 |
 |
|
|
|
|
2001 Observance of the
|
| Age Group in Years | Total | Rural | Urban |
| Total | 3.1 | 3.6 | 2.0 |
| 0 to 4 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 0.4 |
| 5 to 9 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 0.9 |
| 10 to 14 | 1.5 | 1.6 | 1.2 |
| 15 to 24 | 1.8 | 2.1 | 1.3 |
| 25 to 34 | 2.8 | 3.7 | 1.7 |
| 35 to 44 | 4.0 | 5.2 | 2.5 |
| 45 to 54 | 6.1 | 7.2 | 4.0 |
| 55 to 64 | 8.8 | 9.9 | 5.7 |
| 65 and over | 18.0 | 19.1 | 13.2 |
| Not stated | 6.0 | 6.5 | 5.2 |
While it appears that the patterns for Namibia are quite apparent, further exploration reveals more information about the situation in that country. When rates by age group, gender and urban and rural location are explored together, the strength of the urban-rural differential becomes quite apparent. As demonstrated in Figure 3, rates are higher for men than women in both urban and rural areas for each age group. However, the rates for rural females are higher than those for urban males in each age. Hence, one can conclude that for Namibia, the residence difference in reported rates is greater than that by gender.
The Expert Group believes these patterns are of critical importance in considering how all persons have access to equalization of opportunities. In many countries, the overwhelming majority of the population resides in rural areas, where services for all persons are scarce. Consideration of rural issues is of critical importance for persons with disabilities in these countries. Likewise, the association between poverty and disability needs to be addressed.
Figure 3. PREVALENCE RATES FOR DISABILITIES BY AGE GROUP FOR MALES AND FEMALES AND RURAL AND URBAN AREAS, NAMIBIA, 1991
| Age Group in Years | Total | Rural Males |
Rural Females |
Urban Males |
Urban Females |
| Total | 3.1 | 4.0 | 3.3 | 2.3 | 1.7 |
| 0 to 4 | 0.6 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.4 |
| 5 to 9 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.9 | 0.8 |
| 10 to 14 | 1.5 | 1.7 | 1.4 | 1.4 | 1.0 |
| 15 to 24 | 1.8 | 2.4 | 1.7 | 1.6 | 1.1 |
| 25 to 34 | 2.8 | 4.8 | 2.9 | 2.1 | 1.3 |
| 35 to 44 | 4.0 | 6.6 | 4.0 | 3.0 | 1.8 |
| 45 to 54 | 6.1 | 8.8 | 6.0 | 4.5 | 3.4 |
| 55 to 64 | 8.8 | 11.5 | 8.7 | 5.9 | 5.5 |
| 65 and over | 18.0 | 20.1 | 18.2 | 13.5 | 12.9 |
| Not Stated | 6.0 | 5.9 | 7.3 | 5.9 | 3.1 |
This may require a different system for delivering services. For instance, existing programmes in urban areas may have to be altered to accommodate persons with disabilities. In rural areas, non-existent programmes cannot be adjusted to accommodate persons with disabilities. This means as development programmes are established in rural areas, universal design approaches must be incorporated to make such programmes accessible to all, as follows:
Rural Areas (if programmes do not exist):
Urban Areas (if programmes do exist):
Obviously, these recommendations are not hard and fast. If rural areas do have services, accommodations may be in order. Likewise, many urban areas may not have any programmes or services and could benefit from universal design. The point is to target the approach to accessibility to the realities of where people live.
Education and Employment: In targeting accessibility, as noted earlier, the Expert Group reaffirmed the importance of all of the Standard Rules. However, in resource scare environments, the first question that States must address is whether or not they will establish goals for all of the areas in the World Programme and the Standard Rules. The lack of programmes in rural areas and issues of poverty around the world point to the need to prioritize target areas for participation. If such goals are established, the next question is will progress towards every goal be monitored. While such steps would appear to be desirable, if resources are scarce, such actions may be impossible. Moreover, the commitment to engage in all such activities, without the appropriate follow-up measures might be quite discouraging to people with disabilities and their families.
A philosophical problem arises, because certain concepts may be easier to measure then others. Thus, the temptation to establish goals strictly on the basis of those items that are easily measured should be resisted. Member States must balance competing issues, such as the desire to be comprehensive with the scarcity of resources in such a way that the most important issues as monitored.
The Third Review and Appraisal already noted a "...focus on the implementation of Rule 6 (Education) and Rule 7 (Employment), since these are two substantive areas cited in the World Programme of Action as being important to the equalization of opportunities for disabled persons."28/ In the World Programme of Action, education and employment were two issues highlighted for evaluation, with conclusions drawn that opportunities were not equal in these areas but that equalization was definitely feasible.
