SUMMARY OF CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS FOR IMPLEMENTING
AND MONITORING NATIONAL DISABILITY STRATEGIES
Introduction
The focus of the Centre for Disability Law and Policy’s research project
Advancing the National Disability Strategy: Building on Comparative and
International Innovation has been to identify critical success factors which
improve the efficiency of National Disability Strategies. Based on a
comparative analysis of National Disability Strategies in 11 countries1 (and
evidence from literature on strategic management and new public
management) this research has shown that the critical success factors listed
below are proven ways in which these strategies can be made more effective.
This document highlights the actions which state actors (e.g. government
departments, public bodies, etc.) and community actors (e.g. people with
disabilities, families, activists, support organisations) can take to further each
individual success factor and advance the National Disability Strategy as a
whole. This division between community and state actors is used for the
purpose of simplification, as it is clear that many individuals and organisations
may find themselves playing both roles in various circumstances. However, it
is important for each individual, organisation or body to consider where it
should position itself to achieve the best outcomes in advancing the National
Disability Strategy. Examples of best practice in Ireland and abroad are
highlighted below to illustrate how these success factors can operate.
1. Leadership
Leadership in progressing a National Disability Strategy needs to be
demonstrated both by community actors (people with disabilities, families,
1
The countries examined are as follows: Australia (especially the State of Victoria), Bolivia,
Canada (especially the Province of British Columbia), England and Wales, Ireland, New
Zealand, the Philippines, Portugal, Slovenia, South Africa and Sweden. However, exceptional
examples from countries which do not yet have a National Disability Strategy but are in the
process of developing one are considered where relevant for examples of best practice, in
this document and throughout the broader study.
1
disability organisations, etc.) and by state actors (government departments,
public bodies, etc.) to ensure successful implementation.
State Actors

Take responsibility for progressing the aims of National Disability
Strategy, not just within one specific remit, but as a collective effort

Provide opportunities for people with disabilities to further their
leadership, communication and negotiation skills

Be open with people with disabilities about what can be achieved in the
current climate – people are more likely to accept these decisions if
they can understand the reasoning behind them

Provide a forum for rational public debate on issues of disability
inclusion

Promote state actors as ‘learning organisations’ where mistakes are
learned from to produce better outcomes – and learn from positive
leadership in the community sector
Community Actors

Starting at local level, make connections with other local communities
and learn from what they have achieved – argue for this to happen in
your local community

Form networks at local, regional and national level on broad issues of
importance to people with disabilities

Decide who should represent you on local and national disability
consultative groups, bring issues to them and ask for feedback on
progress

Present a coherent voice on key issues of national importance
Examples of Best Practice
2
State level: Office on the Status of Persons with Disabilities (OSDP), South
Africa (now incorporated into the Ministry of Women, Children and Persons
with Disabilities)
The OSDP was introduced under the ministry of the deputy president as part
of the Integrated National Disability Strategy and subsequently relocated to
the president’s office. This move occurred in an attempt to provide the Office
with greater leadership and responsibility – particularly in co-ordinating the
efforts of all government departments to achieve the aims of the Integrated
National Disability Strategy – published in 1997. The Office published a
seminal study examining progress made in implementing the National
Strategy after 10 years – which draws information from several different data
sources and contains recommendations for aspects of the strategy which
should be prioritised in the forthcoming implementation plan for the
Convention.2 Finally, the Office has amalgamated into a newly-created
Ministry of Women, Children and Persons with Disabilities, where it hopes to
have a more significant impact in cross-departmental coordination and
develop more opportunities for strategic implementation, in line with South
Africa’s ratification of the Convention.
Community level: Participation and the Practice of Rights Project
This project supported a group of service users and parents (the Public
Initiative for the Prevention of Suicide/Greater Shankill Rights Group) to
campaign for the Introduction of a “Card Before You Leave” policy for mental
health service users presenting to emergency services in Northern Ireland.
The campaign was based on the international human right to the highest
attainable standard of mental health. Effective leadership skills were
demonstrated by securing the support of high profile individuals, including
Paul Hunt, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Health, and publishing
a list of indicators devised by the groups’ participants to measure the
Office on the Status of People with Disabilities, Disability Inputs – Ten Year Research:
Impact of Government Policies Towards People with Disabilities – Final Report (Cape Town:
OSDP, 2003).
2
3
progressive realisation of the right to the highest attainable standard of mental
health in the local community.3
2. Participation of People with Disabilities in Implementing and
Monitoring the National Disability Strategy
Meaningful engagement and participation of people with disabilities
throughout the development and delivery of policies affecting them can lead to
more effective implementation. Literature on community development also
highlights the practical benefits of participatory evaluation approaches which
involve people with disabilities in policy development, including financial costs
saved or avoided in the long term by establishing appropriate solutions at an
early stage, improved public image, and greater public acceptance of projects
and programmes and improved communications saving staff time.4 Therefore,
it makes economic sense for countries to establish participatory approaches
to policy development and implementation, in addition to the principled
reasons, emanating from the CRPD, for developing such an approach.
State Actors

Be receptive and willing to listen to what people with disabilities have to
say

Ensure skills-transfer so that people with disabilities are equipped to
meaningfully participate in discussions on legislation and policy
(communication, negotiation and persuasion)

Establish
meaningful
opportunities
for
people
with
disabilities
(especially those who can be harder to reach such as the deaf
community and people with intellectual disabilities) to participate
directly in policy development and implementation (e.g. through
consultative groups in government departments and state bodies)
McMillan, F. V., Browne, N., Green, S., Donnelly, D., “A Card Before You Leave:
Participation and Mental Health in Northern Ireland” (2009) 11(1) Health and Human Rights:
An International Journal 61.
4 See for example, InterAct, Evaluating participatory, deliberative and co-operative ways of
working (Brighton, InterAct Evaluation, 2001).
3
4
Community Actors

