Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals-2014-Abidi-60-8

8/10/2019 Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals-2014-Abidi-60-8

1/10

http://cde.sagepub.com/ Excep tional Indivi duals

Career Development and Transition for

http://cde.sagepub.com/content/37/1/60The online version of this article can be foun d at:

DOI: 10.1177/2165143413520180

2014 37: 60 originally published online 6 February 2014areer Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals Javed Abidi and Dorodi Sharma

Employment for Disabled Peopleoverty, Disability, and Employment: Global Perspectives From the National Centre for Promotion of

Published by:

Hammill Institute on Disabilities

Division on Career Development and Transition

and

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals Additional services and information for

http://cde.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://cde.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Feb 6, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record

- Apr 3, 2014Version of Record>>

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on November 13, 2014cde.sagepub.comDownloaded from at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on November 13, 2014cde.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cde.sagepub.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/content/37/1/60http://cde.sagepub.com/content/37/1/60http://cde.sagepub.com/content/37/1/60http://www.hammill-institute.org/http://www.dcdt.org/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.sagepublications.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://cde.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://cde.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://cde.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/02/06/2165143413520180.full.pdfhttp://cde.sagepub.com/content/37/1/60.full.pdfhttp://cde.sagepub.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtmlhttp://cde.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/02/06/2165143413520180.full.pdfhttp://cde.sagepub.com/content/37/1/60.full.pdfhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://cde.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://cde.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sagepublications.com/http://www.dcdt.org/http://www.hammill-institute.org/http://cde.sagepub.com/content/37/1/60http://cde.sagepub.com/


2/10

Career Development and Transition forExceptional Individuals2014, Vol. 37(1) 60 68 Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2014Reprints and permissions:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/2165143413520180cdtei.sagepub.com

Article

The magnitude of the global problem of disability in the worldis truly gigantic and its huge dimensions are often not fullyrealised.

Amartya Sen (2007)

These words rang true in 2011 when the World Report onDisability published by the World Health Organization(WHO) and the World Bank revealed that 15% of theworlds population or 1 billion people are affected by dis-ability. Of this, as many as 80% or 800 million live in theGlobal South which includes the nations of Africa, Centraland Latin America, and most of Asia. People with disabili-ties also constitute 20% of the worlds poorest individuals(Elwan, 1999).

Researchers in the United States have also documentedthe connections between disability and poverty (Emerson,2007; Hughes, 2013). Although U.S. special education andtransition professionals may be aware of the growing num-

bers of families living in poverty or the impact of povertyon post-school outcomes; they may not have a full pictureof the intersection of disability and poverty worldwide. The

purpose of this article is to offer a global perspective, focus-ing primarily on public policy, awareness, and other issuesof inclusion and equity in India and neighboring countries.

The World Bank (2009) study People with Disabilities in India: From Commitments to Outcomes clearly underlinesthe close connection between poverty and disability. Thisstudy reported a 52% illiteracy rate among people with

disabilities as opposed to 35% in Indias general population.Households that include persons with disabilities are lesslikely to have three meals a day. Even more disturbing is thefact that the employment rate for people with disabilities inIndia decreased from 42.7% in 1991 to 37.6% in 2002. Lackof access to education, poor employment prospects, andstigma compound the challenges faced by people with dis-abilities (OKeefe, 2009).

These dismal statistics are not limited to the developingcountries. The annual Disability Equality Indicators pub-lished by the Office of Disability Issues of United Kingdomreport that a substantially higher proportion of individualswho live in families with disabled members live in poverty,compared with individuals who live in families where noone is disabled (Government of the United Kingdom,Department for Work and Pensions, Office for DisabilityIssues, 2012). According to these indicators, 20% of indi-

viduals with a family member with disability live in relativeincome poverty as opposed to 15% of individuals fromfamilies without disability. These indicators also state that46.3% of people with disabilities in the working age

80CDEXXX10.1177/2165143413520180Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals Abidi and Sharma

1Disabled Peoples International (DPI), New Delhi, India

Corresponding Author:Dorodi Sharma, National Centre for Promotion of Employment forDisabled People (NCPEDP), A 77, South Extension Part 2, New Delhi110049, India.Email: [email protected]

Poverty, Disability, and Employment:Global Perspectives From the NationalCentre for Promotion of Employment forDisabled People

Javed Abidi, BA 1 and Dorodi Sharma, MA 1

AbstractThe worldwide problems of disability, poverty, and unemployment stem out of the interaction of multiple factors includingsocial stigma, stereotypes, lack of access to physical infrastructure, information, and enabling environments. Given this,a singular approach toward tackling these interrelated issues falls short. This article attempts to highlight the correlationof poverty, disability, and employment through the linkages with education, accessibility, legislative and policy changes,

and awareness. It draws on the experiences of the National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People(NCPEDP), to propose a course of action which is built on a strong cross-disability rights-based movements driving a multi-pronged, multi-sectoral approach toward addressing inequalities to break the cycle of poverty and disability.

