|
|
 |
|
|
|||||||||||||
| HOME | | | RESOURCES | | | VISION | | | INDIGO | | | FORUM | | | MEMBERS | |||
d |
European Year of People with Disabilities4 ASSESSMENT OF NATIONAL POLICIES FOR SOCIAL INCLUSION We asked the participants of our study to evaluate the effectiveness of
their Government's policies for social inclusion, on a scale from 1 (minimum value)
to 10 (maximum value).
|
|||
Factors contributing to social exclusion – main findingsThe most important factors contributing to social exclusion for people with disabilities, according to our respondents, are the following, in order of importance:the lack or limited access to social environment and unemployment, the lack or limited access to goods and services, stigmatisation of disabled people, the lack of adequate training, the lack of specialised services, the inadequacy of the education systems, the lack of economic policies to compensate for the extra cost of disability, the structure of the benefit system, and finally living in institutions. |
Conclusions:
Disabled people are one of the most vulnerable groups to poverty, and
adequate measures need to be put in place in order to address this problem.
The study has shown that a great majority of disabled people appears to confront serious or very serious difficulties (77,5%) in meeting their basic needs.
Furthermore disability benefits are inadequate to cover their basic needs or to address
the extra costs linked to their impairment. Moreover 57% of disabled workers are
reported to belong to the low paid jobs category.
Families of people with disabilities are also confronted to great financial
strain. In many cases, family members have to leave their jobs to devote themselves to
care for a disabled person, and as a consequence see their income reduced. 48% of
the respondents to the survey declared that there were no measures in their own
country to compensate the loss of income incurred.
Proposals for action:
Policies must be put in place in order to ensure that these additional costs
are compensated by the national protection systems, in order to ensure equal
opportunities for all. Moreover it is vital that current reform in the social protection and
health systems does not increase inequalities, and that special measures are put in
place in order to protect those at a disadvantage and their families.
Conclusions:
An inclusive education is at the basis of an inclusive society. Non-disabled
as well as disabled children would equally benefit from being in the same
educational
environment. At the same time the fight against discrimination and prejudice
can only be won by integration, and by educating children to the respect of human
rights from their youngest age. Most of disabled children can take part in mainstream
education if they are provided the necessary support.
Despite increased efforts from member States in the last years, only 59 % of
disabled children are in ordinary schools. Over 60% of the respondents found that
access to mainstream schools was inadequate. There is furthermore increasing evidence
that in some countries disabled people are excluded from any kind of education.
Moreover the ECHP data highlight a high percentage rate of dropouts. Because of the
failure of the education systems to integrate them fully into schools, disabled children
are excluded later in life from employment opportunities, and as a consequence to
a decent earning, and face greater difficulties to participate in society.
Proposals for action:
Exclusion of disabled children from mainstream education is a form of discrimination; non-discrimination legislation should therefore include
education among its areas of application.
The achievement of an inclusive education implies the provision of the
educational,
technical, and personal support needed for each individual case, in order for
disabled
children to be equally participating to school academic and extracurricular activities than their non-disabled fellow pupils.
Member States must reform ordinary education systems in order to reduce
substantially the dropout level. Measures to be adopted should include
availability of funds for support teachers, or personal assistants, and training of teachers
on disability integration. Moreover adapted teaching material must be developed and
alternative media must be available. These measures should be accompanied by
teaching methods allowing for an effective inclusion and exchange between disabled and
non disabled students.
Where disabled children and their families prefer education in special
schools, these
must be made available, and provide as high quality of education as the
ordinary
system. Moreover the possibility to move to the mainstream system must always
be available.
Because of the crucial nature of education and the high level of exclusion
faced by
disabled people, we believe that the social exclusion strategy, within its
objectives to prevent risks of social exclusion should include a specific reference to
disabled children. Moreover member states should be asked to include targets on access
to education in their National Action Plans for 2003-2005.
Conclusions:
Disabled people are at a high risk of being unemployed or inactive. This
is highlighted by both our study, and by the European data (ECHP). Moreover a
high proportion of disabled workers belong to the low paid jobs category.
Participation in employment is crucial not only for acquiring a decent income, but is also
about active participation in society. Therefore the high percentage (42%) of inactive
disabled people is a striking example of social exclusion. This shows that current
policies are ineffective in order to raise employment levels of people with
disabilities.