Thus, while all the Standard Rules are important, the Expert Group believes that scarcity of resources requires prioritizing these two areas and that, at a bare minimum, education and employment be selected for the establishment of concrete goals for persons with disabilities. In this sense, implementation of Rules 6 and 7 constitutes a prerequisite for achievement of the other rules, as follows:
This recommendation should not be taken as a statement that other areas are unimportant. Member States should set goals and establish indicators for as many areas as possible. Rather, this recommendation should be taken to say that education and employment goals and indicators constitute the bare minimum variables that must be targeted in an effective monitoring programme.
Long-term goals may be quite comprehensive and constitute a philosophical approach. In that sense, comprehensive goals that state that education and employment shall be equal for all persons regardless of disability status may be appropriate. The monitoring programme can then be viewed as a long-term process for achievement of such ambitious goals.
Basic Concepts: In the implementation of disability policies and programmes, monitoring, data and indicators each play a unique role. Monitoring refers to the practice of setting goals and objectives and then establishing evaluation criteria to determine whether the goals and objectives have been achieved.29/ In order to monitor, countries need to gather data periodically based on those evaluation criteria which will provide measures of those evaluation criteria. Indicators are those data elements that are believed to provide the best measures of progress.30/
Thus, if a member State is to establish goals for a particular area, it is recommended that disability indicators for that goal be established. Support for the comprehensive measurement of those indicators becomes necessary. Variables and indicators need to be selected and measured periodically. Such indicators should refer both to specific disability initiatives and to broader national initiatives that may impact on persons with disabilities. As with the monitoring activities, organizations of disabled persons should be actively involved in this process.
Indicators clearly need to be linked to short-term and medium-term targets, as well as to selected legal and policy instruments for equalization of opportunities. These desired linkages mean that programme administrative data should be considered as a tool for monitoring and should be linked to census and survey data. The specific trade-offs due to scarce resources need to be clearly addressed and resolved. This requires a clear identification of the kind of data that are being employed for indicators and the provision of clear information on their strengths and weaknesses.
Education and Employment Indicators: From the above, it is clear that any time a goal or objective is set, there should be indicators for that goal or objectives. Thus, the recommendations that member States must consider employment and education as target areas implies that at a minimum, indicators for Standard Rule 6 - Education and Rule 7 - Employment should be developed.
Fortunately, international standards for measuring education and employment are currently available. Criteria for measurement of these two areas are relatively advanced, with data having been collected in many countries for several years. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the International Labour Organization (ILO) have already established systems to measure programmatic outputs in these areas. Thus, establishing indicators for education and employment is both important and feasible. Examples of education indicators are educational attainment (children reaching grade 5 of primary education and the adult secondary education achievement level), school attendance and literacy (the adult literacy rate).31/ Examples for employment are unemployment and labour force participation rates.32/ Many of these have been proposed indicators by the United Nations for sustainable development for all persons. The use of these indicators is thus in keeping with 1984 Expert Group recommendation that indicators used for all persons be employed for persons with disabilities.33/ This allows for comparison of the situation of persons with disabilities with other persons. Such a schematic might be viewed as follows:
Variable All Persons Persons with Disabilities
Education:
Educational Attainment
School Attendance
Adult Literacy Rate
Employment:
Unemployment Rate
Labour Force Participation Rate
Other Indicators and Population Breakdowns: Although education and employment are recommended for a minimum programme, such recommendations should not be viewed as encouraging exclusion of other indicators where available. Indeed, where countries report indicators for all persons, breakdowns of these indicators for persons with disabilities should also be reported. Use of existing international standards is recommended. For instance, when conducting a census, countries should consider the United Nations Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses.34/
Just as establishing indicators to compare progress towards specific target areas for persons with disabilities as compared to the general population is critical for assessment, other vulnerable populations are also of great concern. As the United Nations has noted, "In deciding which social groups merit monitoring in regards to the disadvantages suffered by particular groups of people, each country should determine which groups in it need special attention. Some of the common factors leading to social disadvantage are gender, age, physical or mental impairment, race, creed and so forth. The disadvantaged are not necessarily small in number -- they may constitute the majority of the population."35/
Not only are these groups of concern in themselves, but also for those who have disabilities. In its thirty-eighth session, the Economic Commission urged that governments, intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations place special emphasis on "...the human rights of persons with disabilities, children with disabilities and their families, gender aspects, in particular the issue of discrimination of girls and women with disabilities, and the situation of persons with developmental and psychiatric disabilities, with a focus on integrating such persons into society."36/
Aside from disability, the United Nations has recommended isolation of statistics on gender, children and youth and the elderly.37/ However, education and employment indicators may not be applicable to the elderly. School attendance applies mainly to children in the school ages and educational attainment and the adult literacy, unemployment and labor force participation rates apply mainly to adults. Still, where feasible, age and sex breakdowns are recommended. For example, school enrollment can be applied to compare disability-risk boys and girls with total boys and girls. If persons with disabilities live disproportionately in either rural or urban areas, urban-rural breakdowns may be desirable.38/
Thus, for all indicators measured, indicator breakdowns by gender, age, and rural-urban areas by disability should be included. Where countries report breakdowns for other variables such as poverty, breakdowns for persons with disabilities should also be reported. Again, United Nations standards should be employed for these variables.
