Disability Statistics in Measuring Some Gender Dimensions: Case India

1. Disability Statistics in Measuring Some Gender Dimensions:Case India S Chakrabarti Deputy Director General CSO, Govt. of India ESA/STAT/AC.219/26

2. Objectives Viewing the disability issue Size of the disabled –macro views What some trends suggest- in terms of gender differentials Education, Employment and family living of the disabled men and women conclusion

3. The Data NSS household survey data of 1981, 1991, 2002 collected from sample households for all persons with restrictions or lack of abilities to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being excluded illness/injury of recent origin (morbidity) resulting into temporary loss of ability to see, hear, speak or move

4. Viewing the Issue Socio-economic dimensions of disability in terms of the barriers that disability conditions pose for free access to basic services and the consequential degree of social marginalization among persons with different types of disability, with differences on account of gender, caste, rural/ urban background etc.

5. Prevalence burden

6. Comparison of prevalence sizes Hearing Movement

7. Prevalence of Vision Disability 800 700 670 600 553 548 525 500 rural 471 urban 444 No. per 100,000 popln 425 Female-rural 400 Male-rural 356 346 Female-urban 326 Male-urban 302 300 296 294 276 263 228 200 194 163 100 0 1981 1991 2002 Year Vision disability • Slow decline between 1981 & 1991 followed by sharper drop between 1991 & 2002 – possibly measures had effect • Rural decline faster than urban decline between 1981 & 2002 • Decline in prevalence of Women’s disability in vision (51% in rural & 46% in urban) compared men’s (44% in urban and 38% in rural) contributed to faster decline for rural areas • Male-Female gap is narrowing • -8(2010) from -50 (2002)-rural • -48(2010) from -65 (2002)-urban Males = 251 (2010 rural) =137 (2010 urban) Females = 259 (2010 rural) = 185 (2010 urban)

8. Hearing disability • Rural decline (40%) faster than urban decline (35%) between 1981 & 2002 • Decline in prevalence of men’s disability in hearing (33% in urban and 41% in rural) compared to women’s (35% in rural as well as urban) contributed more to faster decline for rural areas • Urban women’s hearing disorder seems to be converging to urban men’s level in prevalence • Male-Female gap narrowing in rural areas, too • 7(2010) from 19 (2002)-rural • -7(2010) from -4 (2002)-urban Males = 293 (2010 rural) =217 (2010 urban) Females = 286 (2010 rural) = 224 (2010 urban)

9. Speech disability (5yr+) • Rural decline (28%) slower than urban decline (31%) between 1981 & 2002 • Decline in prevalence of men’s disability in speech (33% in urban as well as in rural) compared to women’s (19% in rural and 26% urban) contributed more to faster decline for urban areas • Mainly a males’ problem, particularly urban females have the least prevalence • Male-female gap tends to decrease • 52(2010) from 70 (2002)-rural • 58(2010) from 74 (2002)-urban Males = 222 (2010 rural) =196 (2010 urban) Females = 170 (2010 rural) = 138 (2010 urban)

10. Movement disability • Prevalence is on the rise for men and women, rural or urban • Rural increase (26%) slower than urban increase (33%) between 1981 & 2002 • Increase in prevalence of men’s disability in movement (32% in urban and 22% in rural) compared to women’s (58% in rural and 34% urban) tends to make women’s problem more an issue in near future • Mainly a males’ problem, and a urban phenomenon- rural prevalence tends to exceed urban by 2010 • Male-Female gap closing up, both rural and urban • 403(2010) from 470 (2002)-rural • 414(2010) from 328 (2002)-urban Males = 1440 (2010 rural) =1269 (2010 urban) Females = 937 (2010 rural) = 855 (2010 urban)

11. Literacy Gap( 7yr +)

12. Literacy Gap( 7yr +) • Women with disabilities had 69% illiterates ag. 44% illiterates among men with disabilities • Among the literates, 19% women with disabilities had education upto primary level ag. 30% for disabled men

13. Enrolment Gap ( 5-18 yr)

14. Enrolment Gap ( 5-18 yr) • 51% boys (5-18 yrs) with disabilities in rural areas enroled in ordinary schools ag.42% girls with disabilities • Situation in urban areas no better for girls and even worse for boys • Special school is mainly an urban phenomenon and serve the mentally disabled and the blinds • 8% disabled boys and 14% disabled girls were in special schools in urban areas, of which about 2% each were mentally disabled boys and girls • In rural areas, enrolment in special schools for both boys and girls alike was negligible in absence of such facilities

15. Enrolment Gap ( 5-18 yr) • Interestingly, children with movement disability and blindness had higher enrolment in ordinary schools than in special schools • Blind girls however, had higher enrolment in special schools than blind boys- very low enrolment of blind girls in ordinary schools • Disability itself was reported as the main reason for not attending any special schools for both boys (32.5%) and girls (30.8%) – this speaks of deficiencies and inadequacy of special schooling methods

16. Employment gap (15-59 yrs) • 62% disabled men in rural areas and 64% in urban areas were out of labour force ag. 89% disabled women in rural areas and 91% in urban areas • Among the employed with disabilities, 36% were male and only 10% women – these proportions were slightly higher in rural areas than in urban areas

17. Employment gap (15-59 yrs)

18. Employment Gap • In general, 55% disabled men and 60% of disabled women were working in the primary sector- showing lobour imbalance against women with disabilities • Lesser proportion of disabled women in secondary (16%) and tertiary (22%) sectors as compared to disabled men’s proportions of 17% and 28% respectively • In rural areas the proportion of disabled men and disabled women in primary sector is the same (70%)

19. Family life (All ages) • Attitude towards the disabled is reflected in how they lead family life • They are not generally left alone – 3% only found living alone ag. 92% living with spouse and/or, family • 45% of the disabled men were married, 47% never married and 8% widowed/ divorced / separated • On the other hand, 31% of the disabled women were married, 39% never married and 30% widowed/ divorced / separated

20. Family life (15 yr+)

21. Family life (15 yr+) • 29% of the disabled (15+) never married • 22% women • 33% men • 49% of the disabled (15+) married • 39% women • 57% men • 20% of the disabled (15+) widowed • 28% widows • 7% widowers

22. Care/Assistance • 61% disabled men and 59% disabled women can take self-care without any aid/assistance • Critical section for social measures comprises 12% of disabled men and 15% of disabled women who can not take care of themselves even with aid/assistance

23. Conclusion • Degree to which State’s measures to support participation of the disabled in the mainstream with rightful access to education, employment and personal activities must take into account the gender dimensions to make the interventions more inclusive and addressing the issue of burden on the abler, particularly the able women in the households, who stay indoors and do the care work unpaid for

24. Thanks