Furthermore among the causes of unemployment the lack of adequate training
and education, together with the prejudice of employers, and lack of adaptation of
the workplace were considered among the main reasons for unemployment. Also the
even more limited level of participation of disabled women in the labour market
(25% for women with a severe disability, and 44% of women with a moderate disability)
has to be tackled. A comprehensive policy approach is therefore needed in order to
remove obstacles for disabled women and men to enter or re-enter the labour
market.
Moreover measures must also take into account the situation of parents and
mostly mothers of severely disabled children who often have to leave the labour
market in order to care for them, because of the inadequacy of the care and support
services.
Proposals for action:
A swift transposition in all EU member States of the framework directive on
equal treatment in employment and occupation will be therefore crucial. The need
to provide reasonable accommodation to disabled trainees, candidates for
employment, and workers will be a great contribution in the removal of barriers to the
labour market. Accommodation measures are not only physical, but may mean the
provision of personal assistance or tutoring.
At the same time a wide array of positive measures encouraging employment
and
training are necessary. The EU member States should make full use of the
existing EU instruments, such as the European Social Fund, in order to boost disabled
people's employment opportunities. Projects in partnership with employers and trade
unions should be developed, in order to provide for effective integration at the
workplace. A multifaceted and integrated approach is necessary, taking into account the
diversity of the disabled population, as well as their social situation.
The quality of work for disabled people is a critical issue. We welcome the
decision
of the European Union to develop indicators in the area of quality, and in
particular to analyse the pay gaps between non-disabled and disabled workers. There is
moreover evidence that disabled workers are discriminated in access to promotion and
further training. The situation of people who become disabled during their work career
also needs to be considered. Policies must be put in place in order to favour job
retention and re-integration of disabled persons at the work place. Once again
positive measures, such as tax incentives or the promotion of companies employing
disabled persons in public tenders, and in order to favour the adaptation of the
workplace are essential.
Member States should also analyse and remove barriers to employment in their
social protection systems . Measures must be put in place in order to eliminate
benefit traps and activate people on benefit. These must encourage employment and
participation, while ensuring the necessary security, especially for disabled people unable
to earn a full income. Moreover compensation for disabled people extra costs needed to
support them in their activities and mobility should be maintained when in
employment.
Measures facilitating reconciliation between professional and family life must
be developed in order to support mothers and fathers of children with
disabilities. The possibility to take a parental leave should be extended in order to cover all
disabled children and other family members with a disability. Furthermore the Social
Partners should include in their plan of action the development of a common EU
framework agreement on carers.
There should be greater coordination between the European Employment and
the Social inclusion strategy in the field of employment. In particular the
current
guideline on the fight against social exclusion, and non-discrimination, under
the employability pillar, should be mainstreamed across all pillars and
guidelines.
Moreover specific targets should be set for the education, training, and
employment of disabled people.
Conclusions:
In the area of health, and social services, barriers to information,
attitudinal and
communication barriers, and subtle forms of discrimination are most of the
times the most critical ones.
There is often a lack of awareness of the specific needs of disabled people,
which can vary considerably according to the type of impairment or severity of
disability.
Often individual needs are disregarded because of prejudice. For instance
medical staff prefers to address themselves to parents rather than to establish a
direct contact with the disabled person, preventing him or herself to state his/her
needs.
Proposals for action:
Measures for disability awareness training in hospitals, to social
assistants, and in
vocational training centres, to be carried out in cooperation with disabled
persons
themselves, should be developed in order to overcome these barriers.
At the same time disabled people should be involved in the design and
assessment of these services, along with other users.
Special training should be provided to staff in employment and vocational
training centres, responsible for information, guidance, and training to the specific
needs and abilities of disabled persons. Moreover the direct involvement of disabled
persons in the management and running of these centres should be considered.
Conclusions:
The access to public administration, and therefore the possibility to exert
their
citizenship's rights is often denied to people with disabilities. Barriers to
information prevent them to equally participate in society. Disabled people are often
confronted to barriers relating to communication, negative attitudes, and to the
architecture of public premises.
The lack of access to public administration is a matter of social exclusion,
as well as
of discrimination.