Poverty represents a different challenge from the demographic variables. For instance, a previous report in which the Secretary-General argued that development and growth appears to be intricately related to the advancement of women, noting that the poverty/gender association may be quite unique.39/ "One approach to understanding poverty from a gender perspective is based on the concepts of entitlements and endowments. An entitlement is a right to command resources. An endowment consists of the skills, access and other resources that make it possible to exercise an entitlement. In that sense, poverty is a failure to ensure entitlements because of inadequate endowments. In gender terms, this can be seen in terms of asymmetries between women and men in their entitlements and endowments."40/
Such asymmetries could very well be present between the population chosen to represent persons with disabilities and other populations. If so, if a country has measures for poverty status, examining these characteristics for people in terms of their disability status and results in education and employment could be quite illuminating. Thus, poverty breakdowns, alongside gender, age and urban-rural breakdowns is also recommended.
Identifying a Population: Compared to establishing indicators for education and employment, identifying a population to represent persons with disabilities is an extremely difficult task. For instance, after noting a number of disability definitions, Cluster Three at the Hong Kong Interregional Seminar and Symposium on International Norms and Standards Relating to Disability determined that how disability is defined in national and international laws, policies and measurement tools suggests the legal, social, political and economic consequences of such definitions. The Cluster determined that definitions include biological/medical, functional/rehabilitation, environmental and human rights models.41/
After considering the wide scope and uses for these definitions, Cluster Three recommended that given that the appropriate public policy goal is protecting human rights, promoting equalization of opportunity or assuring equity of results, an environmental or human rights definition should be considered, when it is necessary to define disability. Further, the United Nations should provide technical assistance in the development of definitions consistent with the principles of universal design.42/ An environmental definition is consistent with that offered by Disabled Persons International (DPI): "Disability is the loss or limitation of opportunities to take part in the normal life of the community on an equal level with others due to physical and social barriers."43/
At this point in time, no definition for disability has been universally adopted. However, the DPI and other environmental definitions have clearly played a role in challenging more traditional definitions. For instance, at the times of their passage, although neither instrument officially adopted it, both the World Programme of Action and the Standard Rules recognized the WHO's definition of disability as, "any restriction or lack (resulting from an impairment) of ability to perform an activity in a manner or within the range considered normal for a human being."44/ The Standard Rules noted that the term "...summarizes a great number of differential functional limitations occurring in any population in any country in the world. People may be disabled by physical, intellectual or sensory impairment, medical conditions, or mental illness."45/ However, the passage of WHO's new International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) marks a dramatic departure from the attempt to define disability at a particular level.46/ In fact, functioning and disability are comprised of both a body functions/structures component and an activities/participation component. The new classification does not isolate disability as a stand-alone concept and define it. "Functioning is an umbrella term encompassing all body functions, activities and participation; similarly, disability serves as an umbrella term for impairments, activity limitations or participation restrictions.”47/ This is in keeping with the flexible approach urged at the Hong Kong seminar.
These changes, while promising, do leave a particular question as it relates to disability statistics - how a population representing persons with disabilities is to be defined and measured for purposes of monitoring. The need to measure such a population is clear if for no other reason than to measure progress towards achieving education and employment goals and objectives. Because only after such a population is identified in data sources can indicators comparing persons with and without disabilities be assessed. For instance, to compare unemployment rates between people with and without disabilities in a census or a survey, a population must be identified to delineate the difference.
