© Independent Living Institute
Independent Living Institute,
Storforsplan 36, 10 tr
123 47 Farsta
Tel. 08-506 22 179
Government Implementation of
the Standard Rules
As Seen By Member Organizations of
Inclusion International (ILSMH)
Download 'ILSMH Reports on the UN Standard Rules' as a PDF file (258 KB)
The Independent Living Institute wishes to express gratitude to Mr. Bengt Lindqvist, UN Special Rapporteur, and Mr. Dimitris Michailakis, for their kind permission to print the previously un-published ILSMH reply to the Implementation of the Standard Rules.
© Dimitris Michailakis 1997
Read the Standard Rules
Implementation of the Standard Rules as seen by:
Governments | DPI | RI | WBU | WFD
Part I - Summary
Organizations of persons with disabilities.
Co-ordination of work.
Part II - NGO Replies
National Council on Intellectual Disability, Australia.Middle East and North Africa
Association Nationale d'Aide aux Handicapés Mentaux, Belgium.
Förbundet de Utvecklingsstördas V"l, Finland.
Kehitysvammaisten Tukiliitto r.y., Finland.
Lebenshilfe, Inclusion International, Germany.
Norwegian Association for Mentally Retarded, Norway.
Federacao National Cooperativas Educacao Rehabilitacao Criancas Inadaptadas (Fenacerci), Portugal.
Riksförbundet för Utvecklingsstörda Barn, Ungdomar och Vuxna, Sweden.
Fédération Suisse des Associations de Parents de Handicapés Mentaux, Switzerland.
MENCAP, United Kingdom.
American Association on Mental Retardation, USA.
Cyprus Parents Association for Mentally Disabled Persons, Cyprus.Countries in transition
Christos Steliou Ioannou Foundations, Cyprus.
AKIM, Inclusion International, Israel.
Young Muslim Women's Association, Centre for Special Education, Jordan.
Inclusion International, Lebanon.
Association des Parents et Amis d'Enfants Inadaptés, Morocco.
Inclusion International, United Arab Emirates.
National Association for People with Mental Handicap, Albania.Latin America and the Caribbean
National Society for Support of People with Mental Handicap, Bulgaria.
Inclusion International, Croatia.
Sdruzeni pro Pomoc Mentalne Postizenym, ILSMH, Czech Republic.
Estonian Mentally Retarded Persons Support Organization, Estonia.
Ertelmi Fogyatekosok Orszagos Erdekvedelmi Szövetseg (ÉFOÉSZ), Hungary.
Lithuanian Welfare Society for Persons with Mental Disability, Lithuania.
Polish Association for Persons with Mental Handicap, Poland.
Rehabilitation Centre of Disabled Children Having Cerebral Palsy and Spinal Cord Pathologies, Republic of Belarus.
Association of Parents of Children with Handicap, Republic of Belarus.
"Actrakhan" Association, Russia.
National Association for Mentally Handicappped of Slovenia, Slovenia.
Federacao Nacional das APAEs, Inclusion International, Brazil.Sub-Saharan Africa
Sociedad pro Ayuda del Nino Lisiado, Chile.
Inclusion International, Costa Rica.
Fundacion Dominicana para Ninos con Necesidades Especiales, Dominican Republic.
Centre d'Education Speciale, Haiti.
Asociacion de Padres de Familia con Hijos Discapacitados, Nicaragua.
Inclusion International, Mexico.
Association des Parents et Amis d'Enfants Encéphalopathes du Burkina Faso, Burkina Faso.South, East Asia and the Pacific
APEHM, Inclusion International, Cameroon.
Association Nationale des Personnes Handicapées Mentales du Congo, Congo.
Association des Parents et Amis des Jeunes Handicapes Mentaux de Madagascar, Madagascar.
Association des Amis et Parents d'Enfants Handicapes Mentaux de Madagascar, Madagascar.
Association Mauritanienne pour la Promotion des Handicapes Mentaux, Mauritania.