Develop opportunities (independent from government) where people
with disabilities and family members can have a say about public policy
e.g. Disabled Persons’ Parliament

Support people with disabilities to participate in decision-making within
community organisations, local bodies, service providers, etc.
Examples of Best Practice
State level: Equality 2025 – Direct Representation in an Advisory Body
Equality 2025 is a group of individuals with disabilities from diverse
backgrounds who advise government on matters relevant to people with
disabilities through the mechanisms in place in the Office of Disability Issues
(ODI) located within the Ministry of Work and Pensions). The individuals in
question are selected in an open and transparent process by the ODI – as the
positions are advertised to the public and anyone with a disability is eligible to
apply. Each member is appointed for a period of three years and their terms
of reference have been set out in a memorandum of understanding between
ODI, Equality 2025 and the Minister for Disabled People.5 In selecting the
group (which consists of not more than 25 individuals) the ODI has regard to
the different experiences of various disability communities and also to other
factors which can compound disadvantage (e.g. gender and race). This group
has been actively involved in the Roadmap to 2025 initiative, which aims to
secure equal life chances for disabled people by the year 2025.
Community level: New Zealand National Assembly of People with
Disabilities (DPA)
5
Equality 2025, Memordandum of Understanding between Equality 2025 and the Office for
Disability (London: Office for Disability Issues, 2009).
5
The DPA grew out of regional coordinating councils for the disabled
throughout New Zealand, which formed a national body (the New Zealand
Council for the Disabled) in 1978. Following the seminal Rehabilitation
International Conference in Winnipeg in 19806, the Council developed into the
DPA which produced a new Constitution in 1983 requiring a majority of the
Executive of DPA to be persons with disabilities. Although representatives of
service providers can be members of the organisation and attend meetings,
they are not allowed to vote on measures, thus addressing the potential for
power imbalance between individuals with disabilities and service provider
organisations within the assembly. The DPA has taken a particularly active
role in relation to the New Zealand Disability Strategy and includes a message
to people with disabilities in annual progress reports on the Strategy compiled
by the Office of Disability Issues.7 This message acts as a form of shadow
reporting mechanism – setting out the DPA’s perspectives on how much
progress has really been achieved and highlighting key priority areas for
action in the coming year.
3. Integrating the National Disability Strategy with Domestic
Implementation of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (CRPD)
Ireland was one of the first countries to sign the CRPD, which it did as soon it
opened for signature on 30 March 2007.8 Progress towards ratification is still
ongoing at the time of writing and is occurring in tandem with the
implementation and monitoring processes for the National Disability Strategy.
The Irish government has identified the National Disability Strategy as the
main mechanism for implementing the Convention at grassroots level, stating
that “the NDS … continues to be the focus of Government policy and its
implementation, which is ongoing in spite of current economic circumstances,
6
14th World Congress of Rehabilitation International, Winnipeg, Canada, 22-27 June 1980.
See for example, Minister for Disability Issues, Work in Progress 2009: The annual report
from the Minister for Disability Issues to the House of Representatives on implementing the
New Zealand Disability Strategy (Wellington: ODI, 2009), p. 3.
8 See UN Enable, The Convention and Optional Protocol Signatures and Ratifications
available at <http://www.un.org/disabilities/countries.asp?id=166> (last accessed 19 July
2010).
7
6
will also provide the basis for implementation of the UNCRPD.” 9 The
Department of Justice, Equality and Law reform, in its report to the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on implementation of the
CRPD, has also stated that: “[t]he Irish National Disability Strategy already
meets a considerable proportion of the UNCRPD’s requirements.”10
Following ratification, Ireland will have to assign a national focal point for
implementing the Convention (within government)11 and develop a monitoring
framework to oversee implementation at national level (including one or more
independent mechanisms).12 Creative ways of aligning and adapting existing
focal points and monitoring processes (such as the Office of the Minister for
Disability and Mental Health, the National Disability Authority, the National
Disability Stakeholders Monitoring Group) to reflect the principles and
obligations outlined in the Convention should be considered – before
ratification occurs, if possible.
Evidence from other human rights frameworks, especially in the realm of
socio-economic rights, demonstrates that international human rights norms
can be made meaningful at domestic level and lead to more effective
implementation of domestic law and policy. 13 An integrated approach to
implementing the CRPD and the National Disability Strategy also makes
sense from a pragmatic perspective, as it reduces duplication and ensures
that those responsible for compiling state reports under the CRPD are
informed and involved in domestic processes for change. The requirements of
the Convention can also serve as an opportunity to reconsider the rationale
9
Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Draft Third
Disability High Level Group Report on the Implementation of the UN Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Brussels: European Commission, 2010), p. 49.
10 Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, The position in Ireland: Implementation
and Monitoring (Dublin: Stationery Office, 2009), p. 1 as part of the OHCHR study on National
Frameworks for the Promotion and Protection of the Human Rights of Persons with
Disabilities.
11 Article 33(1), CRPD.
12 Article 33(2), CRPD.
13 One important example of this is the work of the PPR Project in Belfast, highlighted above.
See Participation and the Practice of Rights Project, Rights in Action: Changing Mental Health
Services 28th November 2007 Findings of the International Panel (Belfast; Dublin: PPR
Project, 2007).
7
for existing structures, and whether these are achieving their intended
purpose.
State Actors

Choose focal points for the CRPD which can link implementation of the
Convention with progress in delivering the National Disability Strategy

Consider reframing National Disability Strategy in light of the principles
of the CRPD and publishing an implementation plan for the CRPD
based on the National Disability Strategy

Ensure that monitoring frameworks for the CRPD are linked with
existing monitoring mechanisms for the National Disability Strategy
Community Actors

Contribute to implementation and monitoring mechanisms at national
level for both the National Disability Strategy and the CRPD

Integrate the principles of the CRPD into domestic debates about
reform and the National Disability Strategy