Proposals for action:
The European Union should adopt a non-discrimination legislation covering
access to public administration, as well as to services of public interest.
The directive should include the obligation to provide minimum accessibility requirements, such as the provision of alternate media in written and
oral communication (Braille, large print, easy-to-read information, sign language,
etc.), and the conformity of all public web sites with the Web Accessibility
Initiative
Guidelines. The legislation should also ensure physical accessibility to all
public
premises.
Conclusions:
Disabled people are de facto excluded from most of the leisure cultural
activities, and social activities, such as everyday meeting places like restaurants and shops
because of discrimination, lack of accessibility of the built environment, and
barriers to information. They also face considerable financial barriers in access to
housing.
Proposals for actions:
While a great impulsion to a change in attitudes can come from the
educational
environment, awareness campaigns to the general public are equally important.
The
European Year of People with Disabilities constitutes in this respect a unique opportunity. Member States should support ambitious awareness and media
campaigns in order to favour this change.
The European Union and Member States should adopt legislation to combat discrimination on the ground of disability in access to the social
environment, to goods and services.
Interesting projects have also been developed in the United Kingdom, which has
a non-discrimination legislation covering also access to goods and services,
on disability awareness in customer services.
Member States should introduce design for all standards for the construction
of new
commercial and private buildings, establish clear public procurement rules
on accessibility of buildings, and services, and foresee additional support
measures such as tax reduction and subsidies for the adaptation of existing buildings or
houses.
Design for all courses should be included in the engineers' and architects'
curriculum.
Moreover a design for all environment, taking into account a majority of
needs, can only be achieved through the consultation of users themselves.
Conclusions:
The lack of accessible transport is often a significant obstacle in looking
and finding
for a job, and for establishing relations with the environment. Disabled
people being denied the access to transportation are being discriminated in respect to
non-disabled citizens. There is currently a great lack of accessible transport means in the
European Union. The greatest barriers are in access to local transport. Furthermore the
situation is even more difficult in rural areas.
Proposals for action:
Legislation in this area is fundamental, also in the framework of the
privatisation of the sector, in order to ensure access to disabled people and to all persons
with reduced mobility.
The European Union should introduce legislation on the basis of article 13,
providing for an obligation for transport enterprises and public authorities to purchase
only accessible transportation, and to adapt within a set period existing vehicles.
Particular attention should be paid to transport in rural areas.
Moreover a VAT reduction facility should be put in place for companies
providing
public transport (taxis, etc) purchasing new vehicles or making accessible
existing ones.
Measures aiming at the accessibility of transport must be conducted in
parallel with the adaptation of the built environment, in order to ensure an effective
access.
Furthermore these measures must take into account the diversity of disability.
Conclusions:
Disabled people are confronted to significant barriers in access to
information and communication tools and services. Blind, deaf persons and people with a
learning disability are particularly vulnerable. The cost of adaptation of the
equipment is also considerably high, and rarely covered by social security or tax incentives.
In particular e-commerce is particularly inaccessible to disabled people, who
would highly benefit from possibilities related to distant selling. The development
of e-inclusion measures is also fundamental to allow for an effective integration
of disabled people into the labour market, and in society as a whole.
Proposals for action:
Measures must be put in place in order to promote the accessibility of
Information and communication products and services. In this respect we believe that the
definition of common accessibility standards, and public procurement rules will be essential
in order to promote design for all products and services for all. The adoption
of guidelines on the accessibility of public web sites is also to be welcomed,
however also private companies should be encouraged to adopt them. Furthermore all e-government products and services (for instance terminals providing
public information) should fall into this obligation. Design for all of public web
sites should also mean an easy to read structure and content.
Whenever direct access is not possible, and additional equipment is needed,
its purchase should be subsidized in order to grant equal opportunities for
disabled
persons compared to the rest of the population.
The training and education of current and prospective ICT designers to design
for all and accessibility rules is essential, also to improve future technology.
Finally users must be involved in product development and assessment.
Conclusions:
There is a great need of services contributing a more independent and participatory life for disabled people, such as independent living, supported/sheltered
housing personal assistance, assistive technology centers. A majority considers most
of the services inadequate.
