In this article:

This paper provides an overview of findings from evaluations, research, and case studies on programmes that seek to address barriers to employment for people with disabilities in low and middle income countries (LMICs). There is extremely limited evidence available on this subject, particularly from mainstream agriculture, livelihoods and employment programmes. Almost all of the evidence available is from programmes with a specific focus on disability inclusion.

This is important to note because the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) recognises the right of persons with disabilities to work on an equal basis with others, and the CRPD committee and many organisations have emphasised the importance of mainstreaming disability inclusion in employment rather than segregating the labour market (UNDP, 2017; Mont, 2014). Several systematic evidence reviews, disability inclusion researchers and international development institutions have highlighted this significant evidence gap and the need for more research, evaluations, and sharing of lessons learned.

There has also been some recognition that international development institutions have not prioritised or adequately resourced disability inclusion mainstreaming in agriculture, livelihoods and employment programming. This suggests that there may have been both a lack of disability inclusion mainstreaming practices in employment programmes funded or implemented by aid agencies, as well as limited capturing and sharing of evidence and lessons learned from programmes that have sought to include people with disabilities.

This report therefore recommends that current and new mainstream employment and livelihoods programmes explicitly focus on and practice disability inclusion mainstreaming, and that they capture and share the evidence of outcomes and lessons learned on disability inclusion more widely.

Due to the lack of evidence available from interventions specifically focused on employment in the agriculture and manufacturing sectors, the scope of this query was expanded to include evidence from employment programmes that are not specific to one sector. The query focused on interventions addressing barriers to formal employment rather than informal work, which is sometimes also referred to as ‘vulnerable work’ due to the lack of rights and protections it confers to workers.

Programme interventions therefore tend to aim for people with disabilities to secure formal employment rather than informal work, or they commonly aim for economic empowerment through entrepreneurship.

People with disabilities commonly experience a range of different barriers to employment. The most commonly cited barriers include environmental barriers such as inaccessible workplace facilities and equipment, inaccessible communications by employers and employment service providers, and inaccessible transport systems; institutional barriers such as a lack of inclusive education and training opportunities, a lack of or ineffective anti-discrimination legislation and/or quota systems, limited knowledge and confidence of employers and service providers on disability inclusive employment practices, and a lack of access to healthcare; and attitudinal barriers such as discrimination against people with disabilities; unconscious bias and assumptions about the cost of reasonable accommodations or people with disabilities’ capabilities; stigma; abuse; low self-esteem and limited social networks.

The evidence available from single intervention approaches is limited, however documented lessons learned include:

• While anti-discrimination legislation is recognised as critical in upholding the rights of people with disabilities, some case studies suggest it has had limited effect on employment in LMICs due to the limited capacity of legal systems to implement it, and the inability to apply it to the informal sector.

• Limited research on quota systems suggests that they are not fully complied with, as many employers prefer to pay the penalty for not meeting quota thresholds or over-report the number of people with disabilities they employ.

• Sheltered workshops that provide segregated training and employment for people with disabilities are highly discouraged by the CRPD Committee because they exclude people with disabilities from the mainstream labour market.

• Programmes with a single focus on providing skills training have shown some results at a small scale, but the evidence is inconclusive. They have sometimes been criticised for being inefficient and unsustainable because they do not address other critical barriers such as discrimination by and negative attitudes of employers.

There is limited evidence and analysis available from programmes that take a supply and demand approach, however lessons learned include:

• Many programmes that combine skills training for people with disabilities and engagement with employers to address their negative attitudes and lack of capacity in disability inclusion have secured employment for people with disabilities at a small scale in a selection of (usually large-scale) companies.

• Many of these programmes begin as corporate social responsibility (CSR) programmes that aim to meet quotas. There has been some concern that this sometimes amounts to a charity approach rather than a rights-based approach, where people with disabilities are hired because of their disabilities rather than because they have the right to employment on an equal basis, and the skills and capabilities required for the job.

Mainstream employment and livelihoods programmes can also put principles of disability inclusion mainstreaming in to practice such as:

• Meaningfully engaging with people with disabilities in all of their diversity and their representative organisations to analyse the barriers they experience in employment and livelihoods, address these barriers, and monitor and evaluate disability inclusion throughout the programme cycle.

• Building in accessibility and reasonable accommodations in programme activities from the outset, planning together with people with disabilities and Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs)

• Taking a twin track approach to disability inclusion: ensuring that people with disabilities are included in all mainstream activities while also implementing specific measures to address barriers to disability inclusion.

• Collecting and monitoring disability-disaggregated data using the Washington Group Questions; monitoring and evaluating disability inclusion in all programmes; using the OECD DAC disability marker to assess disability inclusion across programmes; and sharing the evidence of outcomes and lessons learned on disability inclusion more widely.

• Encouraging communication and coordination between programme implementation partners, DPOs and people with disabilities, as well as with other external actors working on disability inclusion in employment and livelihoods.

You can read the complete article here.