Government Implementation of the Standard Rules
As Seen By Member Organizations of
Inclusion International (ILSMH)

---

© Dimitris Michailakis 1997

Accessibility

Table 9 (Question No. 9)
Regulations to ensure accessibility in the built environment

ILSMH organizations reporting that:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Accessibility standards exist	30	69,8
Accessibility standards do not exist	13	30,2

Total 43, No answer 3

As Table 9 indicates, almost 30% of ILSMH organizations are reporting that no accessibility standards exist. The same pattern prevails as generally with the NGOs with no clear differences in the percentages, even when compared with government responses.

Table 10 (Question No. 10)
Accessibility of the built environment

ILSMH organizations reporting accessibility in:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Public places	28	93,3
Outdoor environment	20	66,7
Transportation	13	43,3
Housing	15	50,0

Total 43, No answer 3

As Table 10 indicates, the majority of ILSMH organizations are reporting that there are accessibility standards concerning public places, while accessibility standards concerning means of public transportation exist to a lesser extent. The same pattern with the NGOs in general with no clear differences in the percentages reported. When compared with responses from the governments the percentages reported by ILSMH organizations are lower regarding accessibility in the outdoor environment, transportation and housing.

Table 11 (Question No. 11)
Supervision of the accessibility in the built environment

Accessibility in the built environment is observed by:	Frequency	Valid Percent
National authority	15	45,5
Local Governments	21	63,6
The constructor	7	21,2
The organizers/providers of the activities	4	12,1
No responsible body exists	5	15,2

Total 33, No answer 13

As Table 11 shows, 15% of ILSMH organizations are reporting that no responsible body exists to observe the accessibility in the built environment. Accessibility in the built environment, when existing, is most frequently observed by local governments. The same pattern prevails in replies compared with the NGOs in general. When compared with the governments there are differences in the percentages reported by ILSMH organizations concerning supervision by national authority and concerning lack of a responsible body to observe accessibility in the built environment. In both cases the percentages reported are lower.

Table 12 (Question No. 12)
Measures to facilitate accessibility of the built environment

Government measures promoted:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Levelling off pavements	16	42,1
Marking parking areas	24	63,2
Installing automatic doors, lifts and accessible toilets	19	50,0
Ensure accessibility in public places	24	63,2
Improving accessibility in housing	13	34,2
Financial incentives/support for accessibility measures	7	18,4
Special lighting/contrast colours for visually impaired	6	15,8
Provision of specially adapted motor vehicles	16	42,1

Total 38, No answer 8

According to ILSMH organizations the following measures to facilitate accessibility in the built environment are the most frequently promoted: marking parking areas, ensuring accessibility in public places and installing automatic doors, lifts and accessible toilets. The measure least of all promoted is special lighting/contrast colours for visually impaired. There are no great differences in the percentage reported, when compared with the NGOs in general except regarding levelling off pavements and provision of financial support for accessibility measures, where the percentage generally reported by NGOs is higher. When compared with government responses the percentages reported by ILSMH organizations are higher regarding improvement of accessibility in public places, but lower regarding accessibility in housing, financial incentives/support for accessibility measures and provision of special lighting/contrast colours for visually impaired.

Table 13 (Question No. 13)
Special transport system

Special transport is available for:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Medical treatment	19	86,4
Education	19	86,4
Work	17	77,3
Recreational purpose	16	72,7
No special transport system exists	20	47,6
Special transport exists	22	52,4

Total 42, No answer 4

Almost 48% of ILSMH organizations are reporting that no special transport system exists. When a special legislation exists, in most countries it is available for education and medical treatment. There are clear differences in the percentages, when compared with the NGOs in general regarding the existence of special transport system. The percentage reported by the NGOs is 37,6%. There are clear differences concerning the existence of a special transport system when compared with government responses. The percentage reported by ILSMH organizations is lower..

