and real
control remaining in the hands of the intermediary organisation and/or
professionals.
The Disability KaR Research gap analysis report (Ref. D1) assessed what kind
of research process disabled people in the South preferred. It found that while
DPOs were willing to work with outside groups, they wanted to assume a more
central, lead role. The following observation from the Zambia Federation of the
Disabled (ZAFOD) was fairly typical: ‘DPOs should play a leading role in this
research process with consultancy services from research institutions.’ This is a
clear restatement of David Werner’s famous dictum about the proper relationship
between disabled people and ‘professionals’, shown in the box below.

‘…it is time for non-disabled professionals to recognise the right of
disabled persons to self control, and therefore to gracefully step to one side,
into a role where they, as professionals, are no longer on top but rather on
tap.’ David Werner, co-founder of the Projimo Project in Mexico


Disability research: breaking the mould

A novel research framework

The approach adopted by Disability KaR is based on an emancipatory research
model. This begins by conceptualising disability in social-model terms as a form
of oppression – people with impairments being disabled by a complex web of
discrimination and social exclusion. The object of emancipatory research is to
understand how this happens and discover ways to challenge it. The key to
unlocking this process of transformation lies in the knowledge and life
experience of disabled people themselves. This is why they need to take the
lead at all stages of the research process.
An excellent example of this approach is provided by the research for the
Disability KaR paper Data and statistics on disability in developing countries
(Ref. D5), as well as the previous work upon which it was based. The latter was
originally developed by the Norwegian Federation of Associations of Disabled
People (FFO) and Southern Africa Federation of the Disabled (SAFOD), who
brought in the Foundation for Scientific and Technical Research (SINTEF) in
Norway to facilitate the process. The research that followed involved DPOs and
their members at all stages.

‘[Disabled people] provide realistic information from society and life
experience, are able to find out their own problems, they know better about
themselves than others … [and are well placed] to identify ways to resolve
problems.’ Disabled participants at Disability KaR workshop of National
Grass-root Disabled Federation of Bangladesh, 2004

Research linking disabled people in the North and South

Some of the Disability KaR research projects were identified in a fairly traditional
manner as part of the initial contract with DFID. However, once the UK disability
movement became more actively involved in the Programme there was a notable
shift in emphasis. It began with consultation on research priorities with
representatives of the disability movement from Europe, Africa and Asia. This
engagement was continued at the Disability KaR Malawi roundtable (see page
2). Participants, largely members of DPOs, formulated a research agenda and
principles for how the work should be carried out and these in turn informed the
projects which were subsequently commissioned. All were carried out within an
emancipatory research framework, directly involved disabled people and were
informed by the social model of disability. Furthermore they were implemented
either by disabled researchers in the South or as North-South collaborative
efforts involving DPOs and disabled researchers.

Disabled people empowering themselves through research –
participatory rural appraisal (PRA) in Cambodia

The one project which did not conform strictly to the framework outlined above
was Developing participatory rural appraisal approaches with disabled people
(Ref. B3), undertaken by Disability Development Services Pursat (DDSP), a non-
governmental organisation in Pursat province, Cambodia. However, the demand
for the research came from the recognition by DDSP that its participatory


Disability research: breaking the mould

approach was not empowering disabled people in community assessment
exercises. By bringing disabled people in at all stages of the PRA – planning,
implementation, monitoring and evaluation – they were attempting to discover a
more emancipatory way of doing research.
The results suggest that the experiment was extremely successful. One
important outcome was to increase the self-confidence of the disabled people
who took part. There was a corresponding increase in awareness among
villagers of the fact that disabled people were capable of playing a meaningful
role within the community.

‘…villagers could see disabled people playing a coordinating role in the
PRAs and they could see that disabled people have capacity. They know that
disabled people have the right to participate.’ DDSP staff member in
Cambodia (Ref. B3)

For the DDSP staff it was a valuable learning experience. They all had worked
extensively with disabled people, but this was the first time they had worked
with them as colleagues. Doing this had effectively challenged the ‘…tendency
for the staff to see themselves on top and providing for their clients, rather
than partnering with them to help them achieve their own goals.’ Although this
is only a first tentative step in developing and working within a fully
emancipatory research framework, it is a crucially important step to take.

