KAP Analysis Report - UNICEF · Figure 79: Actions to be supported by the public targeting children with disabilities (Full sample, %) 109

Contents

List of figures �� 4

List of tables �� 6

List of Annex-1 tables �� 8

Executive summary �� 9

Introduction �� 16

Methodology �� 18

Sample ��19

Knowledge, attitude and practice study on children with disabilities in Turkey ��21

Definition of disability ��21

Scope of disability �� 28

Feelings towards children with disabilities ��37

Areas where children with disabilities are being excluded ��45

Acquaintance with children with disabilities ��51

Frequency of meeting with a child with disabilities ��57

Knowledge about children with disabilities �� 65

Sources of information about children with disabilities ��70

Acceptable level of social relationships between children with disabilities and others �� 78

Society’s definition of children with and without disabilities �� 92

Educational environment of children with disabilities �� 97

Assessing the policies targeting children with disabilities and the role of the public ��105

Use of traditional and social media ��110

Conclusion ��112

References ��115

Annex I: Percentages of the responses given to survey questions ��116

Annex II: Questionnaire ��143

004 | Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Study on Children with Disabilities in Turkey

Figure 1: Demographic characteristics of participants (%) ��19Figure 2: Distribution of participants according to settlement type and geographical regions (%) ��19Figure 3: Three descriptions of disability that first come to mind (Full sample, %) ��21Figure 4: Three descriptions of disability that first come to mind (People with disabilities or relatives vs� general public, %) ��22Figure 5: Three descriptions of disability that first come to mind (Level of education, %) ��23Figure 6: Three descriptions of disability that first come to mind (Level of income, %) ��24Figure 7: Three descriptions of disability that first come to mind (Age group, %) ��25Figure 8: Three descriptions of disability that first come to mind (Settlement type, %) ��26Figure 9: Three descriptions of disability that first come to mind (Geographical region, %) �� 27Figure 10: Participants’ perception of listed disability categories (Full sample, %) ��28Figure 11: Participants’ perception of listed disability categories (Gender, %) ��29Figure 12: Participants’ perception of listed disability categories (People with disabilities or relatives vs� general public, %) ��29Figure 13: Participants’ perception of listed disability categories (Level of education, %) �� 31Figure 14: Participants’ perception of listed disability categories (Level of income, %) ��32Figure 15: Participants’ perception of listed disability categories (Age group, %) ��34Figure 16: Participants’ perception of listed disability categories (Settlement type, %) �� 35Figure 17: Participants’ perception of listed disability categories (Geographical region, %) ��36Figure 18: Feelings of people when encountered with a child with disabilities (%) ��38Figure 19: Feelings of people when encountered with a child with disabilities (Gender, %) ��39Figure 20: Feelings of people when encountered with a child with disabilities (People with disabilities or their relatives vs� general public, %) ��39Figure 21: Feelings of people when encountered with a child with disabilities (Level of education, %) ��40Figure 22: Feelings of people when encountered with a child with disabilities (Level of income, %) ��41Figure 23: Feelings of people when encountered with a child with disabilities (Age group, %) ��42Figure 24: Feelings of people when encountered with a child with disabilities (Settlement type, %) ��43Figure 25: Feelings of people when encountered with a child with disabilities (Geographical region, %) ��44Figure 26: Areas where children with disabilities are being excluded (Full sample, %) ��45Figure 27: Areas where children with disabilities are being excluded (Gender, %) �� 46Figure 28: Areas where children with disabilities are being excluded (Level of education, %) ��47Figure 29: Areas where children with disabilities are being excluded (Level of income, %) ��48Figure 30: Areas where children with disabilities are being excluded (Age group, %) �� 49Figure 31: Areas where children with disabilities are being excluded (Settlement type, %) ��50Figure 32: Areas where children with disabilities are being excluded (Geographical region, %) �� 51Figure 33: Acquaintance with children with disabilities (Full sample, %) ��52Figure 34: Acquaintance with children with disabilities (People with disabilities or relatives vs� general public, %) ��52Figure 35: Acquaintance with children with disabilities (Level of education, %) �� 53Figure 36: Acquaintance with children with disabilities (Level of income, %) ��54Figure 37: Acquaintance with children with disabilities (Age group, %) ��54Figure 38: Acquaintance with children with disabilities (Settlement type, %) ��55Figure 39: Acquaintance with children with disabilities (Geographical region, %) ��56Figure 40: Frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Full sample, %) �� 57Figure 41: Frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Gender, %) ��58

List of Figures

005Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Study on Children with Disabilities in Turkey |

Figure 42: Frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (People with disabilities or relatives vs� general public, %) ��59Figure 43: Frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Level of education, %) �� 60Figure 44: Frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Level of income, %) ��61Figure 45: Frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Age group, %) ��62Figure 46: Frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Settlement type, %) ��63Figure 47: Frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Geographical region, %) �� 64Figure 48: Level of knowledge about children with disabilities (Full sample, %) ��65Figure 49: Level of knowledge with respect to frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (%) �� 66Figure 50: Level of knowledge about children with disabilities (Level of education, %) �� 66Figure 51: Acquisition of knowledge about children with disabilities (Level of income, %) �� 67Figure 52: Acquisition of knowledge about children with disabilities (Settlement type, %) �� 68Figure 53: Acquisition of knowledge about children with disabilities (Geographical region, %)�� 69Figure 54: Sources of information about children with disabilities (Full sample, %) ��70Figure 55: Sources of information about children with disabilities with respect to frequency of meeting him/her (%) �� 71Figure 56: Sources of information about children with disabilities (Gender, %) �� 72Figure 57: Sources of information about children with disabilities (People with disabilities or relatives vs general public, %) �� 72Figure 58: Sources of information about children with disabilities (Level of education, %) �� 73Figure 59: Sources of information about children with disabilities (Level of income, %) �� 74Figure 60: Sources of information about children with disabilities (Age group, %) �� 75Figure 61: Sources of information about children with disabilities (Settlement type, %) �� 77Figure 62: Sources of information about children with disabilities (Geographical region, %) �� 77Figure 63: Definition of children with and without disabilities by the public (Full sample, %) ��92Figure 64: Definition of children with and without disabilities by the public (Level of education, %)��93Figure 65: Definition of children with and without disabilities by the public (Level of income, %) �� 94Figure 66: Definition of children with and without disabilities by the public (Settlement type, %) �� 96Figure 67: Agreeable educational environment with respect to disability category (Full sample, %) ��97Figure 68: Acceptability of children with disabilities to attend same classes as their peers �� 98Figure 69: Acceptability of children with disabilities to attend same classes as their peers (Level of education, %) �� 99Figure 70: Acceptability of children with disabilities to attend same classes as their peers (Level of income, %) ��100Figure 71: Acceptability of children with disabilities to attend same classes as their peers (Age group, %) �� 101Figure 72: Acceptability of children with disabilities to attend same classes as their peers (Settlement type, %) �� 103Figure 73: Acceptability of children with disabilities to attend same classes as their peers (Geographical region, %) ��104Figure 74: Assessing the policies targeting children with disabilities and the role of the public (Full sample, %) �� 105Figure 75: Necessity for a separate legislation to protect the rights of children with disabilities (Full sample, %) ��106Figure 76: Obstacles that keep children with disabilities from reaching a better life quality and being involved in the social life (Full sample, %) �� 107Figure 77: Responsible parties in increasing the quality of life of children with disabilities and involving them in the social life (Full sample, %) �� 107Figure 78: Actions to be taken targeting children with disabilities (Full sample, %) ��108Figure 79: Actions to be supported by the public targeting children with disabilities (Full sample, %) ��109Figure 80: Source for daily news (Full sample, %) �� 110Figure 81: Number of TV channels and newspapers followed by participants who acquire daily news from TV and newspapers (%) �� 111Figure 82: Possession of technological devices (Full sample, %) �� 111


List of Tables

Table 1: Statistical significance of differences in three descriptions of disability that come to mind (Level of education) �� 23Table 2: Statistical significance of differences in three descriptions of disability that come to mind (Level of income) ��24Table 3: Statistical significance of differences in three descriptions of disability that come to mind (Age group) ��25Table 4: Statistical significance of differences in three descriptions of disability that come to mind (Settlement type and geographical region) �� 27Table 5: Statistical significance of differences in participants’ perception of disability ��30Table 6: Statistical significance of differences in participants’ perception of disability (Level of education) �� 31Table 7: Statistical significance of differences in participants’ perception of disability (Level of income) �� 33Table 8: Statistical significance of differences in participants’ perception of disability (Age group) ��34Table 9: Statistical significance of differences in participants’ perception of disability �� 37Table 10: Cross distribution of people’s feelings when encountered with a child with disabilities (%) ��38Table 11: Statistical significance of differences in feelings when encountered with a child with disabilities ��40Table 12 Statistical significance of differences in feelings when encountered with a child with disabilities ��41Table 13: Statistical significance of differences in feelings when encountered with a child with disabilities (Level of income) ��42Table 14: Statistical significance of differences in feelings when encountered with a child with disabilities (Age group) ��43Table 15: Statistical significance of differences in feelings when encountered with a child with disabilities ��44Table 16: Statistical significance of difference in perception of areas where children with disabilities are being excluded �� 46Table 17: Statistical significance of difference in perception of areas where children with disabilities are being excluded �� 47Table 18: Statistical significance of difference in perception of areas where children with disabilities are being excluded ��48Table 19: Statistical significance of difference in perception of areas where children with disabilities are being excluded �� 49Table 20: Statistical significance of difference in perception of areas where children with disabilities are being excluded �� 51Table 21: Attitudes of participants towards children with disabilities with respect to frequency of meeting them (%) ��58Table 22: Statistical significance of differences in frequency of meeting a child with disabilities ��59Table 23: Statistical significance of differences in frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Level of education) �� 60Table 24: Statistical significance of differences in frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Level of income) ��61Table 25: Statistical significance of differences in frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Age group) ��62Table 26: Statistical significance of differences in frequency of meeting a child with disabilities �� 64Table 27: Statistical significance of difference in level of knowledge about children with disabilities (Level of education) �� 67Table 28: Statistical significance of difference in level of knowledge about children with disabilities (Level of income) �� 68Table 29: Statistical significance of difference in level of knowledge about children with disabilities �� 69Table 30: Statistical significance of difference in sources of information about children with disabilities �� 73


Table 31: Statistical significance of differences in sources of information about children with disabilities �� 74Table 32: Statistical significance of difference in sources of information about children with disabilities (Level of income) �� 75Table 33: Statistical significance of difference in sources of information about children with disabilities (Age group) ��76Table 34: Statistical significance of difference in sources of information about children with disabilities ��78Table 35: Acceptability of different levels of social relations with children with different disabilities (%)��79Table 36: Acceptability of different levels of social relations with children with different disabilities (Gender, %) ��80Table 37: Acceptability of different levels of social relations with children with different disabilities ��81Table 38: Acceptability of different levels of social relations with children with different disabilities (Level of education, %) ��84Table 39: Acceptability of different levels of social relations with children with different disabilities (Level of income, %) �� 86Table 40: Acceptability of different levels of social relations with children with different disabilities (Age group, %) ��88Table 41: Acceptability of different levels of social relations with children with different disabilities (Settlement type, %) �� 90Table 42: Statistical significance of differences in description of children with and without disabilities (Level of education) ��93Table 43: Statistical significance of differences in description of children with and without disabilities (Level of income) ��95Table 44: Statistical significance of differences in description of children with and without disabilities (Settlement type)�� 96Table 45: Acceptance of children with disabilities to attend same classes as their peers (People with disabilities or relatives) �� 99Table 46: Acceptance of children with disabilities to attne same classes as their peers (Level of education) ��100Table 47: Acceptance of children with disabilities to attend same classes as their peers (Level of income) �� 101Table 48: Acceptance of children with disabilities to attend same classes as their peers (Age group) �� 102Table 49: Acceptance of children with disabilities to attend same classes as their peers ��104


List of Annex-1 Tables

Annex-I Table 1: Three definitions of disability that first come to mind (%) �� 117Annex-I Table 2: Participants’ perception of listed disability categories (Rate of participants who would agree, %) �� 118Annex-I Table 3: Feelings when encountered with a child with disabilities (%) �� 120Annex-I Table 4: Areas where children with disabilities are being excluded (%) �� 121Annex-I Table 5: Acquaintance of participants with a child with disabilities (%) �� 122Annex-I Table 6: Frequency of meeting a child with disability (%) �� 123Annex-I Table 7: Level of knowledge about children with disabilities (%) ��124Annex-I Table 8: Sources of information about children with disabilities (%) �� 125Annex-I Table 9: Description of ‘normal’ children living in Turkey (%) ��126Annex-I Table 10: Description of children ‘with disabilities’ living in Turkey (%) �� 127Annex-I Table 11: Percentage of participants who think that children with disabilities should attend classes which are specifically designed for them (%) ��128Annex-I Table 12: Percentage of participants who think that children with disabilities should attend same classes as their pers (%) ��129Annex-I Table 13: Assessing the policies targeting children with disabilities and the role of the public (Participants that agrees, %) �� 130Annex-I Table 14: Percentage of participants who think that there should be a seperate law to protect the rights of children with disabilities (%) �� 132Annex-I Table 15: Obstacles that keep children with disbilities from reaching a better life quality and being involved in the social life (%) �� 133Annex-I Table 16: Risks/dangers to which children with disabilities are more susceptible than others (%) �� 135Annex-I Table 17: Acceptance of proposed actions targeting children with disabilities (%) �� 136Annex-I Table 18: Responsible parties in increasing the quality of life of children with disabilities and involving them in the social life (%) �� 137Annex-I Table 19: Actions to be taken targeting children with disabilities (%) �� 139Annex-I Table 20: Percentage of participants who would support listed actions targeting children with disabilities (%) �� 141


Executive Summary

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which Turkey ratified in November 2008, stipulates that countries that are party to the Convention shall design and implement policies to combat stereotypes, prejudices and harmful practices relating to people with disabilities, including those based on sex and age, in all areas of life� One of the basic components of fulfilling this requirement is to thoroughly understand the level of knowledge of society about persons with disabilities and their attitudes and practices towards them� With this new understanding, it would be possible for Turkey to design a more comprehensive policy framework addressing persons with disabilities and targeting society as a whole�

As a first step, a knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) study was designed by the General Directorate of Disabled and Elderly People’s Services of the Ministry of Family and Social Policies of Turkey and UNICEF Turkey as part of “There is Another You” project� This project aims to reduce the social distance between children with disabilities, their families and the general public� Specifically, the KAP study will provide a solid foundation for the steps to be taken towards a more equal society, and through the established data set, facilitate the measurement of the impact of the policies to be designed�

A field study was conducted in 2012 in seven geographical regions, 43 provinces and 204 district/villages� It was designed to understand the public perception of disability, attitudes towards children with disabilities according to disability type, level of knowledge about children with disabilities, channels for acquiring such information, perception of policies designed to increase the access of children with disabilities to higher quality education and living standards and lastly, the willingness of the society to take responsibility for children with disabilities�

To analyse the knowledge, attitude and practice of society towards children with disabilities, the survey considered physical disabilities, sensory (visual and hearing) impairments, mental disabilities, psychological-emotional disorders and chronic diseases� The sample of the field study and survey questions were selected to enable data analysis based on gender, persons with disabilities and their relatives, education level, income level, age group, settlement type and geographical region�


Definition Of DisabilityWhen participants were asked to list the first three descriptions of disability which came to mind, 43 per cent stated physical disabilities which are more apparent than other types of disability� Twenty-nine per cent focused more on the obstacles that persons with disabilities face in their daily lives� People with disabilities or their relatives, on the other hand, tended to avoid emphasis on physical disabilities and focused more on the obstacles that they face daily�

Whereas participants with an education at high school level aligned mostly with the average, the greatest variations occurred at the primary school education level� Similarly, there was much variation between the lowest and highest income groups� The frequency of the description of ‘unable to meet own needs / needy’ decreased as income levels increased�

As for settlement type, variations appeared the most in urban areas and in terms of geographical region, the Black Sea region was at the top of the list� Responses of participants in the Eastern Anatolia and Aegean regions were in line with the average�

Scope Of DisabilitySurvey participants were presented a list of different categories of disabilities and were asked to determine whether each of the conditions could be defined as disability or not� Analysis point out that, advanced levels of physical or sensory disabilities, mental disabilities and autism are regarded more a disability (with an average of 85 per cent) than mild levels of physical and sensory disabilities, chronic diseases and psychological-emotional disorders (30 per cent on the average)� Females categorize autism and males categorize hyperactivity within disability categories more than the average� The responses of people with disabilities or their relatives aligned with the average�

Responses disaggregated by education levels showed that variations from the average concentrate especially at the university/higher education level (8 out of 15 disability categories) and the evaluation of disabilities which are less visible (mild physical and sensory disabilities and psychological-emotional disorders) vary the most�

According to income levels, variations from the average occurred mainly at the highest income group and for age groups it was at the youngest and oldest ages� In the 18-27 age group, all responses listed were less frequent than the average, whereas in the 49+ group, they were more frequent�

For the variable settlement type, responses of the participants from metropolitan areas varied the most (9 out of 15 disability categories)� Among geographical regions, the Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia regions align generally with the average whereas Marmara, Mediterranean and Central Anatolia varied the most�

Attitude Towards Children With DisabilitiesThe feelings of participants when they encounter children with disabilities matches the psychodynamic view: due to anxiety stemming from the fear of being disabled, people tend to stay away, which then turns into negative attitudes� The percentage of participants who acted normal (17 per cent) was lower than of those who felt sorry (60 per cent) or had pity (25 per cent) or were grateful for their own condition (25 per cent)� Thirty per cent who declared that they felt sorry when they encountered a child with disability also


said that they felt pity, but only five per cent of them acted normal� Those who would ‘try to help out’ was 39 per cent compared to only five per cent among the participants who would ‘look the other way’�

‘Feeling sorry’ was the only response of women participants whose percentage was higher than the average. Among people with disabilities or their relatives, all of the responses differed from the average with the exception of ‘I try to help’�

Most of the variations in responses viewed from the level of education appear at primary school level� The share of emotional responses differs from the average at all levels excluding secondary school and the percentage of people giving emotional reactions decreases as the level of education increases� The percentage of people acting normally also increases with increasing education. According to different income groups, similar to the level of education, most of the variations appear at the lowest income level and the share of emotional reactions is highest in this group� As income increases, the percentage of participants who feel sorry decreases while the percentage of whose trying to help or look the other way increases�

From the perspective of age, the 49 and older age group appears to be the most emotional group whose response of acting normal is interestingly lower than the average� The 28-37 age group has the highest percentage of acting normal towards children with disabilities� The incidence of emotional reactions increases from metropolitan to rural areas� The Black Sea region displays the most deviation from the average, where the percentage of participants who look the other way is the highest and those who try to help is the lowest�

Areas Where Children With Disabilities Are Being ExcludedThe survey respondents believe that children with disabilities are being excluded the most from social life (38 per cent)� The next highest percentage is 24 per cent of participants who believe that they are being excluded from all of the areas listed in the questionnaire� Among social services, access to education appears to be the most problematic area with a 17 per cent response rate� More men think that children with disabilities are not being excluded from any of the areas listed, whereas more women think just the opposite�

The percentage who thinks that children with disabilities are being excluded from all areas varies for all education levels and the rate decreases with increasing education� In contrast, based on age groups, the percentage of participants who think the exclusion covers all areas increases with age� Among the youngest age group, education is assessed as the most problematic and health as the least problematic area� On the other hand, within income groups, education is perceived as more of a problem as income increases�

Access to health services is regarded as a problem more in urban and less in rural areas� Respondent from metropolitan areas think that the exclusion is not present in any of the areas listed, which is higher than the average� According to geographical regions, the Aegean aligns most with the average whereas Southeastern Anatolia and the Marmara region vary the most� In the Marmara region, education and in the Black Sea region, health is reported as greater problem areas�


Acquaintance With Children With DisabilitiesAmong the survey participants, 44 per cent did not personally know a child with disability� Of those who did know, 36 per cent were acquainted through relatives, 29 per cent through neighbours and 24 per cent through their own households� Eighty per cent of the participants with disabilities or their relatives had a child with disability in their households�

With increasing educational attainment, the percentage of participants reporting that they know a child with disability through relatives, neighbours or their household falls while percentage of participants who know such a child from school, the work place or through friends increases� At the university or higher education level, a higher percentage of participants declare that they do not personally know any child with disabilities� Within income groups, the percentage of participants who know a child with disability through their household, relatives or neighbours falls and percentage of participants who know such a child from school, the work place or through friends increases with income� Among age groups, the 18-27 age group -- which is actively involved in the education system -- reports with the highest percentage� The 49 and older age group -- which is not active in the education system -- reports the lowest percentage of acquaintance with a child with disabilities�

The percentage of participants who know such a child through relatives or neighbours increases from metropolitan to rural areas� The highest percentage of people who do not personally know such a child is in urban areas�

Among geographical regions, Southeastern Anatolia has the most variations in responses: it has the lowest percentage of participants reporting that they do not personally know a child with disabilities and the highest percentage reporting that they know such children by way of relatives� In the Black Sea region, the percentage who knows a child through friends is well above other regions�

Frequency Of Meeting With A Child With Disabilities Survey results show that participants meet with children with disability very frequently: 59 per cent, around whom there is a child with disabilities, see this child at least once a week� As can be explained by social cognition, participants who meet these children tend to act more normal more often and to look the other way less often� A higher percentage of women report that they never see a child with disabilities whereas 80 per cent of people with disabilities and their parents meet every day�

At primary school level, a higher percentage of participants meet a child with disabilities every day and the percentage of such people decrease as income levels increase� The percentage of participants who never meet a child with disabilities increases with age� Overall, the frequency of people meeting a child with disabilities decreases with age�

The percentage of people who report that they meet a child with disabilities once or a couple of times a week is lower than the average in metropolitan areas and higher in rural areas� In urban areas, the percentage of people who meet such a child every day is lower than the average� Among geographical areas, the percentage of people who never meet is the highest in Southeastern Anatolia and that of people who meet every day is the lowest in the Black Sea region�


Sources Of Information About Children With Disabilities The three main sources of information about children with disabilities are listed as media (81 per cent), family, friends and relatives (45 per cent) and everyday life experiences (27 per cent)� As the frequency of meeting children with disabilities does down, the ratio attributed to the media as a source of information goes up along with a decrease in the ratio of the information provided by friends, relatives and everyday life� This result shows the importance of the media and of programs designed to bring people together with the disabled in improving the level of knowledge about them�

Men use the media more often and women refer to public institutions more often to learn about the disabled� People with disabilities or their relatives use their everyday life experiences as their source of information� As the level of education and income goes up, the percentage of friends, relatives and acquaintances as an information source goes down� Whereas the 28-37 age group acquires knowledge more through the media, the 38-48 age group relies more on the experiences of their children at school�

As one moves from metropolitan to urban to rural areas, the likelihood of getting information from friends, relatives and acquaintances and from public institutions also increases� There are variations in sources of information in all geographical regions with the highest variations being present in Southeastern Anatolia, Black Sea, Central Anatolia and Marmara regions�

Acceptable Level Of Social Relations Between Children With Disabilities And OthersAnalysis of the survey points out that people accept certain levels of social relations with children with disabilities only when their families are not harmed, the progress of their children is not negatively affected or they do not have to bear any additional responsibility. This finding is very much in line with the literature (Yazbeck, McVilly and Parmanter, 2004)� As seen in the below table, distant social relations between children with disabilities and their children is more acceptable by participants in all disability categories� This ratio falls as the distance decreases (in situations such as being best friends, boy/girlfriends and fiancée-husband/wife)�

Knowledge About Children With DisabilitiesFifty-three per cent of participants declare that they have only limited knowledge about children with disabilities� A drop in the frequency of meeting children with disabilities also decreases the percentage of participants with sufficient knowledge and increases the rate of those with very little knowledge.