Such a definition should be rigorous. For instance, Zambia collected disability data in 1969, 1980 and 1990. The country employed an organ function approach, as opposed to a personal function approach, and collected information in all three years on blind, deaf and/or mute and physical categories and usually on a mental category. However, Zambia included sick persons as disabled in 1969 and 1980, but not in 1990. If one only examines the total disability rate for Zambia over time, one would conclude that there has been a steady decline in the prevalence of disability between 1969 and 1990. While this may have been true between 1969 and 1980, as documented by Figure 4, the observed decline between 1980 and 1990 was totally caused by the elimination of the category for sick in 1990. In 1969 and 1980, those counted as sick accounted for 50.8% and 37.8% of the reported population with disabilities. Even if one assumes some that a) the prevalence rates for sickness dropped between 1980 and 1990 in a similar manner to the drop between 1969 and 1980 and b) some persons who may have been reported as sick were reported in other categories in 1990, the elimination of that reporting category has an effect on how the data are interpreted. If the trend between 1980 and 1990 is examined employing the 1990 disability reporting structure, the prevalence rate per 100,000 did not decline from 1,615 to 936 but actually increased from 610 to 936 per 100,000. Thus, here is a case where the categories reported as disabilities may actually influence the resulting trend.
Figure 4. PREVALENCE RATES FOR DISABILITIES, ZAMBIA, 1969, 1980 AND 1990 AND FOR SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS, ZAMBIA, 1969 AND 1980
Sources: Republic of Zambia, Census of Population and Housing 1969, Final Report Volume I-Total Zambia (Lusaka, Central Statistical Office, 1973, pp. 11-14, Table 4 and p. 36, Table 18.
The focus here is not on whether Zambia should or should not have included the sick category as a reported disability category. The important point is that any change in this important decision has important ramifications. Fortunately, Zambia simply dropped the category, which make it possible to examine the changes in the other categories between 1980 and 1990 (assuming the other wording changes did not influence the resulting trend).
This issue is also dramatized by the Tunisian data for adults 15 years of age and over, as well. Here, despite the relative similarity of categories, the number of women reported with disabilities in 1975 was extremely low. Between 1975 and 1994, while the number of disabled men reported more than doubled, the number of reported disabled women reported grew by over times. As shown in Figure 5, this resulted in the percentage of women in the disabled population tripling between 1975 and 1994. [Actually, the data demonstrate this change primarily occurred between 1975 and 1984.]
Figure 5. PERCENTAGE MALE AND FEMALE AMONG DISABLED PERSONS 15 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER, TUNISIA, 1975 AND 1994
| 1975 | 1994 |
| Females = 2,660 | Females = 33,274 |
 |
 |
| Males = 22,900 | Males = 54,736 |
Sources: Tunisia, Institut national de la statistique, Recensement general de la population et des logements, 8 Mai 1975, Volume III, Caracteristiques demographiques, tableaux et analyses des resultats du sondage au 1/10eme75 (Tunis, Author, 1975).
There are many reasons to speculate as to whether disabled women were undercounted in 1975. If the change is a definitional or statistical artifact, it can clearly influence outcomes that are associated with gender. For instance, between 1975 and 1994, reported economic activity rates for reported disabled Tunisians 15 years of age and over declined slightly. However, as shown Figure 6, the rate for men actually increased over the period. The rate for women declined by over 70%.
Figure 6. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY RATES BY GENDER FOR DISABLED PERSONS 15 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER, TUNISIA, 1975, 1984 AND 1994
*Note: The rates for males and females for 1984 are interpolated due to lack of data for that year.
Sources: Tunisia, Institut national de la statistique, Recensement general de la population et des logements, 8 Mai 1975, Volume III, Caracteristiques demographiques, tableaux et analyses des resultats du sondage au 1/10eme75 (Tunis, Author, 1975) and Recensement general de la population et de l'habitat, 30 Mars 1984, Volume IV, Caracteristiques demographiques (Tunis, Author, 1984).
Thus, two factors come into play to explain what appears to be a lack of progress in economic activity. First, if economic activity rates tend to be lower for women than for men as they were reported in 1994, the increasing prevalence of women in the disabled population could have the effect of lowering the overall rate of labour force participation for persons with disabilities. Second, the participation rate for women in 1975 was higher than for men, suggesting that the 1975 female disabled population was undercounted to such an extent that those who were counted formed a population that may have not been truly representative. Between 1975 and 1994, the number of reported disabled women in the labour force grew from 610 to 1,910 in Tunisia, actually more than tripling.
Without a clear understanding of how the disabled population changed during this period, an economic activity indicator activity could be misinterpreted. One might conclude that participation in the labour force had deteriorated in Tunisia between 1975 and 1994 when the reverse may have been true. Certainly, an understanding of the characteristics of the women who entered the disabled over the period aids in interpreting the indicator.
Returning to Zambia, the removal of sick persons from the disabled population in 1990 influences interpretation of the trend in economic activity. Labour force participation rates rose for all men and women between 1980 and 1990. For women, the rate almost doubled from 16 to 32%. For sick and disabled women, the rate does not increase by as much, growing from 13% to 23%. However, as shown in Figure 7, if only disabled women are counted in 1980, the rate more than doubles from 10% to 23%. While less dramatic, the inclusion of sick men in 1980 inflates the rate for men.
