Government Implementation of the Standard Rules
As Seen By Member Organizations of
Rehabilitation International - RI

---

© Dimitris Michailakis 1997

Accessibility

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

RI organizations reporting that:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Accessibility standards exist	15	100,0
Accessibility standards do not exist	0	0,0

Total 15, No answer 0

As Table 9 indicates, none of the RI organizations are reporting that no accessibility standards exist. The same pattern prevails as with the NGOs in general though there are clear differences in the percentages. The percentage reported by NGOs in general, regarding the existence of accessibility standards, is 67%. There are also clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported by governments. RI organizations report a higher percentage of countries where accessibility standards exist.

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

RI organizations reporting accessibility in:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Public places	15	100,0
Outdoor environment	10	66,7
Transportation	7	46,7
Housing	8	53,3

Total 15, No answer 0

As Table 10 indicates, all the RI organizations are reporting that accessibility standards concerning public places exist, but that 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. There are, however, clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported by governments. RI organizations report a lower percentage regarding accessibility standards in the outdoor environment and in transportation, than the government.

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	9	60,0
Local Governments	8	53,3
The constructor	2	13,3
The organizers/providers of the activities	4	26,7
No responsible body exists	1	6,7

Total 15, No answer 0

As Table 11 shows, 7% of RI 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 a national authority and by local governments. The same pattern prevails in replies compared with the NGOs in general. There are, however, clear differences in percentages reported. RI organizations report a higher percentage regarding supervision by a national authority and by the organizers/providers of the activities, but a lower percentage regarding the existence of a responsible body. When compared with the percentages reported by governments, there are differences concerning the supervision of the accessibility in the built environment by the organizers/providers of the activities, RI organizations reporting a higher percentage regarding the existence of a responsible body and fewer RI organizations reporting that such a body does not exist.

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

Government measures promoted:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Levelling off pavements	12	80,0
Marking parking areas	13	86,7
Installing automatic doors, lifts and accessible toilets	12	80,0
Ensure accessibility in public places	12	80,0
Improving accessibility in housing	8	53,3
Financial incentives/support for accessibility measures	7	46,7
Special lighting/contrast colours for visually impaired	5	33,3
Provision of specially adapted motor vehicles	9	60,0

Total 15, No answer 0

According to RI organizations, the following measures to facilitate accessibility in the built environment are the most frequently promoted: marking parking areas, levelling off pavements, installing automatic doors, lifts and accessible toilets and ensuring accessibility in public places. The measure being the least of all promoted is special lighting/contrast colours for visually impaired. There are great differences in the percentage reported, when compared with the NGOs in general. RI organizations report a higher percentage regarding all the listed measures. There are also clear differences in almost all of the above mentioned measures, when compared with the percentages reported by governments. RI organizations report a higher percentage on the following measures: levelling off pavements, marking parking areas, installing automatic doors, lifts and accessible toilets, ensuring accessibility in public places, improving accessibility in housing and provding specially adapted motor vehicles.

Table 13 (Question No. 13)
Special transport system

Special transport is available for:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Medical treatment	12	92,3
Education	12	92,3
Work	9	69,2
Recreational purpose	12	92,3
No special transport system exists	2	13,3
Special transport exists	13	86,7

Total 15, No answer 0

There are 13% of the RI organizations reporting that no special transport system exists. When a special legislation exists, it is available, in most countries, 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 higher. When compared with the percentages reported by governments, there are clear differences. RI organizations report a lower percentage for the availability of special transport for work but a higher one for recreational purpose. The RI organizations also report a higher percentage of countries, where special transport exist.