Work together to develop shadow reports for Ireland to the Committee
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Examples of Best Practice
State level: Australia’s proposed National Disability Strategy
Australia is currently developing a National Disability Strategy to align with its
ratification of the CRPD and a draft strategy was published in July 2010.14
The original discussion paper on the National Disability Strategy which was
released in 2008 stated that: “The National Disability Strategy will provide a
national framework for new and existing work being progressed by the
Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments. The Strategy will build on
14
Council of Australian Governments, National Disability Strategy 2010-2020: an initiative of
the Council of Australian Governments (Barton; Australian Capital Territory: COAG, 2010).
8
the whole-of-government initiatives currently underway in jurisdictions. States
and Territories have agreed to work with the Commonwealth to help develop
a clear reporting framework that will align with the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the National Disability
Agreement.”15
Since the final National Disability Strategy has not yet been published it is
difficult to assess its level of coordination with domestic measures to
implement and monitor the CRPD; however, there are positive indicators
which demonstrate that the government’s approach to implementation may be
well thought out. For example, according to the proposed monitoring
framework in the draft National Disability Strategy, qualitative data on life
outcomes for people with disabilities in a range of areas will be collected to
monitor the strategy’s progress.16 This will feed into two-yearly government
progress reports on the strategy and in turn inform Australia’s state reports to
the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Community level: Finland – Shadow Reporting
Civil society is generally quite involved in reports prepared by the Finnish
government for international human rights treaty monitoring bodies, and
provides views to government on the information to be included in such
reports. Interested civil society representatives are invited to attend a
discussion on each draft report before its finalisation by the state. Civil society
is also active in conducting shadow reporting in relation to a number of human
rights treaties to which Finland is a state party. In relation to disability issues,
the Finnish Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
(Kehitysvammaliitto) has prepared a strategy for the implementation of the
CRPD in Finland and presented this to government. This strategy and the
15
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, National
Disability Strategy Discussion Paper (Canberra, FAHCSIA, 2008), p. 9.
16 The focus areas for data collection are as follows: inclusive and accessible communities,
rights, protection, justice and legislation, economic security, personal and community support,
learning and skills, health and wellbeing. See Council of Australian Governments, National
Disability Strategy 2010-2020: an initiative of the Council of Australian Governments (Barton;
Australian Capital Territory: COAG, 2010).
9
contributions of people with disabilities, their families, and representative
organisations, have been instrumental in the development of the Government
Disability Policy Programme currently being prepared – which is in turn based
on the principles of the CRPD.17
4. Positive Legal Obligations and Funding Programmes to underpin the
National Disability Strategy
There is substantial evidence that obliging actors to take proactive measures
to combat discrimination against particular groups (e.g. persons with
disabilities, ethnic minorities etc.) is proven to be effective in reducing
discrimination, especially in the employment sphere.18 The types of legal
obligations in question are duties to be proactive in promoting equality
(positive action measures, disability equality duties, obligations to include
people with disabilities in planning or developing new policies, etc.) rather
than rights to end-product services for people with disabilities. This evidence
provides support for the notion that legal obligations and proactive duties to
combat inequality are effective (whether at micro-level of employment or at
macro-level in developing broader public policy). In addition, failure to cost the
implementation of National Disability Strategies has been identified as a major
barrier to success in a number of jurisdictions.19 Therefore, examples of
funding programmes in countries which specify the resources to be allocated
to achieve the aims of a National Disability Strategy will be considered, due to
their potential to ensure follow-through on key legislative and policy
objectives.
17
Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, Draft Third
Disability High Level Group Report on the Implementation of the UN Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Brussels: European Commission, 2010), p. 37.
18 See Craig, R. L., Systemic Discrimination in Employment and the Promotion of Ethnic
Equality (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007).
19 For example, in the 2008 implementation review of New Zealand’s Disability Strategy, the
lack of a national implementation plan and linked funding was identified as a serious barrier in
making the strategy effective in the lives of people with disabilities. See Litmus, New Zealand
Disability Strategy Implementation Review 2001-2007 (Wellington: Commissioned by the
Office for Disability Issues, 2008), p. 4.
10
These particular success factors (funding and legal obligations) primarily
require action on the part of the State for effective implementation. Therefore,
the recommendations and examples of best practice listed here focus on the
role of state actors. However, community actors can play an important part by
advocating for these measures to be introduced in their respective countries if
they do not already exist, and demonstrating that such mechanisms represent
best international practice.
Legal Obligations
This success factor focuses on innovative legal obligations on public bodies to
consider how they can advance the inclusion of people with disabilities,
assuming that basic human rights of people with disabilities are already
protected at domestic level (e.g. via anti-discrimination legislation and legal
provision for reasonable accommodation).
State Actors

Enact legal provisions which require public bodies to plan how their
work will impact on people with disabilities, subject to external review
and enforcement mechanisms

Ensure that these plans are formulated with direct input from people
with disabilities