S.A. Federation for Mental Health, South Africa.
Zimcare Trust, Zimbabwe.
This report analyses the replies to the questionnaire sent not only to the governments of the UN Member States, but also to 600 national NGOs within the disability field. The number of responses from the NGOs was not as high as from the governments of Member States. However, it represents a very interesting material. In this report I will separate, among the total of 163 replies from NGOs, the 46 replies from Inclusion International (ILSMH).
Part I of this report presents and analyses the results from the NGOs belonging to ILSMH, which have answered the questionnaire. Each table corresponds to a specific question in the questionnaire (the number of the question is marked). For each question after the presentation of the results comparisons are made between a) the results from the organization in question and the results, from the total of NGOs responding to the questionnaire, and b) the results from the organization in question and the replies from the governments. In this way we can locate the issues where convergence, or divergence, of views exists, between the particular NGOs and all the NGOs having responded to the questionnaire, and between the particular NGOs and the governments.
The information in Part II is presented in a rather detailed form in order to expose the collected data of the responding NGOs.
The decision to send the questionnaire, not only to governments of the Member States, but also to NGOs of these states within the disability field, proved to be worthwhile. The different perspectives and views indicate a more complex picture of the degree of achievement of each country as to the implementing of the Standard Rules. When the government and one, or many, NGOs give the same answers there is a guarantee for the reliability of the received data, but when, on the other hand the answers differ many questions arise. For instance: Who knows what about whom? Does the organization for the blind know the conditions for the mentally disabled? Is there a trend that governments give an idealizing description while NGOs give a pessimistic one? The comparisons in this report are not aiming at indicating the greatest possible differences, but to find out the greatest possible achievements with the standards, set out by the Rules. Yet, attention has to be paid to cases where the answers from one and the same country are not concordant. For several questions, the difference between the percentages reported by ILSMH organizations and governments, is ten percent or more. What do such differences tell us?
The answers differ, now and then, on specific details on very essential issues, like what kind of services that are available and what persons with disabilities are entitled to? That the answers differ, on issues such as the role of the co-ordinating committee, is rather evident, since it is a question of assessing, of evaluating a process between two or more parties. But in case of divergent answers about social and economic rights questions arise. Is there an information gap even among the most prominent spokesmen for persons with disabilities? Do organizations have too small resources in order to keep themselves well-informed? Or do the disability organizations work rather separately from each other; concentrating on their own, specific disability group, due to the complexity of the matter, that is ¥disability¥, is too big an issue to keep record of?
The divergence is of course in many cases the result of a different perspective due to different roles: The government is the actor implementing policies within a wide range of issues, while NGOs are experts in a specific field, actors who therefore very well know what is happening in a limited area. The answer from the NGO can thus sometimes be the verification, or falsification, of the answer from the government. The government answer giving a more optimistic view than the answer from the NGOs could depend on the fact that - being the responsible part for the implementation of policies, conventions and rules, such as the Standard Rules - the government wants to demonstrate that it has carried out its obligations.
By elaborating the specific replies of different NGOs, comparing the answers with the NGOs as a whole - a rather common procedure - and with the governments, one trait has emerged, rather unexpectedly: that specific NGOs diverge on one or many issues with the NGOs in general but converge with the answer from the government. In order to explain this, and other interesting findings, further monitoring is needed.
Distribution of NGOs belonging to ILSMH, according to regions
Regions Frequency Percent South, East Asia and the Pacific 1 2,2 Industrialized countries 11 23,9 Latin America and the Caribbean 7 15,2 The Middle East and North Africa 7 15,2 Sub-Saharan Africa 8 17,4 Countries in transition 12 26,1 Total 46 100,0
The region with most responses from ILSMH organizations is the one of countries in transition, followed by industrialized countries. The region which is clearly underrepresented is the South, East Asia and the Pacific. Compared with NGOs in general the number of respondents from ILSMH organizations are higher than from NGOs in general as regards the Middle East and North Africa.
Contents of the ILSMH Report