Keywordsdisabilities, employment

at Alexandru Ioan Cuza on November 13, 2014cde.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://cde.sagepub.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/


3/10

Abidi and Sharma 61

category are employed as opposed to 76.4% in the non-dis-abled population.

Given this reality, it is imperative that the world moves beyond the rhetoric on the linkages between disability and poverty. At the turn of the century, the world united to seteight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) on criticalissues like eradicating poverty; achieving universal primaryeducation; promoting gender equality and empoweringwomen; reducing child mortality; improving maternal health;combating HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases; ensuringenvironmental sustainability; and global co-operation fordevelopment (United Nations, http://www.un.org/millenni-umgoals/). The timeline to achieve these targets is 2015.

Despite the correlation of disability and development,and the fact that disability is a cross-cutting issue, the needsof individuals with disabilities were not specifically men-tioned in the MDGs. A huge percent of the worlds popula-tion (at that point estimated to be more than 600 million)which faced multiple levels of deprivation, was left out of

the worlds unified efforts to tackle these future develop-ment challenges. This exclusion has led to more barriers

being created for people with disabilities. The majority ofthe schemes and programs arising out of the MDGs werenot accessible to people with disabilitiesbe it infrastruc-ture in terms of buildings or access to information. Towardthe second half of the last decade, attempts have been madeto rectify this oversight. Resolutions have been adopted bythe United Nations to mainstream disability within the goalsas well as the indicators for MDGs. Current discussions onthe MDGs are progressing along two parallel tracks: one onaccelerating the MDG process and the other to develop anew agenda for post-2015. It is imperative that disability isseen as a truly cross-cutting issue for both of these interna-tional efforts.

This article will provide a global perspective on the rela-tionship between poverty, employment, and disability basedon the experiences of the National Centre for Promotion ofEmployment for Disabled People (NCPEDP) in India, andcite some examples of successful advocacy campaigns thathave led to a significant inclusion of disability in the policyrealm. Given our experiences in India, we will underlinehow building a cross-disability advocacy movement isessential to bring about any substantial change in the livesof people with disabilities.

Unemployment and PovertyAccording to WHOs World Health Survey of 51 countries,the employment rate for people with disabilities is 52% formen with disabilities and 19.6% for women with disabilities(WHO & World Bank, 2011). However, these figures maynot be completely accurate given the dearth of reliable dataon disability across the world, especially in the countries ofthe Global South. Moreover, while considering employment

rates, it is important to keep in mind that most people withdisabilities in countries of the Global South do not partici-

pate in the open labor market. Experiences from the disabil-ity movement show that people with disabilities are mostlyemployed in non-formal sectors such as sheltered work-shops where the concept of salary is reduced to a small sti-

pend. This does not truly emancipate individuals nor makethem self-reliant. This same situation may also be true formany other developed countries. For example, according tothe Office of Disability Employment Policy, under theDepartment of Labor of the United States (2010), labor force

participation for people with disabilities in the country is only20.7% as opposed to 68.7% for the general population.

Employment of People WithDisabilities in IndiaThe story of economic empowerment of persons with dis-abilities in India started in the year 1977 when the then

Prime Minister of India passed a Government Order man-dating a 3% reservation for persons with disabilities in gov-ernment jobs. Although a good beginning, it had manydownsides, including the following:

It was only a Government Order and not a law.Implementation was dismal.

This reservation was only for C & D category jobs.Government jobs in India are graded as A, B, C, andD, where A and B are officer-level positions and Cand D are lower level jobs. The Government Orderof 1977 thus assumed that persons with disabilitieswere unfit to become executives or officers.

This reservation was for only three dominant dis-abilities1% each for individuals with orthopedic,visual and hearing impairments.

In the year 1995, India passed its first disability legisla-tion: Persons with Disabilities Equal Opportunities,Protection of Rights and Full Participation Act, 1995. Withthis act, the 3% reservation for persons with disabilities ingovernment jobs became legally binding. Moreover, reser-vations were extended to A and B category (officers). Eventhen, much was left to be done. The major drawbacks thatstill remained were as follows:

The 3% reservation was still restricted to the three dom-inant disabilities (orthopedic, visual, and hearing).

Indias economy had opened up and there were more jobs in the private sector. But the private sector wasnot tapped at all. The law only said that incentiveswere to be provided to those private sector compa-nies who ensured that at least 5% of their workforcecomprised persons with disabilities. These incen-tives were not defined.

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/http://cde.sagepub.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/


4/10

62 Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals 37(1)

Identification of jobs for persons with disabilitiesreaffirmed stereotypes that persons with disabilitieswere fit only for certain type of employment.

Poor implementation of the 3% reservation occurredeven in government jobs.

