International development is at a crossroads. The closure of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the reduction in UK’s Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) to record low levels, and funding cuts by other European countries are forcing the development and humanitarian sector to rapidly change. The first wave of this change is to stop targeted disability-inclusive programming and to fast-track mainstreaming disability inclusion.
For those of us working in the sector, it’s hard to see this change as positive as mainstreaming alone fails to meet the needs of people with disabilities. When writing this blog, we seriously considered using this space to rage, but instead we are channelling that emotion into action. We must move to acceptance quickly and adapt our practice to ensure people with disabilities are not left behind.
The importance of evidence
So, how can we use the evidence on disability-inclusive development to turn this change into an opportunity for people with disabilities?
The good news is – there is a lot of evidence on what works and doesn’t work to improve outcomes for people with disabilities. We spent the last eight years working on the UK aid-funded Disability Inclusive Development (DID) programme. The DID programme had two key mandates: Improve outcomes for people with disabilities in health, education and livelihoods as well as address stigma and discrimination; and address the evidence gap in disability-inclusive development.
In its eight years of implementation, the DID programme produced 170 research, learning and evidence products as public goods. A contribution to this at the end of the programme was the IDS, Sightsavers and International Disability Alliance edited IDS Bulletin special issue on disability-inclusive development, a collection of articles written by researchers and practitioners involved in the DID programme sharing their research and learnings.
We wanted to highlight two areas of evidence showcased in this issue that we think are critical to ensure improved outcomes for people with disabilities. Donors and international non-governmental organisations (INGOs) must consider this evidence in their mainstream programming as the sector changes or there is risk that people with disabilities will be left behind.
Factoring in stigma and safeguarding
Stigma and safeguarding are two areas of disability-inclusive development programming that the evidence identifies as critical to address when working with people with disabilities.
Stigma is a process involving labelling of difference, stereotyping and prejudice which combines to result in discrimination against the stigmatised individual or group, and occurs in situation where there is a power imbalance. Disability stigma remains a pervasive barrier to disability inclusion in low- and middle-income counties People with disabilities may experience intersectional stigma because of their gender, age, poverty status, and location. It has adverse impacts on their educational attainment, employment opportunities, overall social and economic wellbeing and political participation. It results in people with disabilities experiencing bullying, violence, abuse, and other harms.
Safeguarding acts to prevent people from experiencing abuse, neglect and harm. Disability-inclusive safeguarding concerns the design, implementation and strengthening of safeguarding systems to involve all people, including people with disabilities. People with disabilities are more likely than their non-disabled peers to experience abuse and face extensive barriers from accessing justice, such as paternalistic or negative attitudes questioning their ability to participate in all phases of the administrative of justice.
The lived experience of people with disabilities is that they are more likely to face stigma, abuse, neglect, harm and discrimination than people without disabilities. If mainstreaming disability is to be successful, sector actors need to ensure they keep this in mind and include approaches to stigma and safeguarding in programming, using the most recent evidence and the participation of Organisations of People with Disabilities (OPDs) and people with disabilities.
Stigma and discrimination are key barriers
‘Don’t under-estimate stigma and discrimination. It is putting up barriers and holding back people from accessing services’ – (Key informant)
People with disabilities will be left behind in programming that does not take into account the barriers that stigma or a lack of disability inclusive safeguarding pose to people with disabilities’ ability to access them. Disability stigma:
- can result in experiences of discrimination preventing their participation;
- can result in low expectations and protectiveness from others that can mean people with disabilities are kept away from the opportunities offered by development programmes;
- negatively affects people with disabilities sense of self making it challenging for them to participate in things like livelihoods programmes, as they may lack the confidence and self-belief to believe in their own abilities and see the value in their participation;
- can result in bullying, violence, and other abuses that can mean that people with disabilities may fear leaving their comfort zones, especially when it is not dealt with through measures such as disability-inclusive safeguarding, restricting their participation in education, livelihoods, and other opportunities.
Local knowledge is key to informing stigma reduction and safeguarding
Stigma and safeguarding are highly contextual concepts and approaches to them need to be informed by local knowledge. A common understanding and an intentional plan for stigma reduction and safeguarding is needed from the beginning.
- The term stigma is not always easily understood, and people are more likely to articulate stigma using everyday language, such as myths and taboos, barriers, their own feelings and treatment by others. It is vital to work with people with disabilities to understand what stigma means to them.
- Safeguarding was often considered by partners in the programme’s countries more broadly than harm, abuse, or neglect relating to the conduct of project staff or activities and took on cases in the community that were unrelated to the projects. Therefore, it needs to be grounded in national legal frameworks and local protection systems and services so that the response can take on these community concern cases if need be.
Integrating stigma and safeguarding understanding from the start maximises effectiveness and impact. However, it is never too late to start!
Centre the experiences of people with disabilities
It is important to partner with and centre the experiences of people with disabilities. Partnership should be mutually beneficial. A mutually beneficial partnership between INGOs and OPDS will likely push the traditional INGO definition of partnership.
- OPDs are critical partners in understanding context and unpacking local knowledge when it comes to disability. In the DID programme, they found inclusive referral services, advocated for survivors’ rights and informed our understanding of stigma.
- INGOs must challenge the status quo of international development. When it comes to stigma and safeguarding that means challenging narratives that act as barriers to implementation such as ‘stigma is hard to measure’ and ‘safeguarding is a compliance activity’. INGOs must transform these narratives by partnering with academics to conduct more research on stigma and work with OPDs to build sustainable community safeguarding systems.
In this time of upheaval in the international development sector, it is important that we do not leave behind the 16% of the world’s population who are people with disabilities. We are learning more about the things which can be done to overcome the barriers that people with disabilities face so that they are included and can thrive. Ensuring development is disability inclusive is a collective responsibility and we all can do something to help achieve improved outcomes for people with disabilities.