Figure 7. ECONOMIC ACTIVITY RATES BY GENDER FOR ALL AND DISABLED PERSONS 12 YEARS OF AGE AND OVER, ZAMBIA, 1980 AND 1990 AND FOR SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS, ZAMBIA, 1980
Males
Females
Of course, it is also important that the definition of economic activity also not change over time. An issue here is that disability has, in many countries, been counted as a category of non-participation in the labour force. To have a robust indicator, the disability as a reason for non-participation in the labour force category has to be disassociated from measures of the disabled population. If not, an effect of multicollinearity would occur, where the dependent variable, or the indicator in this case, is so highly correlated with disabled persons that it is influencing the trends in the indicator.
In recent years, a consensus has begun to emerge as to how to identify a disability-related population that is separate from variables related from socio-economic results. The definition is based on personal, as opposed to organic functioning, because people may not be aware of specific medical details but will be aware of their daily personal actions and activities; hence, a wider net is cast.48/ The following broadly defined categories have been recommended by the United Nations Statistics Division as basic - seeing, hearing, speaking (talking), moving, body movement, gripping/holding, learning, behaviour and personal care.49/ The identification of such a population with functional conditions appears useful so that variables, such as education and employment, can be compared between that population and the population as a whole. Thus, the United Nations Statistics Division’s recommended approach for measuring disability should be considered to identify a population potentially needing services for persons with disabilities.50/ The Secretary-General has already endorsed the recommendations, specifically endorsing a Disability approach, rather than one focusing on Impairments or Handicaps, as it related to the WHO's 1980 Trial International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps (ICIDH).51/
Although technically useful and possible to measure, the identification of such a population with functional conditions appears to contradict the DPI and other environmental definitions for disability. One approach to solving this dilemma is to not view the population identified as either the "disabled population" or the "population with disabilities," but rather as a cluster that is at risk for denial of equalization of opportunity. In this sense, such a population would be a "Disability-Risk Population" or a "Population At Risk for Disability." In keeping with WHO's new ICF approach, the definitional emphasis should be viewed as an emphasis on personal functioning as opposed to disability. A Risk Disability Population should be defined as persons with functional conditions who are at risk for the loss or limitation of opportunities to take part in the normal life of the community on an equal level with others due to physical, social and other environmental barriers. Thus, the population is not viewed as being disabled or having disabilities. Note, too, that the definition refers to functional conditions, not limitations. Rather, disability is viewed as potential experience; the concept of risk should be useful for public health purposes. Moreover, the use of conditions places the issue of function in neutral, rather than negative, terms.
Such an approach would remove the issue of "Who is Disabled?" from identifying the population, but still allow for acceptance of the Statistics Division's recommendations for the year 2000 round of censuses. Education, employment and other results can be assessed for populations in each of these categories or for a population with any of these issues and compared for those without such issues. At the same time, as different concerns are raised, questions may change, without the pressure of having to statistically represent a "true" population. By so doing, progress towards equalization of opportunity can be addressed without having to label the population.
In terms of risks for denial of opportunities, there are several issues of concern expressed by disability rights groups related to new biomedical and human genetics developments. These can be grouped around five human rights issues: non-discrimination, justice, diversity, autonomy/informed consent and participation.52/ According to Dr. Denise Avard, "Although there is no direct link between genetic mutations and disabilities, many of the concerns about the impact of human genetics tend to focus on prenatal testing and screening, with potential far-reaching ethical, social and legal implications. Although genetic technology has a place in medical sciences and the results can be used for an increased quality of life, negative aspects such as reduced facilities for treatment, “blaming the victim” and discrimination are real dangers. Apart from legal protection of disabled people, there is a general agreement that disabled people are not consulted enough and lack a voice to help develop and regulate the direction of these important technologies."53/
There is a need to recognize that advances in human genetics and biomedical developments raise ethical issues for all members of society and for persons with disabilities, issues regarding their rights to justice, diversity, non-discrimination, autonomy, and informed decision-making. There is a need to monitor genetic and other biomedical developments to ensure scientific developments do not undermine the human rights of the individual. Persons with disabilities, their families, or their representatives should be consulted, represented, and systematically involved in committees and debates about genetics and biomedical technologies. If these steps are taken, denial of access to a variety of areas can be reduced. This links backs to the accessibility and universal design approaches cited earlier in this report.
Representation of persons with disabilities is required not only in the above described health areas, but in all facets. Such representation needs to be monitored. For instance, in the past, greater coordination of disability efforts has been urged but progress in this area is still lacking. Coordination and cooperation to implement the World Programme of Action must be put into action by the International agencies, countries, NGO’s, consumer groups, and professional associations. An office to coordinate disability efforts should be established at these levels. International organizations should provide resources to support capacity building for countries, NGO’s, consumer groups, and professional associations. Such capacity building should document the positive contributions of individuals with disabilities.