A year after the Persons with Disabilities (EqualOpportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation)Act was passed, in 1996, there was a need for focused atten-tion on promoting employment opportunities for personswith disabilities. It was during this time that NCPEDP wasset up to work as an interface between Government,Industry, International Agencies, and the Voluntary Sectortoward promotion of better employment opportunities for

persons with disabilities. This created a paradigm shift asfor the first time India was thinking beyond basket weavingand candle making for individuals with disabilities to main-stream employment. In addition, there was new emphasison development of jobs in the private sector. In 1999,

NCPEDP conducted a study of the top 100 companies inIndia: 23 public sector companies, 63 private sector compa-nies and 14 multi-national companies (MNCs). Of this, 70companies responded to this survey: 20 public sector com-

panies, 40 private sector companies, and 10 MNCs. Surveyresults documented the following:

Percentage of employees with disabilities in therespondent companies = 0.40%

Percentage of employees with disabilities in the pub-lic sector = 0.54%

Percentage of employees with disabilities in the pri-vate sector = 0.28%

Percentage of employees with disabilities in themulti-nationals = 0.05%

In 2009, NCPEDP conducted a similar follow-upstudy. The percentage of employment had improved butvery negligibly. The percentage of employees with dis-abilities in the surveyed companies in the public sector,on an average, was between 1% and 2% and in the pri-vate sector, (which included the MNCs) was between0.5% and 1%. Even in the Government sector jobs, wherethere is a 3% reservation, which has resulted in peoplewith certain disabilities getting jobs, implementation was

dismal. As a result of advocacy and various court orders, backlogs are gett ing filled up. Despite this, the 3% markwas not met until 2012 (Ministry of Social Justice andEmpowerment, 2012).

Does the overall picture look promising in India? Onan average, about 3,500 people with disabilities are

placed through employment exchanges every year andsome are being placed through other sources, includingcompetitive exams, advertisements, and so on (Ministryof Labour & Employment, 2010). In the private sector,

particularly in the information technology (IT) and hos- pitality industry, several companies are proactively hir-ing persons with disabilities. Figure 1 provides a profileof one company that has focused on inclusion for indi-viduals with disabilities.

There are no other reliable data available on private sec-tor employment of persons with disabilities except the

NCPEDP study. According to Rama Chari, Founder andDirector of Bangalore-based Diversity and EqualOpportunity Centre (DEOC), the situation is slightly betterthan what it was about 8 to 10 years ago since there has

been an increase in job opportunities in these sectors in thelast decade or so. R. Chari (personal communication, April24, 2013) says that even in the private sector, most peoplewith disabilities are facing continued barriers to full inclu-sion in the workforce. Figure 2 provides an overview ofthese barriers.

Barriers to EmploymentDuring the initial years of NCPEDP, our staff reached outto apex bodies such as chambers of commerce, industry,and so on and organized a series of workshops to sensi-tize employers. However, we soon realized that to bemeaningfully employed education is an absolute must. A

person with disabi lity can only gain an education if theschools, colleges, and universities are accessible; theroads and transport are accessible; and information isaccessible. Thus, neither education nor employment is

possible without accessibili ty. Employment, education,and accessibility are not possible without appropriatelaws and policies. To bring in appropriate policies, oneneeds to build public opinion through awareness andcommunication. Hence, employment cannot be looked atin isolation, and therefore, NCPEDP started working onfive areas simultaneously: Employment, Education,Accessibility, Legislations/Policies, and Communication.The relationship of these five key areas is depicted inFigure 3.

Education and the Inverted PyramidIn 2003, NCPEDP conducted a study on the status of stu-dents with disabilities in the schools, colleges, and universi-

ties across India. The Persons with Disabilities (EqualOpportunities, Protection of Rights, and Full Participation)Act of 1995 mandated 3% reservation for students withorthopedic, visual and hearing impairment in educationalinstitutions. For this study, 322 universities, 294 colleges,(10 colleges in each State and 1 from each union territory)and 318 schools (10 schools from each State and 5 for eachUnion Territory) were sent the questionnaires. Of this sam-

ple, 119 universities, 96 colleges, and 89 schools responded,which is a 46% response rate.



5/10

Abidi and Sharma 63

Results of the survey indicated the following:

Percentage of students with disabilities in the sur-veyed universities = 0.10%

Percentage of students with disabilities in the sur-veyed colleges = 0.52%

Percentage of students with disabilities in the sur-veyed schools = 0.51%

This study clearly showed that very few students withdisabilities reached schools and colleges, and even fewer tothe universities. NCPEDP conducted a similar survey in2010 to 2011 of more than 300 top universities/collegesacross India. This included the top 20 each of medical sci-ences, engineering, law, journalism, management, and soon. More than 150 institutions responded. However, the

average rate of students with disabilities in the surveyedcolleges/universities was still less than 1%.