Develop appropriate redress mechanisms for those who have difficulty
accessing justice (e.g. people in institutions) by assigning powers of
inquiry to an independent body (e.g. National Human Rights Institution
or Ombudsman)
Example of Best Practice: UK Disability Equality Duty
11
The Disability Equality Duty20 places an enforceable obligation on all public
authorities in the UK to draft a disability action plan, setting out the efforts to
be made to provide more accessible services and to include people with
disabilities in all aspects of the organisation’s work.21 This duty has also
resulted in disability-proofing of legislation and policy prior to publication. It is
important to note that this duty applies to all government departments, public
authorities and state bodies equally – as this demonstrates a citizenship
approach to disability, rather than assuming that the only policies which have
a major impact on the lives of people with disabilities come from the health
domain.22
Other important examples of best practice include the Australian Disability
Action Plans introduced under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992
(mandatory for public bodies and optional for private entities, all plans
registered with the Australian Human Rights Commission), legal duties on key
government departments to prepare sectoral plans in Ireland and the use of
powers of inquiry by National Human Rights Institutions (or the Ombudsman)
to investigate situations where the human rights of people with disabilities are
of concern.
Funding Programmes
States
should
develop
a
funding
programme
to
accompany
any
implementation plan for the National Disability Strategy, with funding linked to
outcomes and timelines for completion of goals. In so doing, it is important to
20
Requirement of the Disability Discrimination (Public Authorities) (Statutory Duties)
Regulations 2005 (SI 2005/2966).
21 However, some concerns have recently emerged about reduced protection from the
disability equality duty based on the introduction of a generic public sector equality duty in
section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. See Disability Now, “‘Equality bill disappointing’ says Sir
Bert” 29 April 2010 available at <http://www.disabilitynow.org.uk/latest-news2/news-focus/oldnews-focus/equality-bill-disappointing-says-sir-bert?searchterm=disability+bill+dis> (last
accessed 1 November 2010).
22 The general duty applies to all public authorities (apart from a small handful which have
specific exemptions). It includes government departments, executive agencies and ministers,
local authorities, governing bodies of colleges and universities, governing bodies of schools,
NHS trusts and boards, police and fire authorities, the Crown Prosecution Service and the
Crown Office, inspection and audit bodies and certain publicly funded museums. It also
includes any organisation which exercises some functions of a public nature.
12
determine which aspects of the Strategy/Implementation Plan should be
prioritised, in consultation with people with disabilities. For example, some
aspects of the strategy may need to be in place before other goals can be
achieved – and these should be prioritised from a funding perspective.
State Actors

Consider carefully exactly what should be funded, and whether each
allocation of funding has the potential to improve life outcomes for
people with disabilities or is merely maintaining the status quo in terms
of service provision

Develop innovative and creative ways of implementing the aims of the
National Disability Strategy in a cost-effective manner in partnership
with people with disabilities, their families and those who support them

Learn from the experience of community actors (including those in the
business community who may have innovative proposals which can
promote financial independence for people with disabilities)

Work in partnership with a wide range of stakeholders (public and
private) to fund the provisions of the National Disability Strategy
Example of Best Practice
With respect to funding programmes, there are more examples of countries
where the lack of an implementation plan and funding programme is
recognised as a barrier to successfully delivering a National Disability
Strategy than examples of best practice in developing a strategy. Where
funding programmes do exist they tend to focus on funding for a discrete
element of the strategy, e.g. disability services (such as the Multi-Annual
Investment Programme for Disability Services 2006-2009 in Ireland).
However, in Australia, the proposed National Disability Strategy in Australia
will contain a funding strategy23 – and this will be based on the findings of the
Disability Investment Group. This group made up of experts from the world of
23
See Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs,
National Disability Strategy Discussion Paper (Canberra, FAHCSIA, 2008), p. 5.
13
finance as well as those with experience of disability and has already
submitted its first report which sets out proposals for a national disability
insurance scheme, among other recommendations to achieve greater value
for money where government and private industry combine to promote the
equality and participation of people with disabilities. Since Australia’s final
National Disability Strategy has not yet been published, the format of this
funding programme remains to be seen, but early indications are that this
could give concrete backing to the high level principles which will be
contained in the draft strategy.
5. Transparency and Accountability in Reporting on Progress in
Delivering the National Disability Strategy
In assessing implementation of the National Disability Strategy, it is vital for
the State to be frank about progress made, and more importantly, barriers
encountered – as identifying these barriers is the first step in dismantling them
to ensure more successful implementation. People with disabilities have a
right to the relevant information on how the strategy is progressing – and this
is also encompassed in states’ obligations under the CRPD to raise
awareness about domestic law and policy affecting people with disabilities 24
and provide accessible information on measures adopted.25 Accurate
information is also important in managing the expectations of those involved
in the National Disability Strategy (whether public or private, individuals,
communities or organisation). Every progress report published on the National
Disability Strategy can also help to shape the next phase of implementation.
It should be noted that transparency and accountability is not only required of
state bodies in delivering the objectives of a National Disability Strategy – but
of all participants in the process. In order to achieve transparent policydevelopment, implementation and monitoring processes, people with
disabilities and their representative organisations must be fully included at all
stages of the process, as discussed above. However, where representatives
24
25
Article 8, CRPD.
Article 9(2)(d)-(h), CRPD.
14
are appointed, this must be done in a transparent manner – and these
representatives must have a clear understanding of their roles. In addition,
where private sector bodies are involved in delivering the aims of the strategy,
their participation in the reporting and monitoring process should also be
conducted in a transparent and accountable manner.
State Actors

Devise progress report template for all public bodies based on goals in
National Disability Strategy/Implementation Plan

Publish individual progress reports for particular remits (e.g. transport,
education, etc.) at regular intervals and where possible include
perspectives from community actors, especially people with disabilities,
on progress made

Compile Annual Reports on implementation of the Strategy as a whole
and use these as a basis for regular review of implementation,
timeframes, funding and goals
Community Actors

Seek information on progress from disability representatives on
monitoring bodies for the National Disability Strategy at national,
regional and local levels

Encourage public bodies (including government departments) to
publish information on their websites on progress they have made
within their remit to deliver the National Disability Strategy