The Expert Group believes that these recommendations provide a unified approach towards monitoring and evaluation. In such a unified model, shown in Figure 8, the building blocks move from accessibility through education and employment, using universal design approaches wherever possible. Unique issues facing rural areas need to be considered which may particularly benefit from universal design. Once education and employment for all are enhanced through accessibility, then social and economic development will occur. That this is a model for all is emphasized by not isolating disability as a state, but rather an experience that all persons face. In such a model, personal functioning, rather than disability, needs to be stressed. By focusing on monitoring functioning and access, the Expert Group believes that resources can be brought to bear to achieve progress towards all the goals of the World Programme of Action.
Looking ahead, passage by the General Assembly on 28 November 2001 of a comprehensive and integral international convention to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities brings a new policy instrument to link with the World Programme of Action and the Standard Rules.54/ The General Assembly has established an Ad Hoc Committee to elaborate the instrument, "based on the holistic approach in the work done in the field of social development, human rights and non-discrimination..."55/ The Ad Hoc Committee may wish to incorporate the holistic model presented by the Expert Group in its discussions.
Through its technical assistance programs, the United Nations Division for Social
Policy and Development continues to address the issue of resource constraints.
Support of the Hong Kong symposium in 1999 and other meetings (Children's
issues in Panama in 2000 and Sustainable Development in Indonesia in 2002) provide forums
to focus on the association of disability with development. Planned support for
future meetings form a comprehensive programme on the part of the Division to further the
development of disability statistics and indicators. These issues will be further
elaborated in the Fourth Review and Appraisal of the World Programme of Action Concerning
Disabled Persons.
Figure 8.INTERNATIONAL MODEL RELATING ACCESSIBILITY TO ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Universal Design
Rule 8 - Income maintenance and social security
Rule 9 - Family life and personal integrity
Rule 10 - Culture
Rule 11 - Recreation and sports
Rule 12. Religion
Economic and Social Development
Disability
FUNCTION
Notes
1/ United Nations General Assembly, World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons (New York, United Nations A/37/51, 1983), p. 47, paragraph 194.
2/ United Nations Secretariat, Department of International Economic and Social Affairs Statistical Office and Centre for Social Development and Humanitarian Affairs, Report of the Expert Group on Development of Statistics on Disabled Persons (New York, United Nations ESA/STAT/AC.18/7, 1984), p. 5.
3/ United Nations Secretariat, Department of International Economic and Social Affairs Statistical Office and Centre for Social Development and Humanitarian Affairs, Report of the Expert Group on Development of Statistics on Disabled Persons (New York, United Nations ESA/STAT/AC.18/7, 1984), p. 23.
4/ United Nations General Assembly, The Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (New York, United Nations A/48/96, 1993), Rule 20, p. 36.
5/ United Nations Statistical Commission, Report on the Twenty-Eighth Session (27 February-3 March 1995) (New York, United Nations Economic and Social Council E/1995/28, 1995), paragraph 56.
6/ United Nations Secretariat, Department for Economic and Social Information and Policy Analysis Statistics Division, Part Two: Topics and Tabulation for Population Censuses (New York, United Nations ST/ESA/STAT/AC/51/2, 1996), pp. 2-42 - 2-45, paragraphs DC.1-DC.20; United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistics Division, Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses, Revision 1 (New York, United Nations ST/ESA/STAT/SER.M/67/Rev.1, 1998), pp. 93-95, paragraphs 2.262-2.277.
7/ United Nations General Assembly, Implementation of the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons: Towards a Society for All in the Twenty-First Century (New York, United Nations A/54/121, 2000), p. 3, paragraph 10.
8/ The Internet-based resources page is located at http://www.un.org/Depts/unsd/.
9/ The Internet-based resources page for the seminar and symposium is located at http://www.worldenable.net/hongkong99/default.htm.
10/ United Nations General Assembly, Review and Appraisal of the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons: Report of the Secretary-General (New York, United Nations A/52/351, 1997), pp. 3-4, paragraph 5.
11/ United Nations General Assembly, Review and Appraisal of the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons: Report of the Secretary-General (New York, United Nations A/52/351, 1997), p. 4, paragraph 8.
12/ United Nations General Assembly, Review and Appraisal of the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons: Report of the Secretary-General (New York, United Nations A/52/351, 1997), p. 4, paragraph 6.
13/ United Nations General Assembly, The Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (New York, United Nations A/48/96, 1993).