The Invisible Minority: Disability andPublic PolicyThe poor visibility of persons with disabilities in the publicspace can, to a great extent, be attributed to the completeabsence of disability in the policy space. India attainedindependence in 1947. During the crucial period of nation

building, disability was not a part of the planning. It wasonly in 1995, half a century after independence that Indiagot its first legislation that guaranteed the rights of personswith disabilities. The extent to which disability was absentfrom the radar of policy makers and decision makers can beunderstood from the fact that India did not find it pertinentto enumerate the population of people with disabilities in itsPopulation Census until 2001.

Likewise, disability did not find any mention in theFive Year Plans that sets the priority for development andresource allocation till as long as the Tenth Plan (2002 2007). The Planning Commission was set up by a Resolutionof the Government of India in March 1950 in pursuance ofdeclared objectives of the Government to promote a rapidrise in the standard of living of the people by efficientexploitation of the resources of the country, increasing pro-

duction, and offering opportunities to all for employment inthe service of the community (http://planningcommission.nic.in). Since the Government did not have numbers for

people with disabilities, and did not include disability in its policy-making mechanisms, people with disabilities werenot seen in the mainstream of society.

In a scenario where people with disabilities are not ableto access education and avenues of employment, it becomesessential that they be featured as a priority in all develop-ment policies and programs. This is a need to correct the

MphasiS: A Model Employer

MphasiS is a USD 1 billion global service provider, delivering technology based solutions to clients across the world andacross industries, including Banking and Capital Markets, Insurance, Manufacturing and Communications. It is one of the

model companies in India when it comes to equal opportunities for people with disabilities.

Beginning: The process of hiring persons with disabilities at MphasiS star ted in 20052006. It was a conscious decisionled by senior leadership driven by the premise that talent/competencies exist across the population and that persons

with disabilities would add to the diversity of the workforce and also have a positive impact on their bottom line.

Process: MphasiS worked and is working on a twin-track approach toward inclusivity. On one hand, as part of themainstream strategy, it is a policy to actively source candidates with disabilities. All recruitment drives internal as well asexternal- reiterate the commitment to diversity. All employees with a disability undergo regular induction with reasonable

accommodation provided whenever and wherever requested. For example, providing screen magniers and JAWSsoftware to employees with visual disability; dedicated transport facility; pick and drop from home;

sign language interpretation; exible working hours where needed, etc. MphasiS has earmarked a certain budget for workplacesolutions/accommodations to enable employees with disabilities to fulll their job requirements.

MphasiS also has a loan advance policy to support employees with disabilities to lead a quality life with the help of assistive devices.

Simultaneously, MphasiS has also linked its commitment toward disability in its philanthropic work. Through its CorporateSocial Responsibility, it was decided to support HR in proactively recruiting people with disabilities into the workforce

by investing in trainable candidates, and absorbing them into the workforce. It works with NGOs focusing on increasingemployability through an intensive and structured pre-employment training, especially in tier-2 cities, which would enable them

to compete on an equal footing with other candidates. More than 500 candidates with disabilities who have beentrained so far have secured jobs not only in MphasiS but also in other companies.

As of today, MphasiS has over 1% of employees with disabilities.

Figure 1. Employer case study.



6/10


mistakes of the past as much as laying the foundation for thefuture. However, a look at the policy space of India wouldreveal that this is not the case.

Census and Disability In the early 1990s, when the Disabled Rights Group (DRG)was established, the first priorities were to address the absenceof a law to protect the rights of people with disabilities and togather credible statistics. DRG is a cross-disability alliance of

people with disabilities and their organizations, friends, fami-lies, and supporters. It was formed in 1993 primarily to advo-cate for disability rights legislation. Over the years, it has ledseveral advocacy campaigns bordering on activism. Advocacyled to the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,Protection of Rights, and Full Participation) Act, 1995. Interms of enumeration of people with disabilities the nextopportunity was in the Census of 2001.

Indias Census (http://censusindia.gov.in/) operation dates back to the British era (1872) and has been conducted unin-terruptedly every 10 years. What is surprising is that until

before independence, a question on disability, though verycrude, was always included. This question was dropped inthe Census after Independence and then included again in1981, which was the International Year for Disabled People.However, it was again dropped in the Census of 1991. TheCensus figures are the statistics that the Government relies onto develop policies and programs and most importantly to

determine resource allocations. In 1999, the DRG made arequest to the Government to include disability in the 2001Census. To our utter dismay, this request was refused. A vig-orous campaign followed that went on for several months,where people with disabilities came out on the streets to pro-test. Eventually, and at the very last moment, a question ondisability was hurriedly included in the census. It was not awell-framed question and did not include several disability

LEGISLATIONS

AWARENESS

ACCESSIBILITYEDUCATION

EMPLOYMENT

Figure 3. Key priorities for NCPEDP.Note. NCPEDP = National Centre for Promotion of Employment for

Disabled People.