There is a positive correlation between increasing education and income levels and an increase in the percentage of participants with adequate knowledge about the disabled� A lower percentage of participants in urban areas report that they do not have any knowledge� Among geographical areas, the level of knowledge is the lowest in the Southeastern and Eastern Anatolia and highest in the Marmara region�


Society’s Definition Of Children With And Without DisabilitiesWhereas survey respondents generally define children without disabilities using positive characteristics such as social, independent, strong/brave character, optimistic and enjoying equal opportunities, they mostly focus on negative characteristics (insecure, sad, unhappy) when describing children with disabilities�

From the standpoint of educational levels, it appears that participants with university or higher education level have a more positive view of children with disabilities than the average� Most of the variation based on income groups is present in describing children with disabilities�

Children without disabilities are described as social and with a strong character/brave more so in rural areas and less in metropolitan areas� On the other hand, children with disabilities are described as sad, unhappy and insecure with an increasing frequency from metropolitan to rural areas�

Educational Environment Of Children With DisabilitiesThe evaluation by participants of the suitable educational environment for children with disabilities reveals a picture similar to the evaluation of acceptable levels of social relations with these children� In those situations where participants or their children may be harmed and their education may be negatively affected, participants find it more suitable for children with certain disabilities to attend schools that are specifically designed for them� Children with similar disabilities would also attend these schools� The percentage of people with disabilities or their relatives who approve the attendance of children with disabilities in the same classrooms with children without disability is higher than the average for all disability categories�

Based on education and income levels, variation in results is the most for children with mental disorders and sensory impairments, where survey participants with primary school education and low income level

Acceptability Of Different Levels Of Social Relations With Children With Different Disabilities (%)

VisualImpairment

HearingImpairment

PhysicalDisability

Non-Contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability

Psychological-Emotional Disorder

Contagious Chronic Diseases (AIDS, Hepatitis)

Living in the same neighbourhood as my child

95,93 95,70 91,63 84,53 77,44 58,14 30,12

Attending the same school as my child

92,33 91,86 87,79 80,58 66,16 47,44 22,79

Studying in the same classroom with my child

87,56 87,44 83,02 76,86 58,02 38,60 17,21

Being my child’s playmate 88,26 87,91 82,09 74,65 54,77 33,60 13,02

Being my child’s best friend 77,33 76,74 71,98 67,67 42,79 25,81 11,16

Being my child’s boy/girlfriend 45,35 47,21 42,56 46,98 20,58 13,60 5,00

Being engaged to/married with my child

42,09 45,00 40,58 43,84 19,30 13,72 4,88

% 81-100 % 61-80 % 41-60 % 21-40 % 0-20


Use Of Traditional And Social MediaParticipants follow current events predominantly (92 per cent) through television� A higher percentage watch more than one TV channel and among people who follow current events through newspapers (32 per cent), fewer people read more than one newspaper�

Cell phones take the lead as the technological devices owned most by participants (92 per cent)� The percentage of people connected to the Internet is 87 per cent among people who own a computer (53 per cent)� Social media sites are used by 48 per cent of participants with Facebook standing out among these sites (76 per cent)�

approve these children attending the same classrooms with the non-disabled, at a higher percentage� In comparing results among age groups, only children with hyperactivity-attention deficit are accepted more than the average into the same classrooms as non-disabled peers, by the youngest group�

The responses of participants living in metropolitan areas differs the most from others. Non-contagious chronic diseases and orthopedic disabilities are accepted more and contagious chronic diseases and hyperactivity-attention deficit are accepted less� Based on geographical regions, most of the variations are seen in Southeastern Anatolia and the Black Sea regions�

Assessing The Policies Targeting Children With Disabilities And The Role Of The PublicNinety per cent of participants consider the government and the society responsible for restructuring schools to meet the needs of children with disabilities� However, 74 per cent think that even if improvements are made in schools, children with disabilities have a lower chance of finding jobs than other children with the same level of education� Consequently, 55 per cent of participants see education only as a tool to aid the development of children with disabilities�

Eighty-five per cent of participants believe there should be a separate law for the protection of the rights of children with disabilities. Government indifference is perceived as the most important (55 per cent) obstacle which prevents children from attaining a better quality of life and inclusion in social life� The survey participants list the following problem areas: education system (18 per cent), health system (17 per cent) and central government (15 per cent)�

In response to the possible areas of intervention, a decisive 60 per cent of participants express the need to start the education of children with disabilities at an early age� More than half of participants (55 per cent) think that the cooperation of public schools, special training centers for children with disabilities and relevant civil society organizations should be established� Seventy per cent declared they would support all action to be taken to help prepare a better future for children with disabilities�


Being among the first countries to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in November 2008, Turkey has taken an important step towards the protection of people with disabilities. This Convention is an international human rights treaty affirming that people with disability have, and should be able to enjoy the same human rights as others� The Convention sets an internationally recognized benchmark for the human rights of people with disabilities against which, countries will be measured� Article 8 of the Convention requires countries that are party to the Convention to:

• Raise awareness throughout society, including at the family level, regarding persons with disabilities and foster respect for the rights and dignity of disabled people

• Combat stereotypes, prejudices and harmful practices relating to disabled people, including those based on sex and age, in all areas of life and

• Promote awareness of the capabilities and contributions of disabled people (UN, 2006).

Although the national regulations enacted and international treaties signed by Turkey clearly put forth Turkey’s acknowledgement of the rights of persons with disabilities and need for social inclusion, the inadequacy of measures taken at the implementation level hinders their quality of life and ability to participate in the everyday social life. As reported in the 2013 Sabancı University study, “Removing disabilities in Turkey: Where do we stand?”, society’s negative attitude towards persons with disabilities is among the main factors01 that adversely affects their quality of life.

Considering this background, it is apparent that Turkey needs a more inclusive policy framework addressing people with disabilities that also targets society in general� This new framework would not only strive to remove the physical barriers that keep persons with disabilities from participating in the social life, it would also raise awareness in society about the disabled� Such a framework is also an obligation for Turkey to fulfill its international commitments� The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities also underlines this point under the awareness raising heading (Article 8), which stipulates designing, initiating and sustaining effective campaigns.

One of the first steps towards designing a policy framework for raising awareness among society is analysing the knowledge, attitudes and practices of the society towards persons with disabilities� This would facilitate the design of policies and campaigns to focus on suitable actions and their effectiveness would be increased� An analysis of the attitudes of society would not only pave the way for taking strong action to sustain social equity but it would also set the basis for measuring the effects of designed policies�02

01 Other factors are: inadequate policies and standards, deficiencies in services provided, inadequate financial sources, problems with accessibility, exclusion of persons with disabilities from the decision making processes directly related to their lives, lack of data and information on disability to enable compare and contrast the effects of programs designed and pursued.02 An overview of similar international studies reveals that, conducting KAP surveys regularly provides an important data set for the analysis of effects of policies and campaigns. With the use of these time series data collected through the surveys, it is possible to trace the change in the knowledge, attitude and practice of society towards persons with disabilities� For example, studies carried out in Hong Kong (2011) and England (2009) not only analyses the current situation but also evaluates the change in society’s attitude by comparing the results with earlier studies�

Introduction


The critical role that attitudes and practices play in sustaining a social order where persons with disabilities enjoy the same rights as others and participate in social life is also apparent in the relationship between these two concepts�

Attitude is described as the mental, emotional and behavioral predilection for reaction which is organized by a person’s experience, knowledge, emotion and motivation towards him/herself or other objects, cases or incidences (İnceoğlu, 2010). As can be deducted from this description, attitude is composed of factors such as personal experiences, acquired knowledge, emotions, instincts and their mutual relations� It is possible that these relations, i�e� attitudes, change over time as a result of changes in the factors listed above�

Practices are influenced by attitudes. Attitudes play a critical role in achieving social equality since they have the potential to turn into harmful practices towards specific people or groups within society� It has been frequently reported that social attitudes and practices are among obstacles to reach social equality (Staniland, 2009)� Considering that policy measures that target social equality are usually designed to change society’s practices, the contribution of data and information that analysis of social attitudes would provide to the design of such policies is clearly revealed� The analysis of attitudes in an area relevant to possible changes in policy would provide necessary information about people’s anticipated reactions to specific situations/incidents/persons and enable restructuring of the policy design in line with the observed facts�

In light of the above mentioned need, a knowledge, attitude and practice study was designed by the General Directorate of Disabled and Elderly People’s Services of the Ministry of Family and Social Policies of Turkey and UNICEF Turkey as part of “There is Another You” project� This project aims to reduce the social gap between children with disabilities, their families and the general public� The specific objectives of the study are:

• Analysing society’s knowledge and attitudes towards persons with disabilities in Turkey• Revealing the demographic factors that affect society’s attitudes towards persons with disabilities• Establishing the necessary data set to analyse the impact of the awareness campaigns which are to be

designed�


In the context of the field study, a questionnaire was designed to examine the public’s knowledge level and their attitudes towards persons with disabilities� The survey was conducted by A&G Research Company in December 2012, with coverage of seven geographical regions, 43 provinces and 204 districts/villages�

The questionnaire is a modified version of a questionnaire which was administered by UNICEF in a number of other countries� Clarity of the questions and viability of the question templates were ensured through a consultation period and focus group meetings which were held to discuss the revised version of the questionnaire. Following these meetings, a pilot survey was conducted in İstanbul, Adana, Trabzon and İzmir with 77 participants representing the sample of the study. In line with the findings of the pilot survey, the questionnaire was revised and finalized� Prior to the initiation of the field study, a briefing was given to the interviewers, field officers and supervisors. 118 individuals were employed to conduct the survey. Each questionnaire was monitored through a second visit paid to the households by the controllers� To ensure the consistency of the field study results, the data collected was cross-checked both at the field and at central level using computerized methods�

The questionnaire was composed of open and close ended questions which were designed to find out society’s perception of disability, attitudes towards children with disability based on the disability type, level of knowledge about children with disability, channels for acquiring such information, perception of policies designed to increase the access of children with disabilities to higher quality education and living standards and the willingness of society to take responsibility for children with disabilities� The last section of the questionnaire was designed to reveal the media preferences and computer utilization habits of respondents and would provide valuable information to be employed in the awareness raising campaign� Of the respondents, 14 per cent were persons with disabilities or relatives living in the same household� This gave the chance to demonstrate the difference in attitudes of two distinct groups while analysing each question of the survey�

This survey covers different categories of disabilities either inherited or caused by other factors. They are:

• Visual impairment: Refers to children with total blindness or low vision� Children with blurred vision and who wear glasses were also included in this category�

• Hearing impairment: Refers to children with loss of auditory sense� Children with a total loss are included in this category, as well as children wearing hearing aids due to mild loss of auditory sense�

• Physical disability: Refers to children with limited physical functioning� Children missing a hand or a foot, paralyzed children or children with distorted physical figures are in this category�

• Mental disability: Refers to children with serious levels of mental retardation and those who experience adaptability problems�

• Psychological-emotional disorder: Since this category covers various kinds of disabilities, only the disabilities mentioned below were considered for the purposes of the study:o Attention deficit and hyperactivity disordero Autismo Aggressive behavior, tendency to harm him/herself or others

• Chronic diseases: These are diseases which are persistent and/or long-lasting that require provision of consistent care and treatment� Within the framework of this study, chronic diseases were examined under two sub-categories, namely, contagious (infectious hepatitis, AIDS etc�) and non-contagious (diabetes, heart disease, leukemia etc�) diseases�

Methodology


03 In the definition of income groups threshold values were set such that the sample is divided into four sub- groups which were equal in size� Thus, the distribution of income groups does not follow the same pattern as age groups�

The survey was conducted through face-to-face interviews with 2,865 individuals� A quota on gender and age groups was employed such that all respondents were aged 18 and above and 50 per cent were women� Fourteen per cent of participants are either persons with disabilities or their relatives living in the same household and 86 per cent comprised the general public (see Figure 1)� As for the educational attainment of participants, 32 per cent were at primary school level, 18 per cent secondary school and 32 per cent were high school graduates� Respondents with an education level of university or higher made up the 15 per cent of the sample� During the design of the survey questions, age and income groups of participants were determined such that the sample size was divided into four equal groups for each of the variables03. Participants from the categories of different settlements (metropolitan, urban and rural areas) were almost equally distributed whereas the geographical distribution of participants aligned with the distribution of total population (see Figure 2)�

Figure 1: Demographic characteristics of participants (%)100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

50,3 49,7

14,0

86,0

31,9

18,1

31,8

15,5

24,7 25,2 24,5 25,5 24,3 23,631,2

20,9

Male

Female

Persons w

/ disa

bilities

or relativ

es

General public

High School

University of h

igher49+

38-49

28-3718-2

7

2.000+ TL

1.500-2.000 TL

1.000-1.500 TL

0-1.000 TL

Secondary School

Primary School

Figure 2: Distribution of participants with respect to settlement types and geographical regions (%)40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Rural

Mediterra

nean

Eastern

Anatolia

Aegean

Black Sea

Central A

natolia

Marmara

Southeaste

rn

AnatoliaUrb

an

Metropolita

n

Sample


The results of the questionnaire were put through significance tests and the differences in responses among different demographic groups were assessed statistically. The reporting of the results takes only a five per cent significance level04 into account� A table presents the statistical significance of demographic differences in each question, at five and 10 per cent levels, following each figure. Interpretation of the analysis considers five per cent significance level, unless otherwise stated�

04 Significance levels indicate whether the difference in responses between different groups occurred by chance. A significance level of 5 (10) per cent means that with 5 (10) per cent possibility the difference in the responses has occurred by chance and with 95 (90) per cent possibility it has occurred by the structural difference between the groups.


Definition Of DisabilityThe first question asks respondents to list - without any guidance - the first three descriptions of disability that come to mind� While 43 per cent of the responses concentrated on physical disabilities which are more apparent than other disability categories (e�g� handicapped, crippled, deformed, missing a foot, limping, missing a hand and visual impairment), 11 per cent of participants did not give any response to this open-ended question (see Figure 3)� Twenty-nine per cent of participants focused more on the obstacles that persons with disabilities face in their daily lives by giving responses such as ‘unable to meet their own need or needy’ and ‘limited or restricted people’�

There was no statistically significant difference in responses to the first question with respect to gender. However, people with disabilities or their relatives differed from the average by focusing more on the difficulties that persons with disabilities face in their daily lives by giving ‘unable to meet own needs’ and ‘needy’ as responses and they tended to avoid responses such as ‘handicapped/crippled/deformed’ which concentrates more on the physical characteristics05 (see Figure 4)�

05 It is meaningful that 10 per cent of families of the disabled responded with ‘unable to meet own needs / needy’ in describing disability�

Figure 3: Three descriptions of disability that first come to mind (full sample, %)

Knowledge, Attitude and Practice Study on Children with Disabilities in Turkey

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Other

Handicapped/crippled/

deform

ed

Unable to m

eet own needs

No resp

onse

Mental Disa

bility

Missing a fo

ot/lim

ps

Limite

d/restr

icted

Missing a hand

Unfortu

nate/desp

erate

Visual im

pairment

3,33,43,85,45,6

7,9

11,0

23,6

30,528,2


Based on education level, the responses vary mostly at the primary, secondary school and university/higher education levels whereas at the high school level, the responses align with the average (see Table 1)� High school graduates seem to focus less on the physical characteristics and gave ‘handicapped/crippled/deformed’ and ‘missing a foot/limps’ responses less frequently than the average (see Figure 5)�

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Average

People with disabilities or their relatives

General Public

Other


deform

ed

Unable to m

eet own needs

No resp

onse

Mental Disa

bility

Missing a fo

ot/lim

ps

Limite

d/restr

icted

Missing a hand

Unfortu

nate/desp

erate

Visual im

pairment

Figure 4: Three descriptions of disability that first come to mind(People with disabilities or relatives vs� general public, %)


Society’s perception of disability differs from the average especially in the highest and lowest income groups (see Table 2). The ‘Unable to meet own needs/needy’ response is statistically significantly different from the average in all income groups and its frequency decreases as income increases (see Figure 6)�

Figure 5: Three descriptions of disability that first come to mind (Level of education, %)

Table 1: Statistical significance of differences in three descriptions of disability that come to mind (Level of education)

Level of Education

Primary School Secondary School High School University or higher

Other

Handicapped/crippled/deformed

Unable to meet own needs

Mental Disability

Missing a foot/limps

Limited/restricted

Missing a hand

Unfortunate/desperate

Visual impairment

No response

Significant at %5 level Significant at %10 level

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35 High School University or higher

Primary School Secondary SchoolAverage

40

Other


deform

ed

Unable to m

eet own needs

No resp

onse

Mental Disa

bility

Missing a fo

ot/lim

ps

Limite

d/restr

icted

Missing a hand

Unfortu

nate/desp

erate

Visual im

pairment


Figure 6: Three descriptions of disability that first come to mind (Level of income, %)

Table 2: Statistical significance of differences in three descriptions of disability that come to mind (Level of income)

Responses appear not much different from the average among age groups (see Table 3)� Only the frequency of the ‘handicapped/crippled/deformed’ and ‘limited/restricted’ responses are statistically significantly different from the average in certain age groups (see Figure 7)�

Level of income (TL)

0 - 1�000 1�000 - 1�500 1�500 - 2�000 2�000+

Other



Mental Disability


Limited/restricted

Missing a hand


Visual impairment

No response


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1.500 - 2.000 2.000+

0 - 1.000 1.000 - 1.500Average

Other


deform

ed

Unable to m

eet own needs

No resp

onse

Mental Disa

bility

Missing a fo

ot/lim

ps

Limite

d/restr

icted

Missing a hand

Unfortu

nate/desp

erate

Visual im

pairment


Figure 7: Three descriptions of disability that first come to mind (Age group, %)

Table 3: Statistical significance of differences in three descriptions of disability that come to mind (Age group)

Age group

18 - 27 28 - 37 38 - 48 49+

Other



Mental Disability


Limited/restricted

Missing a hand


Visual impairment

No response


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

38-48 49+

18-27 28-37Average

Other


deform

ed

Unable to m

eet own needs

No resp

onse

Mental Disa

bility

Missing a fo

ot/lim

ps

Limite

d/restr

icted

Missing a hand

Unfortu

nate/desp

erate

Visual im

pairment


Participants’ perception of disability also varies with settlement and geographical region. The difference is especially clear in the responses of participants living in urban areas and in the Black Sea region (see Table 4)� Of the responses of participants living in rural areas, only the ‘mental disability’ response is statistically significantly lower than the average, whereas half of the responses of participants from urban areas differ from the average (see Figure 8)� In the Black Sea region only the ‘limited/restricted people’ response coincides with the average and responses besides ‘other’ and ‘unfortunate/desperate’ appear less often than the average (see Figure 9)� The responses of participants from the Eastern Anatolia and Aegean regions are more aligned with the average than other regions�

Figure 8: Three descriptions of disability that first come to mind (Settlement type, %)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Urban Rural

MetropolitanAverage

Other


deform

ed

Unable to m

eet own needs

No resp

onse

Mental Disa

bility

Missing a fo

ot/lim

ps

Limite

d/restr

icted

Missing a hand

Unfortu

nate/desp

erate

Visual im

pairment


Figure 9: Three descriptions of disability that first come to mind (Geographical region, %)

Table 4: Statistical significance of differences in three descriptions of disability that come to mind (Settlement type and geographical region)

Settlement Type Geographical Region

Metropolitan Urban Rural MediterraneanEastern Anatolia

AegeanS�Eastern Anatolia

Black Sea MarmaraCentral

Anatolia

Other



Mental Disability


Limited/restricted

Missing a hand


Visual impairment

No response


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

S. Eastern Anatolia Black Sea Marmara Central Anatolia

Mediterranean Eastern Anatolia AegeanAverage

Other


deform

ed

Unable to m

eet own needs

No resp

onse

Mental Disa

bility

Missing a fo

ot/lim

ps

Limite

d/restr

icted

Missing a hand

Unfortu

nate/desp

erate

Visual im

pairment


Among the 15 categories of disability listed, there was a statistically significantly difference in only two categories, in that of the responses of males vs� female participants (see Table 5)� Females responded more frequently with autism as a children’s disability, compared to hyperactivity, which was cited more often by the male participants (see Figure 11)�

The perception of different disability categories by persons with disabilities or their relatives was not statistically significantly different from the general public at five per cent level. Relatives of persons with disabilities, at 10 per cent significance level, cited children with physical distortions more frequently than the average and others regarded children who wear glasses due to blurred vision as children with disabilities (see Figure 12)� This demonstrates that the scope of disability is not only unknown to the general public but also to persons with disabilities or their relatives as well�

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

20,222,724,32828,531,432,741,245,2

94,286,5

91,292,7

69,677,3

Total loss

of visi

on

Missing a hand/fo

ot

Total loss

of audito

ry sense

Mental Retard

ation

Autism

Physical d

istorti

ons

Aggressive behaviour

Emotional d

isord

er

Mild lo

ss of a

uditory se

nseAID

S

Attentio

n deficit

Speech disord

er

Non-contagious chro

nic

Hyperactivity

Blurred visi

on

(wears

glasses)

Scope Of DisabilityFollowing the first open-ended question with which the perceptions of participants of disability was measured, a list of different categories of disabilities – including physical and sensory disabilities at different levels, contagious and non-contagious chronic diseases, mental and psychological-emotional disorders – was presented to participants and they were asked to state whether each of the conditions could be defined as a disability or not� According to the results, children with advanced levels of physical or sensory disabilities, mental disabilities and autistic children were particularly regarded as disabled (with an average of 85 per cent responding in the affirmative). Children with mild levels of physical and sensory disability, chronic diseases and psychological-emotional disorders were less frequently (30 per cent on the average) regarded as disabled (see Figure 10)�

Figure 10: Participants’ perception of listed disability categories(Rate of participants who agreed, full sample, %)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Average Male Female

Total loss

of visi

on

Missing a hand/fo

ot

Total loss

of audito

ry sense

Mental Retard

ation

Autism

Physical d

istorti

ons


Emotional d

isord

er

Mild lo

ss of a

uditory se

nseAID

S

Attentio

n deficit

Speech disord

er

Non-contagious chro

nic

Hyperactivity

Blurred visi

on

(wears

glasses)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total loss

of visi

on

Missing a hand/fo

ot

Total loss

of audito

ry sense

Mental Retard

ation

Autism

Physical d

istorti

ons


Emotional d

isord

er

Mild lo

ss of a

uditory se

nseAID

S

Attentio

n deficit

Speech disord

er

Non-contagious chro

nic

Hyperactivity

Blurred visi

on

(wears

glasses)

Average


General Public

Figure 11: Participants’ perception of listed disability categories(Rate of participants who agree, Gender, %)

Figure 12: Participants’ perception of listed disability categories(Rate of participants who agree, people with disabilities/relatives vs� general public, %)


Table 5: Statistical significance of differences in participants’ perception of disability(Gender and people with disabilities or their relatives)

GenderPeople with

disabilities or their relatives

Total loss of vision

Missing a hand/foot

Total loss of auditory sense

Mental retardation

Autism

Physical distortions


Emotional disorder

Mild loss of auditory sense (wears hearing aid)