Table 14 (Question No. 14)
Adaptation of the built environment

Obstacles reported by ILSMH when building accessible environments:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Attitudinal factors	34	73,9
Economic/budgetary factors	37	80,4
Technical factors	11	23,9
Geographical and climatic factors	2	4,3
Lack of legislation and regulations	22	47,8
Lack of planning and design capacity	16	34,8
Lack of knowledge, research and information	18	39,1
Lack of user participation	14	30,4
Lack of co-operation from other organizations	13	28,3
Lack of enforcement mechanism	24	52,2

Total 46, No answer 0

As Table 14 shows, the three main obstacles reported by ILSMH organizations, when building accessible environments, are economic/budgetary factors, attitudinal factors and lack of enforcement mechanism. It is remarkable that 74% of the ILSMH organizations are reporting attitudinal factors as an obstacle when building accessible environments. There are no clear differences compared with the NGOs in general. There are clear differences when compared with the government responses. The percentages reported by ILSMH organizations are lower regarding geographical and climatic factors but higher regarding attitudinal factors, lack of legislation and regulations, lack of planning and design capacity and lack of user participation.

Table 15 (Question No. 15)
Disability awareness component

Disability awareness in the training:	Frequency	Valid Percent
There is a disability awareness component	12	30,0
There is not a disability awareness component	28	70,0

Total 40, No answer 6

The majority of ILSMH organizations are reporting that a disability awareness component is not incorporated in the training of planners, architects and construction engineers. The same pattern prevails compared with the NGOs in general. No clear differences in the percentage are reported. There are clear differences, when compared with government responses. The percentages reported by ILSMH organizations are lower concerning the incorporation of a disability awareness component in the training of architects and construction engineers.

Table 16 (Question No. 16)
Status of sign language

The status of sign language as reported by ILSMH organizations:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Recognized as the official language	20	50,0
As the first language in education	8	20,0
As the main means of communication	2	5,0
No officially recognized status	10	25,0

Total 40, No answer 6

As Table 16 indicates, 25% of ILSMH organizations are reporting that sign language has no officially recognized status, while also 50% of the ILSMH organizations are reporting that sign language is recognized as the official language of deaf people. There are no clear differences when compared with the NGOs in general. There are clear differences in the percentages reported, when compared with governments. ILSMH organizations report a higher percentage regarding the status of sign language as the official language of deaf people, but a lower one as regards its status as the main means of communication.

Table 17 (Question No. 17)
Accessibility measures in media

Accessibility measures in media	Frequency	Valid Percent
Reporting accessibility measures	13	28,9
Reporting no accessibility measures	32	71,1

Total 45, No answer 1

As Table 17 shows, the majority of the ILSMH organizations are reporting that there are no accessibility measures for encouraging media to make their information services accessible for persons with disabilities. The percentage reported here regarding the existence of accessibility measures is 10% lower compared with the percentage reported by the NGOs in general. When compared with governments the percentages reported by ILSMH organizations are considerably lower as regards accessibility measures in media.

Table 18 (Question No. 18)
Accessibility measures in public information services

Public information services	Frequency	Valid Percent
Accessibility measures in information	10	22,7
No accessibility measures in information	34	77,3

Total 44, No answer 2

The majority of the ILSMH organizations are also reporting that there are no government measures to make other forms of public information services accessible for persons with disabilities. There is no clear difference compared with the percent reported by the NGOs in general. When compared with government responses the percentages reported by ILSMH organizations are considerably lower regarding the existence of accessibility measures in public information services.

Table 19 (Question No. 19)
Access to information and communication

Services to facilitate information/communication	Frequency	Valid Percent
Literature in Braille/tape	31	70,5
News magazines on tape/Braille	18	40,9
Sign language interpretation for any purpose	7	15,9
Sign language interpretation for major events	12	27,3
Easy readers for persons with mental disabilities	11	25,0
None	8	18,2

Total 44, No answer 2

As Table 19 indicates, there are 18% of ILSMH organizations reporting that no services at all are provided in order to facilitate information and communication between persons with disabilities and others. The services most frequently provided are literature in Braille/tape, news magazines on tape/Braille and sign language interpretation for major events, while services such as easy readers for persons with disabilities are less often provided. The main difference here, when compared with the percentages reported by the NGOs in general, is that ILSMH organizations are reporting lower percentage regarding provision of sign language interpretation for any purpose. When compared with the government responses, the percentages reported by ILSMH organizations are lower for all the services listed above, except concerning easy readers for persons with mental disabilities, where the percentage reported is quite close to that reported by the governments.

---

Contents of the ILSMH Report