Barriers to employment for persons with disabilities in the private sectorRama Chari, Founder & Director,

Diversity & Equal Opportunity Centre (DEOC), Bangalore, India

1. No legislative mandate for non-discr imination/equal opportunity for persons with disabilities.2. Choice to employ/not employ remains with the employer. Thus, some companies just do not employ people with

disabilities; some employ persons with certain disabilities and do not even want to consider hiring persons withsome other disabilities notwithstanding their qualication for the job; some identify jobs for which they can hire

persons with disabilities.3. Not willing to invest in creating accessible infrastructure or providing accommodations.

4. Very ad hoc and piecemeal approach toward hiring, which may not be sustainable in the long run.5. Lack of awareness and rigid mindsets amongst the decision makers, managers and other employees.

6. Rigid hiring criteria, which may not be based on skills needed for a particular job requiring generic skills.7. A charity outlook toward employing people with disabilities compounded by unfounded fears and apprehensions

on disability due to stereotypes. For instance, questions such as Will she/he be able to travel?; What wouldclients say? etc.

8. Lack of redress mechanism where persons with disabilities can approach when faced withdiscrimination/harassment.

Myth of the employable pool: Employable pool, as viewed by some companies, may not be the same as the actualemployable pool. For example, people who need accommodation may be considered unemployable; people with certaindisabilities may be considered unemployable; people without cer tain qualications despite having the necessary skill setmay get excluded from the employable pool; and so on. Thus a lot of people with disabilities who are employable may not

be included in the employable pool .

Figure 2. Barriers to employment in the private sector.



7/10

Abidi and Sharma 65

categories. This was compounded by the fact that the enu-merators (the people who go house to house filling the Censusquestionnaire), were not sensitized about disability and theimportance of asking this question. We got feedback fromacross the country where enumerators did not even ask thequestion. Nevertheless, the Census data revealed that Indiawas home to 21 million people with disabilities, or 2.1% ofits population.

The next challenge was to get a more accurate enumera-tion of disability in the 2011 Census. NCPEDP and the

National Disability Network (NDN) led a campaign in 2010for improving the question on disability, prioritizing thequestion on disability, and making disability an integral partof the training and sensitization program of the enumeratorsin the Census of 2011. This time, the Census Commissionwas also more sensitized and aware: It is now hoped thatwhen the disability data under Census 2011 is revealed, itwill paint a more accurate picture.

Five Year PlanIndia set up the Planning Commission in 1950 to promotedevelopment by setting the development agenda andresource allocation through formulating what are called theFive Year Plans (http://planningcommission.nic.in). TheFirst Five Year Plan was launched in 1951. This was thetime that India was setting the foundation of the nation: Itseducation system, infrastructure, and so on, as well as dis-ability were not in the paradigm. In fact, disability was notin the Five Year Plan until the Tenth Plan (20022007).Even then, it was just a very cursory mention.

In 2006 to 2007, when the Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007 2012) was being formulated, NDN and DRG led a sustainedcampaign for proper inclusion of disability in the legislation.It was a difficult and prolonged campaign that involved peo-

ple with disabilities coming out on the streets. Finally, thechapter on Social Justice had a substantial mention of dis-ability (Planning Commission, Government of India, 2008).Among many other mandates, the most significant achieve-ment for the disability movement was that for the first time,the Five Year Plan recognized that disability has been aneglected subject and that it is a cross-cutting issue.

However, now that the Eleventh Plan has ended, anappraisal of the implementation will show that it has been

extremely cheerless.8.87 Recognizing the special problems and needs of personswith disabilities, specific aspirational and actionable

pronouncements were made in the Eleventh Plan. Anassessment of the progress made with regard to the actionable

points concerning the welfare and development of personswith disabilities indicates a disappointing performance; mostof them have remained unattended till date. (Mid-TermAppraisal for Eleventh Five Year Plan, Planning Commission,Government of India, 2011, p. 187)

ReservationsDo They Work? India has 3% reservation or quota for people with orthope-dic, visual, and hearing disabilities in government sector

jobs. There have been sporadic demands for similar reser-vations or quotas in the private sector as well. There are

both pros and cons to reservations. If we analyze the statusof employment of people with disabilities in the public sec-tor companies over the past decade, it will be clear thatmany people have benefitted from this policy (Abidi, 2010).Some of them would not have been able to get any job,otherwise. Raja Mohan Pratap a person with quadriplegia,despite doing well in his engineering course could not finda job during the campus placement. It was only because ofthe quota that he joined a leading energy sector company(PSU). He vouches for the effectiveness of quota (Abidi,2010).