Work together to assess and evaluate information available, offer
publication in accessible formats (easy-to-read, Braille, audio files, etc)
and disseminate widely using regional and local networks
Examples of Best Practice
15
State and Community levels: Sweden’s E-Tool for Local Authority
Accessibility
The E-Verktyget (or E-tool) developed by Handisam (the Swedish Agency for
Disability Policy Coordination) is an example of transparent reporting on
accessibility in local communities across Sweden.26 This tool gathers data
online from all 21 counties and 290 municipalities to determine levels of
accessibility in the work of local government. Anyone can read the results
online and this tool also compares data across municipalities and counties,
allowing for shared learning and examples of best practice and barriers to
emerge. It is usually the responsible officials in municipalities or county
councils who publish information on the e-tool; however, there seem to be
some opportunities for disability organisations to register as information
providers in order to ensure that statements about accessibility reflect the
reality on the ground for disabled people in that particular locality. 27
Handisam also publishes what it terms ‘open comparisons’ between
government agencies at national level on an annual basis, scoring each
agency out of a maximum of 13 points for basic accessibility (developing an
action plan, surveying premises, procedures in place) 15 points for
information and communication (availability of information in different formats,
website accessibility, etc.) and 17 points for commercial accessibility (rating
accessibility of the agency’s headquarters).28 Open comparison surveys of all
state agencies at national level were conducted by Handisam in 2007 and
2010 – allowing for comparisons of progress made across the various public
bodies.
26
See Handisam & Sveriges Kommuner Och Landsting, E-Verktyget (2010) available at
<http://www.e-verktyget.se/EService/EServicePage____1000.aspx> (last accessed 10
October 2010).
27 See Handisam & Sveriges Kommuner Och Landsting, Sex sidor om e-verktyget för
tillgänglighetsarbete (2010) available at <http://www.everktyget.se/EService/EServicePage____1106.aspx> (last accessed 25 October 2010).
28 See Handisam, Öppna jämförelser 2010 (2010) available at
<http://www.handisam.se/Tpl/OpenComparisonSurvey2010____13728.aspx> (last accessed
22 October 2010).
16
State and Community levels: New Zealand Annual Progress Reporting on
National Disability Strategy
One of the best examples of annual reporting on a National Disability Strategy
is the New Zealand Annual Progress Report. These reports are based on
annual work plans developed by government departments, state bodies
(including the police, Education Review office and Statistics New Zealand)
and crown entities.29 Each department or body publishes its own progress
report in conjunction with its proposed work plan for the following year, and
the Minister for Disability Issues is obliged to report to parliament under the
Public Health and Disability Act 2000 to give an overview of progress
achieved across all areas of government. As noted above, these reports also
contain messages from the New Zealand Disabled Persons’ Assembly (DPA)
– which help to give an accurate picture of implementation at grass roots
level. Previous reports demonstrated that the rate of implementation was not
as swift as people with disabilities expected, and as a result, the 2009
Progress
Report
identified
a
number
of
new
objectives
to
focus
implementation on priority areas (resourceful citizens, accessible New
Zealand
and
modern
disability
supports).30
These
reports
improve
transparency and accountability by acknowledging areas where improvement
is crucial and allowing the DPA to contribute towards shaping future priorities
for implementation.
6. Mainstreaming Disability Equality – Citizenship and the Lifecourse
Approach
One of the advantages of mainstreaming disability equality in generic policy
development is that this places the focus squarely on the particular domain
(e.g. employment, transport) and helps to identify systemic barriers which
affect people with disabilities. This provides policy makers with an opportunity
29
These are the Housing New Zealand Corporation, Sport and Recreation New Zealand and
Accident Compensation Corporation.
30 Minister for Disability Issues, Work in Progress 2009: The annual report from the Minister
for Disability Issues to the House of Representatives on implementing the New Zealand
Disability Strategy (Wellington: ODI, 2009).
17
to reassess the purpose of the system in question and whether it is achieving
its aim of serving all members of the public. Zola has highlighted the costeffectiveness of adopting a mainstreaming approach, or as he puts it,
“universalizing disability policy” as analogous to the idea of universal design
(in technology, transport, employment).31 There is also economic evidence
which suggests that mainstreaming for gender equality and racial equality
improves efficiency in other areas of policy development.32 These findings are
analogous to the potential outcomes for people with disabilities where
disability proofing and other mainstreaming techniques are introduced.
State Actors

Proof legislation and policy for potential impact on people with
disabilities and ensure compatibility with the aims of the National
Disability Strategy

Connect provisions of the National Disability Strategy with related
initiatives in other fields, including other national strategies e.g. on
social inclusion, children and families, older people, etc

Create opportunities for active citizenship by meaningfully involving
people with disabilities as citizen representatives in the development of
all national strategies (e.g. transport, education, employment, etc)

Increase disability awareness across public services to ensure that
these services are as accessible as possible and as responsive to the
concerns of people with disabilities as to those of all other citizens
Community Actors

Focus campaigns on reform of public systems, rather than on disabilityspecific requirements, e.g. reform of transport/education/employment
Zola, I. K., “Toward the Necessary Universalizing of a Disability Policy” (1989) 67(2)(2) The
Milbank Quarterly 401.
32 See Craig, R. L., Systemic Discrimination in Employment and the Promotion of Ethnic
Equality (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007).
31
18
systems to make these services more responsive to the needs of all
citizens, including people with disabilities

Form alliances with other interest groups from outside the disability
sphere on issues of common interest to campaign for reform