AIDS

Attention deficit

Speech disorder

Non-contagious chronic diseases

Hyperactivity

Blurred vision (wears glasses)

The evaluation of disability categories results also reveals differences with respect to the educational attainment of participants (see Figure 13)� Variations from the average concentrate especially at the university/higher education level� While 8 out of 15 disability categories presented in the question varied from the average, the mild physical and sensory disabilities and psychological-emotional disorders were selected within disability categories less frequently than the average (see Table 6)� On the other hand, at the high school level, only children with aggressive behavior were regarded as disabled more frequently than the average� Contrary to expectations, variations from the average at all education levels are not in the evaluation of advanced physical and sensory disabilities and autism and mental disability, but rather in the evaluation of mild physical and sensory disabilities, chronic diseases and psychological-emotional disorders�



Table 6: Statistical significance of differences in participants’ perception of disability(Level of education)

Level of education

Primary School

Secondary School

High SchoolUniversity or

higher


Missing a hand/foot


Mental retardation

Autism



Emotional disorder


AIDS

Attention deficit

Speech disorder


Hyperactivity


Figure 13: Participants’ perception of listed disability categories

(Rate of participants who agree, Level of education, %)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total loss

of visi

on

Missing a hand/fo

ot

Total loss

of audito

ry sense

Mental Retard

ation

Autism

Physical d

istorti

ons


Emotional d

isord

er

Mild lo

ss of a

uditory se

nseAID

S

Attentio

n deficit

Speech disord

er

Non-contagious chro

nic

Hyperactivity

Blurred visi

on

(wears

glasses)

High School University or higher

Primary School Secondary SchoolAverage



Upon examination of the results based on income levels, variations from the average were found mainly at the highest income group (see Table 7)� Among all of the income groups there was no statistically significant difference from the average in the high rate of selection of advanced physical and sensory disabilities (such as total loss of vision or auditory sense) as a disability� Low visibility disabilities such as attention deficit, speech disorder and non-contagious chronic diseases were selected at lower frequency by all participants (see Figure 14)�

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Average 0 - 1.000 1.000 - 1.500

1.500 - 2.000 2.000+

Total loss

of visi

on

Missing a hand/fo

ot

Total loss

of audito

ry sense

Mental Retard

ation

Autism

Physical d

istorti

ons


Emotional d

isord

er

Mild lo

ss of a

uditory se

nseAID

S

Attentio

n deficit

Speech disord

er

Non-contagious chro

nic

Hyperactivity

Blurred visi

on

(wears

glasses)

Figure 14: Participants’ perception of listed disability categories (Rate of participants who agree, Level of income, %)


Variations from the average are visible particularly in the youngest and the oldest age groups� Results in 4 out of 15 disability categories presented in the questionnaire were different than the average in both age groups, where the difference occurred specifically for categories which were selected less often as disabilities by all of participants (i�e� AIDS, attention deficit, non-contagious chronic diseases, and hyperactivity) (see Table 8)� In the 18-27 group, all listed responses were less frequent than the average, whereas in the 49+ group, they were more frequent (see Figure 15)� All the responses of the 28-37 group align with the average, whereas the 38-48 group regards a child without a hand or a foot as disabled less frequently than the average�

Table 7: Statistical significance of differences in participants’ perception of disability(Level of income)


0 - 1�000 1�000 - 1�500 1�500 - 2�000 2�000+


Missing a hand/foot


Mental retardation

Autism



Emotional disorder


AIDS

Attention deficit

Speech disorder


Hyperactivity




Age group

18 - 27 28 -37 38 - 48 49+


Missing a hand/foot


Mental retardation

Autism



Emotional disorder


AIDS

Attention deficit

Speech disorder


Hyperactivity


Table 8: Statistical significance of differences in participants’ perception of disability (Age group)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

38-48 49+

18-27 28-37Average

Total loss

of visi

on

Missing a hand/fo

ot

Total loss

of audito

ry sense

Mental Retard

ation

Autism

Physical d

istorti

ons


Emotional d

isord

er

Mild lo

ss of a

uditory se

nseAID

S

Attentio

n deficit

Speech disord

er

Non-contagious chro

nic

Hyperactivity

Blurred visi

on

(wears

glasses)


Figure 15: Participants’ perception of listed disability categories (Rate of participants who agree, Age group, %)


Results of the questionnaire show that participants from different types of settlements and geographical regions evaluate disability categories very differently from the average (see Table 9)� At settlement type disaggregation, responses of participants from metropolitan areas vary more (9 out of 15 disability categories) from the average than the responses of participants who are from urban or rural areas� Similar to the results presented in educational attainment, responses which vary from the average in all settlements types include mild level of physical and sensory disability, chronic diseases and psychological-emotional disorders (see Figure 16)�

According to the results based on geographical regions, responses differ substantially from the average in all regions with the least difference (7 out of 15 disability categories) in the Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia regions (see Figure 17)� Most of the variation was concentrated at Marmara, Mediterranean, Black Sea and Central Anatolia regions (12, 11, 10 and 10 out of 15 disability categories, respectively)�

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Average Metropolitan

Urban Rural

Total loss

of visi

on

Missing a hand/fo

ot

Total loss

of audito

ry sense

Mental Retard

ation

Autism

Physical d

istorti

ons


Emotional d

isord

er

Mild lo

ss of a

uditory se

nseAID

S

Attentio

n deficit

Speech disord

er

Non-contagious chro

nic

Hyperactivity

Blurred visi

on

(wears

glasses)

Figure 16: Participants’ perception of listed disability categories (Rate of participants who agree, Settlement type, %)


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Total loss

of visi

on

Missing a hand/fo

ot

Total loss

of audito

ry sense

Mental Retard

ation

Autism

Physical d

istorti

ons


Emotional d

isord

er

Mild lo

ss of a

uditory se

nseAID

S

Attentio

n deficit

Speech disord

er

Non-contagious chro

nic

Hyperactivity

Blurred visi

on

(wears

glasses)

Black Sea Marmara Central Anatolia

S. Eastern AnatoliaMediterranean Eastern Anatolia AegeanAverage

Figure 17: Participants’ perception of listed disability categories (Rate of participants who agree, Geographical region, %)


Table 9: Statistical significance of differences in participants’ perception of disability (Settlement type and geographical region)





Anatolia


Missing a hand/foot


Mental retardation

Autism



Emotional disorder


AIDS

Attention deficit

Speech disorder


Hyperactivity



Feelings Towards Children With DisabilitiesAccording to the psychodynamic view, when people encounter persons with disabilities, they realize the wholeness of their own bodies and experience fear of being disabled themselves� Since this realization causes anxiety, they tend to stay away from persons with disabilities, which eventually turns into negative attitudes (Livneh, 1988)� Participants’ responses to the question about their feelings when they encounter a child with disability confirm this view� The percentages of the people who ‘feel sorry’ (60 per cent), ‘pity’ (25 per cent) and were ‘thankful for their own condition’ (25 per cent) are higher than the percentage of people who ‘act normal’ (17 per cent) (see Figure 18)�

Thirty per cent of participants who declared that they ‘feel sorry’ when they encounter a child with disability, also give another emotional response, that of ‘pity’� Only five per cent of participants who said they feel sorry when they meet a child with disability acted normal� Among all participants, 17 per cent


declared that they act normal when they encounter a child with disability, since they feel that everyone is the same� In comparison, results from a similar study conducted in England report that 85 per cent of the people regard persons with disability as same with others therefore, act normal06�

Survey results show that 39 per cent of all participants ‘try to help’ the child with disability when they meet� Among other responses, the percentage of this response is between 21 and 30 per cent, whereas among people who say they look the other way when meeting with a child with disability, only seven per cent try to help them (see Table 10)�

*For each response listed in the columns, there is a corresponding percentage of the additional responses in each row� For example, of those who responded with ‘feel sorry’, 29 per cent also stated they ‘pity’ and 3�9 per cent ‘look the other way’�

Figure 18: Feelings of people when they encounter a child with disabilities (%)

Table 10: Cross distribution* of people’s feelings when encountered with a child with disabilities (%)

06 Office for Disability Issues, UK (2009). Public perceptions of Disabled People – Evidence from the British Social Attitude Survey 2009�

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0,71,66,1

16,825,325,4

38,5

59,8

Feel Sorry Try to help Pity Thankful forown condition

Act normal Look theother way

Other No response

Fell sorry PityLook the

other wayTry to help Act normal Feel thankful

Feel sorry - 11�1 37�7 46�3 18�7 40�9Pity 29 - 9�1 8�1 3�1 8Look the other way 3�9 6�2 - 1�1 2�7 7�3Try to help 29�8 31�6 6�9 - 30�1 21�5Act normal 5�2 5�3 7�4 13�2 - 8�7Feel thankful 17�3 23�1 30�2 14�2 13�1 -


From the gender perspective, only the percentage of women who ‘feel sorry’ is higher than the overall average (see Figure 19) and the other responses align (see Table 11)� Persons with disabilities or their relatives deviate from the average in all responses except for ‘I try to help’� Persons with disabilities or their relatives gave less frequently than average emotional reactions such as feeling sorry, pitying and being grateful for one’s own condition or the inclination to ignore by looking the other way� They also tended to act more normal (see Figure 20)�

Figure 19: Feelings of people when encountered with a child with disabilities (Gender, %)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Average Male Female



Other No response

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Average People with disabilities or their relatives General Public



Other No response

Figure 20: Feelings of people when they encounter a child with disabilities(People with disabilities or their relatives vs� general public, %)


Table 11: Statistical significance of differences in feelings when people encounter a child with disabilities (Gender and persons with disabilities or their relatives)

On the basis of educational attainment, all of the respondents who ‘try to help’ are in line with the average at all education levels (see Table 12)� Most of the variations from the average are at primary school level, whereas at secondary level there appears no difference in responses from the average. With the exception of secondary school, emotional reactions such as ‘feel sorry’ and ‘pity‘ differ from the average at all levels. The percentage of respondents giving emotional reactions decrease as the education level increases (see Figure 21)� Similarly, the percentage of people who act normal increases with education level� Nonetheless, it is noteworthy that even if the rate is low, among all education levels who says they ‘look the other way’, the highest percentage is at the university/higher education level�

Figure 21: Feelings of people when they encounter a child with disabilities (Level of education, %)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Average Primary School Secondary School High School University or higher



Other No response

GenderPeople with


Feel sorry

Pity

Look the other way

Try to help

Act normal

Feel thankful

Other



Table 12 Statistical significance of differences in feelings when encountered with a child with disabilities (Level of education)

The analysis of responses based on income reveal that most of the differences occur in the lowest income group (see Table 13)� A higher percentage of participants among this group give responses such as ‘feel sorry’, ‘pity’ and ‘try to help’, whereas for the same group ‘being thankful for their own situation’, ‘acting normal’ and ‘looking the other way’ responses are lower than the average (see Figure 22)� As income increases fewer people ‘feel sorry’ and more people ‘try to help’ or surprisingly ‘look the other way’ when they come in contact with a child with disability� Compared to lower income groups, participants who belong to higher income groups tend to ignore the child with a disability and are not as helpful�

Figure 22: Feelings of people when they encounter a child with disabilities (Level of income, %)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Average 0 - 1.000 1.000 - 1.500 1.500 - 2.000 2.000+



Other No response

Level of education

Primary School

Secondary School


higher

Feel sorry

Pity

Look the other way

Try to help

Act normal

Feel thankful

Other



Table 13: Statistical significance of differences in feelings when people encounter a childwith disabilities (Level of income)

Analysing the feelings towards a child with disabilities with respect to age, it appears that the elderly group’s responses especially vary from the average (see Table 14)� This age group feels sorry and pities the child with disabilities more than the average (see Figure 23)� In addition, since the participants in the elderly group do not regard these children as the same as themselves, only a lower percentage of them can ‘act normal’� The 28-37 group is more successful in acting normal compared to the others� The responses of the 18-27 and 28-38 age groups do not show any divergence from the average�

Figure 23: Feelings of people when encountered with a child with disabilities (Age group, %)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Average 18-27 28-37 38-48 49+



Other No response


0 - 1.000 1.000 - 1.500 1.500 - 2.000 2.000+

Feel sorry

Pity

Look the other way

Try to help

Act normal

Feel thankful

Other



Table 14: Statistical significance of differences in feelings when encountered with a childwith disabilities (Age group)

The ratio of emotional reactions, such as feeling sorry and pitying, increases as participants move from metropolitan to rural areas (see Figure 24)� In the metropolitan areas a lower percentage of participants look the other way, compared to the average� There appears to be no variation from the average in any of the settlement area for the responses of ‘I try to help’ and ‘I try to act normal’ (see Table 15)�

Among all geographical regions, responses from the Black Sea region vary the most from the average (see Table 15)� This region has the highest percentage of the response ‘I look the other way’ and this response only varies from the average for this region (see Figure 25)� Similarly, the response ‘I try to help’ has the lowest percentage in this region� The regions where this response is higher than the average are the Southeastern and Central Anatolia regions� A lower percentage of participants from Eastern Anatolia and Mediterranean regions act normal when they come in contact with a child with disabilities�

Figure 24: Feelings of people when they encounter a child with disabilities (Settlement type, %)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Average Metropolitan Urban Rural



Other No response

Age group

18 - 27 28 - 37 38 - 48 49+

Feel sorry

Pity

Look the other way

Try to help

Act normal

Feel thankful

Other



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80



Other No response

Black Sea Marmara Central Anatolia


Table 15: Statistical significance of differences in feelings when encountered with a childwith disabilities (Settlement type and geographical region)





Anatolia

Feel sorry

Pity

Look the other way

Try to help

Act normal

Feel thankful

Other


Figure 25: Feelings of people when encountered with a child with disabilities (Geographical regions, %)


Figure 26: Areas where children with disabilities are being excluded (Full sample, %)

Areas Where Children With Disabilities Are Being ExcludedWhen participants were asked to identify the areas where they believe that children with disabilities are being excluded, 38 per cent responded with ‘social life’ followed by 24 per cent who said they are being excluded from all of the areas that were listed in the questionnaire (see Figure 26)� Among social services such as education and health, education appears to be the most (17 per cent) problematic in terms of the accessibility of children with disabilities� Only four per cent of participants think that they are not being excluded from any of the social areas�

Male participants focus on the exclusion of the children with disabilities at the professional area, more than the average (see Figure 27)� In addition, they also think that these children are not being excluded from any of the social areas, more than the average� On the other hand, female participants emphasize exclusion in education and all of the social areas listed in the question� Responses given by persons with disabilities or their relatives show no variation from the average (see Table 16)�

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Social life All Education Professionallife

Health None Others Home No response

0,80,80,94,44,6

9,7

17,4

23,8

37,7


Figure 27: Areas where children with disabilities are being excluded (Gender, %)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Average Male Female



Table 16: Statistical significance of difference in perception of areas where children with disabilities are being excluded (Gender and people with disabilities or their relatives)


GenderPeople with disabilities or their

relatives

Education

Health

Social life

Professional life

Home

Other

All

None

Results according to education levels show that the percentages of participants who believe these children are being excluded from all social areas vary from the average for all levels (see Table 17)� The ratio of this response decreases according to education level, where it is higher than the average for primary and secondary school and lower for the high school and university/higher education level (see Figure 28)� A higher percentage of secondary school graduates think that children with disabilities are being excluded from health services, whereas this figure is lower at the university/higher education level� Exclusion from social life is considered problematic more by university/higher level graduates and less by the secondary school graduates�


Figure 28: Areas where children with disabilities are being excluded (Level of education, %)

Table 17: Statistical significance of the difference in perception of areas where children with disabilities are being excluded (Level of education)


Level of education

Primary School

Secondary School


higher

Education

Health

Social life

Professional life

Home

Other

All

None

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45



High School University or higherPrimary School Secondary SchoolAverage


Figure 29: Areas where children with disabilities are being excluded (Level of income, %)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Average 0-1.000 1.000-1.500 1.500-2.000 2.000+



Tablo 18: Engeli olan çocukların toplumda dışlanma algısındaki farklılığın istatistiksel anlamlılığı (Gelir seviyesi)



0 - 1.000 1.000 - 1.500 1.500 - 2.000 2.000+

Education

Health

Social life

Professional life

Home

Other

All

None

In terms of income groups, the same responses of the highest and lowest income groups vary from the average (see Table 18)� In the lowest income group, a higher percentage of participants think that children with disabilities are being excluded in education, whereas this figure is lower than the average for the highest income group (see Figure 29)� ‘Social life’, which has the highest percentage among the responses, has the lowest response rate for the 1,000-1,500 TL income group when compared to the other income levels�


Figure 30: Areas where children with disabilities are being excluded (Age group, %)

Table 19: Statistical significance of difference in perception of areas where childrenwith disabilities are being excluded (Age group)


Age group

18 - 27 28 - 37 38 - 48 49+

Education

Health

Social life

Professional life

Home

Other

All

None

The perception that children with disabilities are being excluded from all of the areas that are listed in the question increases with age (see Figure 30)� The youngest group gives ‘all of the above’ response less often than the average, whereas, this figure is the highest in the oldest group� The youngest group regards educational services more and health services less as an area of exclusion� The oldest group thinks less than the average that children with disabilities are being excluded from social life� Responses of the 18-27 and 28-37 age groups are not statistically significantly different from the average (see Table 19)�

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Average 18-27 28-37 38-48 49+




Based on the examination of responses according to settlement type, the urban area warrants attention (see Table 20)� A higher percentage of participants from urban areas think that children with disabilities are being excluded from health services, whereas this figure is lower for participants from rural areas (see Figure 31)� A higher than the average percentage of participants living in the metropolitan areas does not consider that children with disability are being excluded from any of the areas listed in the question�

As for the geographical distribution, responses of participants from the Aegean region do not vary from the average and the most variance occurs in Southeastern Anatolia and the Marmara regions (see Table 20)� The ‘Social life’ response, which has the highest ratio on the average, is even higher the Mediterranean region (see Figure 32)� In the Mediterranean and Southeastern Anatolia regions educational services are regarded less of an exclusion area but this figure increases in the Marmara region� Health services are perceived as an exclusion area by participants of the Black Sea region, with the highest ratio�

Figure 31: Areas where children with disabilities are being excluded (Settlement type, %)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45





Figure 32: Areas where children with disabilities are being excluded (Geographical region, %)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45



Black Sea Marmara Central AnatoliaS. Eastern AnatoliaMediterranean Eastern Anatolia AegeanAverage

Table 20: Statistical significance of difference in perception of areas where children with disabilities are being excluded (Settlement type and geographical region)





Anatolia

Education

Health

Social life

Professional life

Home

Other

All

None


Acquaintance With Children With DisabilitiesForty-four per cent of participants declared that they do not personally know a child with disability� Among those who know a child with disabilities, 29 per cent is acquainted with this child through neighbours, 24 per cent have this child in their household and 18 per cent knows the child through a friend (see Figure 33)� The percentage of participants who indicated that there is a child at their school or work place is below five per cent�


Eighty per cent of participants with disabilities or their relatives have a child with disabilities in their household and this rate is well above the average (see Figure 34)� In all the other types of acquaintance with children with disability, they report below the average� Based on gender, there appears no variation from the average in the acquaintance with a child with disability�

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2,944,8

17,6

23,5

28,7

36,5

43,6

None Amongrelatives

Amongneighbours

Amonghousehold

At school At theworkplace

OthersAmongfriends

Figure 33: Acquaintance with children with disabilities (Full sample, %)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


None Amongrelatives

Amongneighbours

Amonghousehold


OthersAmongfriends

Figure 34: Acquaintance with children with disabilities(People with disabilities or relatives vs� general public, %)


Analysis of the acquaintance with a child with disabilities responses with respect to education level shows that although there is no difference from the average at other levels, at the university/higher education level, a higher percentage of participants state that they do not personally know any child with disabilities (see Figure 35)� Participants with a primary school education know a child with disabilities more through a relative and less through their friends or the work place, when compared with the average� As educational attainment increases, the percentage of participants reporting that they know a child with disabilities through relatives, neighbours or their household falls and the percentage of participants who knows such child from their school, work place or through their friends increases� The percentage of participants saying that they know a child with disabilities from their school varies for all education levels; the rates are considerably lower for primary and secondary school levels compared to high school and university / higher education levels�

Figure 35: Acquaintance with children with disabilities (Level of education, %)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


None Amongrelatives

Amongneighbours

Amonghousehold


OthersAmongfriends

The analysis based on income groups illustrates that as income increases, the percentage of participants who knows a child with disabilities through their household, relative or neighbour falls and percentage of participants who knows such a child from school, work place or through friends increases (see Figure 36)� At the lowest income group, participants know a child with disabilities more through their household or relatives and less through their friends or from their schools, when compared to the average� The highest income group reports with the lowest percentage that they have a child with disabilities in their household� In addition, this group knows such a child from school with a higher percentage than other participants�


Figure 36: Acquaintance with children with disabilities (Level of income, %)

Figure 37: Acquaintance with children with disabilities (Age group, %)

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Average 0-1.000 1.000-1.500 1.500-2.000 2.000+

None Amongrelatives

Amongneighbours

Amonghousehold


OthersAmongfriends

In the oldest age group of 49 years and older, the percentage of participants saying they do not personally know a child with disabilities is the highest and the percentage who do know such a child through their household, relatives, friends or neighbours is in line with the average (see Figure 37). Among different age groups, the 18-27 group (which is active in the education system) has the highest percentage and the 49+ group (which is not actively involved in education) reports the lowest percentage of acquaintance of a child with disabilities through a school�

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Average 18-27 28-37 38-48 49+

None Amongrelatives

Amongneighbours

Amonghousehold


OthersAmongfriends


Figure 38: Acquaintance with children with disabilities (Settlement type, %)

Viewed on the basis of type of settlement, participants from urban areas have the highest percentage of not knowing personally a child with disabilities (see Figure 38)� The percentage of participants whose acquaintance is through relatives or neighbours goes up as one moves from metropolitan to rural areas� The percentage of participants with a child with disabilities in the household is the same across all the settlement types� Compared to the average, more people who live in urban areas know such a child though friends or school�

Results disaggregated by geographical regions reveal that the Southeastern Anatolia region has the lowest percentage of participants who do not personally know a child with disability� Of those who do know such a child it is mainly through their relatives (see Figure 39)� The Central Anatolia region ranks second for the percentage of participants who know such children through relatives� In the Black Sea region the percentage of participants who know a child with disabilities through friends is well above the percentage in other regions� Acquaintance of a child who is disabled through neighbours is at a higher rate in the Aegean and Southeastern Anatolia regions� The percentage of participants who have a child with disabilities in their household does not vary from the average for any of the regions�

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


None Amongrelatives

Amongneighbours

Amonghousehold


OthersAmongfriends


Figure 39: Acquaintance with children with disabilities (Geographical region, %)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50Black Sea Marmara Central Anatolia


None Amongrelatives

Amongneighbours

Amonghousehold


OthersAmongfriends


Figure 40: Frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Full sample, %)

Frequency Of Meeting With A Child With Disabilities According to the cognitive approach, attitudes take shape around the expectation schemes that are formed with one’s experiences and people experience anxiety and fear when faced with others who do not fit into these schemes (Westervelt and Turnbull, 1980)� Such attitudes, when considered exclusively in the context of disability, come out as avoidance of persons with disabilities and the development of negative attitudes towards them� However, the more the people are exposed to certain situations or persons, the more positive attitudes they develop towards the situation or the person (Zaynoc, 1968)�

The analysis of participants’ frequency of meeting with children with disabilities and their attitudes towards them presents a picture that is compatible with this approach� Fifty-nine per cent of participants, around whom there is a child with disabilities, meet this child at least once a week (see Figure 40), whereas only one per cent never meets them� Analysing the meeting frequencies and attitudes together, participants who meet these children everyday tend to ‘look the other way’ less often than other participants and this ratio increases with the increasing frequency of meeting (see Table 21)� Although this ratio falls with participants who meet once a month or couple of times a year, it is still higher than participants who meet every day� Similarly, the tendency of acting normal and trying to help is the highest among participants who meet every day and it decreases with the decreasing frequency�

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Every day Couple of times a week

Couple of times a year

Couple of times a month

Once amonth

Once aweek

Never Other No esponse

18,3

32,9

0,20,41,3

14,2

10,8

14

7,7


Every day

Couple of times a

week

Once a week


Once a month

Couple of times a

yearNever

Pity 12�8 14�5 11�9 14�8 16�8 13�6 14�3

Other 1�2 1�1 0�9 0�8 0�0 0�5 0�0

Look the other way 1�8 3�8 4�9 6�6 3�5 3�1 0�0

Thankful for own condition 11�1 14�8 17�3 15�3 13�7 16�4 20�0

Act normal 15�0 9�8 8�8 8�9 8�6 8�9 5�7

Try to help 25�5 23�7 22�1 21�9 21�9 23�2 17�1

Feel sorry 32�5 32�3 34�1 31�8 35�6 34�2 42�9

A higher percentage of female participants report that even though there is a child with disability around them, they never meet him/her (see Figure 41)� Among participants with disabilities or their relatives, 79 per cent meet the child with a disability every day since they have such a child in their household� Even though a lower per cent (19 per cent) of participants with disabilities or their relatives report that they meet a child with disabilities everyday, 50 per cent meets such a child at least once a week (see Figure 42)�

Table 21: Attitudes of participants towards children with disabilities with respect to frequency of meeting him/her (%)

Figure 41: Frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Gender, %)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40




Once amonth

Once aweek


Average Male Female


Gender People with disabilities or their relatives

Every day

Couple of times a week

Once a week


Once a month


Never

Other

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90




Once amonth

Once aweek




Table 22: Statistical significance of differences in frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Gender and persons with disabilities or relatives)

Figure 42: Frequency of meeting a child with disabilities(People with disabilities or relatives vs� general public, %)


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40




Once amonth

Once aweek



Figure 43: Frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Level of education, %)

Table 23: Statistical significance of differences in frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Level of education)

Level of education


Every day


Once a week


Once a month


Never

Other

Regarding educational attainment, a higher percentage of participants (38 per cent) meets a child with disabilities every day only at primary school level (see Figure 43)� At none of the education levels other than primary school does there appear any variation from the average (see Table 23)�



Figure 44: Frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Level of income, %)

Table 24: Statistical significance of differences in frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Level of income)


0 - 1.000 1.000 - 1.500 1.500 - 2.000 2.000+

Every day


Once a week


Once a month


Never

Other

With respect to income groups, the only variation is among participants who declare that they meet a child with disabilities everyday (see Table 24)� A higher percentage of the lowest income group and a lower percentage of the highest income group meet a child with disabilities everyday (see Figure 44)� At other income groups and meeting frequencies there is no difference from the average.