However, despite the quota, Government companieshave not been able to fulfill the mandated 3%. There is a

huge backlog of reserved vacancies for persons with dis-abilities. Based on the information received from 65Ministries/Departments 6,611 vacancies remain unfilled:The total number of backlog vacancies identified was7,628 and the number of backlog vacancies filled wasonly 1,017. Similar is the situation with respect to back-log in all the States and Union Territories (Ministry ofSocial Justice and Empowerment, 2012). The reason

being quoted for the vacancies is the lack of qualifiedcandidates.

Although quotas seem to have worked in the Governmentsector, we do not advocate for adopting quotas in the privatesector. Rather, NCPEDP strongly feels that an effective

anti-discrimination law would help persons with disabilitieshave a level playing field when it comes to employment inthe private sector. However, the core issue still remains thefact that young people with disabilities are not reaching theschools, colleges, and universities and are not integratedinto the skill development programs.

Skill DevelopmentIndia is now in the midst of the National Skill DevelopmentMission where the aim is to train 500 million people by2022. Disability does not seem to have featured extensively

in this program. NCPEDPs contention is that the 1995 Actmandates a 3% reservation in all areas of activity, and inChapter VI on Employment (Section 40), it clearly states,The appropriate Governments and local authorities shallreserve not less than 3% in all poverty alleviation schemesfor the benefit of persons with disabilities. Given this, 3%of 500 million or 15 million people with disabilities should

be skilled under this legislation. Also, all venues, courses,information, curriculum, and so on should be accessible toall persons with disabilities.



8/10


Disability in the Flagship ProgramMahatmaGandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee

Act (MNREGA)The Mahatma Gandhi National Rural EmploymentGuarantee Act of 2005 is the first ever law internationallythat guarantees wage employment at an unprecedentedscale. It is a flagship program of the Government of Indiathat guaranteed 100 days of employment at Rupees 100 perday to people from rural areas.

Some of the salient features are as follows:

Work is provided within 5 km radius of the village. In case work is provided beyond 5 km, extra wages

of 10% are payable to meet additional transportationand living expenses.

Priority is awarded to women, such that at least onethird of the beneficiaries under the scheme arewomen.

At least 50% of works, in terms of cost, are to beexecuted by the Gram Panchayats, which is the localgovernment at the village level.

Contractors and use of labor displacing machineryare prohibited.

Work site facilities such as crche, drinking water,shade have to be provided.

While the Act mandated that one third of the beneficia-ries should be women, it did not have any provision for

people with disabilities. The basic premise was that all workunder MNREGA is physical and labor intensive and thusunsuitable for people with disabilities. The overarchinggoal of eradicating poverty by providing guaranteed mini-mum wage cannot be achieved if a huge bulk of the popula-tion is not included. Eventually, after some advocacy theGovernment has incorporated a statement under Chapter 4on Registration & Employment (Section 4.6; Sub-section4.6.10) in its Operational Guidelines for the implementationof the MNREGA stating that

If a rural disabled person applies for work, work suitable to his/her ability and qualifications will have to be given. This mayalso be in the form of services that are identified as integral tothe program. Provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (EqualOpportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,1995, will be kept in view and implemented.

Despite these recommendations, participation of peoplewith disabilities in NREGA is still not ideal, and in manycases negligible.

Neighboring CountriesBarriers to employment and independence for individualswith disabilities are also prevalent in other neighboring

countries within the Global South. Here, we present a briefoverview of the key issues in both Pakistan and Sri Lanka.

Perspective From Islamic Republic of PakistanAccording to 1998 census, approximately 2.49% of the

population of Pakistan has some form of disability. It is esti-mated that 66% of them live in rural areas. Only 28% of

people with disabilities are literate; only 14% of them workand 70% are reliant on family members for financial sup-

port (A. Akram, personal communication, April, 24, 2013).

Affirmative action for people with disabilities. According toSection 10 of the Disabled Persons (Employment and Reha-

bilitation) Ordinance1981 (DPO-1981), 1% of all jobs in public and private sector establishments are reserved for people with disabilities. This quota was later enhanced to2% in 1998 through an administrative order, issued byEstablishment Division. To avail this quota, a person has to

be assessed by a medical board and given an ID card with aspecial logo on it. The assessment board also indicates, inits report to the provincial government, the nature of workin which a specific person with disability can be employedor training requirement in a vocation or trade.

Barriers to Employment Persons with disabilities are mostly unseen, unheard,

and uncounted in Pakistan. They face overwhelming barriers in education, skills development, and dailylife.

There is a dearth of information on issues pertainingto disability as family influence or other pressureskeep persons with disabilities, particularly womenwith disabilities reluctant to identify themselves and

participate in surveys. Unemployed people with disabilities are more

inclined toward receiving/expecting financial support or provision of employment instead of workopportunities,

People with disabilities and their families seem to focusmore on information related to charity instead of livelihoodand employment issues (A. Akram, personal communica-

tion, April 24, 2013).