14/ United Nations General Assembly, World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons (New York, United Nations A/37/51, 1983), pp. 30-34, paragraphs 108-137.
15/ The Special Rapporteur of the Commission for Social Development on monitoring the implementation of the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities has also urged the addition of a Rule on housing and shelter. See United Nations General Assembly, Monitoring the Implementation of the Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities: Note by the Secretary-General (New York, United Nations A/52/56, 1996), p. 33.
16/ United Nations General Assembly, The Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (New York, United Nations A/48/96, 1993), p. 24.
17/ United Nations General Assembly, The Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (New York, United Nations A/48/96, 1993), p. 24.
18/ United Nations General Assembly, Implementation of the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons: Towards a Society for All in the Twenty-First Century (New York, United Nations A/54/121, 2000), p. 3, paragraph 4.
19/ United Nations General Assembly, World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons (New York, United Nations A/37/51, 1983), p. 3.
20/ United Nations General Assembly, World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons (New York, United Nations A/37/51, 1983), p. 3.
21/ United Nations General Assembly, The Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (New York, United Nations A/48/96, 1993), p. 11 and pp. 22-23.
22/ United Nations General Assembly, Review and Appraisal of the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons: Report of the Secretary-General (New York, United Nations A/52/351, 1997), p. 11, paragraph 49.
23/ United Nations General Assembly, Review and Appraisal of the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons: Report of the Secretary-General (New York, United Nations A/52/351, 1997), p. 10, paragraph 41.
24/ United Nations General Assembly, Review and Appraisal of the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons: Report of the Secretary-General (New York, United Nations A/52/351, 1997), p. 11, paragraph 48.
25/ For a systematic appraisal of the dimensions of accessibility, see Brown, Scott Campbell, "Methodological Paradigms That Shape Disability Research," Chapter 5 in Gary L. Albrecht, Katherine D. Seelman and Michael Bury, editors, Handbook of Disability Studies (Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications, Inc., 2001), pp. 163-167.
26/ World Health Organization, International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps: A Manual of Classification Relating to the Consequences of Disease (Geneva, World Health Organization ISBN 92 4 154126 1, 1980), pp. 181-207.
27/ Gebreselassie, Abera, "Country Paper on Disability Sensitive Evaluation and Monitoring," paper on Ethiopia presented to the United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Disability Sensitive Evaluation and Monitoring (New York, United Nations, 3 December 2001), p. 1.
28/ United Nations General Assembly, Review and Appraisal of the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons: Report of the Secretary-General (New York, United Nations A/52/351, 1997), p. 7, paragraph 29. See also United Nations General Assembly, World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons (New York, United Nations A/37/51, 1983), pp. 22-23, paragraphs 64-70.
29/ United Nations Department for Economic and Social Affairs, Division for Social Policy and Development, Programme on Disability, Disabled Persons Bulletin (New York, United Nations Number 2, 1999), p. 7.
30/ ibid.
31/ United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistics Division, Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses, Revision 1 (New York, United Nations ST/ESA/STAT/SER.M/67/Rev.1, 1998), pp. 75-77, paragraphs 2.144-2.157; United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, Indicators for Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies (New York, United Nations, 2001), pp. 39-41 and pp.110-119; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, International Standard Classification of Education (Paris, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 1997) and Statistical Yearbook (Paris, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Annual Editions). See annex II of document 29C/20 of the twenty-ninth session of the general conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (8 August 1997).
32/ United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistics Division, Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses, Revision 1 (New York, United Nations ST/ESA/STAT/SER.M/67/Rev.1, 1998), pp. 78-84, paragraphs 2.165-2.208; United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, Indicators for Sustainable Development: Guidelines and Methodologies (New York, United Nations, 2001), pp. 74-78; International Labour Organization, Surveys of Economically Active Population, Employment, Unemployment and Underemployment - An ILO Manual on Concepts and Methods (Geneva, International Labour Office, 1992).
33/ United Nations Secretariat, Department of International Economic and Social Affairs Statistical Office and Centre for Social Development and Humanitarian Affairs, Report of the Expert Group on Development of Statistics on Disabled Persons (New York, United Nations ESA/STAT/AC.18/7, 1984), p. 5.
34/ United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistics Division, Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses, Revision 1 (New York, United Nations ST/ESA/STAT/SER.M/67/Rev.1, 1998).
35/ United Nations Secretariat, Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses Revision 1 (New York, United Nations ST/ESA/STAT/SER.M/67/Rev.1, 1998), p. 131, paragraph 3.59. For source document, see Note by the Secretary-General transmitting the report of the Expert Group on the Statistical Implications of Recent Major United Nations Conferences (E/CN.3/AC.1/1996/R.4) annex, paragraphs 68 and 69 (presented to the Working Group on International Statistical Programmes and Coordination at its eighteenth Session, New York, 16-19 April 1996).
