© Independent Living Institute
Independent Living Institute,
Storforsplan 36, 10 tr
123 47 Farsta
Sweden
Tel. 08-506 22 179
info@independentliving.org
Promoting the self-determination of people with disabilities
Government Implementation of
the Standard Rules
As Seen By Member Organizations of
Disabled Peoples' International - DPI
© Dimitris Michailakis 1997
Accessibility
Table 9 (Question No. 9)
Regulations to ensure accessibility in the built environment
Total 32, No answer 1
DPI organizations reporting that: Frequency Valid Percent Accessibility standards exist 23 71,9 Accessibility standards do not exist 9 28,1
As Table 9 indicates, almost 30% of DPI organizations are reporting that no accessibility standards exist. The same pattern as generally with the NGO's, with no clear differences in the percentages, even when compared with government responses.
Table 10 (Question No. 10)
Accessibility of the built environment
Total 32, No answer 1
DPI organizations reporting accessibility in: Frequency Valid Percent Public places 20 87,0 Outdoor environment 15 65,2 Transportation 10 43,8 Housing 13 56,5 Accessibility standards do not exist 9 28,1
As Table 10 indicates, the majority of DPI organizations are reporting that accessibility standards concerning public places exist, while accessibility standards concerning means of public transportation exist to a lesser extent. The same pattern prevails with the NGO's in general, with no clear differences in the percentages reported. There are, however, clear differences in the percentages, when compared with the government responses. DPI organizations report a lower percentage than the governments regarding accessibility in public places, outdoor environment, transportation and housing.
Table 11 (Question No. 11)
Supervision of the accessibility in the built environment
Total 30, No answer 3
Accessibility in the built environment is observed by: Frequency Valid Percent National authority 11 36,7 Local Governments 19 63,3 The constructor 6 20,0 The organizers/providers of the activities 4 13,3 No responsible body exists 8 26,7
As Table 11 shows, 27% of DPI organizations are reporting that no responsible body exists to observe the accessibility in the built environment. Accessibility in the built environment, when existing, is most frequently observed by a national authority and by local governments. The same pattern prevails in replies compared with the NGO's in general. Compared with government responses there is only one difference, namely that DPI organizations report a lower percentage regarding the supervision by the national authority of accessibility in the built environment.
Table 12 (Question No. 12)
Measures to facilitate accessibility of the built environment
Total 25, No answer 8
Government measures promoted: Frequency Valid Percent Levelling off pavements 17 68,0 Marking parking areas 17 68,0 Installing automatic doors, lifts and accessible toilets 12 48,0 Ensure accessibility in public places 16 64,0 Improving accessibility in housing 11 44,0 Financial incentives/support for accessibility measures 15 60,0 Special lighting/contrast colours for visually impaired 5 20,0 Provision of specially adapted motor vehicles 15 60,0
According to DPI organizations, the following measures to facilitate accessibility in the built environment are the most frequently promoted: levelling off pavements, marking parking areas and ensuring accessibility in public places. The measure being least of all promoted is special lighting/contrast colours for visually impaired. There are great differences in the percentage reported, when generally compared with the NGO's. DPI organizations report a higher percentage regarding the following measures: levelling off pavements, financial incentives/support for accessibility measures and provision of specially adapted motor vehicles. Almost the same tendency can be discerned, when compared with the government responses. DPI organizations report a higher percentage than the governments concerning the following measures: levelling off pavements, ensuring accessibility in public places, providing financial incentives/support for accessibility measures and providing specially adapted motor vehicles.
Table 13 (Question No. 13)
Special transport system
Total 31, No answer 2
Special transport is available for: Frequency Valid Percent Medical treatment 18 78,3 Education 22 95,7 Work 17 73,9 Recreational purpose 20 87,0 No special transport system exists 8 25,8 Special transport exists 23 74,2
Approximately 26% of DPI organizations are reporting that no special transport system exists. When special transport exists, in most countries it is available for education and for recreational purpose. Regarding the existence of special transport system, there are clear differences in the percentages, when compared with the NGO's in general. The percentage reported by the NGO's is 37,6%, compared with 74,2% by the DPI. There are also clear differences in the percentages when compared with the government responses. DPI organizations report a lower percentage regarding the availability of special transport for medical treatment and work, but a higher percentage for recreational purpose. DPI also report a lower percentage than the governments regarding the non-availability of special transport.