Perspective From Sri LankaSri Lanka has a total population of 20,860,000, of which274,711 are persons with disabilities, roughly 1.6% of thetotal population. Section 23 of the Protection of the Rightsof Persons with Disabilities Act (1996) underlines non-discrimination in employment and education for personswith disabilities and also measures that may be taken in

http://cde.sagepub.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/


9/10

Abidi and Sharma 67

such cases (S. Attanyanke, personal communication, April24, 2013).

The National Policy on Disability (2003) also includesinformation about equal employment opportunities as wellas vocational training and skills development, poverty alle-viation, school education, non-formal education, socialsecurity, access to built environments, communication andinformation, assistive devices, and IT.

Public Administration Circular No. 27/88, 1988, reserves3% of vacancies in public service and public companies to

be filled by persons with disabilities provided their dis-ability would not be a hindrance to the performance ofduties (Government of Sri Lanka, Ministry of PublicAdministration, 1988, Article 1). The Draft NationalEmployment Policy also mentions employment opportuni-ties for people with disabilities. However, there are no offi-cial statistics on the status of employment for persons withdisabilities in Sri Lanka.

The Way Forward: RecommendationsIt is evident that an isolated intervention is not sufficient to

break the cycle of poverty and disability worldwide. Theroot causes of inequalities stem out of the intersections ofdisability and several other factors. Meaningful employ-ment leading to financial independence is one of the keyremedies to alleviating poverty. However, as we have seen,the barriers to employment for persons with disabilities alsocannot be considered in isolation.

Policy and program development without social justiceis meaningless. For people with disabilities with high sup-

port needs, people with intellectual and developmental dis-abilities, and those with psychosocial disabilities who donot even have legal capacity, it means nothing. Theseindividuals are often not even recognized as persons.Without acknowledging these inequalities, any develop-ment agenda cannot meet the primary objective of leavingno one behind. Thus, a multi-pronged, multi-sectoralapproach toward addressing the inequalities arising out ofdisability will have to be created to truly break the cycle of

poverty and disability. We summarize our recommenda-tions for change below.

Addressing Barriers at the Family/CommunityLevel The barriers for persons with disabilities start at home. Inmany countries, disability is still considered a charity issue.Thus, families with children with disabilities may notexpect that these young people could grow up to become

productive members of society. Early intervention servicesand systems need to be in place at the community level.Parents and families will have to be counseled about dis-ability and how it is not an impediment to anyone living a

complete life. Children with disabilities need to be trainedto understand their disabilities and to be able to lead anindependent life. Without these early intervention services,children with disabilities will not be able to attend main-stream schools or have a regular childhood. Such serviceswill also help create awareness within the community ondisability.

Addressing Barriers to EducationUnless barriers to education are adequately addressed,employment for persons with disabilities will remain a dis-tant dream. No child should be driven away from neighbor-hood schools on account of disability. All schools need to beaccessible for students with all kinds of disabilities including physical accessibility, as well as accessibility of

books and curriculum. Disability should be an integralaspect of teacher training programs. The funnel flow orthe inverted pyramid aspect of education and disability

has to be addressed to ensure that students with disabilitieshave smoother transition from primary to secondary to ter-tiary education and that the dropout rates are reducedsignificantly.

Addressing Barriers to Accessibility The concept of Universal Design must be intrinsic toinfrastructure, technology, and information. Accessibilityneeds to be considered a human right; the violation of whichshould amount to punitive measures. When buildings are

built for public consumption, websites are created for the public, or television programming is developed, the needsof individuals with disabilities must be considered. If a size-able section of the population does not have equal access, itamounts to discrimination. The lack of access is one of thefundamental reasons for inequalities.

Inclusion of Disability in the Policy RealmIt has long been established that disability is a cross-cuttinghuman rights issue. Yet, it still eludes the focus of policymakers and decision makers. Advocacy is required to reiter-ate that disability is not just a human rights issue, but also adevelopment issue. Thus, for any development agenda to

truly achieve its goal, we must proactively reach out to people with disabilities. This also means that disability has to be an integral part of national and local budgets.

Strong Anti-discrimination LegislationDiscrimination against any minority group amounts tosevere punitive measures in most countries: for example,the very strong laws on Dalits in India, which has zero toler-ance to discrimination against persons from lower castes.

http://cde.sagepub.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/


10/10


Yet, when it comes to people with disabilities, discrimina-tion is somehow accepted by the society. Therefore, stronglegal and judicial systems need to be in place to ensure thatviolation of the human rights of persons with disabilitieslead to adequate liabilities.

Realizing the True Demographic Dividend People with disabilities constitute 15% of the worlds popu-lation (WHO & World Bank, 2011). In countries of theGlobal South, especially the populous countries such asIndia, Bangladesh, and even China, the population of per-sons with disabilities can be higher than the entire popula-tion of some small countries. This is a huge percentage ofthe population to be kept away from the mainstreamtosurvive on dole outs and charity.