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40




Once amonth

Once aweek


Average 0-1.000 1.000-1.500 1.500-2.000 2.000+


The analysis of the responses according to age group show only three of the frequency options vary from the average (see Table 25)� The percentage of participants who never meets a child with disabilities increases as the participant gets older, where the youngest group states lower and the oldest group states higher than the average that they never meet (see Figure 45)� Again, the oldest group states lower than the average that they meet such a child couple of times a week� Based on these responses, it can be deducted that the frequency of people meeting a child with a disability decreases with increasing age�

Figure 45: Frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Age group, %)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40




Once amonth

Once aweek


Average 18-27 28-37 38-48 49+

Table 25: Statistical significance of differences in frequency of meeting a child with disabilities(Age group)

Age group

18 - 27 28 - 37 38 - 48 49+

Every day


Once a week


Once a month


Never

Other



Among participants from metropolitan areas, the percentage of people who report that they meet a child with disabilities once or couple of times a week is lower than the average, whereas it is lower than the average (at 10 per cent significance level) for those who meet every day or couple of times a year (see Figure 46)� Among participants from urban areas, the percentage of people who state they meet such a child every day or couple of times a month is lower than the average, whereas there is no difference from the average in other responses (see Table 26)� Lastly, participants from rural areas report more than the average that they meet such a child once a week or couple of times a month�

Considering the differences in frequencies of meeting a child with disabilities with respect to geographical regions, the Aegean region is in line with the average (see Table 26)� Participants who report that they never meet such a child are mostly from the Southeastern Anatolia region and the percentage of participants who meets them every day is the lowest in the Black Sea region (see Figure 47)�

Figure 46: Frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Settlement type, %)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40




Once amonth

Once aweek




Figure 47: Frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Geographical region, %)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40




Once amonth

Once aweek



Table 26: Statistical significance of differences in frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (Settlement type and geographical region)





Anatolia

Her gün

Haftada bir kaç defa

Haftada 1 defa

Ayda bir kaç defa

Ayda 1 defa

Senede bir kaç defa

Hiç görmem

Diğer



Figure 48: Level of knowledge about children with disabilities (Full sample, %)

Knowledge About Children With DisabilitiesAs a part of the survey, the participants other than those with disabilities or their relatives were asked about their level of knowledge of children with disabilities� Fifty-three per cent of participants who responded to this question said that they have little knowledge and 30 per cent stated had sufficient knowledge (see Figure 48)� Upon analysis of participants’ knowledge level with respect to how often they meet children with disabilities, it appears that with a lower frequency of meeting, the percentage of participants who say that they have sufficient knowledge decreases and the percentage who say they have very little knowledge increases (see Figure 49)� The percentage of participants with a high level of knowledge is the greatest among participants who meet every day but this level does not decrease with the frequency of meeting as would be expected�

Responses do not vary with respect to gender and variances in persons with disabilities or their relatives cannot be assessed since this question was not directed to them�

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

A lot Sufficient Very little None

10,7

53

29,5

6,8


Figure 49: Level of knowledge with respect to frequency of meeting a child with disabilities (%)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


Once a week Once a month Couple of times a month

Once a year Never

None A lotSufficient Very little

From the viewpoint of educational attainment, differences occur only among participants who say they have sufficient knowledge (see Table 27)� Primary school graduates report lower than the average and university/higher graduates report higher than the average, that they have sufficient knowledge (see Figure 50)�

Figure 50: Level of knowledge about children with disabilities (Level of education, %)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Very little Sufficient None A lot



It is observed that the knowledge level of participants differs in the highest and the lowest income groups (see Table 28). The percentage of participants reporting they have sufficient knowledge is lower than the average among the lowest income group and it is higher than the average among the highest income group (see Figure 51)� In addition, the percentage of participants who declare that they do not have any knowledge is the highest among the lowest income group�

Table 27: Statistical significance of difference in level of knowledge about children with disabilities (Level of education)

Level of education


None

Very little

Sufficient

A lot


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Average 0-1.000 1.000-1.500 1.500-2.000 2.000+


Figure 51: Acquisition of knowledge about children with disabilities (Level of income, %)


Table 28: Statistical significance of difference in level of knowledge about children with disabilities (Level of income)


0 - 1.000 1.000 - 1.500 1.500 - 2.000 2.000+

None

Very little

Sufficient

A lot


There appears to be no difference in knowledge level based on age groups. Looking at participants from different settlements types, the percentage of participants from urban areas who report that they have very little knowledge is the lowest (see Figure 52)� Disaggregated by geographical region, it is apparent that there is no variation in Mediterranean and Black Sea regions and the ratio of responses ‘very little knowledge’ or ‘no knowledge’ is the highest in the Southeastern Anatolia region and lowest in the Marmara region (see Figure 53)� In the Eastern Anatolia region participants declare that they have a high level of knowledge about children with disabilities with a percentage higher than the average� In the Central Anatolia region the percentage of participants reporting that they do not have any knowledge is higher than the average�

Figure 52: Acquisition of knowledge about children with disabilities (Settlement type, %)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60




Figure 53: Acquisition of knowledge about children with disabilities (Geographical region, %)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60



Table 29: Statistical significance of difference in level of knowledge about children with disabilities (Settlement type and geographical region)





Anatolia

None

Very little

Sufficient

A lot



Sources Of Information About Children With DisabilitiesThe examination of results on how the public acquires information about children with disabilities reveals that the media takes the lead with 81 per cent� Information from friends, relatives and acquaintances (45 per cent) and information acquired from everyday life (27 per cent) are listed second and third respectively (see Figure 54)� The percentage of participants who acquire information from public institutions does not exceed six per cent�

When people’s sources of information and their frequency of meeting a child with disability is analysed together, it appears that with decreasing frequency of meeting the child, the ratio of media increases and the ratio of the information from friends, relatives and acquaintances and acquiring knowledge from everyday life experiences decrease (see Figure 55)� This analysis points out that media is an important medium for increasing people’s knowledge about children with disabilities and any program designed to increase the frequency of people meeting the disabled would contribute to knowledge enhancement�

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1,21,61,71,85,6

26,7

45,4

80,7

Media Info fromfriends, relatives

or neighbours

Everydayexperiences

Publicinstitutions

Nobody/nowhere

No response OtherMy child’sexperienceat school

Figure 54: Sources of information about children with disabilities (Full sample, %)


In terms of gender, male participants acquire knowledge more from the media when compared to females and females use public institutions as an information source more than males (see Figure 56)� Even though participants with disabilities and their relatives acquire knowledge mostly through the media, they lag behind the average and their everyday life experiences stand out as a source of information (see Figure 57)� Although it is a negligible ratio, participants with disabilities and their relatives report that they acquire knowledge from public bodies more than the average�

Figure 55: Sources of information about children with disabilities with respect to frequency of meeting him/her (%)

Info fromfriends, relatives

or neighbours

Everydayexperiences

Publicinstitutions

Nobody/nowhere

My child’sexperienceat school

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Every day Couple of times a week Once a week Couple of times a monthOnce a month Couple of times a year Never

Media


Figure 56: Sources of information about children with disabilities (Gender, %)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


or neighbours

Everydayexperiences

Publicinstitutions

Nobody/nowhere



0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Average Male Female


or neighbours

Everydayexperiences

Publicinstitutions

Nobody/nowhere


Figure 57: Sources of information about children with disabilities (People with disabilities or relatives vs� general public, %)


Table 30: Statistical significance of difference in sources of information about children with disabilities (Gender and people with disabilities or their relatives)

GenderPeople with disabilities or their

relatives

Media

Info from friends, relatives and acquaintances

Everyday life experiences

My child’s experience at school

Public institutions

Nobody/nowhere

Other


Sources of information do not vary with respect to education level (see Table 31)� Information from friends, relatives and acquaintances play a less important role as an information source with increasing education level and it stays below the average at high school level� Another interesting result is that the percentage of participants who acquire knowledge from public bodies is lower than the average for the primary school and university / higher level of education (see Figure 58)�

Figure 58: Sources of information about children with disabilities (Level of education, %)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


or neighbours

Everydayexperiences

Publicinstitutions

Nobody/nowhere




Figure 59: Sources of information about children with disabilities (Level of income, %)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Average 0-1.000 1.000-1.500 1.500-2.000 2.000+


or neighbours

Everydayexperiences

Publicinstitutions

Nobody/nowhere


Level of education

Primary SchoolSecondary

SchoolHigh School

University or higher

Media




Public institutions

Nobody/nowhere

Other


Differences in sources of information are only apparent in two income groups (see Table 32)� The ratio of information from friends, relatives and acquaintances is higher than the average at the lowest income group and among the 1,500 – 2,000 TL group the percentage of participants who report that they acquire knowledge through their children’s experiences at school is lower than the average (see Figure 59)�

Table 31: Statistical significance of differences in sources of information about childrenwith disabilities (Level of education)


Figure 60: Sources of information about children with disabilities (Age group, %)


0 - 1.000 1.000 - 1.500 1.500 - 2.000 2.000+

Media




Public institutions

Nobody/nowhere

Other


Disaggregated by age groups, the percentage of participants saying that they acquire knowledge through media is the highest in the 28-37 age group and the percentage of those who say that they have no source of information is lower than the average for the same group (see Figure 60)� The 38-48 group, on the other hand, acquires knowledge more than the average through the experiences of their children at school� Responses of the 49+ age group do not differ from the average (see Table 33)�

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Average 18-27 28-37 38-48 49+


or neighbours

Everydayexperiences

Publicinstitutions

Nobody/nowhere


Table 32: Statistical significance of difference in sources of information about children with disabilities (Level of income)


Age group

18 - 27 28 - 37 38 - 48 49+

Media




Public institutions

Nobody/nowhere

Other


Among all sub-categories under which sources of information are analysed, settlement type and geographical region display the highest level of variation (see Table 38)� Participants from metropolitan areas acquire less knowledge from the media than the average and this ratio is higher for participants from urban areas (see Figure 61). The effect of information from friends, relatives and acquaintances increases from metropolitan to rural areas and the increase in the effect of public institutions follows the same pattern as well�

With respect to geographical distribution, variation is apparent at all regions and all types of information sources (see Table 34)� The highest variations exist in the Southeastern Anatolia, Black Sea, Central Anatolia and Marmara regions� Participants living in the Southeastern Anatolia and Black Sea regions acquire knowledge through their own connections (friends, relatives, acquaintances and everyday life experiences) rather than the media and this ratio is lower for participants living in Central Anatolia and Marmara region (see Figure 62)� The role of the public institutions as a source of information is higher in the Mediterranean, Aegean and Southeastern Anatolia regions and lower in the Marmara, Eastern and Central Anatolia regions� The Black Sea region is the only region where this ratio is in line with the average�

Table 33: Statistical significance of difference in sources of information about children with disabilities (Age group)


Figure 61: Sources of information about children with disabilities (Settlement type, %)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


or neighbours

Everydayexperiences

Publicinstitutions

Nobody/nowhere



Figure 62: Sources of information about children with disabilities (Geographical region, %)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


or neighbours

Everydayexperiences

Publicinstitutions

Nobody/nowhere




Table 34: Statistical significance of difference in sources of information about childrenwith disabilities (Settlement type and geographical region)





Anatolia

Media




Public institutions

Nobody/nowhere

Other


Acceptable Level Of Social Relationships Between Children With Disabilities And OthersOne of the questions designed to measure the attitudes of the general public towards children with disabilities asks participants whether different levels of social relationships, which are listed in the question, with such children is acceptable when their own children are concerned� Results deducted from this question clearly confirm one finding that is presented in the literature (Yazbeck, McVilly and Parmanter, 2004)� People accept certain levels of social relations with children with disabilities only when their families are not harmed, the progress of their children is not negatively affected and they do not have to bear any additional responsibility�

The percentage of participants who give an ‘Accept’ response is higher for the levels of social relations that are distant enough but it decreases as the distance shortens (situations such as being best friends, boy/girlfriends and fiancée-husband/wife)� Independent of the level of social relations, from among the different disability categories, psychological-emotional disorders, contagious chronic diseases and mental disability are the categories from which people keep their distance� As a result of this analysis, it can be said that people perceive these disability categories as harmful for their children� Due to their unpredictable nature, mental disability and psychological-emotional disorders and due to possibility of contagion, contagious chronic diseases are also considered threats�

Similar results can also be found in studies conducted in other countries� For example, even though 55 per cent of participants of a survey conducted in Canada07 approve the attendance of children with disabilities in the same school as others, this ratio falls to 33 when mental disorders are concerned� Similarly, in

07 Canada Benchmarking Attitudes to Disability Survey, 2004


Ireland, the rate of approval of children with mental disability attending the same school as others is below 40 per cent08� In England09 70 per cent of participants declare that behavior of persons with mental disabilities is unpredictable and reactive�

The results described above are presented in Table 35. Different levels of social relations are listed in the first column and disability categories are listed in the first row� Figures in the table represent the acceptability ratio of different levels of social relations concerning disability categories. Shades are defined for each 20 percentile and darken with decreasing percentiles� Thus, the darkest area in the table represents the lowest ratio of acceptability� As can be seen from the table, shades become darker as level of social relation deepens, at all disability categories, meaning that the ratio of acceptability decreases� Among disability categories, psychological-emotional disorders, contagious chronic diseases and mental disability are the groups with darker shades, i�e�, with lower level of acceptability�

08 Baseline Survey on Public Attitudes Towards Persons with a Disability, 201009 Public Attitudes to Disability Survey, 2006

Visual Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Physical Disability

Non-contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability

Psychological -Emotional

Disorder

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS,

hepatitis)


95�93 95�70 91�63 84�53 77�44 58�14 30�12


92�33 91�86 87�79 80�58 66�16 47�44 22�79


87�56 87�44 83�02 76�86 58�02 38�60 17�21

Being my child’s playmate 88�26 87�91 82�09 74�65 54�77 33�60 13�02

Being my child’s best friend

77�33 76�74 71�98 67�67 42�79 25�81 11�16

Being my child’s boy/girlfriend

45�35 47�21 42�56 46�98 20�58 13�60 5�00

Being engaged/married to my child

42�09 45�00 40�58 43�84 19�30 13�72 4�88

% 81-100 % 61-80 % 41-60 % 21-40 % 0-20

Table 35: Acceptability of different levels of social relations with children with different disabilities (%)

Male and female participants display different attitudes considering social relations with children with disabilities (see Table 36)� Male participants approve of friendship with children who have physical disabilities and marriage with children who have audio impairment at a lower percentage, whereas females have a higher level of prejudice towards children with mental disabilities and contagious chronic diseases�


Table 36: Acceptability of different levels of social relations with children with different disabilities (Gender, %)

Male

Visual Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Physical Disability

Non-contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability


Disorder

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS,

hepatitis)


95�28 94�38 90�08 83�70 73�37 57�49 28�99


89�67 88�77 84�95 80�72 60�06 46�53 21�98


85�23 84�67 80�65 77�95 52�70 39�53 17�34



76�56 75�80 72�12 68�86 42�51 30�65 12�48


40�92 43�13 39�46 44�66 18�86 16�30 6�17


39�11 39�25 37�73 42�72 17�96 16�02 5�76

Female

Visual Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Physical Disability

Non-contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability


Disorder

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS,

hepatitis)


96�06 94�45 90�44 83�42 73�72 56�92 28�25


90�23 89�25 85�80 80�53 60�86 45�54 20�03


86�09 85�17 81�03 76�95 52�49 38�93 15�95



81�03 80�04 74�42 70�98 44�06 30�57 13�35


44�27 45�75 40�41 48�35 20�31 16�44 6�89


41�18 43�29 38�86 45�96 19�04 16�51 6�39

% 81-100 % 61-80 % 41-60 % 21-40 % 0-20


Table 37: Acceptability of different levels of social relations with children with different disabilities (People with disabilities or their relatives vs� general public, %)


Visual Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Physical Disability

Non-contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability


Disorder

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS,

hepatitis)


91�50 97�75 96�25 94�00 83�00 69�75 38�50


87�25 93�25 91�75 89�75 72�50 60�50 27�50


85�00 91�25 89�50 88�50 66�50 54�00 23�00



81�75 88�25 87�25 85�50 60�75 45�75 18�00


63�50 61�25 63�50 62�00 35�50 29�75 10�50


61�75 59�75 61�75 59�50 33�75 29�00 9�25

The differences in the attitudes of participants with disabilities and their relatives vs. general public is noteworthy (see Table 37). Disability categories can be analysed under three sub-groups regarding people’s attitudes. The first group is composed of non-contagious chronic diseases, physical disabilities and sensory impairments, the second group is mental disabilities and psychological-emotional disorders and the third group is contagious chronic diseases. Any level of social relationship with children with contagious diseases is approved at a lower level by participants with disabilities or their relatives, similar to the average. Regarding other sub-groups, even though there are different approaches, participants with disabilities or their relatives approve all levels of social relations more than the average. Especially at more intimate relations (girl/boyfriend, fiancée or husband/wife) the difference is as much as 25 percentage points.