Conclusions

There are no magic formulae for doing research. Within Disability KaR an
attempt has been made to confront the existing relations of research
production and begin to transform them. But this is a beginning and as such
can claim only partial success. The inclusion of disabled people is but one
potentially transforming element, but if it is the only point conceded then it will
mask the fact that little in the research process has really changed. As Mike
Oliver (a professor of disability studies) has said, ‘…it seems to me that
[applied or action research approaches] are concerned to allow previously
excluded groups to be included in the game as it is, whereas emancipatory
strategies are concerned about both conceptualising and creating a different
game, where no one is excluded in the first place.’ 1 Creating this ‘different
game’ remains the central challenge for disability research.

Note
1. Mike Oliver, ‘Emancipatory Research: Realistic goal or impossible dream?’,
in C. Barnes and G. Mercer, Doing disability research, The Disability Press,
Leeds, 1997



Engaging with disabled
9 people’s organisations in
development cooperation
Introduction

Rule 18 of the United Nations Standard Rules on the Equalization of
Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (1994) urges states to recognise
disabled people at all levels of government. It also says that DPOs should be
encouraged and financially supported to do this. More than 10 years on and,
with a few exceptions, DPOs throughout the world, but especially in the South,
are still having to fight to survive, let alone to have their voices heard by those
in power.
Why this is the case and what can be done about it are extremely important
questions, for development agencies and governments are increasingly being
encouraged from a number of quarters to work more closely with DPOs. This is
consistent both with a human rights approach to development that promotes
the need for disabled people to speak for themselves, and the new World
Bank/IMF aid instruments such as Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs)
which call for the active participation of civil society organisations (CSOs) in
formulating national plans to tackle poverty.
The challenges facing DPOs in development figure prominently in almost all
the work carried out under the Disability KaR Programme, as did
recommendations for how these could be overcome. This section offers a
selection of the main findings.

Challenges for DPOs

In the Programme research, far and away the most consistently mentioned
difficulty for DPOs was funding. This applied both to Northern and Southern
DPOs, but was more acute for the latter. It was, for example, highlighted by
DPOs at the Disability KaR roundtables in Malawi and India (see page 2) and
came up in one form or another in almost every research paper.
This was not simply a question of money, but what the DPOs had to do to
obtain it. For example, most relied on tightly-conditional project funding, the
targeted nature of which often created problems for sustained organisational
development. Also, as state support was virtually non-existent, much of the
money that comes from Northern donors is channelled through international
non-governmental organisations (INGOs). While Southern DPOs appreciated the
assistance, two studies that looked at this issue in some depth uncovered
considerable tensions between them and INGOs. For example, the Disability
KaR research into capacity building of disabled people’s organisations in
Mozambique (Ref. B4) found that in that country, ‘DPOs are … angry at what


Engaging with DPOs in development cooperation

they see as unequal power with their Northern NGO partners, who raise money
from the North in the name of disability but do not discuss more openly and
flexibly how those considerable resources should be spent.’ These sentiments
were repeated in other of the Disability KaR research reports.
Linked to financial insecurity were the problems encountered in developing
individual capabilities and organisational capacity. This was brought out in many
of the studies, but most comprehensively in the Disability KaR paper Are
disabled people’s voices from both South and North being heard in the
development process? (Ref. D3). At the Malawi roundtable participants
commented on the problems of capacity but it was also felt that ‘As disability
activists move up the political ladder they develop a “lukewarm” attitude to
disability issues and no longer represent disability issues to the governments
they are part of. This results in a further decrease in the capacity of DPOs and
people with disabilities to self-represent and lobby/advocate for their rights and
disability issues in general.’
The question of the extent to which DPOs were representative of disabled
people was brought out in the Disability KaR paper Disability in conflict and
emergency situations: focus on tsunami-affected areas (Ref. D6). In Sri Lanka it
was claimed that DPOs, dominated by urban-based middle-class men, had little
knowledge about or contact with poor disabled people in rural areas. Of course,
being able to draw in a sufficiently broad-based membership is a problem for
many DPOs in both the North and South, but it is also a time-consuming, costly
business for which resources are hard to attract.
Resource inequalities also figured centrally in the Disability KaR paper
Promoting inclusion? Disabled people, legislation and public policy (Ref. D4). The
point made by the researchers was that to be able to engage meaningfully in
key national and international issues, DPOs needed access to various forms of
expertise. However, ‘Few DPOs can afford such expertise and, when it is
available, it is almost invariably provided, pro bono, by disabled people and our
supporters on a part-time basis.’ A similar problem was observed in Uganda
where the National Union of Disabled Persons of Uganda (NUDIPU) had to
struggle in order to participate on equal terms in the consultations over the
country’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP) (Ref. B2).