Moreover the situation has also a great impact on parents (mostly mothers)
of
disabled persons with complex dependency needs, who must then compensate for
this lack to the detriment of their work, income and pension rights, but also of
their own involvement in the community and social environment.
Proposals for action:
Member States must promote the development of services that contribute to a
more independent life for disabled persons. They should develop independent
living centers, as well as the possibility to benefit from personal assistants,
currently only available in a limited number of countries. Moreover disabled people should be
able to choose their own assistants through a direct payment allowance. In
addition research in this field has also highlighted the cost effectiveness of
independent living compared to a more institutionalized approach.
In addition disabled users, and their representative organizations must be
involved in the definition and evaluation of services.
The results of our research clearly support previous evidence that disability
is one of
the factors leading to social exclusion.
The report highlights the multidimensional nature of poverty and social
exclusion
affecting disabled people in the areas of income, employment, education, goods
and services, and in the social environment. In order to fight social exclusion,
it is necessary to design measures tackling all the aspects involved.
Responses from organizations participating in the survey have highlighted that
the main factors of exclusion for disabled people are linked to unemployment and
barriers to the social environment, stigmatization, lack or limited access to goods and
services,
inadequate education and training, followed by the lack of economic policies
to compensate for the extra cost of disability, the structure of the benefit
system, and finally living in an institution.
There is a clear link between social exclusion and discrimination.
Discrimination and violation of human rights lead to social exclusion and poverty. Every citizen
of the European Union has a right to a decent income, education and training,
employment, housing, healthcare, a social and cultural life. Depriving a person from those
rights leads to isolation, and poverty. Furthermore, it is necessary to fight
discrimination faced by disabled people and their families in their daily lives, in order to
tackle social exclusion.
Member States and the European Union must complement social inclusion
policies
with legislation fighting discrimination on the ground of disability, in order
to overcome barriers and prevent social exclusion in transport, access to goods
and services, education, and in the communication environment. The experience
of countries with a well established and binding non-discrimination legislation
is that it has led to a greater integration of disabled people in society.
In designing policies the European Union and Member States must envisage
disability in its diversity. Disabled people are faced with different barriers in their
daily life according to their impairment. There is for example a clear correlation
between the severity of the impairment and the level of exclusion and poverty faced by a
disabled person.
There is a need for further information on the situation of disabled persons,
and their level of participation in society. A reference to disability must be included
in the list of indicators to be adopted to evaluate social inclusion policies. Moreover
data collected must include a breakdown relating to participation of disabled
persons.
Also statistics and data at EU and National level should provide further
insight on the situation of disabled women, as regards social participation in all areas of
life (education, employment, social environment). The future EU labour force
surveys should also include questions on the situation of mothers of disabled
children.
Furthermore further legislation on gender discrimination should include
reference to
double and multiple discrimination faced by women with disabilities.
It is also fundamental to involve disabled people themselves through
their representative organisations in the design and evaluation of policies and
measures in order to achieve a real impact.
Finally, the European Year of People with Disabilities in 2003 will constitute
a major opportunity to raise awareness of disability, and fight the negative attitudes
and prejudice.
ORGANISATIONS
PARTICIPANTS
National Confederation of Disabled People in Greece (leading organisation)
Yannis Vardakastanis /Anthy Chatzipetrou
European Blind Union
Rui Goncalves / Rodolfo Cattani
Inclusion Europe
Geert Freyhoff/ Yoka Wijker
Mental Health Europe – European Network of (ex) Users and Survivors of Psychiatry
Josée Van Remoortel
Consejo Espanol de Representantes de Minusvalidos (CERMI-Spain)
Pilar Villarino/ Luis Cayo Perez
Conseil Français des personnes Handicapées pour les questions Européennes (CFHE-France)
Bruno Gaurier / Arnaud de Broca / Henri Faivre
Handikappforbundens Samarbetsorgan (HSO-Sweden)
Ingemar Färm Vammaisfoorumiry (Finland)
Pirkko Mahlamaki
European Disability Forum
Stefan Trömel
Carlotta Besozzi
The University of Athens team initially designed a questionnaire, which
was
presented and discussed in several meetings with the project partners and
EDF.