General public

Visual Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Physical Disability

Non-contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability


Disorder

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS,

hepatitis)


95�29 94�12 89�66 82�27 72�01 55�17 27�02


89�41 88�56 84�67 79�55 58�50 43�69 19�96


84�75 84�18 79�59 76�23 50�34 36�84 15�62



77�24 76�39 71�28 67�99 40�45 28�15 12�09


39�55 41�34 36�35 43�73 17�00 14�20 5�88


36�96 39�15 34�85 41�50 16�02 14�20 14�20

% 81-100 % 61-80 % 41-60 % 21-40 % 0-20


Disaggregation of the responses to this question according to education displays a similar pattern to the overall averages (see Table 38)� At primary school level, all levels of social relations with children with physical disabilities are less acceptable than the average� Attitudes of participants with primary and secondary school education towards physical or sensory disability are similar at level of fiancée or husband/wife level, which is below the average� Participants with secondary school education have a prejudice against children with contagious chronic diseases and do not approve of them going to the same school with other children, as much as other participants� Attitudes towards children with mental disabilities changes with increasing educational attainment� At university / higher level of education closer levels of social relationships (being best friends, girl/boy friend, fiancée or husband/wife) with such children is more acceptable than the average�

Differences in the attitudes with respect to income groups vary with disability categories and levels of social relationships (see Table 39)� For physical disabilities and sensory impairments, being girl/boyfriends, fiancée and husband/wife are more acceptable at the highest and lowest income groups whereas more distant levels of social relationships are less acceptable than other income groups� However, in contrast with children with mental disabilities, for psychological-emotional disabilities, closer levels of relationships are less acceptable as income goes up�

Acceptability of different levels of social relations with children with disabilities by age groups is at similar levels with the overall average (see Table 40)� Only the closest relationships with physical/sensory disabilities and all levels of relationship with non-contagious chronic diseases are more acceptable by the youngest and the oldest group� Relationship with children with contagious chronic diseases is at similar acceptance levels by other age groups and it is the highest for the oldest group�

Looking at differences in settlement types, it appears that participants from metropolitan areas accept social relationships with children with disabilities of different groups more than participants from other areas (see Table 41)� Acceptability of all levels of social relationships with children with physical/or sensory disorders decreases as one moves from metropolitan to rural areas� Closer levels of social relationship with children with mental disabilities and psychological-emotional disabilities are more acceptable by participants who live in urban areas compared to metropolitan and rural areas� On the other hand, acceptability of closer levels of social relationship with children with contagious chronic diseases decreases from metropolitan to rural areas�


Table 38: Acceptability of different levels of social relations with children with different disabilities (Level of education, %)

Primary School

Visual Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Physical Disability

Non-contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability


Disorder

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS,

hepatitis)


95�62 93�98 90,58 84�34 72�07 57�39 28�15


88�28 87�95 85,32 81�82 59�58 48�41 21�58


84�56 83�79 80,94 79�85 53�34 42�72 17�96

Being my child’s playmate 87�40 85�98 80,28 77�88 54�33 40�74 14�79


79�08 77�33 72,84 71�63 44�47 34�83 13�58


41�40 43�26 38,34 45�13 19�06 17�31 8�21


38�66 40�64 36,69 36�69 17�74 17�63 7�56

High School

Visual Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Physical Disability

Non-contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability


Disorder

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS,

hepatitis)


96,05 95,07 91,23 83,77 75,33 58,55 29,61


90,68 90,02 86,07 81,47 62,06 46,38 20,83


87,06 86,73 82,24 77,52 52,74 38,49 16,56



79,50 80,26 74,78 69,30 42,21 27,96 12,06


43,75 46,27 41,45 49,34 20,61 17,21 5,37


41,78 44,08 39,04 46,93 18,86 16,23 4,82


Secondary School

Visual Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Physical Disability

Non-contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability


Disorder

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS,

hepatitis)


94,98 94,21 88,03 81,08 71,43 56,37 28,76


89,38 88,03 83,01 77,22 56,56 42,66 19,88


83,01 82,43 76,64 73,75 44,40 33,40 13,32



74,90 74,13 70,08 65,25 37,07 27,61 11,20


37,64 40,73 34,94 41,70 15,83 13,71 5,21


36,29 39,19 35,14 39,58 16,22 13,90 5,79

University / Higher

Visual Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Physical Disability

Non-contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability


Disorder

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS,

hepatitis)


96,85 95,50 91,22 85,14 75,45 54,28 27,48


93,24 91,67 87,84 81,53 64,19 44,59 21,85


88,74 87,39 82,66 77,48 59,91 39,64 18,47



81,31 78,83 74,32 72,07 48,87 29,50 14,86


49,32 49,32 46,62 49,10 22,52 15,32 6,53


45,72 47,52 44,14 47,07 21,62 15,99 5,63

% 81-100 % 61-80 % 41-60 % 21-40 % 0-20


Table 39: Acceptability of different levels of social relations with children with different disabilities (Level of income, %)

0-1.000TL

Visual Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Physical Disability

Non-contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability


Disorder

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS,

hepatitis)


95,12 94,17 90,08 86,14 72,28 58,90 27,24


89,29 89,45 86,30 83,15 59,21 48,03 20,79


86,46 86,14 84,09 81,57 54,02 43,78 17,64



80,31 80,31 77,32 74,02 48,35 38,43 15,59


43,62 46,93 41,10 48,03 22,05 20,63 9,29


41,26 43,46 39,69 46,61 21,26 20,63 9,13

1.500-2.000TL

Visual Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Physical Disability

Non-contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability


Disorder

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS,

hepatitis)


97,00 95,40 90,80 83,00 76,20 59,20 26,80


91,80 89,80 85,20 79,20 61,40 44,60 18,60


86,80 84,00 78,00 76,00 51,00 35,80 15,00



79,00 78,20 71,00 68,40 39,40 28,00 11,60


37,60 40,60 35,60 46,40 16,40 15,40 5,40


35,40 37,60 33,00 43,00 15,80 14,80 5,00


1.000-1.500TL

Visual Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Physical Disability

Non-contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability


Disorder

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS,

hepatitis)


96,75 95,62 90,75 83,28 68,83 52,11 27,76


88,64 87,34 83,12 81,49 55,68 42,21 19,97


84,42 83,93 78,73 78,08 46,10 35,39 15,26



83,28 82,14 75,16 72,56 41,56 30,03 12,66


43,34 45,62 39,94 48,05 18,99 16,56 6,33


41,72 43,83 38,96 45,78 17,37 16,72 5,52

2.000TL +

Visual Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Physical Disability

Non-contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability


Disorder

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS,

hepatitis)


95,93 95,70 91,63 84,53 77,44 58,14 30,12


92,33 91,86 87,79 80,58 66,16 47,44 22,79


87,56 87,44 83,02 76,86 58,02 38,60 17,21



77,33 76,74 71,98 67,67 42,79 25,81 11,16


45,35 47,21 42,56 46,98 20,58 13,60 5,00


42,09 45,00 40,58 43,84 19,30 13,72 4,88

% 81-100 % 61-80 % 41-60 % 21-40 % 0-20


Table 40: Acceptability of different levels of social relations with children with different disabilities (Age group, %)

18-27

Visual Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Physical Disability

Non-contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability


Disorder

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS,

hepatitis)


95,62 94,77 90,82 84,32 73,59 57,06 26,41


90,96 90,40 86,16 82,06 61,44 44,77 19,07


86,30 85,17 81,50 78,53 51,27 36,58 14,27



78,25 77,68 73,31 70,76 41,81 28,25 11,02


47,18 48,31 42,51 49,86 20,34 16,81 6,36


45,06 46,47 40,82 47,18 19,49 17,09 5,93

38-48

Visual Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Physical Disability

Non-contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability


Disorder

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS,

hepatitis)


96,15 94,44 90,74 82,91 74,22 56,41 27,35


89,32 88,03 86,18 80,20 59,54 46,72 19,66


84,62 84,47 79,91 75,36 51,99 40,03 15,53



79,34 78,35 71,23 67,09 44,44 30,91 12,39


40,88 42,17 37,04 43,16 19,80 15,81 5,70


37,89 39,60 36,75 41,03 19,09 15,38 5,13


28-37

Visual Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Physical Disability

Non-contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability


Disorder

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS,

hepatitis)


95,71 94,33 89,76 82,16 72,89 56,29 28,22


90,04 88,24 84,51 78,98 58,51 43,98 21,58


85,34 84,09 80,36 76,63 52,14 39,00 17,15



78,28 78,42 74,41 69,43 42,74 30,15 12,72


39,70 41,49 37,62 43,57 17,29 14,66 7,33


37,76 40,11 35,96 41,77 16,46 15,21 7,05

49 +

Visual Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Physical Disability

Non-contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability


Disorder

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS,

hepatitis)


95,22 94,13 89,75 84,84 73,50 59,02 32,38


89,48 89,34 84,70 81,28 62,30 48,63 23,63


86,34 85,93 81,56 79,23 54,92 41,26 19,54



79,23 77,19 74,04 72,27 44,13 33,06 15,44


42,62 45,77 42,49 49,32 20,90 18,17 6,69


39,89 43,03 39,62 47,27 18,99 17,35 6,15

% 81-100 % 61-80 % 41-60 % 21-40 % 0-20


Table 41: Acceptability of different levels of social relations with children with different disabilities (Settlement type, %)

Metropolitan

Visual Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Physical Disability

Non-contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability


Disorder

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS,

hepatitis)


95,52 95,00 92,40 86,56 74,48 58,02 31,15


92,29 91,77 89,48 84,17 62,71 47,71 23,02


90,42 90,21 87,29 82,29 56,77 42,92 19,27



81,46 79,90 76,88 75,10 43,13 32,60 14,38


46,98 49,69 47,50 52,60 18,44 15,83 4,48


44,69 47,81 45,94 50,21 17,81 15,83 4,58

Rural

Visual Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Physical Disability

Non-contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability


Disorder

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS,

hepatitis)


96,08 92,99 87,29 78,27 71,26 56,65 24,11


89,79 88,36 82,42 75,06 60,93 43,23 16,27


83,37 82,42 76,37 70,43 51,19 35,04 12,59



71,62 71,02 67,46 63,54 42,52 29,93 11,64


35,75 37,53 32,54 38,60 18,88 14,85 7,13


32,30 34,80 30,88 37,17 16,75 15,56 6,65


Urban

Visual Impairment

Hearing Impairment

Physical Disability

Non-contagious

Chronic Diseases

Mental Disability


Disorder

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS,

hepatitis)


95,48 95,01 90,69 85,04 74,51 56,91 29,92


87,96 87,02 84,01 81,84 58,04 46,75 22,95


83,16 82,13 78,55 78,65 49,95 39,23 17,50



82,03 81,56 74,60 70,27 44,03 29,35 12,61


44,03 45,16 38,95 47,22 21,17 18,06 7,90


42,24 43,27 37,25 44,68 20,51 17,22 6,96

% 81-100 % 61-80 % 41-60 % 21-40 % 0-20


Society’s Definition Of Children With And Without DisabilitiesAs part of the questionnaire, participants are asked to define children with and without disabilities by two distinct questions and the first three responses are collected. Analysis of the responses reveals that children without disabilities are associated mostly with positive features (social, independent, with a strong character/brave, optimistic, enjoying equal opportunities), whereas children with disabilities are associated mostly with negative features (insecure, sad/unhappy) (see Figure 63)� The ratio of ‘insatiable’ is below 0.5 per cent regarding the definition of both groups of children.

In defining children with and without disabilities, there is no difference between the responses of male and female participants and participants with disabilities and others (see Table 42)� With respect to education, participants with a primary school degree defines children without disabilities as ‘with a strong character/brave’ higher and children with disabilities as ‘optimistic’ lower than the average (see Figure 64)� Participants with a university/higher degree define both groups of children as ‘insecure’, higher than the average, but in general their perception of children with disabilities appear more positive than others� Participants at this level of education define children with disabilities as ‘sad/unhappy’ lower and ‘social’ and ‘optimistic’ higher than the average�

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Social

Independent

Strong characte

r

/brave

Optimist

ic

Enjoys equal

opportunitie

sInse

cure

Sad/unhappyOth

er

No resp

onse

Insatia

ble

0,21,57,4

73

52,7

4,2

14,712,9

5,54,2 0,32,7

4,2

11,614

26,428,62930,6

48,4

Children with no disabilities Children with disabilities

Figure 63: Definition of children with and without disabilities by the public (Full sample, %)


Figure 64: Definition of children with and without disabilities by the public t

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Soci

al

Inde

pend

ent

Stro

ng c

hara

cter

/bra

ve

Opt

imis

tic

Enjo

ys e

qual

oppo

rtun

ities

Inse

cure

Sad/

unha

ppy

Oth

er

No

resp

onse

Insa

tiabl

e

Soci

al

Inde

pend

ent

Stro

ng c

hara

cter

/bra

ve

Opt

imis

tic

Enjo

ys e

qual

oppo

rtun

ities

Inse

cure

Sad/

unha

ppy

Oth

er

No

resp

onse

Insa

tiabl

e

WITHOUT DISABILITIES WITH DISABILITIES

High School University or higherPrimary School Secondary School

Table 42: Statistical significance of differences in description of children with and without disabilities (Level of education)

Without disabilities With disabilities

Primary School

Secondary School

High School


Primary School

Secondary School

High School


Insecure

Independent

Social

Enjoys equal opportunities

Sad/unhappy

Optimistic

Strong character/brave



The lowest income group defines children without disabilities as ‘optimistic’ higher than the average but they are more pessimistic about children with disabilities (see Figure 65)� This group defines children with disabilities as ‘enjoys equal opportunities’ and ‘strong character/brave’ lower and as ‘sad/unhappy’ higher than the average� Participants with an income between 1,500 - 2,000 TL define children with disabilities as ‘independent’ more than the average, whereas the same definition is used more by participants with an income between 1,000 - 1,500 TL for children without disabilities� Participants of the 1,500 - 2,000 TL group defines children with disabilities as ‘sad/unhappy’ and also ‘strong character/brave’ at a higher percentage than the average�

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0-1.000 1.000-1.500 1.500-2.000 2.000+

Soci

al

Inde

pend

ent

Stro

ng c

hara

cter

/bra

ve

Opt

imis

tic

Enjo

ys e

qual

oppo

rtun

ities

Inse

cure

Sad/

unha

ppy

Oth

er

No

resp

onse

Insa

tiabl

e

Soci

al

Inde

pend

ent

Stro

ng c

hara

cter

/bra

ve

Opt

imis

tic

Enjo

ys e

qual

oppo

rtun

ities

Inse

cure

Sad/

unha

ppy

Oth

er

No

resp

onse

Insa

tiabl

e


Figure 65: Definition of children with and without disabilities by the public (Level of income, %)


Analysing the differences in descriptions with respect to settlement types, it appears that the percentage of participants describing children without disabilities as ‘social’ and with a ‘strong character/brave’ increases from metropolitan to rural areas (see Figure 66)� Use of these definitions in metropolitan areas is lower than the average, whereas it is higher in urban and rural areas� Participants living in metropolitan areas define children without disabilities as ‘optimistic’ and ‘insecure’ lower than the average� Children with disabilities are defined more as ‘sad/unhappy’ and ‘insecure’ from metropolitan to rural areas� They are defined as ‘independent’ less in metropolitan areas and more in rural areas�

Table 43: Statistical significance of differences in description of children with and without disabilities (Level of income)


0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+

Insecure

Independent

Social


Sad/unhappy

Optimistic




Figure 66: Definition of children with and without disabilities by the public (Settlement type, %)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Metropolitan Urban Rural


Soci

al

Inde

pend

ent

Stro

ng c

hara

cter

/bra

ve

Opt

imis

tic

Enjo

ys e

qual

oppo

rtun

ities

Inse

cure

Sad/

unha

ppy

Oth

er

No

resp

onse

Insa

tiabl

e

Soci

al

Inde

pend

ent

Stro

ng c

hara

cter

/bra

ve

Opt

imis

tic

Enjo

ys e

qual

oppo

rtun

ities

Inse

cure

Sad/

unha

ppy

Oth

er

No

resp

onse

Insa

tiabl

e

Table 44: Statistical significance of differences in description of children with and without disabilities (settlement type)


Metropolitan Urban Rural Metropolitan Urban Rural

Insecure

Independent

Social


Sad/unhappy

Optimistic




Figure 67: Agreeable educational environment with respect to disability categories (Full sample, %)

Educational Environment Of Children With DisabilitiesWhen participants were asked about the kind of educational environment which would be more suitable for children with disabilities, the results were similar to responses about the acceptability of different levels of social relationships. Participants declared that if their children may be harmed or their education negatively affected, then it would be more suitable for children with certain disabilities to attend specifically designed schools with other children that have similar disabilities (see Figure 67)� Integration of children with no disabilities in the same classroom with children who had orthopedic disorders, hyperactivity-attention deficit and non-contagious chronic diseases had a higher acceptance percentage since the participants perceived no risk� However, this percentage decreased for children with psychological-emotional disorders and contagious chronic diseases as this appeared riskier� For children with mental disabilities the percentages were also lower as they were thought to have the potential to slow down the education process in classrooms� A field study conducted in England also reported similar responses� Participants did not approve children with mental disabilities attending the same classrooms as their peers since they would negatively affect the education of other children and the curriculum would not be appropriate for them10�

10 Baseline Survey on Public Attitudes towards Persons with a Disability 2010

Physical disorders

Hyperactivity / attention deficit


Mental-emotional disorders

Auditory disorders

Visual disorders

Mental disabilities

Contagious chronic diseases

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

9,5

13,5

19,7

21,9

21,8

34,3

40,2

41,5

88,9

85,4

79

76,8

76,6

64,3

58,4

57,2

In the same class as their non-disabled peersWith other disabled children and in classes which are specifically designed for them


Participants with disabilities and their relatives gave higher levels of approval for children with disabilities to attend the same classrooms as children without disabilities across all disability categories (see Figure 68). This difference is statistically significant for the disability category which are also highly acceptable by the general public (i�e� orthopedic disability and hyperactivity-attention deficit) as well as disability categories with low level of acceptability (psychological-emotional disorders and contagious chronic diseases) (see Table 45)�

Figure 68: Acceptability of children with disabilities attending same classes as their peers (People with disabilities or their relatives vs� general public, %)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Contagious

chronic dise

ases

Mental disa

bilities

Visual d

isord

ers

Auditory diso

rders

Psychological-e

motinal

Non-contagious

chronic dise

ases

Hyperactivity

/attentio

n deficit

Physical d

isord

ers



Table 45: Acceptance of children with disabilities attending same classes as their peers (People with disabilities or relatives)


Mental disabilities

Auditory disorders

Visual disorders

Psychological-emotional disorders


Physical disorders




There appears to be no major difference in the responses with respect to education level (see Table 46)� Participants with a secondary school degree in most cases (excluding contagious chronic diseases, hyperactivity-attention deficit and orthopedic disabilities) approve mixing of children with disabilities in the same classrooms with other children at a lower percentage and this difference is statistically significant for disability categories such as mental disability and auditory impairment (see Figure 69)�

Figure 69: Acceptability of children with disabilities attending same classes as their peers (Level of education, %)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Contagious

chronic dise

ases

Mental disa

bilities

Visual d

isord

ers

Auditory diso

rders

Psychological-e

motinal

Non-contagious

chronic dise

ases

Hyperactivity

/attentio

n deficit

Physical d

isord

ers



Table 46: Acceptance of children with disabilities attending same classes as their peers (Level of education)

Figure 70: Acceptability of children with disabilities attending same classes as their peers (Level of income, %)

Level of education

Primary schoolSecondary

schoolHigh School

University / higher

Mental disabilities

Auditory disorders

Visual disorders



Physical disorders




Differences based on income groups appear especially for children with mental disabilities, hearing and visual impairments (see Table 47)� In all responses, the lowest income group approves children with disabilities attending the same classrooms as their peers with a higher percentage than the average, whereas this percentage is the lowest for the 1,000 - 1,500 TL income group (see Figure 70)�

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Contagious

chronic dise

ases

Mental disa

bilities

Visual d

isord

ers

Auditory diso

rders

Psychological-e

motinal

Non-contagious

chronic dise

ases

Hyperactivity

/attentio

n deficit

Physical d

isord

ers

Average 0-1.000 1.000-1.500 1.500-2.000 2.000+


Table 47: Acceptance of children with disabilities attending the same classes as their peers(Level of income)

Figure 71: Acceptability of children with disabilities attending same classes as their peers (Age group, %)

Level of income

0-1�000 1�000-1�500 1�500-2�000 2�000+

Mental disabilities

Auditory disorders

Visual disorders



Physical disorders




The only statistically significant difference in age groups is at 18-27 and concerns children with hyperactivity-attention deficit (see Table 48)� It is observed that this disability category is accepted into the same classrooms as their peers by the youngest age group more than the average (see Figure 71)�

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Average 18-27 28-37 38-48 49+

Contagious

chronic dise

ases

Mental disa

bilities

Visual d

isord

ers

Auditory diso

rders

Psychological-e

motinal

Non-contagious

chronic dise

ases

Hyperactivity

/attentio

n deficit

Physical d

isord

ers


Age group

18 - 27 28 - 37 38 - 48 49+

Mental disabilities

Auditory disorders

Visual disorders



Physical disorders




The responses of participants living in metropolitan areas differ from participants living in other areas (see Table 49)� Mixing of children who have non-contagious chronic diseases and orthopedic disabilities in the classrooms with their peers without disabilities is approved more by the metropolitan participants, whereas this ratio is below the average for children with contagious chronic diseases and hyperactivity-attention deficit (see Figure 72)�

According to geographical regions, most of the variations are apparent in the Southeastern Anatolia and Black Sea regions and the Eastern Anatolia region follows (see Table 73)� One striking result about the Black Sea region is that, participants approve more the disability categories which are approved less by the general public (i�e� mental disability, visual and hearing impairment)� Furthermore, they approve less the disability categories which are approved more by the general public (i�e� non-contagious chronic diseases, hyperactivity-attention deficit and orthopedic disability) to attend the same classrooms as their peers (see Figure 73)� In Southeastern Anatolia, where there is much variation as well, the level of acceptability is below the average for each disability category except for contagious chronic diseases�

Table 48: Acceptance of children with disabilities attending same classes as their peers (Age group)


Figure 72: Acceptability of children with disabilities to attend same classes as their peers (Settlement type, %)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Contagious

chronic dise

ases

Mental disa

bilities

Visual d

isord

ers

Auditory diso

rders

Psychological-e

motinal

Non-contagious

chronic dise

ases

Hyperactivity

/attentio

n deficit

Physical d

isord

ers



0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Contagious

chronic dise

ases

Mental disa

bilities

Visual d

isord

ers

Auditory diso

rders

Psychological-e

motinal

Non-contagious

chronic dise

ases

Hyperactivity

/attentio

n deficit

Physical d

isord

ers


Figure 73: Acceptability of children with disabilities to attend same classes as their peers (Geographical region, %)

Table 49: Acceptance of children with disabilities to attend same classes as their peers(Settlement type and geographical region)





Anatolia

Mental disabilities

Auditory disorders

Visual disorders



Physical disorders

Contagious chronic dise-ases




Figure 74: Assessing the policies targeting children with disabilities and the role of the public (Full sample, %)

Assessing The Policies Targeting Children With Disabilities And The Role Of The PublicIn the section of the questionnaire that seeks to assess the policies targeting children with disabilities, some statements were read to the participants regarding the education of these children in Turkey and the role of the public� The participants were then asked whether they agreed or disagreed with these statements� According to the responses to this question, 90 per cent believe that it is the duty of the society and the government to restructure schools to meet the needs of children with disabilities (see Figure 74)� Despite the improvements in schools, the majority of participants (73�5 per cent) think that children with disabilities have a lower chance of finding a job than other children with the same level of education. Education is seen as a tool that positively affects the progress of children with disabilities (by 55 per cent of participants) but not enough to close the gap between them and others, especially in professional life� Fifty-five per cent of participants responded that any kind of material contribution by society and the government other than in the area of education would not help children with disabilities at all�

Turkey has more important issues than restructuringthe schools for children with disabilities

Regardless of any of the material contributions they make,the government and society cannot help children with

disabilities in the real sense

Receiving education at normal schools would positivelyaffect the progress of children with disabilities

Even if they receive a good education, the chances ofchildren with disabilities finding a job would be lower than

that of their peers receiving the same education

It is the duty of society and the government to restructureschools to meet the needs of children with disabilities

0 9 18 27 36 45 54 63 72 81 90

89,8

73,5

54,9

54,8

31,9


Eighty-five per cent of participants think that there should be separate legislation for the protection of the rights of children with disabilities (see Figure 75) and 55 per cent point to the lack of interest of the government as the biggest obstacle that keeps children from attaining a better quality of life and being socially included (see Figure 76)� Here, participants underline the responsibility of the government as the leading factor and the prejudice of the society and their lack of interest and ignorance follows (49, 46 and 42 per cent, respectively)� Only 13 per cent of participants report that there are other priority issues on the country’s agenda�

Public responsibility is also emphasized in the question asked of participants regarding responsibility for the betterment of the lives of children with disabilities and provision of support for social inclusion� They rank the education system (with 18 per cent), health system (with 17 per cent) and the central government (with 15 per cent) as the most responsible components of the system (see Figure 77)� Society as a whole and the families of the children with disabilities are held responsible by 10 per cent of participants� Only three per cent of participants perceive themselves among the responsible parties�

Figure 75: Necessity for a separate legislation to protect the rights of children with disabilities (Full sample, %)

Yes%85

No response%11

No%4


Figure 76: Obstacles that keep children with disabilities from having a better life quality and being socially included (Full sample, %)

Figure 77: Parties responsible for providing a better quality of life for children with disabilitiesand ensuring their social inclusion (Full sample, %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

55

48,7

45,5

41,8

41,6

39,7

32,8

26,7

24,5

12,6Presence of other priorities on the country’s agenda

Lack of focused policies

Exploitation and negligance of children with disabilities

Inadequate legislative framework

Lack of informed specialists/institutions

Lack of financial resources

Public ignorance

Lack of people’s interest

Public prejudices

Lack of government interest

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

17,5

17,2

14,8

9,8

9,2

6,7

6,2

5,5

5

4,9

3,1The individual, her/himself

Local officials (municipalities, etc.)