Meeting the challenges

Every DPO faces problems depending on a whole range of factors, many of
which are country-specific. However, as demonstrated at the Disability KaR
roundtables and in the research reports, money, or rather the lack of it, is the
root of problems virtually everywhere. It is, therefore, not surprising that a fairly
consistent recommendation is that states heed the Standard Rules and
develop ‘… formal and appropriately resourced partnerships between
governmental and DPO actors, especially at the local level’ (Ref. D4).
The need to build DPO capacity was another point widely made. In
Mozambique, for example, DPOs said that this was necessary to give them ‘legs
with which to walk, or on which to stand’ (Ref. B4). This point was general but
also made with respect to particular projects. For example the Disability KaR
paper Data and statistics on disability in developing countries (Ref. D5) called for
‘…a grassroot strategy … for doing disability research in low-income countries.
The core of this strategy is DPO control and involvement, a close link between


Engaging with DPOs in development cooperation

research and application, and
long-term capacity building
among DPOs.’

Photo: Philippa Thomas/Healthlink Worldwide
There were also demands for
greater unity among DPOs to be
achieved through better
networking and communication
and the development of cross-
impairment organisations. A good
example of this, given at the
Disability KaR India roundtable,
was of the Orissa State Disability
Network that had been
established to work at all
administrative levels to lobby on
disability issues. The lesson here The Association of People with Disability (APD), one of
India’s oldest DPOs, gives high quality vocational training
is that only by working in concert in marketable areas such as horticulture
will disabled people have the
chance of realising social
equality – as has been shown by the disability and other emancipatory
movements throughout the world.

Conclusion

From a number of different angles the new international aid regime has put a
great deal of emphasis on the role of civil society in helping to promote
economic growth and reduce poverty. However, all too often it seems to be
expected that marginalised groups, be they women, poor people or disabled
people, will be able to self-organise spontaneously and take part on equal
terms with other stakeholders. This is obviously an unrealistic expectation.
It is understandable that in under such conditions Southern DPOs are having
to rely on foreign donors for financial support. But all too often rather than
developing the sustainable capacity of the DPOs, it is the capacity of the INGOs
that is being strengthened through this relationship. As reported in the
Disability KaR study on disabled voices (Ref. D3), ‘The Northern NGOs and
INGOs tend to use the southern DPOs because at the end, they benefit more
from these proposals.’ At the same time, even with the best intentions on
behalf of INGOs, new forms of dependency for disabled people and their
organisations are being created. A number of the reports conclude that what is
called for is for donors to consider how to find more direct, efficient,
emancipatory methods of helping Southern DPOs to empower themselves.



10 DFID and disability
Introduction

The second stage of the Disability Knowledge and Research (KaR) Programme,
between 2003 and 2005, was designed to consider a wide range of issues
concerned with disability and development. Within this was the aim to address
the overall research objectives of the UK Department for International
Development (DFID). It was also intended to raise the profile of disability within
DFID and offer recommendations for the more effective mainstreaming of
disability in policy and practice.
The leading edge for generating ideas was the Programme’s Disability Policy
Officer, who spent most of her time working within DFID. She began by carrying
out a detailed mapping of disability work within the department, prepared three
in-depth country reports, commissioned four substantial research projects and
provided technical support on disability to DFID as a whole. Her work, together
with the three roundtables and the many other research projects funded by
Disability KaR, have yielded a plethora of practical ideas for how DFID can
develop a more robust disability agenda.
This section focuses on a few of the key recommendations directed
specifically at DFID. Many of the other suggestions from the Programme’s work,
particularly those that are broadly applicable to all development agencies, have
been outlined in previous sections.

