Resources search

Question & problem

Social protection systems and other financial assistance, including cash transfers and integrated benefits packages, may be important ways to facilitate the inclusion of people with disabilities in services and society. There is limited information, however, with regards to their impact in low- and middle-income settings. To understand how these programs work, it is important to recognise that there are disability-targeted entitlements, but people with disabilities may also be eligible for mainstream programmes aimed at other targeted groups, such as people of a certain socio-economic status. This evidence note summarises what is known about challenges faced by both of these types of initiatives, as well as evidence-based recommendations to strengthen them.

This publication reflects back on four co-design processes undertaken by Light for the World’s Disability Inclusion Lab during the past few years. These different journeys in solution development have demonstrated the power of this methodology to create genuine inclusion in livelihood programming while striving to empower persons with disabilities to achieve economic success. In this publication the social innovation lab methodology is described as a unique approach to inclusive programming, highlighting four cases: The Livelihood Improvement Challenge in Uganda, the lab in the EmployAble programme in Ethiopia, the AgriLab in Cambodia, and the InBusiness pilot in Kenya. Lessons learnt are described.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to review peer-reviewed literature on the roles and functions of Disabled Peoples’ Organisations (DPOs) in low and middle-income countries, and their outputs and outcomes for people with disabilities.

Method: Online databases were searched without date or language limiters (Medline, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase and Cochrane), using a combination of two key word search strategies. Eleven studies were selected for inclusion in this review on the basis of predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Included studies underwent quality assessment using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) and Downs and Black’s criteria for quality assessment. Data for thematic analysis was then grouped under the broad themes of: participation and factors that facilitate participation; development of partnerships and connections; and self-development and self-help.

Results: There was some evidence within the included studies to suggest that DPOs can produce significant, positive outcomes for persons with disability in terms of factors such as employment rates, access to microfinance and bank loans, accessibility of housing, acquisition of orthopaedic devices, involvement in civil society, development of friendships and networks, and participation in training programmes. Although the studies under review largely did not investigate the long-term impact of the reported DPO functions and outputs, some of the short-term outputs may be considered proximal indicators of outcomes such as increased empowerment and wellbeing.

Conclusion: The 11 studies in this review suggested that DPOs can be effective in achieving their stated aims of promoting wellbeing, participation and rights of people with disabilities in low and middle- income countries.

This note introduces the BRAC graduation model to address the needs of the poorest of the poor and  reflects on how this model can be used by HI in its present and future livelihood projects. 

This video series is part of the Making It Work initiative, “Access to employment for all in West Africa : let’s make it work”, which sets out good practice for inclusive employment of people with disabilities in West Africa, in line with CPRD Article 27 and makes recommendations for public and private employers, microfinance institutions, governments and their partners so that they become agents of change and commit themselves to inclusive policies promoting access to decent jobs for people with disabilities in West Africa. This part I video examines the “right to set up a micro-enterprise: how can microfinance institutions make it work? How do microfinance institutions give people with disabilities access to financial services to help them start or develop small businesses successfully?”

Direct cash transfers for vulnerable elderly and disabled populations have been provided by the Indonesian Ministry of Social Welfare (Kementerian Sosial, Kemensos) since 2006; a similar cash transfer for at-risk youth was inaugurated in 2009. These programs Jaminan Sosial Lanjut Usia (JSLU), Jaminan Sosial Paca Berat (JSPACA), and program Kesejahteraan Sosial Anak (PKSA) for the elderly, disabled, and youth respectively transfer cash directly to beneficiaries. They account for increasing shares of the Kemensos overall budget, but subsidies directed to care and rehabilitation facilities as well as direct provision of institutional care still account for a noticeable portion of the Kemensos budget for these groups.  The report summarises quantitative and qualitative evidence in order to build a sound foundation for evaluating these cash transfer programs . Design features, efficiency and effectiveness of program implementation and operation, and impacts are analyzed. 

This note provides the background for a roundtable discussion held on June 18, 2010 in Washington, DC, convened by the Center for Financial Inclusion (CFI), in partnership with the Disability and Development Team of the World Bank, at which representatives from microfinance institutions and Disability Organizations deliberated on how they can best contribute to increasing access to financial services for poor people with disabilities worldwide. After a brief discussion of the challenge and the opportunity, the note advances several working hypotheses about steps the microfinance industry could take. 

This paper presents an overview of findings from the formal evaluation of 9 socio-economic rehabilitation programmes (SER), in 4 countries in Africa, in Bangladesh and in India from 2002-2005. Bringing together the recommendations resulted in a description of best practices in the implementation of socio-economic rehabilitation programmes, derived from actual experiences in different contexts.

All the 9 programmes focused on supporting individual leprosy-affected beneficiaries or their families. Four projects also supported other marginalised clients. The usual interventions were micro-credit, housing and sponsoring of education for the children.

The recommendations touched upon each of the five steps in individual rehabilitation: Selection of clients, needs assessment, choosing an intervention, monitoring / follow--up of clients during rehabilitation, and separation at the end of the rehabilitation process. The evaluators also suggested ways in which participation of the client in their own rehabilitation might be boosted, made recommendations for the organisational structure of programmes, on maximising community involvement and emphasised the importance of information systems and of investing in the programme staff. A number of recommendations were specific to the types of interventions implemented i.e, housing, education or micro-credit.

Evidence of the impact of SER on the quality of life of clients is limited, but suggests increased self-esteem and increased respect/status in the family and community.

Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal, vol.19, no.1, 2008

People with disabilities are barred from microcredit schemes. A literature search on the participation of people with disabilities in microcredit schemes resulted in 16 documents. The statements, recommendations and generalisations in these documents are not supported with strong evidence and are 'expert opinions' at best. Inclusion of people with disabilities within institutional schemes and self-helping schemes is recommended throughout the world. However, these seem most affected by excluding mechanisms and inclusion numbers lag behind. The absence of people with disabilities from these two schemes makes them a less attractive option. To fulfil the current needs of people with disabilities; ad-hoc schemes should continue and even expand their work. The pragmatic solution is to work with the available resources in order to change the situation of people with disabilities.