Media

Civil society organizations

Social service institutions

General Directorate of Children Services

Parents and relatives of disabled children

General public / society

Central government and officials

Health system

Education system and schools


Participants identified the education system as the main factor in improving the lives of children with disabilities and enhancing their social inclusion� This finding is validated by the responses given to the question about the possible intervention areas� Sixty per cent of participants stated that education of persons with disabilities should start at an earlier age (see Figure 78)� For the provision of such education, 55 per cent of participants propose the cooperation among public schools, special training centers for children with disabilities and civil society organizations� Almost half of the participants (47 per cent) think that building the necessary infrastructure to allow the disabled access to social environments (cinemas, theatres, sport arenas, etc�) should be required by law� To increase the level of knowledge and sensitivity in society, 30 per cent of participants agree that awareness rising events should be held at locations that generate the highest visibility�

One item in the questionnaire asks participants how they could provide support to the efforts to build a better future for children with disabilities� The responses to this question show that participants support all of the actions, at least with a rate of 70 per cent (see Figure 79)� The most supported action (84 per cent) is spending funds raised by the government with the levying of additional taxes� The participants support additional taxes levied on alcohol and cigarettes at a higher percentage and support direct cuts from their income for use towards children with disabilities at a lower percentage (69 per cent)� Seventy-one per cent of participants say they would attend informative seminars in their free time and 76 per cent support a program through which their children would regularly meet a disabled ‘Sister/Brother Student’ outside of school�

Figure 78: Steps to be taken targeting children with disabilities (Full sample, %)

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

60,1

54,9

46,8

30,2

1

0,9No response

Other

Launch of high-visibility awareness raising campaigns

Mandatory provision of necessary infrastructure to enable accessof disabled to social environments (cinemas, theatres, sports

arenas, etc.)

Cooperation of public schools, private special education centersand civil society organizations

Provision of education of children with disabilities at an earlier age


Figure 79: Actions to be supported by the public targeting children with disabilities (Full sample, %)

Levying additional taxes on my income and spendingthe revenues on children with disabilities

On my off days attending informative seminarsabout children with disabilities

Establishing a ‘Sister/Brother Student’ program through whichmy child would meet regularly with a child with disability

outside school hours

Levying additional excise taxes on cigarettes and alcohol andspending the revenues on children with disabilites

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

83,9

76,1

70,7

68,7


Use Of Traditional And Social MediaAt 92 per cent, television was the most popular response provided to the question on the source of daily news (see Figure 80)� Newspapers and Internet followed television with lower rates (32 and 31 per cent, respectively)� Twenty-two per cent of participants follow current events through information provided by family members, friends and neighbours� A higher percentage of participants watch more than one TV channel among participants who get their information through television but it is just the opposite for participants who follow the daily news through newspapers: a higher percentage reads only one newspaper and this ratio is lower for participants who read two or more newspapers (see Figure 81)�

Figure 80: Source for daily news (Full sample, %)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Television Newspapers Internet Friends,neighbours,

family

Radio No response Magazines Other

0,70,81,46,8

22,1

30,831,6

91,6


At the top of the list of technological devices owned by participants is the cell phone, at 92 per cent� Computers follow cell phones with 53 per cent (see Figure 82)� Even though the percentage of participants with an Internet connection is less than half (47 per cent) among all participants, it is 87 per cent among participants who own a computer� Ownership of an iPad is at very low levels at five per cent but 96 per cent of the iPad owners also own a computer� Forty-eight per cent of participants declared that they use social networking sites such as Facebook and Twitter, with 76 per cent of them using Facebook more often among the two�

Figure 82: Possession of technological devices (Full sample, %)

Figure 81: Number of TV channels and newspapers followed by participants who acquire daily news from TV and newspapers (%)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1 2

NUMBER OF TV CHANNELS NUMBER OF NEWSPAPERS

3 1 2 3

18,7

34,7

40,5

44,9

32,5

14,3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Cell phone PC Internet connection iPad

5,4

46,6

53,1

92,3


Conclusion

This Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) study was designed by the Ministry of Family and Social Policies of Turkey, General Directorate of Disabled and Elderly People’s Services and UNICEF Turkey and was conducted as a part of “There is Another You” project, which aims to reduce the social distance between children with disabilities, their families and the general public� The objectives of this KAP study were:

• Analysing society’s knowledge and attitudes towards persons with disabilities in Turkey• Revealing the demographic factors that affect society’s attitudes towards persons with disabilities• Establishing the necessary data set to analyse the impact of the awareness campaigns to be designed.

Findings from a field study, which was conducted in 2012 and analysed in detail within this document, point out some important results�

Firstly, it appears that people mainly recognize advanced physical and sensory disabilities, which are more visible than other types of disability, followed by mental disabilities and autism� In addition, when describing children with disabilities, people focus predominantly on their negative features�

With the anxiety experienced due to fear of being disabled themselves, people tend to stay away from children with disabilities when they encounter them and this eventually turns into negative attitudes� The percentage of participants who act normal around a child with disability is below the percentage of participants who feel sorry and pity, and among those people who ignore them by looking the other way, only a small percentage tries to help�

Almost half of the participants know a child with disabilities� This child is generally within a close distance such as a relative, neighbour or in the household and is mostly visited once a week� With increasing frequency of visits, people tend to act more normal and look the other way less often� Also, with decreasing frequency of visits, the percentage of people who have sufficient knowledge about children with disabilities decreases. The frequency of visiting the disabled influences people’s sources of information about the disabled as well: As the frequency of visits goes up, the percentage of people who acquire information through media goes down and the share of friends, relatives, acquaintances and everyday life experiences as a source of information goes up� This finding emphasizes the importance of media and programs designed to help increase the frequency of people meeting children with disabilities and in improving the knowledge level of the public�

Society accepts certain levels of social relations with children with disabilities only if families are not harmed, the progress of their children without disabilities is not negatively affected and people do not have to bear any additional responsibilities� Similarly, in the area of education, integrating children with disabilities into the same classes as their peers without disabilities is acceptable only when people and their children are not negatively affected and their education is not interrupted.

Most of the participants hold the government and the society responsible for providing a better quality of life and ensuring social inclusion for children with disabilities� In terms of accessing social services, education appears to be the most problematic area and sustaining the cooperation of public schools,


special training centers for children with disabilities and relevant civil society organizations is seen as an important initiative to be taken� Almost all of the participants believe there should be separate legislation for the protection of the rights of children with disabilities�

It can be clearly stated that the results of this KAP study provides a solid source of information for the design of policies to decrease the gap between children with disabilities, their parents and the public and also make it possible to evaluate the effects of these policies. Regularly conducting similar studies would allow tracking over time the changes in society’s knowledge and practices as well as attitudes towards children with disabilities and thus would facilitate the adaptation of policies to reflect these changes.


References

Antonak, R�F�, Livneh, H�L� (1988)� Measurement of Attitude Toward Persons with Disabilities: Methods, psychometrics and scales, Disability and Rehabilitation, 22(5), 21-224�

Department of Health, UK� (2003)� Attitudes to Mental Illness�

Equal Opportunities Comission� (2011)� Baseline Survey on Public Attitudes Towards Persons with a Disability 2010� Hong Kong�

İnceoğlu, M. (2010). Tutum Algı İletişim. İstanbul: Beykent Üniversitesi Yayınevi.

National Disability Authority� (2007)� Public Attitudes to Disability in Ireland in 2006� Dublin: National Disability Authority�

Office for Disability Issues, Social Development Canada (2004). Canadian Attitudes Towards Disability Issues: 2004 Benchmark Survey�

Office for Disability Issues, UK(2009). Public Perceptions of Disabled People – Evidence from the British Social Attitude Survey 2009�

Sabancı Üniversitesi. (2013). Engelsiz Türkiye için: Yolun Neresindeyiz? Mevcut Durum ve Öneriler. İstanbul: Sabancı Üniversitesi.

Staniland, L� (2009)� Public Perceptions of Disabled People: Evidence from the British Social Attitudes Survey 2009, Publication of Office of Disability Issues, Great Britain.

Westervelt, V�D�, Turnbull, A�P� (1980)� Childrem’s Attitudes Toward Physically Handicapped Peers and Intervention Approaches for Attitude Change� Phys Ther, 60(7), 896-901�

Yazbeck, M�, McVilly, K�, Parmanter, T�R� (2004)� Attitudes Towards People with Intellectual Disabilities� Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 15 (2), 97-111�

Zajonc, R.B. (1968). Attitudinal Effects of Mere Exposure, Journal of Personality and social Psychoogy, 9(2), 1-27�


Annex I:Percentages Of The Responses Given To Survey Questions


Annex-I Table 1: Three definitions of disability that first come to mind (%)

GenderPeople with disabilities

or their relatives vs� General public

Level of education

Average Male FemalePeople with


General public

Primary school

Secondary School

High School


Other 28,2 28,0 28,2 35,3 27,0 22,3 32,8 28,1 36,0

Handicapped/crippled/deformed 30,5 31,5 29,4 23,5 31,6 33,4 27,2 28,1 32,2

Unable to meet own needs 23,6 23,1 24,2 27,3 23,0 27,3 19,9 25,1 17,6

No response 11,0 11,2 10,9 10,0 11,2 10,8 11,4 11,0 10,1

Mental Disability 7,9 7,6 8,3 7,0 8,1 6,5 7,5 7,3 12,4

Missing a foot/limps 5,6 5,5 5,6 5,5 5,6 9,2 3,9 4,3 2,7

Limited/restricted 5,4 5,3 5,5 6,3 5,2 3,3 5,6 6,3 7,9

Missing a hand 3,8 4,1 3,6 3,3 3,9 6,6 2,3 3,1 1,6

Unfortunate/desperate 3,4 3,2 3,7 2,8 3,5 3,1 3,9 4,1 2,5

Visual impairment 3,3 3,3 3,4 3,3 3,3 3,6 1,9 3,4 2,9

Age group Level of income (TL)

18-27 28-37 38-48 49+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+

Other 29,2 29,7 27,8 26,0 22,0 27,1 33,2 31,2

Handicapped/crippled/deformed 34,2 30,3 26,1 31,3 32,4 33,0 31,2 29,1

Unable to meet own needs 23,2 22,1 25,4 23,9 29,9 26,9 19,4 21,5

No response 8,3 11,2 11,8 12,7 8,5 8,9 10,0 9,0

Mental Disability 9,2 8,3 7,4 6,8 8,7 7,8 9,6 7,9

Missing a foot/limps 4,7 5,0 6,1 6,6 9,1 6,3 4,6 2,7

Limited/restricted 4,8 6,6 6,3 3,8 4,1 4,7 6,2 7,4

Missing a hand 3,2 3,5 4,1 4,5 5,7 4,4 3,8 2,0

Unfortunate/desperate 3,8 2,8 4,0 3,1 3,8 3,4 2,6 4,3

Visual impairment 3,2 3,0 3,4 3,6 3,9 4,9 4,0 1,4




Black Sea

MarmaraCentral

Anatolia

Other 24,5 30,7 29,2 24,9 23,9 29,8 18,4 54,8 27,4 18,3

Handicapped/crippled/deformed 31,3 28,0 32,7 47,4 33,3 36,0 36,2 11,4 28,5 25,2

Unable to meet own needs 22,5 25,4 22,7 21,0 25,6 21,0 42,9 14,1 24,3 25,2

No response 12,0 10,7 10,3 4,4 11,1 5,5 5,1 9,1 11,3 23,9

Mental Disability 7,1 9,8 6,5 10,9 7,8 8,3 17,3 5,0 6,3 6,2

Missing a foot/limps 6,0 5,2 5,6 6,9 6,7 4,5 6,1 2,3 7,7 3,7

Limited/restricted 6,1 4,0 6,2 6,7 1,7 6,4 4,1 5,6 5,7 4,7

Missing a hand 5,0 2,7 3,9 3,5 7,2 3,8 1,0 1,5 5,6 2,9

Unfortunate/desperate 3,3 3,3 3,7 2,5 2,8 2,4 4,1 5,3 4,2 2,5

Visual impairment 3,5 3,6 2,7 5,4 1,1 5,2 5,1 1,5 3,0 1,9




Level of education



General public

Primary school

Secondary School

High School


Total loss of vision 94,2 94,4 94,1 95,3 94,1 93,5 96,9 93,5 93,7

Missing a hand/foot 92,7 92,9 92,6 94 92,5 92,6 94,0 92,4 91,7

Total loss of auditory sense 91,2 91,8 91,4 92 91,1 89,7 93,8 90,4 92,6

Mental retardation 86,5 86,2 86,7 85,8 86,6 87,6 86,9 85,6 84,9

Autism 77,3 75,7 78,9 76,5 77,4 75,0 77,4 79,1 77,7

Physical distortions 69,6 69,2 70,1 73,3 69 70,4 72,0 70,5 63,7

Aggressive behaviour 45,2 45,7 44,7 48,5 44,7 43,4 44,2 48,6 44,6

Emotional disorder 41,2 42,9 39,4 38 41,7 41,0 46,1 40,8 36,0


32,7 34,3 31,1 32 32,9 34,2 37,8 31,7 24,1

AIDS 31,4 30,0 32,8 30,3 31,6 31,9 32,2 33,7 23,6

Attention deficit 28,5 29,4 27,5 26 28,8 30,9 29,0 28,3 23,2

Speech disorder 28,0 29,1 26,8 28 28 30,4 28,4 26,9 25,5

Non-contagious chronic diseases 24,3 24,6 24,0 24,8 24,2 24,4 27,4 24,3 18,9

Hyperactivity 22,7 24,7 20,7 23 22,6 24,6 25,5 21,6 17,1

Blurred vision (wears glasses) 20,2 21,4 19,0 17 20,8 25,4 21,2 18,5 11,0


18-27 28-37 38-48 49+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+

Total loss of vision 92,8 95,4 93,6 95,1 95,3 93,8 93,4 94,7

Missing a hand/foot 93,4 92,8 90,9 93,9 93,7 95,5 92,6 92,6

Total loss of auditory sense 91,4 92,3 89,9 91,4 91,7 90,3 92,0 92,6

Mental retardation 84,9 87,0 86,6 87,3 89,1 84,4 89,4 84,9

Autism 78,2 77,2 74,9 78,7 76,9 74,0 78,0 80,1

Physical distortions 69,6 67,6 70,7 70,6 66,8 68,8 72,8 72,7

Aggressive behaviour 43,2 46,3 43,4 47,7 43,0 40,7 47,4 50,9

Emotional disorder 39,3 42,0 40,6 42,6 42,2 38,6 44,6 42,8


31,5 31,7 34,6 33,2 37,5 30,0 36,6 30,1

AIDS 28,7 29,5 32,1 35,2 29,4 29,7 34,8 34,4

Attention deficit 24,3 29,3 27,8 32,2 29,4 26,5 28,8 28,5

Speech disorder 25,4 28,9 27,8 29,6 29,6 26,5 29,0 29,9

Non-contagious chronic diseases 20,9 23,8 25,8 26,6 25,7 22,7 25,2 25,8

Hyperactivity 17,7 24,1 23,1 25,8 23,5 22,2 22,4 22,4

Blurred vision (wears glasses) 16,4 20,3 21,9 22,3 24,7 20,0 20,2 18,1

Annex-I Table 2: Participants’ perception of listed disability categories (Rate of participants who would agree, %)





Black Sea

MarmaraCentral

Anatolia

Total loss of vision 92,2 94,5 96,2 97,0 97,2 92,1 93,4 95,3 90,8 97,7

Missing a hand/foot 91,3 93,5 93,5 95,1 97,8 95,2 91,3 86,2 90,7 95,1

Total loss of auditory sense 90,6 90,8 92,5 93,6 90,6 91,7 90,3 87,4 89,0 95,7

Mental retardation 85,1 89,0 84,8 95,1 82,8 89,8 85,7 83,3 82,4 87,0

Autism 83,0 76,3 72,0 58,8 52,2 77,6 81,1 84,8 82,9 85,0

Physical distortions 69,0 69,5 70,5 77,3 57,2 75,5 56,1 74,5 65,2 72,0

Aggressive behaviour 43,4 49,7 41,6 49,6 51,1 40,5 29,1 54,0 37,5 55,9

Emotional disorder 40,4 42,5 40,3 41,0 55,6 46,0 35,7 43,7 34,0 43,9


39,0 28,1 31,5 24,4 39,4 39,5 21,9 24,9 38,2 32,0

AIDS 35,4 30,6 27,8 18,0 31,7 33,3 19,9 33,4 40,8 28,3

Attention deficit 26,6 29,3 29,6 23,0 32,2 27,9 26,0 26,1 29,7 32,4

Speech disorder 33,8 21,4 29,6 30,1 28,3 35,5 16,3 16,4 27,7 32,4

Non-contagious chronic diseases 27,3 22,7 22,9 23,0 23,9 24,3 17,9 22,6 30,1 20,0

Hyperactivity 26,6 22,5 18,5 21,5 23,3 26,0 8,2 18,5 21,7 30,7

Blurred vision (wears glasses) 23,1 17,0 21,0 12,1 35,6 18,6 17,9 17,3 25,4 17,5


Annex-I Table 3: Feelings when encountered with a child with disabilities (%)



Level of education



General public

Primary school

Secondary School

High School


Feel sorry 59,8 57,3 62,3 52,3 61,0 69,1 59,7 53,9 52,0

Try to help 38,5 39,5 37,5 41,5 38,0 38,3 38,2 38,6 40,3

Pity 25,4 26,0 24,7 20,8 26,1 30,0 24,1 22,9 21,4

Thankful for own condition 25,3 24,7 25,9 16,8 26,7 22,2 28,0 26,6 26,1

Act normal 16,8 17,7 15,9 30,5 14,6 11,6 17,0 20,5 19,1

Look the other way 6,1 6,0 6,3 1,5 6,9 4,7 6,6 5,8 9,5

Other 1,6 1,4 1,8 2,8 1,4 1,2 1,4 2,0 1,8

No response 0,7 0,9 0,4 1,0 0,6 0,4 0,2 1,1 0,9


18-27 28-37 38-48 49+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+

Feel sorry 58,1 57,4 59,5 64,1 68,5 61,0 57,8 55,1

Try to help 38,7 39,3 39,2 36,7 42,4 41,6 33,0 36,7

Pity 23,0 25,7 24,2 28,4 30,2 24,0 23,4 24,1

Thankful for own condition 27,8 25,0 24,6 23,6 20,0 26,3 25,8 26,6

Act normal 18,1 19,2 16,1 13,8 14,3 15,7 23,0 16,6

Look the other way 6,2 5,7 6,8 5,7 4,6 5,2 7,6 8,0

Other 1,7 1,7 1,3 1,6 0,9 1,9 1,4 2,2

No response 0,8 0,6 0,4 0,8 0,9 0,8 0,4 0,3




Black Sea

MarmaraCentral

Anatolia

Feel sorry 55,1 60,3 64,5 62,0 66,1 62,6 72,4 51,3 53,2 64,7

Try to help 38,9 37,1 39,8 36,3 37,2 41,7 49,5 24,6 37,6 44,3

Pity 19,4 27,8 29,2 32,8 37,8 29,8 20,4 33,7 18,3 19,0

Thankful for own condition 19,6 29,1 27,0 25,2 36,1 26,7 26,0 29,3 19,6 26,4

Act normal 18,3 16,0 16,0 12,8 8,9 18,3 20,4 18,5 18,1 16,9

Look the other way 4,8 7,0 6,5 6,9 3,3 5,5 8,2 15,8 4,1 2,9

Other 1,8 1,9 1,0 0,5 1,1 2,9 0,5 2,9 1,9 0,6

No response 1,7 0,1 0,2 0,0 0,0 0,2 0,0 0,3 2,0 0,2


Annex-I Table 4: Areas where children with disabilities are being excluded (%)



Level of education



General public

Primary school

Secondary School

High School


Social life 37,7 37,1 38,2 39,8 37,3 35,9 34,0 39,1 41,7

All 23,8 22,5 25,2 25,8 23,5 26,4 27,2 21,1 20,3

Education 17,4 16,2 18,6 17,0 17,4 15,9 16,0 18,9 19,8

Proffessional life 9,7 12,2 7,2 8,8 9,9 9,9 10,8 9,9 8,3

Health 4,6 4,2 4,9 3,0 4,8 4,3 6,2 4,7 2,9

None 4,4 5,5 3,2 4,3 4,4 4,9 3,5 4,1 4,7

Others 0,9 1,0 0,9 0,5 1,0 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,9

Home 0,8 0,7 1,0 1,0 0,8 1,1 0,6 0,5 0,9

No response 0,8 0,7 0,8 0,0 0,9 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,5


18-27 28-37 38-48 49+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+

Social life 39,3 39,7 38,6 33,2 38,3 34,1 40,0 38,8

All 21,0 22,3 24,8 27,0 25,2 25,2 24,6 21,9

Education 20,8 15,4 17,0 16,4 12,6 17,9 16,8 20,3

Proffessional life 10,2 9,7 9,3 9,7 10,1 11,5 9,4 9,5

Health 3,1 5,4 4,1 5,6 4,1 5,7 5,6 4,0

None 3,4 5,0 3,4 5,6 6,5 3,6 2,6 3,8

Others 0,7 1,1 1,1 0,8 1,1 1,0 0,4 0,2

Home 1,3 0,4 0,9 0,8 1,3 1,1 0,4 0,7

No response 0,3 1,1 0,9 0,8 0,9 0,0 0,2 0,7




Black Sea

MarmaraCentral

Anatolia

Social life 40,1 36,4 36,5 42,2 37,2 40,0 32,7 39,0 36,9 34,6

All 21,7 26,3 23,0 23,7 27,2 22,1 29,6 27,3 17,3 29,7

Education 15,5 18,7 17,7 12,8 17,8 17,4 11,7 16,1 20,5 18,6

Proffessional life 9,5 9,5 10,2 10,9 10,0 9,3 11,2 6,2 11,8 7,6

Health 3,8 3,5 6,9 3,7 1,7 6,0 4,1 8,5 3,6 4,3

None 5,9 3,0 4,3 4,7 2,2 3,6 7,7 1,8 6,1 3,3

Others 1,0 1,2 0,5 1,5 2,8 0,5 0,5 0,3 1,1 0,6

Home 0,7 0,9 0,8 0,5 0,6 1,0 2,0 0,6 1,0 0,6

No response 1,8 0,4 0,1 0,0 0,6 0,2 0,5 0,3 1,7 0,8


Annex-I Table 5: Acquaintance of participants with a child with disabilities (%)



Level of education



General public

Primary school

Secondary School

High School


None 43,6 44,3 42,9 3,5 50,1 44,7 43,4 44,7 53,8

% o

f par

ticip

ants

wit

h ac

quai

ntan

ce

Among relatives 36,5 36,5 36,5 17,6 42,4 41,8 37,9 33,5 31,6

Among neighbours 28,7 26,9 30,4 8,3 35,0 31,3 32,8 26,4 25,4

Among household 23,5 22,5 24,4 78,8 6,1 26,9 22,2 22,2 14,5

Among friends 17,6 18,7 16,6 7,8 20,7 8,9 20,1 22,2 23,0

At school 4,8 5,4 4,3 3,4 5,3 1,4 1,4 7,1 12,1

At the workplace 4,0 5,1 3,0 0,3 5,2 1,6 3,4 3,8 10,5

Others 2,9 3,2 2,6 3,1 2,8 3,4 2,7 2,8 3,1


18-27 28-37 38-48 49+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+

None 43,6 42,6 40,5 47,5 41,4 40,3 43,4 44,2

% o

f par

ticip

ants

wit

h ac

quai

ntan

ce

Among relatives 34,3 36,2 37,4 36,9 43,3 37,5 32,2 32,9

Among neighbours 24,8 30,9 31,0 27,0 31,7 28,5 25,8 29,8

Among household 23,8 23,9 24,9 20,6 28,8 26,1 24,0 15,6

Among friends 21,6 17,1 18,3 13,2 12,9 15,8 23,3 20,0

At school 11,5 4,6 3,1 0,2 1,9 3,0 6,7 7,7

At the workplace 3,0 5,1 5,1 2,8 1,3 1,9 5,7 7,7

Others 1,8 2,2 5,3 2,4 3,8 3,0 1,4 2,7




Black Sea

MarmaraCentral

Anatolia

None 41,6 47,5 41,0 37,8 47,2 46,4 25,0 44,9 48,1 43,7

% o

f par

ticip

ants

wit

h ac

quai

ntan

ce

Among relatives 34,2 34,8 41,0 34,1 29,5 36,0 56,5 27,7 32,7 42,4

Among neighbours 24,4 29,0 33,0 30,2 29,5 33,8 34,0 23,9 27,4 25,2

Among household 24,8 22,6 22,9 23,0 21,1 24,0 22,4 20,2 26,0 23,1

Among friends 16,9 19,5 16,3 16,7 15,8 15,1 21,1 33,5 13,6 14,8

At school 4,1 7,0 3,2 7,1 9,5 3,6 2,7 8,0 3,3 3,4

At the workplace 4,8 4,7 2,4 3,2 1,1 2,7 4,1 8,0 5,0 2,8

Others 2,7 4,8 1,0 3,2 8,4 3,1 2,0 3,2 1,9 2,4


Annex-I Table 6: Frequency of meeting a child with disability (%)