The emerging economies (such as India) today are wak-ing up to realizing the growing demographic dividend,especially in terms of youth. For instance, India has the

largest youth population in the world; around 66% of thetotal population (more than 808 million) is below the age of35 (International Labour Organization, 2012). The Indianlabor force is set to grow by over 8 million per annum overthe coming decade, most of which will be driven by youthentering the labor market. The true potential of Indiashuman resource can only be realized if all its citizens,including persons with disabilities are recognized.

Creating Political Will One of the crucial factors in bringing about change is creat-ing the political will among lawmakers and policy makers.Unfortunately, disability is still not seen as a human rightsand development issue. The disability movement alsolargely has not invested in creating this political will. Incountries of the Global South, where several rights anddevelopment issues are vying for the limited attention spanof the political class, it becomes more important for peoplewith disabilities and their organizations to be vigilant and

proactive. The hard truth is that most of these organizationsare steeped in service delivery and do not focus on advo-cacy. In countries of the Global South where social securitynets are virtually non-existent, non-governmental organiza-tions (NGOs) fill up a critical vacuum through service

delivery. But at the same time, unless the State is madeaccountable toward its citizens with disabilities, it is virtu-ally impossible to fill this gap between services and people

by NGOs alone.Sustainable and far-reaching change can therefore only

be brought about by creating effective laws and policies and by ensuring that disability truly is a cross-cutting issue. Forthis to happen, one needs a strong, vibrant, and aware

disability rights movement from grassroots upward to thenational level.

Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respectto the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

FundingThe author(s) received no financial support for the research,authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ReferencesAbidi, J. (2010). Waged employment. In T. Barron & J. M.

Ncube (Eds.), Poverty and disability (pp. 287-315). London,England: Leonard Cheshire Disability.

Elwan, A. (1999). Poverty and disability: A survey of the lit-erature . Washington, DC: Social Protection, World Bank.Available from http://www.handicap-international.fr

Emerson, E. (2007). Poverty and people with intellectual dis-

abilities. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disability Research Review , 13, 107113.

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment. (2010). Employment exchange statistics . Retrieved from http://dget .nic.in/publications/ees/ees2010/List.pdf

Government of India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.(2012). Status paper working group on empowerment of per-

sons with disabilities for formulation of XII Plan 2012-2017:(Publication No. 28) . New Delhi, India: Author.

Government of India, Planning Commission. (2008). Social jus-tice: Scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, other backwardclasses, minorities and other vulnerable groups. In Eleventh

five year plan (2007-2012) . New Delhi, India: OxfordUniversity Press.

Government of India, Planning Commission. (2011). Social jus-tice. In Mid-Term Appraisal Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-2012) . New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.

Government of Sri Lanka, Ministry of Public Administration.(1998). Providing employment for the disabled (PublicAdministration Circular No. 27/88). Retrieved from http://hrcsl .lk/PFF/LIbrary_Domestic_Laws/regulations/Document1.pdf

Government of the United Kingdom, Department for Work andPensions, Office for Disability Issues. (2012). Disability factsand figures . Retrieved from http://odi.dwp.gov.uk/disability-statistics-and-research/disability-facts-and-figures.php

Hughes, C. (2013). Poverty and disability: Addressing chal-lenges of inequality. Career Development and Transition for

Exceptional Individuals , 36 , 3742.International Labour Organization. (2012). Decent work for youth

in India . Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/newdelhi/info/WCMS_175936/lang--en/index.htm

World Bank. (2009). People with disabilities in India: From com-mitments to outcomes . New Delhi, India: Author.

World Health Organization & World Bank. (2011). Worldreport on disability . Geneva, Switzerland: World HealthOrganization.

http://dget.nic.in/publications/ees/ees2010/List.pdfhttp://dget.nic.in/publications/ees/ees2010/List.pdfhttp://dget.nic.in/publications/ees/ees2010/List.pdfhttp://hrcsl.lk/PFF/LIbrary_Domestic_Laws/regulations/Document1.pdfhttp://hrcsl.lk/PFF/LIbrary_Domestic_Laws/regulations/Document1.pdfhttp://www.ilo.org/newdelhi/info/WCMS_175936/lang--en/index.htmhttp://www.ilo.org/newdelhi/info/WCMS_175936/lang--en/index.htmhttp://www.ilo.org/newdelhi/info/WCMS_175936/lang--en/index.htmhttp://cde.sagepub.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/http://cde.sagepub.com/http://hrcsl.lk/PFF/LIbrary_Domestic_Laws/regulations/Document1.pdfhttp://dget.nic.in/publications/ees/ees2010/List.pdfhttp://www.ilo.org/newdelhi/info/WCMS_175936/lang--en/index.htm

Documents

Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals-2014-Abidi-60-8