Institutional level

DFID’s disability policy and its implementation

In her final report, Disability, poverty and the Millennium Development Goals
(Ref. A7), the Disability Policy Officer argues that it is vital that addressing
disability issues is recognised as essential to achieving the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs), upon which DFID’s policy commitments are based.
All the Disability KaR reports which deal with this emphasise how important it
is that disability is recognised as a cross-cutting (mainstream) question at the
highest level. Further, to have any impact this has to be clearly communicated
and monitored throughout the department. The critical importance of all these
factors was also demonstrated in the comparative study of a number of
national development agencies, including DFID, in the Disability KaR paper, Has
disability been mainstreamed into development cooperation? (Ref. D7).

The appointment of a disability policy officer/advisor

The need to mainstream disability within DFID was the main recommendation
of the first report commissioned for the Programme (Disability KaR: assessing


DFID and disability

connections to DFID’s poverty agenda – Ref. A2). A key element in carrying this
forward was for a Disability Policy Officer to work full time within the
department and a post of Disability Advisor to be established. The latter was
also seen as an important lesson to be learned from the experience of gender
and development by the authors of the Programme’s paper, Mainstreaming
disability in development: lessons from gender mainstreaming (Ref. C3). This
point is supported by Disability KaR having demonstrated the exceptional value
for DFID staff of having an in-house source of expert technical advice and
support on disability issues.

Disability training and staff diversity

If DFID is going to encourage developing countries to mainstream disability into
social and economic interventions then it needs to set an organisational
example. This idea underpins the Disability Policy Officer’s admonition in her
final report that, ‘Awareness of disability issues can and should be developed
through specific training for DFID staff. However, it is no substitute for the
understanding that comes from working with and alongside disabled staff.’

Country level

Supporting local DPOs

With an increasing proportion of aid being provided in ways which limit the
ability to impose micro-level conditions, one of the most potent ways for DFID
to ensure disability gets included in development is by supporting disabled
people’s organisations (DPOs). Among other things, this gives disabled people
the capacity to lobby for their rights and hold their governments to account. The
Disability Policy Officer makes a strong case for this in all her reports. Practical
examples of how this plays out are also detailed in the Disability KaR reports,
The role and effectiveness of disability legislation in South Africa (Ref. B1),
Promoting inclusion? Disabled people, legislation and public policy (Ref. D4) and
Are disabled people’s voices from both South and North being heard in the
development process? (Ref. D3).

Ensuring disability issues are included in all processes relating to new
aid instruments

DFID engages in and supports efforts to collect data for such studies as
Poverty Social Impact Analyses (PSIAs) which help prepare the ground for aid
interventions. It is, therefore, in a position to make sure that disability is
explicitly included in such processes.
Besides giving general support to DPOs, the Disability Policy Officer also sees
a more specific role for DFID. This role is to include DPOs in consultations on
Country Assistant Plans (CAPs) as well as providing assistance so that DPOs
can participate effectively as part of civil society in formulating Poverty
Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs). A case study of this is offered in the
Disability KaR report, Participation of disabled people in the PRSP/PEAP process
in Uganda (Ref. B2).


DFID and disability

Building disability into country sector support

The Disability KaR country report on India (Ref. A6) provides best-practice
examples of how DFID country offices can make significant progress on
getting disability taken into account. Among the successes has been the
inclusion of disability indicators in agreements with the government on a major
education programme, as well as another initiative on child and reproductive
health. The office has also been working with a local DPO to develop an
inclusive staff recruitment strategy and make sure that the premises are
accessible.
Country offices are where DFID’s real business takes place. This is why it is
so important that ways are found to spread throughout the organisation the
lessons learned in India or other country offices about how to design and
implement disability-inclusive practices.

Conclusion

In 2000 DFID published an issues paper entitled Disability, poverty and
development that set out an ambitious disability mainstreaming agenda for the
department. But, as the Disability Policy Officer commented in her report, DFID
and disability (Ref. A3): ‘…there is little practical evidence that mainstreaming
has taken place and disability has hardly registered at all in the development
process.’ To be fair to DFID, the Disability KaR paper Is disability really on the
development agenda? (Ref. C2) concluded that disability was not being
mainstreamed by any development agency.
The Disability KaR Programme has helped to move things forward
substantially. Its innovative research programme – giving a leading role to DPOs
and disabled researchers in both the UK and developing countries, its
comprehensive policy work and the willingness of staff to embrace new ideas,
have combined to position DFID uniquely among development agencies in
mainstreaming disability into development.