Level of education



General public

Primary school

Secondary School

High School


Every day 32,9 33,9 32,0 78,0 18,8 38,0 28,7 30,6 28,5

Couple of times a week 18,3 18,7 18,0 8,0 21,5 16,6 18,4 20,6 18,8

Once a week 7,7 8,2 7,1 2,1 9,4 7,5 7,5 7,5 8,2

Couple of times a month 14,0 13,3 14,8 5,2 16,8 12,7 17,4 14,5 13,7

Once a month 10,8 10,6 11,1 3,6 13,1 9,5 12,3 10,7 11,7

Couple of times a year 14,2 14,2 14,3 1,8 18,1 12,7 13,3 14,7 18,0

Never 1,3 0,5 2,1 0,8 1,5 2,0 1,7 0,8 0,8

Other 0,4 0,2 0,6 0,5 0,4 0,8 0,3 0,2 0,4

No response 0,2 0,4 0,1 0,0 0,3 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,0


18-27 28-37 38-48 49+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+

Every day 32,3 30,6 34,2 34,6 36,6 33,7 33,2 28,5

Couple of times a week 20,3 18,3 19,6 14,8 20,2 14,9 20,1 19,6

Once a week 9,0 9,2 6,2 6,3 5,9 8,7 7,8 8,5

Couple of times a month 12,8 14,0 13,9 15,6 12,4 15,2 11,7 15,8

Once a month 10,0 10,4 11,7 11,2 11,0 11,1 11,7 10,4

Couple of times a year 14,5 15,9 12,0 14,6 11,3 14,7 14,5 15,6

Never 0,5 0,0 0,2 0,3 1,9 1,1 0,4 1,3

Other 0,3 0,5 1,0 0,0 0,8 0,3 0,4 0,0

No response 0,3 1,2 1,2 2,6 0,0 0,3 0,4 0,2




Black Sea

MarmaraCentral

Anatolia

Every day 34,9 31,7 32,0 32,9 30,5 32,4 28,6 27,1 37,5 33,4

Couple of times a week 15,0 21,1 18,9 19,8 25,3 15,1 19,7 17,0 15,0 22,1

Once a week 5,5 7,7 10,1 5,2 10,5 8,0 12,9 13,3 6,0 4,8

Couple of times a month 14,1 12,5 15,7 17,9 17,9 14,2 9,5 19,1 12,2 11,0

Once a month 11,4 10,6 10,5 9,5 8,4 10,2 15,0 12,2 11,9 8,6

Couple of times a year 16,9 13,6 11,9 13,9 3,2 18,7 10,2 10,1 15,5 17,6

Never 1,4 1,8 0,6 0,0 1,1 0,9 4,1 1,1 1,2 1,7

Other 0,5 0,5 0,2 0,0 3,2 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,7 0,3

No response 0,2 0,4 0,2 0,8 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3


Annex-I Table 7: Level of knowledge about children with disabilities (%)



Level of education



General public

Primary school

Secondary School

High School


A lot 6,8 5,7 8,0 5,7 8,0 6,9 5,7 6,9 7,3

Sufficient 29,5 32,1 26,9 32,1 26,9 25,9 29,1 29,0 40,9

Very little 53,0 51,8 54,2 51,8 54,2 55,1 53,7 54,6 44,1

None 10,7 10,4 10,9 10,4 10,9 12,1 11,5 9,5 7,7


18-27 28-37 38-48 49+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+

A lot 8,1 4,8 7,2 7,3 8,8 7,3 3,8 6,2

Sufficient 29,6 29,6 29,3 29,6 21,5 28,0 35,1 34,2

Very little 53,5 54,7 52,3 51,5 54,2 56,7 52,4 49,0

None 8,8 10,9 11,2 11,6 15,4 8,0 8,7 10,6





Anatolia

A lot 7,0 8,0 5,4 6,1 14,3 9,0 5,0 4,7 6,8 5,9

Sufficient 29,9 30,4 28,2 31,1 22,9 23,4 25,0 35,8 35,5 24,8

Very little 52,6 52,5 54,0 54,1 52,9 58,1 55,8 49,3 49,2 54,5

None 10,5 9,2 12,4 8,7 10,0 9,6 14,2 10,1 8,5 14,9


Annex-I Table 8: Sources of information about children with disabilities (%)



Level of education



General public

Primary school

Secondary School

High School


Media 80,7 82,3 79,1 73,0 81,9 82,7 79,2 79,9 82,2

Info from friends, relatives, acquaintances

45,4 44,2 46,5 46,5 45,2 47,2 48,1 42,7 43,2

Everyday life experiences 26,7 26,3 27,2 32,8 25,8 26,2 24,7 27,6 28,2

Public institutions 5,6 5,4 5,8 6,3 5,5 3,7 6,4 6,6 6,1

Nobody/nowhere 1,8 1,2 2,3 1,5 1,8 2,4 2,3 1,0 1,4

My child’s experience at school 1,7 1,4 2,0 2,3 1,6 2,0 1,7 1,8 0,7

No response 1,6 1,7 1,4 1,5 1,6 1,1 1,2 1,8 1,8

Other 1,2 1,0 1,4 6,0 0,4 1,1 0,4 1,6 1,4

No response 0,2 0,4 0,1 0,0 0,3 0,2 0,3 0,4 0,0


18-27 28-37 38-48 49+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+

Media 79,9 83,4 79,5 79,9 81,7 82,1 81,4 79,9


44,5 44,4 47,6 45,1 50,1 43,7 46,6 43,7

Everyday life experiences 29,4 24,9 25,6 27,0 26,1 28,2 26,0 26,2

Public institutions 6,4 5,7 4,8 5,5 6,1 4,9 5,8 6,3

Nobody/nowhere 1,4 1,0 2,3 2,5 1,9 1,1 1,4 2,3

My child’s experience at school 0,8 1,8 2,8 1,2 1,3 2,4 2,2 1,3

No response 2,1 1,4 1,4 1,4 0,8 1,8 1,2 1,2

Other 1,7 0,7 1,3 1,1 1,7 1,1 1,0 1,2

No response 0,3 1,2 1,2 2,6 0,0 0,3 0,4 0,2




Black Sea

MarmaraCentral

Anatolia

Media 78,0 83,9 79,7 85,4 78,3 88,6 77,6 70,4 78,3 83,1


36,8 48,4 51,4 39,3 61,7 41,9 60,7 54,5 38,6 46,0

Everyday life experiences 25,5 28,8 25,5 28,4 22,2 27,9 33,7 28,4 27,4 21,4

Public institutions 4,3 5,5 7,2 8,6 2,8 7,6 8,2 4,7 4,7 3,5

Nobody/nowhere 1,7 1,1 2,7 1,0 1,1 2,4 1,5 3,8 1,9 0,8

My child’s experience at school 1,9 1,1 2,1 1,2 0,6 2,9 1,5 1,5 2,4 0,6

No response 3,9 0,2 0,7 3,5 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,3 2,5 1,6

Other 1,5 1,3 0,7 2,2 0,6 0,7 0,0 2,3 1,2 0,6

No response 0,2 0,4 0,2 0,8 0,0 0,4 0,0 0,0 0,0 0,3


Annex-I Table 9: Description of ‘normal’ children living in Turkey (%)



Level of education



General public

Primary school

Secondary School

High School


Social 48,4 48,8 48,1 49,3 48,3 46,3 50,0 49,2 49,8

Independent 30,6 31,5 29,7 29,8 30,8 31,0 31,1 29,1 33,1

Strong character/brave 29,0 29,4 28,7 27,0 29,4 26,2 29,5 30,3 32,2

Optimistic 28,6 29,3 27,9 25,3 29,2 27,1 28,8 30,3 27,5

Enjoys equal opportunities 26,4 26,7 26,1 28,5 26,1 26,8 28,4 24,8 26,6

Insecure 14,0 15,0 13,0 16,5 13,6 12,3 13,3 14,3 18,5

Sad/unhappy 11,6 11,2 12,0 9,8 11,9 11,2 11,4 10,4 15,8

Other 4,2 4,4 4,1 5,5 4,0 4,2 4,6 4,3 3,4

No response 2,7 1,9 3,4 1,0 2,9 3,8 2,1 1,8 1,6

Insatiable 0,3 0,1 0,4 0,0 0,3 0,4 0,2 0,2 0,2


18-27 28-37 38-48 49+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+

Social 50,0 49,7 48,7 45,4 50,6 50,3 51,8 45,9

Independent 31,5 30,6 30,9 29,5 29,6 27,4 36,2 31,2

Strong character/brave 30,8 28,4 30,2 26,9 26,9 27,4 31,6 31,4

Optimistic 29,5 29,7 25,9 29,2 32,6 27,8 28,2 27,0

Enjoys equal opportunities 25,8 25,3 27,5 27,0 25,8 25,2 25,8 28,5

Insecure 15,1 13,8 14,4 12,7 14,6 12,7 13,8 14,3

Sad/unhappy 12,6 10,2 13,7 10,1 12,0 11,4 11,8 11,7

Other 3,5 4,1 4,7 4,5 5,0 3,9 4,4 4,5

No response 2,4 2,6 2,3 3,3 4,1 2,1 1,0 1,9

Insatiable 0,1 0,1 0,4 0,4 0,2 0,2 0,6 0,3




Black Sea

MarmaraCentral

Anatolia

Social 39,9 52,3 53,2 53,8 54,4 59,0 63,8 43,7 37,5 47,8

Independent 29,6 29,4 33,3 27,9 40,6 37,1 30,6 37,2 22,8 31,8

Strong character/brave 21,8 32,6 32,8 27,2 38,9 32,9 36,7 31,1 27,0 22,9

Optimistic 26,0 29,9 29,9 23,7 46,1 32,6 45,4 27,3 28,1 18,4

Enjoys equal opportunities 25,1 27,1 27,1 26,2 22,8 33,6 18,4 31,1 23,1 27,2

Insecure 11,9 15,2 14,8 17,5 5,6 11,9 9,7 15,0 13,2 18,1

Sad/unhappy 11,4 12,2 11,2 12,6 6,7 8,8 14,8 9,4 14,1 11,3

Other 3,1 6,3 2,9 7,7 1,1 4,8 2,6 9,4 3,1 1,2

No response 3,3 2,4 2,3 2,2 2,8 0,2 7,7 2,3 3,2 2,3

Insatiable 0,4 0,2 0,2 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,0 0,0 0,5 0,0


Annex-I Table 10: Description of children ‘with disabilities’ living in Turkey (%)



Level of education



General public

Primary school

Secondary School

High School


Sad/unhappy 73,0 73,4 71,6 71,5 70,6 73,5 73,7 73,2 68,9

Insecure 52,7 53,3 51,4 55,0 51,7 50,6 52,3 51,2 59,9

Optimistic 14,7 14,8 14,4 17,0 11,9 12,5 12,9 16,2 18,7

Strong character/brave 12,9 12,1 13,6 11,5 8,8 12,2 13,1 13,9 13,1

Other 7,4 8,0 6,7 10,5 4,7 8,0 7,9 6,4 7,7

Independent 5,5 5,5 5,5 5,5 5,0 5,6 6,9 4,5 6,8

Social 4,2 4,0 4,4 3,8 3,4 3,8 2,9 4,8 6,1

Enjoy equal opportunities 4,2 4,6 3,6 6,0 3,3 4,9 3,7 3,5 4,5

No response 1,5 1,2 1,8 1,0 1,6 1,8 1,7 1,2 1,1

Insatiable 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,5 1,1 0,9 1,0 1,3 0,9


18-27 28-37 38-48 49+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+

Sad/unhappy 73,7 73,0 74,4 70,9 77,6 71,1 77,8 72,2

Insecure 55,2 53,5 53,3 48,9 50,9 50,6 55,6 55,0

Optimistic 17,1 13,1 13,8 14,8 15,1 14,3 15,4 13,8

Strong character/brave 13,3 12,7 13,8 11,9 10,6 13,6 16,2 12,3

Other 6,5 5,1 8,8 9,3 8,3 7,1 7,8 7,8

Independent 5,5 6,1 4,4 6,1 5,5 7,5 4,2 4,4

Social 4,7 4,4 4,7 3,1 3,9 3,9 4,2 3,8

Enjoy equal opportunities 6,1 3,9 5,0 5,7 3,3 5,7 4,4 5,7

No response 1,4 1,7 0,7 2,2 2,2 1,8 0,6 0,7

Insatiable 6,1 3,9 5,0 5,7 3,3 5,7 4,4 5,7




Black Sea

MarmaraCentral

Anatolia

Sad/unhappy 61,9 78,8 78,3 85,2 80,6 77,1 87,8 71,3 62,9 68,7

Insecure 47,7 55,4 55,0 48,4 68,3 61,4 70,4 62,2 43,8 44,5

Optimistic 13,2 15,1 15,9 14,8 14,4 16,0 12,2 10,6 16,6 14,4

Strong character/brave 15,1 11,9 11,6 11,9 6,7 14,0 8,2 6,7 18,2 12,6

Other 5,8 9,3 6,9 8,1 12,8 6,7 4,6 13,8 5,0 6,4

Independent 2,4 6,4 8,1 4,4 8,9 7,4 11,2 8,5 3,1 3,5

Social 3,1 5,2 4,3 4,9 3,9 5,0 5,6 3,2 4,7 2,5

Enjoy equal opportunities 6,1 3,8 5,8 3,0 5,0 5,0 1,5 2,3 8,3 5,4

No response 1,8 1,5 1,2 0,7 1,7 1,4 3,6 1,2 1,9 1,0

Insatiable 6,1 3,8 5,8 3,0 5,0 5,0 1,5 2,3 8,3 5,4


Annex-I Table 11: Percentage of participants who think that children with disabilities should attend classes which are specifically designed for them (%)



Level of education



General public

Primary school

Secondary School

High School


Contagious chronic diseases 88,9 89,1 88,8 85,3 89,5 89,8 89,0 88,8 87,6

Mental disabilities 85,4 84,9 85,9 83,8 85,7 83,6 89,4 84,9 84,9

Visual disorders 79,0 78,2 79,8 76,0 79,4 77,2 81,7 79,3 77,3

Auditory disorders 76,8 76,5 77,1 75,3 77,0 75,0 80,7 76,6 74,3


76,6 75,9 77,4 74,3 77,0 76,7 79,3 76,6 73,2


64,3 64,5 64,2 59,8 65,1 65,3 66,6 62,0 65,1

Hyperactivity/attention deficit

58,4 57,8 58,9 53,3 59,2 58,8 57,7 58,8 55,6

Physical disorders 57,2 56,6 57,9 51,8 58,1 59,9 56,6 55,5 54,7


18-27 28-37 38-48 49+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+

Contagious chronic diseases 88,8 90,2 87,5 89,2 88,5 88,5 89,4 90,7

Mental disabilities 85,7 85,2 86,5 84,3 83,3 86,4 87,8 86,3

Visual disorders 79,2 79,8 79,3 77,5 76,2 82,6 77,4 80,6

Auditory disorders 76,3 78,0 77,2 75,7 74,3 80,2 75,8 77,6


78,2 76,3 77,4 74,7 78,0 77,4 78,8 78,4


64,0 62,9 64,5 65,8 64,4 67,2 63,8 66,0


54,7 59,1 59,3 60,4 55,3 58,1 59,0 60,7

Physical disorders 57,1 56,4 57,7 57,8 56,5 58,1 58,6 60,5




Black Sea

MarmaraCentral

Anatolia

Contagious chronic diseases 91,1 86,3 89,8 94,6 96,7 87,9 76,0 83,9 87,6 93,0

Mental disabilities 85,0 84,8 86,7 87,7 82,8 90,2 95,4 76,5 82,1 88,0

Visual disorders 80,6 76,8 79,8 80,0 71,7 77,9 93,4 63,9 79,8 84,7

Auditory disorders 78,3 75,7 76,4 78,3 67,8 74,8 95,4 57,8 78,3 83,5


74,9 76,0 79,5 77,3 84,4 80,2 91,8 78,9 67,5 77,7


59,0 64,8 69,8 74,1 84,4 63,3 74,5 67,2 53,7 61,4


61,4 57,8 55,7 59,5 56,1 53,3 56,1 61,9 57,9 61,6

Physical disorders 52,3 57,8 62,2 63,7 73,3 53,3 66,3 61,3 51,7 52,2


Annex-I Table 12: Percentage of participants who think that children with disabilities shouldattend same classes as their peers (%)



Level of education



General public

Primary school

Secondary School

High School


Contagious chronic diseases 9,5 9,5 9,4 13,5 8,9 9,4 9,8 10,4 9,0

Mental disabilities 13,5 14,2 12,7 15,3 13,2 14,0 9,7 13,5 15,8

Visual disorders 19,7 15,9 18,4 23,0 19,2 19,2 17,4 20,9 21,8

Auditory disorders 21,9 22,4 21,2 24,0 21,6 21,9 18,3 23,6 24,1


21,8 22,9 20,5 24,0 21,5 21,7 19,3 24,8 22,1


34,3 34,3 34,0 39,5 33,5 36,5 32,4 33,1 33,7


40,2 41,1 38,8 46,0 39,2 39,6 41,1 42,1 40,2

Physical disorders 41,5 42,4 40,0 47,3 40,5 43,2 42,7 43,2 39,0


18-27 28-37 38-48 49+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+

Contagious chronic diseases 9,3 8,2 11,0 9,7 10,1 10,7 9,4 8,1

Mental disabilities 12,6 13,7 12,7 15,2 16,1 12,8 11,4 12,9

Visual disorders 19,1 18,7 19,2 21,9 22,7 16,7 21,4 18,6

Auditory disorders 21,9 20,6 21,7 23,5 24,9 19,0 23,0 21,5


20,2 21,9 21,1 24,0 20,9 21,8 19,4 20,6


34,5 35,3 34,3 33,3 34,3 32,0 34,8 33,1


43,6 39,3 39,0 38,8 43,5 41,1 39,8 38,1

Physical disorders 41,4 42,0 41,0 41,4 42,7 41,1 40,2 38,7




Black Sea

MarmaraCentral

Anatolia

Contagious chronic diseases 7,6 12,3 8,2 4,7 1,7 11,0 24,0 11,7 11,1 5,4

Mental disabilities 14,2 14,0 12,2 11,6 15,6 9,0 4,6 20,8 17,0 11,3

Visual disorders 18,5 21,9 18,3 19,3 26,1 21,4 6,6 31,7 19,1 14,6

Auditory disorders 20,7 23,0 21,9 21,0 30,6 24,3 4,6 38,1 20,5 15,7


23,9 22,7 18,4 22,2 13,9 18,8 8,2 16,1 31,2 21,0


40,2 33,9 28,3 25,2 13,3 35,7 25,0 29,0 45,2 37,9


37,5 40,7 42,5 39,8 42,2 46,0 43,4 34,6 40,7 36,7

Physical disorders 46,7 41,0 36,1 35,6 25,0 46,0 33,7 35,2 46,9 46,8


Annex-I Table 13: Assessing the policies targeting children with disabilities and the role of the public (Participants who agree, %)



Level of education



General public

Primary school

Secondary School

High School


It’s the duty of the society and the government to restructure schools to meet the needs of children with disabilities

89,8 89,7 90,0 93,8 89,2 89,6 89,6 90,8 88,1

Even if they receive a good education, the chances of children with disabilities finding a job would be lower than that of their peers receiving the same education

73,5 73,6 73,4 75,8 73,1 77,4 75,9 70,7 66,9

Receiving education at normal schools would positively affect the progress of children with disabilities

54,9 54,8 55,0 58,3 54,3 53,8 57,7 56,6 53,2

Regardless of any of the materials contributions they make, the government and society cannot help children with disabilities in the real sense

54,8 55,1 54,5 54,8 54,8 59,7 55,6 52,2 49,3

Turkey has more important issues than restructuring the schools for children with disabilities

31,9 33,6 30,2 25,0 33,1 35,3 33,4 30,6 27,9



18-27 28-37 38-48 49+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+


90,5 90,3 89,0 89,3 91,3 90,3 91,4 88,5


72,7 73,4 73,2 74,6 73,9 74,0 75,0 72,0


55,6 51,3 55,1 57,4 51,5 52,9 59,2 59,2


50,8 54,2 56,3 57,9 54,2 55,0 55,8 54,9


29,0 33,6 34,0 31,1 35,0 32,0 33,6 28,3




Black Sea

MarmaraCentral

Anatolia


94,2 89,7 85,0 91,1 87,2 93,1 91,8 72,7 94,6 90,1


79,4 70,9 70,1 67,9 71,1 75,2 78,6 50,1 83,9 74,6


65,6 48,6 50,5 32,6 56,1 56,9 44,4 62,8 65,1 53,0


60,6 54,3 48,9 41,0 31,7 64,0 54,6 37,8 66,2 59,8


29,6 29,4 37,8 17,8 39,4 36,2 36,2 30,8 32,2 35,7


Annex-I Table 14: Percentage of participants who thinks that there should be a separate law to protect the rights of children with disabilities (%)



Level of education



General public

Primary school

Secondary School

High School


Yes 85,3 84,9 85,7 95,0 83,7 84,1 83,0 87,1 86,3

No response 10,9 10,2 11,5 3,0 12,1 11,4 13,1 9,6 9,9

No 3,8 4,9 2,7 2,0 4,1 4,5 3,9 3,3 3,8


18-27 28-37 38-48 49+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+

Yes 87,6 87,6 83,6 82,5 87,9 85,4 84,0 84,7

No response 9,2 8,7 12,0 13,5 9,3 9,4 13,0 11,4

No 3,2 3,7 4,4 4,0 2,8 5,2 3,0 4,0





Anatolia

Yes 87,5 85,2 82,9 83,7 77,2 86,2 90,8 66,9 89,1 92,8

No response 8,5 10,6 13,8 13,8 13,9 8,6 8,7 28,2 6,3 5,8

No 4,0 4,1 3,3 2,5 8,9 5,2 0,5 5,0 4,6 1,4


Annex-I Table 15: Obstacles that keep children with disabilities from reaching a better life quality and being involved in the social life (%)