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

Obstacles reported by RI when building accessible environments:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Attitudinal factors	12	80,0
Economic/budgetary factors	11	73,3
Technical factors	0	0,0
Geographical and climatic factors	1	6,7
Lack of legislation and regulations	2	13,3
Lack of planning and design capacity	5	33,3
Lack of knowledge, research and information	3	20,0
Lack of user participation	4	26,7
Lack of co-operation from other organizations	4	26,7
Lack of enforcement mechanism	11	73,3

Total 15, No answer 0

As Table 14 shows, there are three main obstacles according to RI organizations, when building accessible environments, namely attitudinal factors, economic/budgetary factors and lack of enforcement mechanism. It is remarkable that 80% of the RI organizations are reporting attitudinal factors as the main obstacle when building accessible environments. There are clear differences compared with the NGOs in general. RI organizations are reporting a higher percentage regarding attitudinal factors and lack of enforcement mechanism but a lower percentage regarding lack of legislation and regulations, and lack of knowledge, research and information. There are differences in the percentages reported by governments in almost all of the above mentioned obstacles. RI organizations report a higher percentage concerning the following obstacles: attitudinal factors, lack of user participation, lack of enforcement mechanism, a lower percentage concerning technical factors, geographical and climatic factors, lack of legislation and regulations and lack of knowledge, research and information.

Table 15 (Question No. 15)
Disability awareness component

Disability awareness in the training:	Frequency	Valid Percent
There is a disability awareness component	7	53,8
There is not a disability awareness component	6	46,2

Total 13, No answer 2

The majority of RI organizations are reporting that a disability awareness component is incorporated in the training of planners, architects and construction engineers. There is a different pattern compared with the NGOs in general. There are also clear differences in the percentage reported. There are no clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported by governments.

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

The status of sign language as reported by RI organizations:	Frequency	Valid Percent
Recognized as the official language	6	42,9
As the first language in education	2	14,3
As the main means of communication	3	21,4
No officially recognized status	3	21,4

Total 14, No answer 1

As Table 16 indicates, 21% of RI organizations are reporting that sign language has no officially recognized status, while also 43% of the RI organizations are reporting that sign language is recognized as the official language of deaf people. There is no clear difference, compared with the NGOs in general. There are clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported by governments. The RI organizations report a higher percentage of countries, where sign language has an officially recognized status, but a lower percentage of countries, where sign language has no officially recognized status.

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

Accessibility measures in media	Frequency	Valid Percent
Reporting accessibility measures	10	66,7
Reporting no accessibility measures	5	33,3

Total 15, No answer 0

As Table 17 shows, the majority of the RI organizations are reporting that there are accessibility measures to encourage media to make their information services accessible for persons with disabilities. The percentage reported here, regarding the existence of accessibility measures, is higher compared with the percentage reported by the NGOs in general. When compared with the percentages reported by governments, the RI organizations report a higher percentage of countries that have taken measures to encourage 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	7	58,3
No accessibility measures in information	5	41,7

Total 12, No answer 3

The majority of the RI organizations are also reporting that there are government measures to make other forms of public information services accessible for persons with disabilities. A clear difference appears compared with the percentage reported by the NGOs in general. There are no clear differences, when compared with the percentages reported by the governments.

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

Services to facilitate information/communication	Frequency	Valid Percent
Literature in Braille/tape	13	92,9
News magazines on tape/Braille	7	50,0
Sign language interpretation for any purpose	8	57,1
Sign language interpretation for major events	5	35,7
Easy readers for persons with mental disabilities	3	21,4
None	0	0,00

Total 14, No answer 1

As Table 19 indicates, none of the RI organizations report there being no services at all to facilitate information and communication between persons with disabilities and persons without. This is a clear difference with the percentage reported by NGOs in general. The services most frequently provided, according to the RI organizations are literature in Braille/tape and sign language interpretation for any purpose, whereas less frequently services such as easy readers for persons with disabilities are provided. The main difference appearing here, is that RI organizations are reporting a higher percentage regarding the provision of literature in Braille/tape and sign language interpretation for any purpose than NGOís in general. There are clear differences regarding two of the above listed services, when compared with the percentages reported by governments. The RI organizations report a higher percentage of countries, where sign language interpretation is provided for any purpose, but a lower percentage concerning easy readers for persons with mental disabilities.

---

Contents of the RI Report