Seek representation on management and training bodies of public
services to include disability equality perspective in how these
organisations work
Examples of Best Practice
State level: Disability Proofing
The Disability Equality Duty in England and Wales and the Disability Action
Plans in Victoria (Australia) are good examples of disability proofing as they
apply equally to all public sector bodies, regardless of remit, and require all
policy-makers to consider disability and accessibility issues in the planning
process. Ireland also committed to amend its Cabinet Handbook to introduce
disability proofing as part of its National Disability Strategy. 33 However, this
has not yet been achieved, as highlighted by the Disability Federation of
Ireland in its Pre-Budget Submission 2010 – which argued that funding
allocations and arrangements should also incorporate disability-proofing.34
Community level: South Africa – Disability organisations forming alliances
with mainstream civil society groups to campaign for broader reform
In the development of the new Children’s Bill in South Africa, an alliance was
formed between government decision-makers and civil society with the
establishment of a Children’s Bill Working Group based on a recommendation
by two key civil society organisations: the Children’s Institute and Resources
Aimed at the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect. This working group
Department of An Taoiseach, Sectoral Plans under the Disability Act 2005 – An Overview
(Dublin: 2006), p. 4.
34 See Disability Federation of Ireland, 2010 Pre-Budget Submission (2010) available at
<http://www.disability-federation.ie/index.php?uniqueID=226> (last accessed 2 November
2010).
33
19
recognised the need for specialist knowledge in crafting proposals for the
Children’s Bill, and created sub-groups to fill this gap, including a subgroup on
issues affecting children with disabilities, known as the Disability Task Team
(DTT). With the backing of mainstream civil society groups such as the
Children’s Institute, the DTT succeeded in securing new clauses in the
Children’s Act which went far beyond what the disability sector had originally
envisaged. One of the key reforms introduced included a provision for children
with disabilities to have access to the children’s court inquiry process, which
Parliament voted to include in the final Act over the objections of the Deputy
Minister for Justice. The reforms secured by the DTT were made possible by
the support of other mainstream children’s organisations and the disability
caucus in the South African parliament, and ingredients for success in its
advocacy methodology have now been compiled by the Children’s Institute to
inform the work of other advocates seeking law reform.35
7. Independent Monitoring and Review of National Disability Strategies
Many National Disability Strategies rely primarily on self-reporting by
government departments and public bodies to measure progress in
implementation – therefore, it is important to ensure that this reporting
structure is independently monitored to present an accurate picture of
progress. As described above, the CRPD requires states to establish a
national
monitoring
framework,
including
one
or
more
independent
mechanisms to promote, protect and monitor implementation of the
Convention, which should include an analysis of the role of any existing
National Disability Strategy in implementing the Convention at domestic
level.36 The Convention also states that civil society, especially people with
disabilities and their representative organisations must be involved in the
monitoring process.37
35
See Jamieson, L. and Proudlock, P., From Sidelines to Centre Stage: The inclusion of
children with disabilities in the Children's Act (Cape Town: Children’s Institute Case Study
Number 4, University of Cape Town, 2009).
36 Article 33(2), CRPD.
37 Article 33(3), CRPD.
20
These requirements fit well with evidence from literature on community
development which emphasises the effectiveness of “participatory evaluation”
of social policy, including strategies to promote disability equality. 38 Many
community-based NGOs are using participatory evaluation techniques to
assess their own success in working with people with disabilities and
increasingly this approach is being adopted to evaluate the impact of social
policy in rural areas, with participants/recipients who are traditionally difficult
to reach (including children, the elderly, and people with disabilities) and
whose voices have not previously been included in similar evaluation
processes.39 This approach can be replicated by individual state actors in
evaluating the impact of their policies on people with disabilities, and can
contribute to a broader national framework for monitoring the implementation
of both the National Disability Strategy and the CRPD at domestic level.
State Actors

Establish a process for independent monitoring/external review of the
National Disability Strategy as whole, and its individual legislative and
policy components

Ensure that this process is accessible and inclusive, with a broad reach
to incorporate the views of people with disabilities, their families and
supporters

Where necessary, adapt existing processes for review of the National
Disability Strategy in light of the requirements of the CRPD to establish
a domestic monitoring framework for implementation which includes
one or more independent mechanisms
Community Actors
38
Hasenfeld, Y., Hill, K. and Weaver, D., A Participatory Model for Evaluating Social
Programs (San Francisco: James Irvine Foundation, 2002)
39 Kuipers, P. Kendall, E. and Hancock, T., “Evaluation of a rural community-based disability
service in Queensland, Australia” (2003) 3 Rural and Remote Health 1.
21

Seek involvement in independent monitoring processes for the National
Disability Strategy (as a whole and any monitoring sub-groups for
various components) and the CRPD