36/ United Nations Economic and Social Council, Draft Resolution Submitted by the Vice-Chairman of the Commission for Further Promotion of Equalization of Opportunities by, for and with Persons with Disabilities (New York, United Nations E/CN.5/2000/L.6, 2000), p. 3, paragraph 4.
37/ United Nations Secretariat, Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses Revision 1 (New York, United Nations ST/ESA/STAT/SER.M/67/Rev.1, 1998), pp. 131-133, paragraphs 3.62 to 3.79.
38/ United Nations Secretariat, Department of International Economic and Social Affairs, Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses Revision 1 (New York, United Nations ST/ESA/STAT/SER.M/67/Rev.1, 1998), pp. 64-65, paragraphs 2.52 to 2.59.
39/ United Nations General Assembly, Sustainable Development and International Economic Cooperation - Advancement of Women, 1994 World Survey on the Role of Women in Development: Report of the Secretary-General (New York, United Nations A/49/378, 1994), p. 3.
40/ United Nations General Assembly, Sustainable Development and International Economic Cooperation - Advancement of Women, 1994 World Survey on the Role of Women in Development: Report of the Secretary-General (New York, United Nations A/49/378, 1994), p. 8.
41/ For a conceptualization of these divisions, see Rioux, Marcia H., "Disability: The Place of Judgement in a World of Fact," Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, Volume 41, Number 2, pp. 102-111.
42/ For a discussion of the role of universal design in disability policy, see United Nations General Assembly, Review and Appraisal of the World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons: Report of the Secretary-General (New York, United Nations A/52/351, 1997), p. 4, paragraph 6.
43/ Disabled Persons International, Proceedings of the First World Congress (Singapore, Author).
44/ World Health Organization, International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps: A Manual of Classification Relating to the Consequences of Disease (Geneva, World Health Organization ISBN 92 4 154126 1, 1980), p. 143 and United Nations General Assembly, World Programme of Action Concerning Disabled Persons (New York, United Nations A/37/51, 1983), p. 3, paragraph 6.
45/ United Nations General Assembly, The Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (New York, United Nations A/48/96, 1993), p. 9, paragraph 17.
46/ Information on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) can be obtained from internet at: http://www.who.int/icidh.
47/ World Health Organization, International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: Short Version (Geneva, World Health Organization, ISBN 92 4 154544 5, 2001, pp. 3-4.
48/ United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistics Division, Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses, Revision 1 (New York, United Nations ST/ESA/STAT/SER.M/67/Rev.1, 1998), p. 93, paragraph 2.261.
49/ United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistics Division, Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses, Revision 1 (New York, United Nations ST/ESA/STAT/SER.M/67/Rev.1, 1998), pp. 93-94, paragraph 2.264.
50/ United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Statistics Division, Principles and Recommendations for Population and Housing Censuses, Revision 1 (New York, United Nations ST/ESA/STAT/SER.M/67/Rev.1, 1998), pp. 92-95, paragraph 2.258-2.277.
51/ United Nations Statistical Commission, Demographic and Social Statistics: 2000 World Population and Housing Census Programme, Report of the Secretary-General (New York, United Nations Economic and Social Council E/CN.3/1997/14, 1996), p. 7, paragraph 29; World Health Organization, International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps: A Manual of Classification Relating to the Consequences of Disease (Geneva, World Health Organization ISBN 92 4 154126 1, 1980), pp. 141-180. These recommendations were adopted by the Expert Group in a New York meeting in September 1996. SeeUnited Nations Statistical Commission, Report on the Twenty-Ninth Session (11-14 February 1997), Supplement Number 4 (New York, United Nations Economic and Social Council E/1997/24 and E/CN.3/1997/29, 1997), paragraph 55.
52/ Avard, Denise, "Human Genetics Research and Practice: Implications for People with Disabilities," paper presented to the United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Disability Sensitive Evaluation and Monitoring (New York, United Nations, 5 December 2001), p. 4.
53/ Avard, Denise, "Human Genetics Research and Practice: Implications for People with Disabilities," paper presented to the United Nations Expert Group Meeting on Disability Sensitive Evaluation and Monitoring (New York, United Nations, 5 December 2001), p. 7.
54/ United Nations General Assembly, Comprehensive and integral international convention to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities (New York, United Nations A/C.3/56/L.67/Rev.1, 2001).
55/ United Nations General Assembly, Comprehensive and integral international convention to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities (New York, United Nations A/C.3/56/L.67/Rev.1, 2001), p. 211, paragraph 1.
