Disabled youth and citizenship: opportunities, constraints and actions A/Prof Theresa Lorenzo Disability Studies Programme Faculty of Health Sciences, UCT Oral submission for parliamentary portfolio committee 25 July 2012

Study population Surveyed nine sites in five South African provinces. Fieldworkers interviewed 989 youth ( years); Sample: 523 (52.9%) disabled youth (DY), 466 (47.1%) non-disabled youth (NDY)

Data Collection Questionnaire consisted of seven sections including demographics and 5 categories of livelihood assets: –human assets (health, education, employment ), – social assets (social support systems and use of free time), – financial assets (and other sources of income), –physical assets (living situation, facilities and services) and natural assets (resource-based activities, e.g. gathering firewood and vegetation). Closing questions

Opportunities Doctors at hospitals and nurses at clinics are health professionals most frequently seen. Both groups received the same amount of support from immediate household members Significant difference btwn 2 groups related to friendships and intimate partners NDY spent significantly more time engaging in all free-time activities. DY asks specifically for more sport and recreation facilities in communities

Opportunities 2 Majority of DY indicated that social security grants were the main source of income, whereas NDY received salaries or wages. NDY reported more access to –phone, and newspapers, –public services –business sector.

Opportunities 3 Primary dwelling for both groups was some form of brick home with availability of a toilet in the house or access to water facilities, electricity, television, and radio. NDY had significantly greater access to police, municipal services, labour, banks, internet cafés and post offices Smaller number in both groups reported farming.

Constraints Far fewer DY than NDY attended and completed school. Minimal accessed HEI Both groups indicated financial reasons as the chief barriers to completing school. Unemployment was markedly more common among DY than among NDY. Barriers for DY were poor health and lack of skills development as well as lack of job opportunities. The latter was primary barriers for NDY.

Constraints 2. Less awareness of community rehabilitation workers, home-based carers and rehabilitation therapists. Lack of knowledge of social services and non- governmental organisations (NGOs) for both groups Participation and access were limited for both groups because of inaccessible public transport. Fewer DY reported access to land/fields as a resource

Actions DPOs including parent organisations Government departments NGOs and civil society alliances Faith Based Organisations Higher education institutions Other?

Recommendations: Accessibility Use all forms of media to disseminate information on services, opportunities and resources and better co-ordinating across sectors Transportation –need public-private partnerships with taxis, buses, trains Dial-A-Ride; get govt to fund properly- hold them accountable More sport and recreation facilities in communities for social inclusion

Recommendations: Health Implement Screening, Intervention, Assessment, Support document for collaboration be Social Development, Health, Education Make transport and others resources for outreach available

Recommendations: Rehabilitation Availability of rehab therapists in rural areas scarce Address power dynamics to change systems and Make rehab managers and services more available and accessible Job descriptions of rehab managers at district level are non existent Decision making boards need rehab and disability representation

Recommendations: Education Retention through school system and access to Further Education and Training and Higher Education Institutions Financial support needed Accessible transport needed

Recommendations: Higher education institutions and curricula Making information and resources about disability services available for all HEI programmes Higher education to adapt curricula of all disciplines and programmes in all faculties; expose lecturers to lived experiences of persons with disabilities and their families Integrate disability issues into policy processes and research

Acknowledgements Research team and fieldworkers Respondents Funding from SANPAD, UCT and NRF Participants at community dissemination workshops Authors of papers