Work together to provide external evaluation and critique of
implementation of the National Disability Strategy and the CRPD which
is constructive and contains realistic proposals for reform
Examples of Best Practice
Review of a component of a National Disability Strategy
State and Community levels: Review of the Accessibility for Ontarians with
Disabilities Act
Charles Beer (a former Minister of Community and Social Services who has
now retired from politics)40 was appointed to conduct a comprehensive review
of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA) in June 2009
and the report was published in May 2010. This review was the first of a
number of five-year reviews which are planned in order to assess levels of
progress being made towards the goal of full accessibility for Ontarians with
disabilities by 2025.41 Mr. Beer’s experience as Minister has ensured that he
is familiar with the issues facing the disability community, and his selection as
independent reviewer was commended by the AODA Alliance and many other
disability organisations.
In carrying out the review, Mr. Beer aimed to ensure an open and participatory
process, and to this end almost 90 meetings with key informants (from
disability organisations to businesses and government officials) were held, in
addition to 4 roundtable sessions with private sector, accessibility groups,
transportation sector and the broader public sector, respectively. An online
questionnaire was available to any member of a standards development
Counsel Public Affairs, People – Charles Beer (2010) available at
<http://www.counselpa.com/people/people.php?id=0> (last accessed 20 September 2010).
41 Beer, C., Charting A Path Forward: Report of the Independent Review of the Accessibility
for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2010), p. 3.
40
22
committee (which include people with disabilities) to fill out, including
questions on successes, barriers, and potential improvements. Finally, public
meetings were held in a number of locations around the province, to give
people with disabilities who experience barriers to accessing public services
the opportunity to contribute to the review. These public meetings made full
use of the available technology to ensure that those who could not travel to
attend the meeting would have their voices here. In so doing, Mr. Beer
commented on the need for future disability policy in Ontario to provide for
better access to interpreters, real time captioners and personal assistants to
ensure that similar inclusive and participatory processes could be conducted
across the entire province.42 An open call for submissions was also made and
about 60 formal written submissions and hundreds of emails were sent to Mr.
Beer in preparing his report on the review.
In his final report, Mr. Beer commented: “My review is taking place at a crucial
time — a time when a number of stakeholders have begun to express
disenchantment with the implementation of the act, the timelines for change
and the ability to realize the 2025 vision.”43 He made a number of
recommendations
on
harmonising
accessibility
standards,
renewing
leadership for implementation of the Act, establishing an independent
advisory body for accessibility standards, strengthening the role of Municipal
Accessibility Advisory Committees, and repealing the Ontarians with
Disabilities Act 2001 (once the appropriate accessibility standards had been
implemented). With the exception of a recommendation to extend the
timeframe for the next review of the Act, all of these recommendations were
firmly endorsed by the AODA Alliance, which is continuing to lobby
government to commit to fully implement the recommendations of the
review.44
42
Beer, C., Charting A Path Forward: Report of the Independent Review of the Accessibility
for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2010), p. 16.
43 Beer, C., Charting A Path Forward: Report of the Independent Review of the Accessibility
for Ontarians with Disabilities Act, 2005 (Toronto: Queen’s Printer for Ontario, 2010), p. 42.
44 See Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act Alliance, Charles Beer Independent
AODA Review Report Calls for Stronger Government Leadership on Accessibility and
Revamped, Revitalized Process for Developing Accessibility Standards (2010) available at
<http://www.aodaalliance.org/strong-effective-aoda/05312010.asp> (last accessed 2
November 2010).
23
External Review of National Disability Strategy as a Whole
State
and
Community
levels:
New
Zealand:
Disability
Strategy
Implementation Review 2001-2007
When the New Zealand Disability Strategy was launched in 2001, it included a
commitment to independent review after 5 and 10-year periods.45 The first
review was completed in 2007 by an external evaluation and research
company Litmus Ltd., commissioned by the Office for Disability Issues. An
extensive evaluation of the strategy was undertaken through a whole of
society approach, as Litmus note in the Executive Summary of the review:
The review involved an analysis of documents related to the Disability
Strategy and in-depth interviews with disabled people, disabled
persons’ membership organisations, parents of disabled children,
disability support providers, central government agencies, local
authorities, District Health Boards, tertiary education institutions and
lead implementation agencies.46
A number of evaluation objectives and associated questions were also
developed to determine how implementation had evolved to date (identifying
barriers and enabling factors), reviewing perceived intermediate outcomes on
the lives of disabled people (including unintended outcomes), preparing for
future implementation of the strategy to 2011 and developing a framework to
facilitate a more effective independent review in 2011.
At the time of the review, there were disparities between the progress claims
made by government departments and public bodies and the expectations
and experiences of people with disabilities on the ground. Therefore, with this
in mind, the external evaluators developed an outcomes framework to
measure progress in implementing the New Zealand Disability Strategy.
Minister for Disability Issues, The New Zealand Disability Strategy – Making a World of
Difference (Wellington: Ministry of Health, 2001), p. iv.
46 Litmus, New Zealand Disability Strategy Implementation Review 2001-2007 (Wellington:
Commissioned by the Office for Disability Issues, 2008), p. 3.
45
24


According to the logic of the framework, outcomes emerge at two
levels:
Implementation outcomes - Changes in the way stakeholders view,
think and act in relation to disability responsiveness, which support
improvements to how disabled people are valued, engaged with and
supported to participate fully in society.
Life outcomes of disabled people - The implementation outcomes
ultimately lead to full participation of disabled people in all areas of
life. This will be reflected in official statistics, and in the reported
experience of disabled people.47
This conceptualisation is particularly important as provides the basis for
indicators to be developed in accordance with both outcome measures. The
report went on to emphasise disabled people’s frustrations: “disabled people’s
perception is that, despite wide implementation activity, little has changed for
them in the life outcome areas of health and wellbeing, education, transport,
housing and disability supports.”48 To manage these conflicting expectations
the report recommended that the government should prioritise implementation
activities that are likely to have the greatest positive effect on the lives of
disabled people. It also emphasised the importance of measuring how the
implementation of the Disability Strategy had contributed to disabled people’s
quality of life, optimum level of participation within their communities and
value in society.
Perhaps the greatest achievement of this independent review is that it clearly
identified barriers to implementation and set in motion a process to develop
solutions, beginning with the recommendations proposed in the review report.
The main barriers to implementation were conceptualised as follows:
“Participants
noted
three
overarching
challenges
to
implementation;
specifically the absence of a national implementation plan and linked funding;
the size and status of the Office for Disability Issues; and society’s attitudes to
disabled people. Central government agencies’ internal processes were seen
as another barrier to adopting and embedding a disability perspective, and to
47
Litmus, New Zealand Disability Strategy Implementation Review 2001-2007 (Wellington:
Commissioned by the Office for Disability Issues, 2008), p. 3.
48 Litmus, New Zealand Disability Strategy Implementation Review 2001-2007 (Wellington:
Commissioned by the Office for Disability Issues, 2008), p. 57.
25
implementation.”49 The report proposed a number of indicators for the tenyear review for each of the stakeholders of the New Zealand Disability
Strategy, and identified where data sources existed to support these
indicators or where new data would need to be gathered.
8. Indicators and Data – Measuring Implementation and Monitoring
The term ‘indicators’ refers to a statistical measurement of the impact of
various initiatives introduced by a National Disability Strategy, which can be
used in order to determine effectiveness of these initiatives and the strategy
as a whole. For example, a relevant indicator in relation to employment
outcomes from a National Disability Strategy could be the number of people
with disabilities employed in the open labour market. The importance of
measurable indicators in assessing the impact of a National Disability
Strategy on the lives of people with disabilities is evident from comparative
analysis, such as that carried out by the Academic Network of European
Disability experts.50 The CRPD itself recognises the need for data and
statistics to be gathered at domestic level “to help assess the implementation
of States Parties’ obligations under the present Convention and to identify and
address the barriers faced by persons with disabilities in exercising their
rights.”51 This requirement can also be reflected in domestic policy by
embedding indicators of disability equality in National Disability Strategies.
State Actors