References
Full text versions of the following references are provided on the
CD-ROM at the back of this publication, and on the Disability KaR
Programme website: www.disabilitykar.net

A: Policy Project

1. Andrew K. Dube and Ray Lang, Facilitating the establishment of an advisory
group: report and recommendations (May 2004)
2. Isabel Ortiz, Disability KaR: assessing connections to DFID’s poverty agenda,
(March 2004)
3. Philippa Thomas, DFID and disability: a mapping of the Department for
International Development and disability issues (June 2004)
4. Philippa Thomas, Poverty reduction and development in Cambodia: enabling
disabled people to play a role (April 2005)
5. Philippa Thomas, Mainstreaming disability in development: Rwanda country
report (April 2005)
6. Philippa Thomas, Mainstreaming disability in development: India country
report (June 2005)
7. Philippa Thomas, Disability, poverty and the Millennium Development Goals:
relevance, challenges and opportunities for DFID (June 2005)

B: Policy Project – Commissioned research reports

1. Andrew K. Dube, The role and effectiveness of disability legislation in South
Africa (April 2005)
2. Andrew K. Dube, Participation of disabled people in the PRSP/PEAP process in
Uganda (April 2005)
3. Steve Harknett with Chum Hoeurn, Khoun Bunny, Long Pha, Meas Sokha,
Mom Thea, Rem Khy and Thim Veasna, Developing participatory rural
appraisal approaches with disabled people. A pilot project by Disability
Development Services Pursat (DDSP) in Pursat province, Cambodia (February –
April 2005)
4. Jabulani M Ncube, Capacity building of disabled people’s organisations in
Mozambique (May 2005)

C: Enabling disabled people to reduce poverty

1. Bill Albert, The social model of disability, human rights and development
(September 2004)
2. Bill Albert, Is disability really on the development agenda? A review of official
disability policies of the major governmental and international development
agencies (September 2004)


References

3. Carol Miller and Bill Albert, Mainstreaming disability in development: lessons
from gender mainstreaming (March 2005)
4. Rachel Hurst and Bill Albert, Disability and a human-rights approach to
development (July 2005)
5. David Seddon and Rebecca Yeo, Disability, poverty and the ‘new’ development
agenda (July 2005)

D: Commissioned research projects

1. Bill Albert, Andrew K. Dube, Mosharraf Hossain, Rachel Hurst, Research gap
analysis report for DFID (June 2005)
2. Centre for Services and Information on Disability (CSID) Bangladesh,
Situation analysis and assessment of education for children with disabilities in
Bangladesh, South Asia, East Asia and South Africa (June 2005)
3. Gladys Charowa and Andrew K. Dube, Are disabled people’s voices from both
South and North being heard in the development process? A comparative
analysis of the situation in South Africa, Zimbabwe and the United Kingdom
(May/June 2005)
4. Tomson Dube, Rachel Hurst, Richard Light, and Joshua Malinga, Promoting
inclusion? Disabled people, legislation and public policy (May 2005)
5. Arne H. Eide and Mitch E. Loeb, Data and statistics on disability in developing
countries (May 2005)
6. Maria Kett, Sue Stubbs and Rebecca Yeo, Disability in conflict and emergency
situations: focus on tsunami-affected areas (June 2005)
7. Trine Cecilie Riis-Hansen, Andrew K. Dube and Bill Albert, Has disability been
mainstreamed into development cooperation? (June 2005)

E: Roundtables

1. Healthlink Worldwide, Highlights from the Disability KaR roundtables in
Malawi, India and Cambodia (August 2005)


Lessons from the
Disability Knowledge
and Research
Programme

www.disabilitykar.net

The Disability Knowledge and
Research Programme is funded by
the UK Department for International
Development.

Overseas Development Group
University of East Anglia
Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)1603 592813
www.uea.ac.uk/dev/ODG/index.html

Healthlink Worldwide
56-64 Leonard Street
London EC2A 4JX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)20 7549 0240
www.healthlink.org.uk

Disability KaR Programme (2003-2005),

More Related Content

Similar to Disability KaR Programme (2003-2005), (20)

More from Scott Rains (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Disability KaR Programme (2003-2005),