Level of education



General public

Primary school

Secondary School

High School


Lack of government interest 55,0 54,7 55,3 57,5 54,6 56,3 54,6 56,4 51,8

Public prejudices 48,7 47,4 50,0 51,5 48,2 43,0 49,6 50,8 56,5

Lack of people’s interest 45,5 47,7 43,2 53,0 44,3 47,1 45,2 44,7 45,5

Public ignorance 41,8 41,5 42,2 40,5 42,1 42,4 41,3 41,3 43,5

Lack of financial resources 41,6 40,0 43,2 45,0 41,1 49,7 42,7 38,4 30,9


39,7 40,4 38,9 42,0 39,3 33,8 38,4 44,4 43,2


32,8 34,5 31,0 35,8 32,3 31,5 35,7 32,2 34,0


26,7 26,1 27,2 28,3 26,4 21,1 26,6 29,8 30,9

Lack of focused policies 24,5 26,6 22,4 26,0 24,3 23,0 22,6 25,8 28,2

Presence of other priorities on the country’s agenda

12,6 12,7 12,5 9,0 13,2 11,7 13,1 12,2 15,1

No response 1,0 1,2 0,8 0,5 1,1 0,9 0,8 1,2 0,9


18-27 28-37 38-48 49+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+

Lack of government interest 57,3 54,1 54,4 54,2 53,5 57,8 54,8 55,8

Public prejudices 47,7 51,0 47,7 48,2 46,9 46,3 49,6 53,3

Lack of people’s interest 47,7 44,1 45,6 44,5 46,6 46,9 45,8 46,5

Public ignorance 42,7 43,6 41,5 39,8 44,6 37,5 43,4 43,0

Lack of financial resources 38,6 42,2 41,6 44,0 46,6 45,5 40,0 36,5


42,8 40,2 39,7 35,9 39,2 36,7 44,0 44,7


33,3 33,3 33,6 30,9 29,9 31,5 31,6 33,4


26,8 27,5 29,2 23,2 24,7 27,1 30,2 27,1

Lack of focused policies 24,7 24,1 25,5 23,8 22,8 25,8 23,6 25,2


14,0 9,7 14,2 12,6 12,0 11,7 16,2 11,7

No response 1,1 0,7 0,4 1,8 0,8 1,1 0,2 1,0





Black Sea

MarmaraCentral

Anatolia

Lack of government interest 55,1 57,1 52,3 53,3 65,0 63,1 53,6 56,6 49,1 55,0

Public prejudices 45,6 54,3 45,1 46,2 52,8 54,3 44,9 52,8 46,5 46,8

Lack of people’s interest 40,7 51,8 42,9 45,2 54,4 42,4 46,9 47,5 42,7 47,6

Public ignorance 36,8 46,8 41,4 42,2 45,0 36,7 50,5 48,7 42,3 36,1

Lack of financial resources 45,2 36,4 44,1 31,4 43,3 46,4 43,9 35,8 38,0 53,8


34,5 43,6 40,6 54,1 44,4 38,1 59,7 42,8 29,6 34,0


30,9 33,2 34,3 34,1 21,1 28,8 29,6 32,3 29,5 45,8


20,0 30,2 29,8 42,2 30,6 22,1 32,1 27,0 23,4 19,6

Lack of focused policies 27,8 21,4 24,7 16,8 10,0 22,4 17,9 29,3 30,3 27,6


11,6 13,0 13,3 6,4 16,7 16,9 21,9 10,0 13,6 9,1

No response 2,1 0,3 0,7 1,0 0,0 0,7 0,0 0,0 2,2 0,8


Annex-I Table 16: Risks/dangers to which children with disabilities are more susceptible than others (%)




Black Sea

MarmaraCentral

Anatolia

Being beaten up/insulted by officials 76,5 75,2 68,5 75,1 67,8 71,2 85,7 67,7 70,4 81,0

Being abandoned, neglected or isolated

76,9 68,0 67,8 79,8 71,1 62,1 65,8 61,0 74,1 74,6

Being beaten up/insulted by parents 74,6 63,6 61,4 64,4 66,1 53,8 79,1 49,9 70,7 79,0

Sexual abuse 71,1 59,0 50,1 60,2 27,2 59,8 70,4 54,8 61,0 71,8

Coming under attack 63,2 54,3 44,9 57,3 41,7 43,3 54,1 59,5 58,8 56,1

Being abused as a worker 60,2 46,6 39,9 40,0 25,0 49,0 53,1 44,9 53,8 59,0

Being encouraged into committing crime

17,3 21,7 25,3 21,2 23,9 28,1 15,8 33,1 22,0 8,0

Being forced into early marriage 60,7 40,0 35,0 36,3 18,3 41,2 45,9 41,3 53,6 55,5

No response 2,1 0,9 1,9 1,0 2,8 2,1 1,0 0,3 2,0 1,7

GenderPeople with disabili-ties or their relatives

vs� General publicLevel of education



General public

Primary school

Secondary School

High School


Being beaten up/insulted by officials 73,6 73,6 73,7 75,3 73,4 18,3 21,2 19,8 15,5

Being abandoned, neglected or isolated 70,9 71,4 70,4 71,3 70,9 55,2 51,5 52,0 60,1

Being beaten up/insulted by parents 66,6 66,6 66,7 59,0 67,9 65,2 64,1 67,1 70,5

Sexual abuse 60,5 59,1 61,8 59,5 60,6 51,7 49,0 50,9 53,6

Coming under attack 58,2 55,8 60,6 61,3 57,7 52,2 51,9 53,5 57,0

Being abused as a worker 49,2 47,8 50,6 52,5 48,6 47,2 43,8 45,8 48,0

Being encouraged into committing crime 49,0 48,3 49,7 46,8 49,3 17,5 19,7 19,3 21,8

Being forced into early marriage 45,5 43,3 47,7 43,0 45,9 42,2 40,7 42,8 47,3

No response 1,6 1,7 1,5 2,5 1,5 1,4 1,4 1,5 0,7


18-27 28-37 38-48 49+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+

Being beaten up/insulted by officials 74,6 71,1 74,1 74,9 74,3 73,7 72,8 76,0

Being abandoned, neglected or isolated 71,0 71,9 70,8 69,9 75,1 67,4 69,2 71,7

Being beaten up/insulted by parents 69,6 63,2 67,0 66,8 66,0 66,1 68,0 69,8

Sexual abuse 61,2 59,8 59,7 61,2 59,5 58,6 58,8 65,0

Coming under attack 54,7 54,8 53,1 55,5 53,7 50,5 57,0 60,7

Being abused as a worker 48,3 48,3 49,4 50,7 53,5 49,7 49,8 49,1

Being encouraged into committing crime

20,8 23,0 21,2 20,2 20,5 19,8 22,6 23,5

Being forced into early marriage 48,9 44,0 42,2 46,9 45,4 45,8 41,8 50,5

No response 1,3 2,4 0,9 1,9 1,4 1,8 1,0 0,9


Annex-I Table 17: Acceptance of proposed actions targeting children with disabilities (%)



Level of education



General public

Primary school

Secondary School

High School


Children with advanced level of disabilities should be put into residential care, others should continue their normal lives among society

63,6 64,5 62,7 56,3 64,8 61,1 66,0 64,1 66,0

All children with disabilities should live among society

28,9 28,1 29,7 40,5 27,0 31,3 27,4 28,4 26,6

No response 7,5 7,4 7,6 3,3 8,2 7,6 6,6 7,5 7,4


18-27 28-37 38-48 49+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+


63,0 62,5 62,8 66,0 64,3 65,4 67,0 63,4


29,5 30,6 28,9 26,6 30,1 28,4 26,6 28,1

No response 7,5 6,9 8,3 7,4 5,7 6,2 6,4 8,5




Black Sea

MarmaraCentral

Anatolia


32,9 27,2 26,5 72,1 60,6 60,0 81,1 58,1 56,7 68,7


6,0 7,9 8,7 18,3 28,9 34,0 10,7 30,2 38,0 24,9

No response 4,0 4,1 3,3 9,6 10,6 6,0 8,2 11,7 5,3 6,4


Annex-I Table 18: Responsible parties in increasing the quality of life of children with disabilities and involving them in the social life (%)





General public

Primary school

Secondary School

High School


Education system and schools 17,5 49,5 52,4 50,0 51,1 50,5 48,8 51,3 54,3

Health system 17,2 49,4 51,2 53,0 49,9 50,4 53,7 50,2 47,1


14,8 44,2 42,1 48,5 42,3 46,3 43,6 40,2 41,7

General public/society 9,8 27,5 29,9 29,8 28,6 26,9 28,6 30,9 27,0


9,2 25,3 28,3 26,0 26,9 28,9 24,3 26,6 24,8


6,7 19,6 19,6 17,5 19,9 20,8 21,2 18,0 18,9

Social service institutions 6,2 19,1 16,9 14,3 18,6 17,6 18,0 19,2 17,6

Civil society organizations 5,5 16,7 15,5 15,3 16,3 13,8 15,3 15,9 22,5

Media 5,0 15,2 13,8 13,3 14,7 10,5 14,3 16,7 18,9

Local officials (municipalities, etc)

4,9 14,6 14,1 14,0 14,4 16,5 13,7 14,4 10,1

The individual, her/himself 3,1 10,0 8,4 10,3 9,0 8,3 10,4 9,3 8,8

No response 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,5 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,4 0,2


18-27 28-37 38-48 49+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+

Education system and schools 53,1 54,1 48,7 48,0 49,1 51,3 50,0 51,7

Health system 54,1 46,9 48,7 51,5 50,4 51,9 47,0 47,7


38,8 43,7 43,9 46,2 47,4 43,2 45,4 40,2

General public/society 29,8 29,0 29,1 27,0 28,5 29,1 30,6 28,4


29,0 25,2 25,2 27,7 31,3 25,6 25,0 27,3


19,4 18,4 21,9 18,7 20,6 20,6 18,2 18,7

Social service institutions 18,5 19,5 18,7 15,4 19,4 16,1 18,8 18,3

Civil society organizations 16,2 14,5 17,9 15,8 12,4 14,3 16,2 20,8

Media 15,1 15,6 14,4 13,0 11,5 14,4 16,2 16,3


10,5 14,9 16,7 15,2 13,7 15,1 15,6 12,9

The individual, her/himself 9,3 8,0 9,4 10,0 7,6 10,9 10,4 8,8

No response 0,3 0,4 0,3 0,7 0,2 0,5 0,4 0,3





Black Sea

MarmaraCentral

Anatolia

Education system and schools 50,2 54,8 46,9 54,8 41,7 54,0 52,0 52,2 43,7 58,8

Health system 47,8 51,9 51,1 48,4 63,3 46,4 56,6 48,7 51,0 48,0


45,7 41,4 42,5 46,4 40,6 47,1 39,3 47,2 43,2 37,1

General public/society 30,3 28,8 26,8 28,1 29,4 31,4 20,9 35,5 27,2 27,6


21,1 28,9 30,5 35,8 49,4 25,2 41,3 18,2 19,3 24,9


20,4 18,3 20,3 22,7 13,9 18,6 12,8 12,0 22,9 22,3

Social service institutions 15,6 19,6 18,8 16,8 28,9 15,5 29,1 15,8 15,8 17,9

Civil society organizations 18,8 14,7 15,0 11,4 9,4 13,8 16,3 14,1 21,0 17,7

Media 12,7 15,4 15,4 12,6 5,6 14,0 8,2 26,1 16,1 11,8


17,0 11,5 14,8 10,6 7,2 20,2 9,2 8,8 18,8 13,4

The individual, her/himself 8,5 9,6 9,4 10,4 7,8 9,8 5,6 18,5 9,3 3,3

No response 0,4 0,2 0,7 0,2 0,6 0,2 1,0 0,0 0,7 0,2


Annex-I Table 19: Actions to be taken targeting children with disabilities (%)





General public

Primary school

Secondary School

High School


Provisions of education of children with disabilities at an earlier age

60,1 58,3 62,0 62,0 59,8 61,9 59,8 59,6 59,9

Cooperation of public schools, private special education centers and civil society organizations

54,9 57,0 52,8 52,5 55,3 56,3 52,9 52,3 59,0

Mandatory provision of necessary infrastructure to enable access of disabled to social environments (cinemas, theatres, sports arenas etc�)

46,8 48,8 44,8 48,3 46,6 42,7 47,1 50,1 48,2


30,2 28,2 32,3 28,5 30,5 30,2 33,8 30,3 26,4

Other 1,0 1,1 0,9 1,3 1,0 1,4 0,6 1,2 0,5

No response 0,9 0,6 1,2 0,8 0,9 0,7 0,6 1,0 0,7


18-27 28-37 38-48 49+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+


62,1 56,7 60,3 61,5 58,9 63,3 62,2 61,2


52,5 55,0 57,1 55,1 56,9 55,2 51,8 54,5


49,9 49,5 44,3 43,6 50,2 43,2 48,6 48,5


29,2 29,5 31,6 30,5 27,6 30,5 30,2 28,7

Other 1,0 1,5 0,4 1,1 1,4 1,3 0,8 0,6

No response 0,8 1,0 0,9 0,8 0,5 1,0 0,8 0,9





Black Sea

MarmaraCentral

Anatolia


62,5 60,9 56,5 61,2 47,8 61,7 57,7 50,4 65,7 61,0


53,3 55,4 56,2 57,3 67,2 56,4 56,6 54,3 47,9 58,4


43,8 48,0 48,8 53,6 53,3 52,6 58,2 48,1 40,5 39,2


31,1 28,5 31,2 23,2 21,7 23,3 23,5 42,2 33,9 33,0

Other 0,6 1,1 1,3 0,7 2,2 1,4 0,5 1,5 0,7 0,8

No response 1,0 0,8 0,8 0,5 2,8 0,5 0,5 0,6 1,4 0,4


Annex-I Table 20: Percentage of participants who would support listed actions targetingchildren with disabilities (%)





General public

Primary school

Secondary School

High School


Levying additional excise taxes on cigarettes and alcohol and spending the revenues on children with disabilities

83,9 82,5 85,2 88,5 83,1 86,7 85,3 83,4 77,9

Establishing a ‘Sister/Brother Student’ program through which my child would meet regularly with a child with disability outside school hours

76,1 75,5 76,8 86,5 74,4 76,8 74,5 76,9 75,9

On my off days attending informative seminars about children with disabilities

70,7 71,3 70,1 82,8 68,7 67,4 69,1 73,5 73,9

Levying additional taxes on my income and spending the revenues on children with disabilities

68,7 69,1 68,4 79,8 66,9 67,9 68,9 68,8 71,6


18-27 28-37 38-48 49+ 0-1�0001�000-1�500

1�500-2�000

2�000+


82,8 84,0 82,6 86,1 85,7 82,5 85,6 82,8


74,9 78,0 75,5 76,1 79,1 77,1 75,4 74,9


71,8 70,0 70,1 70,9 68,2 72,2 72,4 69,9


71,0 68,3 66,8 68,7 69,9 67,9 71,6 67,0





Black Sea

MarmaraCentral

Anatolia


87,2 81,7 82,8 77,5 75,6 81,4 86,7 75,4 91,3 86,6


85,1 74,4 68,1 69,1 68,3 78,1 74,0 56,3 86,4 80,6


72,9 70,2 68,8 67,4 71,7 64,5 62,8 69,5 78,5 69,5


71,5 69,8 64,3 56,8 68,9 58,6 75,5 58,4 79,1 74,4


Annex II:Questionnaire


01��There are different viewpoints regarding disability. What comes to mind when you hear the word ‘disabled’?

02-16� Which of the following children would you considered as having a disability? Please give your response as

1. Agree 2. Disagree 0. Don’t know/have no idea

Children with

[ ] Total loss of vision

[ ] Blurred vision and wearing glasses

[ ] Total loss of auditory sense

[ ] Mild loss of auditory sense and wearing a hearing aid

[ ] Missing a hand or foot

[ ] Physical distortions

[ ] Non-contagious chronic diseases (heart condition, diabetes, cancer)

[ ] AIDS

[ ] Attention deficit

[ ] Autism

[ ] Mental retardation

[ ] Speech disorder

[ ] Aggressive behaviour, tendency to hurt him/herself or other people

[ ] Emotional disorder

[ ] Hyperactivity

17� How do you feel when you encounter a child with disabilities?

1� Feel sad 5� Act normal since we are all the same

2� Feel pity 6� Think about myself and be thankful for my condition

3� Look the other way 7� Other ��

4� Try to help

18� From which areas do you think children with disabilities are being excluded the MOST?

1� Education 5� Home

2� Health 6� Other ��

3� Social Life 7� All

4� Professional Life 8� None


19� Are there any child with disabilities around you or your family? Do you know any family with such a child?

There is a child with disabilities

1� In my house 5� Within school

2� Among my relatives 6� Within the workplace

3� Among my friends 7� Other ��

4� Among my neighbours 8� There is none àGo to question 22�

20� How often do you visit this child?

1� Every day 5� Once a month

2� Couple of times a week 6� Couple of times a year

3� Once a week 7� Never

4� Couple of times a month 8� Other………………………………………�

21� How much knowledge do you think you have about children with disabilities?

1� None 3. Sufficient

2� A little 4� A lot

22� What are your sources of information on children with disabilities?

1� Media (TV, newspapers, radio, Internet, etc�)

2� Information from my friends, relatives and acquaintances

3� Everyday life experiences (on the streets, while shopping, on public transportation)

4� Listening to my child’s experiences at school

5� Public institutions (health centers, hospitals, municipalities, etc�)

6� Nobody/nowhere

7� Other (��)


23-71� Please indicate if you 1.Agree or 2.Do not agree with the following statements

Visual Im-pairment

Hearing Im-pairment

Physical Disability

Mental Disability

Psycholog-ical-Emo-

tional Disorder

Non-con-tagious

Chronic Dis-eases (heart

condition, lukemia, diabetes)

Contagious Chronic

Diseases (AIDS, hep-

atitis)

Living in the same neigbourhood as my child

1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Attending the same school as my child 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2


1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Being my child’s playmate 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Being my child’s best friend 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Being my child’s boy/girlfriend 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

Being engaged/married to my child 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 2

72� Which of the following phrases would you use to describe a ‘Normal’ child living in Turkey?

1� Insecure 5� Sad/unhappy

2� Independent 6� Optimistic

3� Social 7� With strong character/brave

4� Enjoys equal opportunities 8� Other………………………………………�

73� Which of the following phrases would you use to describe a child ‘with disabilities’ living in Turkey?

1� Insecure 5� Sad/unhappy

2� Independent 6� Optimistic

3� Social 7� With strong character/brave

4� Enjoys equal opportunities 8� Other………………………………………�


74-81� For each of the listed disabilities, which of the following educational environments do you think is the most appropriate for your children?

Same classes as their peers without disabilities�

Separate classes which are de-signed exclusively for them and

with peers with disabilities

Mental disability 1 2

Auditory disorder 1 2

Visual disorder 1 2

Psychological-emotional disorder 1 2

Chronic diseases 1 2

Physical disorder 1 2

Contagious chronic diseases 1 2

Hyperactivity-attention deficit 1 2

82-86� Regarding the following phrases please indicate whether you 1. Agree, 2. Disagree or 0. Don’t know/have no idea

[ ] Receiving education at normal schools would positively affect the progress of children

with disabilities

[ ] Turkey has more important issues than restructuring the schools for children with disabilities

[ ] Even if they receive a good education, the chances of children with disabilities finding a job would be

lower than that of their peers receiving the same education

[ ] It is the duty of the society and the government to restructure the schools to meet the needs of

children with disabilities

[ ] Regardless of any of the materials contributions they make, the government and society cannot help

children with disabilities in the real sense�

87� Should there be a separate legislation for the protection of the rights of children with disabilities in Turkey?

1. Yes 2. No 0. Don’t know/have no idea


88� What, do you think, are the obstacles that keep children with disabilities from hav-ing a better quality of life and being socially included?

01� Lack of focused policies 06� Public ignorance

02. Lack of financial resources 07� Public prejudices

03� Inadequate legislative framework

08� Exploitation and negligence of children with disabilities

04� Lack of government interest

09� Presence of other priorities on the country’s agenda

05� Lack of people’s interest 10� Lack of informed specialists/institutions

89� Which of the following risks or dangers do you think children with disabilities are more susceptible to than other children? (At most 5 responses)

[ ] Being beaten up or insulted by parents

[ ] Being beaten up or insulted by officials in schools or schoolmates

[ ] Being abandoned, neglected or isolated

[ ] Sexual abuse

[ ] Forced into early marriage

[ ] Being abused as a worker

[ ] Being encouraged into committing crime

[ ] Coming under attack or being killed

90� What kind of social measures do you think should be taken?

1� Children with advanced level of disabilities should be put into residential care, others should continue their normal lives among society

2� All children with disabilities should live among society�

0� I don’t know/have no idea

91� What are the three parties most responsible for providing a better quality of life to children with disabilities and ensuring their social inclusion?

01� Health system

02. Central government and officials

03� Education system and schools

04� General Directorate of Children Services

05. Local officials (municipalities, etc.)

06� You

07� Civil society organizations

08� Media

09� General public / society

10� Parents and relatives of children with disabilities

11� Social service institutions


92� Which of the following actions should be taken targeting children with disabilities?

1� Provision of education of children with disabilities at an earlier age�

2� Cooperation of public schools, private special education centers and civil society organizations

3� Launch of high-visibility awareness rising campaigns

4� Mandatory provision of necessary infrastructure to enable access of disabled to social environments (cinemas, theatres, sports centers, etc�)

5� Other ……………………………………………………………………��

93-96� Which one of the following actions would you support to help provide a better future for children with disabilities?

1. Support 2. Do not support 0.No answer / no opinion

[ ] Levying additional taxes on my income and spending the revenues on children with disabilities

[ ] On my off days attending informative seminars about children with disabilities

[ ] Levying additional excise taxes on cigarettes and alcohol and spending the revenues on children

with disabilities

[ ] Establishing a ‘Sister/Brother Student’ program through which my child would meet regularly with

a child with disability outside school hours

97� What would be your alternative suggestions regarding children with disabilities?

98� What are your main sources of information to follow up current events?

1� TV 5� Internet

2� Radio 6� Family, friends, neighbours

3� Newspapers 7� Other (……………………………………)

4� Magazines

99� Which newspapers do you regularly read?

1� �� 2� �� 3� ��

100� Which TV channels do you watch the most?

1� �� 2� �� 3� ��


101� Which radio stations do you listen to the most?

1� �� 2� �� 3� ��

102� Do you use the Internet?

1. Yes 2. No > Go to question 105

103� Which web sites do you visit the most?

1� �� 2� �� 3� ��

104� Do you use social network sites such as Facebook and Twitter? Which one(s)?

1. Facebook 2. Twitter

105-109� Which one of the following do you posses?

1. Have 2. Do not have

[ ] Computer [ ] Cellular telephone

[ ] Internet connection [ ] At least one car

[ ] iPad

110� Gender

1. Female 2. Male

111� Age

112� Marital status

1. Married 2. Single 3. Divorced

113� Level of education (last degree earned)

1. Primary School 2. Secondary School 3. High School 4. University5. Masters / PhD


114� Number of people in your household including yourself

115� Number of children under 18 in your household

116� What is your occupation?

01� Unskilled worker 08� Farmer

02� Skilled worker 09� Student

03� Manager 10� Housewife

04� Lawyer, doctor, teacher, public servant 11� Retired

05� Lawyer, doctor working for his/her own account� 12� Unemployed

06� Firm owner with <20 workers 13� Other(………��……………�)

07� Firm owner with >20 workers

117� What is the total income of your household? What is the average amount of money that you receive in a month including all types of income that household members earn?

E-mail address, if available

Address where questionnaire was administered ;

Province :�� County :��

District :��

Street :��

Building No :�� Door No:��

Documents

KAP Analysis Report - UNICEF · Figure 79: Actions to be supported by the public targeting children with disabilities (Full sample, %) 109