Develop a set of indicators in consultation with people with disabilities
to measure progress in implementing the National Disability Strategy,
based on goals outlined in the Implementation Plan
49
Litmus, New Zealand Disability Strategy Implementation Review 2001-2007 (Wellington:
Commissioned by the Office for Disability Issues, 2008), p. 4.
50 See for example, Lawson, A. and Priestley, M., Indicators of Disability Equality in Europe
(IDEE): A preliminary list of indicator proposals for discussion (Brussels: Academic Network
of European Disability Experts; Human European Consultancy and Centre for Disability
Studies, University of Leeds, 2009)
51 Article 31(2), CRPD.
26

Review process of data collection and outcomes from indicator data at
regular intervals to ensure the aims of the National Disability Strategy
are being met

Ensure that indicators have local, national and international relevance,
by keeping track of developments at EU level by the Academic
Network of European Disability Experts and at UN level in the work of
the Committee on the Rights of Persons with disabilities
Community Actors

Contribute to indicator-development for the National Disability Strategy,
using the principles of the CRPD as guidance

Facilitate public discussion on the nature of positive life outcomes for
people with disabilities based on goals set in the National Disability
Strategy/Implementation Plan

Use existing community resources to help gather qualitative data on
the life experiences of people with disabilities
Examples of Best Practice
State level: UK Independent Living Strategy: Disability Equality Indicators
Disability Equality Indicators were developed to monitor implementation of the
UK’s Independent Living Strategy. The main areas covered by these
indicators are as follows: disabled children and young people, employment
outcomes and opportunities, living standards, discrimination and attitudes,
participation in positive activities, access and use of goods and services,
accessibility and suitability of housing, crime and justice and independent
living.52 The list of indicators has been expanded over time to include new
questions on aspects of employment and education and new topics such as
poverty. Each topic has an attached list of between 2 and 12 indicator
Office for Disability Issues, Roadmap 2025 – Disability Equality Indicators (2010) available
at <http://www.odi.gov.uk/roadmap-to-disability-equality/indicators.php> (last accessed 4
November 2010).
52
27
measures and the baseline date for gathering data varies between the topics.
However, the information available on the Office for Disability Issues’ website
is constantly updated, and includes details on data trends. The information on
trends is presented in a very accessible manner – indicating whether data is
moving in the right direction, moving in the wrong direction, or remaining
constant. The Office for Disability Issues’ website also highlights where there
is insufficient data to determine a trend in a particular indicator and gives the
most recent publication date of new data in that area.53
State level: Ireland’s National Disability Survey
Ireland’s National Disability Survey is also a good example of data-collection
which records the experiences and perceptions of people with disabilities (e.g.
it records information about attitudes to people with disabilities, and disabled
people’s
experiences
of
social
participation).54
This
survey
gathers
information on the prevalence of disability based on the International
Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)55 from a sample
primarily drawn from people with disabilities who had identified themselves in
the 2006 Census, with a smaller sample being drawn from non-disabled
peers. About 17,000 people were interviewed for the survey across all age
ranges. Therefore, the information produced is more focused on people with
disabilities. However, Ireland’s National Disability Survey does provide a
wealth of information on people with disabilities’ experiences in a range of
aspects of life. Two reports have now been published by the Central Statistics
Office on the National Disability Survey, one on prevalence of disability and
types of impairments in the sample studied, and one on more broad-ranging
issues of participation in society. The results of the second report cover the
following topics: caring and help from other persons, attitudes of other people,
transport, built environment accessibility, education, work and training, social
Office for Disability Issues, Roadmap 2025 – Disability Equality Indicators (2010) available
at <http://www.odi.gov.uk/roadmap-to-disability-equality/indicators.php> (last accessed 4
November 2010).
54 Central Statistics Office, National Disability Survey 2006 – Volume 2 (Dublin: CSO, 2010).
55 The ICF was officially endorsed by all 191 World Health Organisation Member States in the
Fifty-fourth World Health Assembly on 22 May 2001(resolution WHA 54.21).
53
28
participation, sport and exercise and general demographic information.56 The
findings of this survey are significant in filling the gaps in data available on
people with disabilities identified in the National Disability Authority’s 2005
report How far towards Equality? and if future cycles of the survey are carried
out these have the potential to measure the impact of provisions in the
National Disability Strategy on the lives of people with disabilities.57
Conclusion
The success factors and examples of best practice outlined are just some of
the techniques which can be used to advance Ireland’s National Disability
Strategy – and apply equally to other countries which have or are developing
National Disability Strategies as to Ireland. All eight success factors described
above are interrelated and a positive performance in one factor inevitably
leads to improvements in achieving many of the other factors, as has been
noted throughout the analysis above. These eight factors relate to three
central themes – consultation and participation of people with disabilities,
implementation and reporting on progress, and independent monitoring and
review. All three themes are reflected throughout the principles of the CRPD
and should form the basis for an effective National Disability Strategy.
The conference held by the Centre for Disability Law and Policy on 10
December 2010 aims to highlight these issues and generate discussion on
how Ireland’s National Disability Strategy can be reframed and adapted to
address the concerns of people with disabilities especially in the current
economic climate, and in a manner which is consistent with the principles of
the CRPD. Many of the examples of best practice highlighted above
demonstrate that it is possible to achieve change in a cost-effective manner
without compromising on the ideal of empowering people with disabilities. The
most pressing challenge now facing the disability sector and government
decision-makers alike is to reach consensus on the change which should
occur to improve life outcomes for people with disabilities and to work in
Central Statistics Office, National Disability Survey 2006 – Volume 2 (Dublin: CSO, 2010).
National Disability Authority, How far towards Equality? Measuring how equally people with
disabilities are included in Irish society (Dublin: NDA, 2005).
56
57
29
partnership to achieve this change. Experience in comparative countries has
shown that this is a challenge which is common to all jurisdictions, but one
which can be overcome, where there is a will to address it.
30