Problems related to definitions of disability, organization and structure of
services,
and policy prioritisation were discussed at some length. Several modifications
took
place until the final version of the questionnaire was achieved.
The Steering committee of the project decided that the following topics should
be
considered as top priorities to collect policy relevant information:
Identity of the Organisation and Spectrum of Services
Minimum Income and Disability Benefits
Education and Employment
Access to Goods and Services
Infrastructure of Services
Measures to Fight Social Exclusion and Poverty
In total the questionnaire included 66 questions. In order to avoid misconceptions and statistical biases in the collection of data, translations and cultural adaptations of the questionnaire were undertaken by the members of the Steering committee.
The project partners undertook, in cooperation with EDF, the responsibility
to
distribute the questionnaire to Disabled Organizations in each country.
The overall difficulty in constructing a "representative sample" was
discussed
thoroughly by our research group.
Project partners undertook the responsibility of translating and adapting
the questionnaire to the national needs by maintaining the same format and the
same conceptual structure. In some countries a day seminar was organized, in
which representatives of organizations of people with disabilities were invited.
During the seminar the objectives of the study, the concepts, the structure of the
questionnaire and the overall methodology was presented. The participants were asked to
consider each question separately and provide the best possible answer according to
their experience. Emphasis was given not to subjective views but to an overall
assessment of the situation as they experienced in their country.
During the first stage of the investigation as many as 148 questionnaires
were
selected from a large spectrum of EU and non EU countries: Austria,
Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Germany, U.K., Belgium, Greece, France, Spain, Portugal,
Italy, Poland, Turkey, and Estonia. A statistical database was created including
responses from National Councils, National and Regional NGOs organisations.
The recorded answers to the questionnaires represent, as much as possible,
the
collective views and assessment of the current situation, as it is perceived
by the
respondents in each country. For example, in France 44 questionnaires
were completed, including information from several groups of experts and
representatives from NGOs. In each group the average number of participants was around 23
persons.
A national coverage of all French NGOs was achieved in the study. In Finland
4
questionnaires were received which reflected the views of a group of 30 organizations. Similarly, in Spain 26 organizations participated in the
completion of the questionnaire. The response rate varied among the member states
contributing to
some over-representation of some countries and under-representation of others.
For the purpose then, of the present analysis it was decided that seven EU
countries
should be considered, because they ensured full comparability of their
responses at a
national level. Hence a sub-file of data was created using only the
questionnaires
coming from National organisations of disabled people. The participant
countries in
the study are the following: Austria, Finland, Sweden, France, Spain, Greece,
and
Italy.
Abrahamson, P. (1991), "Welfare and poverty in the Europe of the
1990s:
Social progress or social dumping", International Journal of Health
Services, 25 (1)
Council of Europe (1990) Legislation on Rehabilitation of Disabled people
in
Sixteen member States, 4th edition, Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
Espring-Andersen, G. (1990), "The Three Worlds of Welfare State: is
Southern Europe Different?", in Southern European Society and Politics,
No. 2.
European Blind Union (1989) 'Conference of visually handicapped
telephone
operators' 9-11 December 1988, Copenhagen: Danish Association of the Blind.
European Commission (2000) Communication from the Commission Building
an inclusive Europe, Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
European Commission (1998) Employment and People with Disabilities,
Social security and Social Integration, Luxembourg: Office for Official
Publications
of the European Communities.
European Commission (1995) Employment Community Initiative: Summaries
of the Member States Operational Programmes, DGV, European Commission.
European Commission (1998) Raising employment levels of people with
disabilities, the common challenge, Social Security and Social
Integration,
Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
European Commission (EU) (1988) 'Report from the Commission on the
application of Council Recommendations 86/379/EEC of 27 July 1986',
Brussels:
Commission of the European Communities.
European Commission (1999) The Amsterdam Treaty, A Comprehensive guide, Eurostat, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the
European Communities.
European Commission (2000) The social situation in the European union, Directorate –General for Employment and Social Affairs, Brussels: Commission
of the European Communities.
European Commission (2001) The social situation in the European union,
Directorate –General for Employment and Social Affairs, Brussels: Commission
of the European Communities.
Grammenos, S. (1991) Disabled Persons: Statistical Data, Eurostat, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Grammenos, S. (1995) Disabled Persons Statistical Data, Eurostat,
Luxembourg. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
HELIOS (1996) Economic Integration, Annual Reports, Social Europe.