Table 14 (Question No. 14)
Adaptation of the built environment
Total 31, No answer 2
Obstacles reported by DPI when building accessible environments: Frequency Valid Percent Attitudinal factors 25 80,6 Economic/budgetary factors 22 71,0 Technical factors 8 25,8 Geographical and climatic factors 4 12,9 Lack of legislation and regulations 16 51,6 Lack of planning and design capacity 11 35,5 Lack of knowledge, research and information 18 58,1 Lack of user participation 10 32,3 Lack of co-operation from other organizations 14 45,2 Lack of enforcement mechanism 21 67,7
As Table 14 shows, the three main obstacles reported by DPI organizations, when building accessible environments, are attitudinal factors, economic/budgetary factors and lack of enforcement mechanism. It is remarkable that 81% of the DPI organizations are reporting attitudinal factors as the main obstacle, when building accessible environments. There are clear differences compared with the NGO's in general. DPI organizations are reporting a higher percentage regarding attitudinal factors, lack of knowledge, lack of co-operation and lack of enforcement mechanism. There are also clear differences, when compared with the government responses, in almost all of the listed obstacles, except regarding economic/budgetary factors. Regarding geographical and climatic factors, DPI organizations report a lower percentage.
Table 15 (Question No. 15)
Disability awareness component
Total 30, No answer 3
Disability awareness in the training: Frequency Valid Percent There is a disability awareness component 13 40,6 There is not a disability awareness component 19 59,4
The majority of DPI organizations are reporting that a disability awareness component is not incorporated in the training of planners, architects and construction engineers. The same pattern prevails compared with the NGO's in general. There are no clear differences, even when compared with government responses.
Table 16 (Question No. 16)
Status of sign language
Total 30, No answer 3
The status of sign language as reported by DPI organizations: Frequency Valid Percent Recognized as the official language 12 40,0 As the first language in education 2 6,7 As the main means of communication 4 13,3 No officially recognized status 12 40,0
40% of DPI organizations report that sign language has no officially recognized status, while another 40% of the DPI organizations report that sign language is recognized as the official language of deaf people. There is a clear difference compared with the NGO's in general. 29% of NGO's report that sign language has no officially recognized status. There are clear differences also when compared with government responses. DPI organizations are reporting a higher percentage regarding the recognition of sign language as the official language of deaf people than the governments, while they report a lower percentage regarding the recognition of sign language as the first language in education of deaf people.
Table 17 (Question No. 17)
Accessibility measures in media
Total 33, No answer 0
Accessibility measures in media Frequency Valid Percent Reporting accessibility measures 10 30,3 Reporting no accessibility measures 23 69,7
As Table 17 shows, the majority of the DPI organizations are reporting that there are no accessibility measures to encourage media to make their information services accessible for persons with disabilities. The percentage reported here regarding the existence of accessibility measures are 10% lower, compared with the percentage reported by the NGO's in general. There are also clear differences, when compared with the government responses.
Table 18 (Question No. 18)
Accessibility measures in public information services
Total 33, No answer 0
Public information services Frequency Valid Percent Accessibility measures in information 8 24,2 No accessibility measures in information 25 75,8
The majority of the DPI organizations report that there are no government measures to make other forms of public information services accessible for persons with disabilities. On this issue, there is no clear difference compared with the percentage reported by the NGO's in general. There are, however, clear differences, when compared with government responses. DPI organizations - and NGO's in general - are reporting a considerably lower percentage regarding the existence of accessibility measures in information.
Table 19 (Question No. 19)
Access to information and communication
Total 32, No answer 1
Services to facilitate information/communication Frequency Valid Percent Literature in Braille/tape 23 71,9 News magazines on tape/Braille 18 56,3 Sign language interpretation for any purpose 11 34,4 Sign language interpretation for major events 9 28,1 Easy readers for persons with mental disabilities 11 34,4 None 7 21,9
As many as 22% of DPI organizations report that no services at all are provided in order to facilitate information and communication between persons with disabilities and others. The services most frequently provided are literature in Braille/tape and sign language interpretation, either for any purpose or for major events, while less often services such as easy readers for persons with disabilities are provided. The main difference compared with NGO's, is that DPI organizations are reporting a higher percentage regarding provision of easy readers for persons with mental disabilities, NGO's generally reporting 21%. There are clear differences also when compared with the percentages reported by governments. DPI organizations report a lower percentage concerning services such as literature in Braille/tape. They also give higher figures when none of the above mentioned measures are provided.
Contents of the DPI Report