HELIOS II (1993-96) On the Evaluation of the third Community action
programme to assist Disabled people, Brussels: Commission of the
European Communities.
MISER (1995) Basic Information Report Greece: Institutions, procedures
and measures, Employment Observatory, Brussels: European Commission.
MISER (1992) Basic Information Report Italy: Institutions, procedures
and measures, Employment Observatory, Brussels: European Commission.
MISER (1995) Basic Information Report Italy: Institutions, procedures
and measures, Employment Observatory, Brussels: European Commission.
MISSOC (2001) Social Protection in the Member States of the
Community:
Industrial Relations and Social Affairs, Leuven: Commission of the
European Communities
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (1992)
Employment Policies for People with Disabilities: Report by an Evaluation
Panel, Labour Market and Occasional Papers No.8, Paris: OECD.
Seyfried, E. and Lambert, T. (1989) New Semi-Sheltered Forms of Employment for Disabled Persons, Berlin: European Centre for the Development
of Vocational Training.
Yfantopoulos, Y. (1998) Social Protection for dependency in old age in Greece, National Report Series of the Social Protection for Dependency in old
Age in the E.U. Member States and Norway. Project commissioned by the Commission
of the European Communities and the Belgian Minister of Social Affairs,
Katholieke Universitate Leuven.
Yfantopoulos, Y., Balouros, D., Chrysakis, M. and Soulis, S. (1999)
Characteristics of the people with disabilities in Greece (Statistical data,
Research and Policy Implementation). Mentor A Journal of Scientific and Educational
Research,
Hellenic Pedagogical Institute, volume 1 pp.140-162.
Yfantopoulos, Y. (1998) Elderly and the Family in the Southern European Welfare State. Modernizing and Improving E.U Social Protection (Conference
on Long-Term Care of Elderly Dependent People in the EU and Norway)
Yfantopoulos, Y., Pacolet, J., e.t.all (1998) Cost of care for person
with Alzheimer's disease and related disorders (The results of a comparative
analysis
between 5 EU countries. Time to Care The Cost of Formal and Informal Care
For Persons with Alzheimer's Disease (Pilot Study in Five EU Member States.
Vogel-Polsky, E. (1984) The economic Integration of disabled people: An analysis of Measures and Trends in Member States, Brussels: Commission of
the European Communities.
World Bank (2000) World Development Report 2000/2001 (Attacking Poverty), Oxford University Press.
World Health Organization (2000) The World Health Report 2000 Health Systems: Improving Performance, France.
Platform organisations with membership of major national
organisations representing all the main impairment groups.
Representing people with intellectual disabilities.
COM (1996) 406 of 30 July 1996.
Eurostat 1995 Statistics in Focus 1995/10 Disabled Persons: Statistical
Data
Eurostat 2001 E. Cambois, Disability and Social Participation in
Europe, based on the ECHP data, Wave III, 1996
Sweden did not take part in this survey.
Published in Disability and social participation in Europe, Eurostat
2001.
Sweden did not participate in the survey.
OPCS, Disability Surveys and Family Resource Survey
Quintiles are calculated on the base of dividing the population into 5
groups, where each group (quintile) represents 20% of total population (see diagram 15). By ranking
income into 5 groups, starting from the 1st lowest (poorest) quintile, and moving upwards to
the 5th highest (richest) quintile, it was found in the U.K study that the disabled people are mainly classified
at the first and second
lowest quirtiles.
See section 1.2 disabled people in the European Union.
Draft Joint Report on Social Inclusion by the European Commission of
10/10/2001, page 17 2001 RWSS
COM (2000) 284 final of 12 May 2000. See also the resolution adopted by
the European Parliament on the Communicationon "Towards a barrier free Europe for People with
Disabilities" in OJ C21/E/246 of 24 January 2002.
COM (2000) 284 final of 12 May 2000.
Study conducted by the Swedish Cooperative Body of Disabled People,
www.hso.se
Eurobarometer 54.2 on attitudes of Europeans towards disability.
This issue has been addressed during the European Conference on
Employment and Disability organized by the Belgian Presidency in December 2001.
