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

Disability Statistics in Disability Statistics in Measuring Some Gender Measuring Some Gender

Dimensions:Dimensions:Case IndiaCase India

S ChakrabartiS ChakrabartiDeputy Director General Deputy Director General

CSO, Govt. of IndiaCSO, Govt. of India

ESA/STAT/AC.219/26ESA/STAT/AC.219/26

ObjectivesObjectives

Viewing the disability issueViewing the disability issueSize of the disabled –macro viewsSize of the disabled –macro viewsWhat some trends suggest- in terms What some trends suggest- in terms

of gender differentialsof gender differentialsEducation, Employment and family Education, Employment and family

living of the disabled men and living of the disabled men and womenwomen

conclusionconclusion

The Data The Data

NSS household survey data of 1981, 1991, NSS household survey data of 1981, 1991, 2002 2002

collected from sample households for all collected from sample households for all persons with persons with restrictions or lack of abilities restrictions or lack of abilities to perform an activity in the manner or to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a within the range considered normal for a human beinghuman being

excluded illness/injury of recent origin excluded illness/injury of recent origin (morbidity) resulting into temporary loss of (morbidity) resulting into temporary loss of ability to see, hear, speak or moveability to see, hear, speak or move

Viewing the IssueViewing the Issue

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

Prevalence burdenPrevalence burden

Prevalence of disability per 1,00,000 persons for each sex and sectorPrevalence of disability per 1,00,000 persons for each sex and sector

Type Of DisabilityType Of Disability

Disabled Persons Per 1,00,000 PersonsDisabled Persons Per 1,00,000 Persons

RuralRural UrbanUrban MaleMale FemaleFemale All PersonsAll Persons

Mental RetardationMental Retardation9292 100100 115115 7272 9494

Mental IllnessMental Illness110110 8989 122122 8686 105105

BlindnessBlindness210210 140140 171171 214214 192192

Low VisionLow Vision8686 5454 6868 8787 7777

Hearing DisabilityHearing Disability310310 236236 296296 285285 291291

Speech DisabilitySpeech Disability210210 187187 237237 169169 204204

Locomotor DisabilityLocomotor Disability10461046 901901 12171217 785785 10081008

Any DisabilityAny Disability 18461846 14991499 20002000 14931493 17551755

Comparison of prevalence Comparison of prevalence sizessizes

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Vision Speech

MaleFemaleAll

Hearing Movement

Vision disabilityVision disability Slow decline between 1981 Slow decline between 1981

& 1991 followed by sharper & 1991 followed by sharper drop between 1991 & 2002 drop between 1991 & 2002 – possibly measures had – possibly measures had effecteffect

Rural decline faster than Rural decline faster than urban decline between urban decline between 1981 & 20021981 & 2002

Decline in prevalence of Decline in prevalence of Women’s disability in vision Women’s disability in vision (51% in rural & 46% in (51% in rural & 46% in urban) compared men’s urban) compared men’s (44% in urban and 38% in (44% in urban and 38% in rural) contributed to faster rural) contributed to faster decline for rural areasdecline for rural areas

Male-Female gap is Male-Female gap is narrowingnarrowing -8(2010) from -50 (2002)--8(2010) from -50 (2002)-

ruralrural -48(2010) from -65 (2002)--48(2010) from -65 (2002)-

urbanurban

Prevalence of Vision Disability

553525

296

356

302

194

670

548

326

444471

276

425

346

228

294263

163

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

1981 1991 2002

Year

No

. pe

r 10

0,00

0 p

op

ln

ruralurban

Female-rural

Male-rural

Female-urbanMale-urban

Males = 251 (2010 rural) =137 (2010 urban)

Females = 259 (2010 rural) = 185 (2010 urban)

Hearing disabilityHearing disability Rural decline (40%) faster Rural decline (40%) faster

than urban decline (35%) than urban decline (35%) between 1981 & 2002between 1981 & 2002

Decline in prevalence of Decline in prevalence of men’s disability in hearing men’s disability in hearing (33% in urban and 41% in (33% in urban and 41% in rural) compared to women’s rural) compared to women’s (35% in rural as well as (35% in rural as well as urban) contributed more to urban) contributed more to faster decline for rural faster decline for rural areasareas

Urban women’s hearing Urban women’s hearing disorder seems to be disorder seems to be converging to urban men’s converging to urban men’s level in prevalence level in prevalence

Male-Female gap narrowing Male-Female gap narrowing in rural areas, tooin rural areas, too 7(2010) from 19 (2002)-7(2010) from 19 (2002)-

ruralrural -7(2010) from -4 (2002)--7(2010) from -4 (2002)-

urbanurban

Prevalence of Hearing Disability

573

467

342

390

339

254

510

435

595

498

355

325 332

351

256

395

252

381

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1981 1991 2002

Year

No

. per

100

,000

po

pl

rural

urban

Female-rual

Male-rural

Female-urban

Male-urban

Males = 293 (2010 rural) =217 (2010 urban)

Females = 286 (2010 rural) = 224 (2010 urban)

Speech disability (5yr+)Speech disability (5yr+) Rural decline (28%) slower Rural decline (28%) slower

than urban decline (31%) than urban decline (31%) between 1981 & 2002between 1981 & 2002

Decline in prevalence of Decline in prevalence of men’s disability in speech men’s disability in speech (33% in urban as well as in (33% in urban as well as in rural) compared to women’s rural) compared to women’s (19% in rural and 26% (19% in rural and 26% urban) contributed more to urban) contributed more to faster decline for urban faster decline for urban areasareas

Mainly a males’ problem, Mainly a males’ problem, particularly urban females particularly urban females have the least prevalencehave the least prevalence

Male-female gap tends to Male-female gap tends to decreasedecrease

52(2010) from 70 (2002)-52(2010) from 70 (2002)-ruralrural

58(2010) from 74 (2002)-58(2010) from 74 (2002)-urbanurban

Prevalence of Speech Disability

304

273

220

279

237

193

228

208

184

379

333

254

207

182

154

342

285

228

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

1981 1991 2002

Year

No

. per

100

,000

po

pln

rural

urban

Females-rural

Males-rural

Females-urban

Males-urban

Males = 222 (2010 rural) =196 (2010 urban)

Females = 170 (2010 rural) = 138 (2010 urban)

Movement disabilityMovement disability Prevalence is on the rise for Prevalence is on the rise for

men and women, rural or urbanmen and women, rural or urban Rural increase (26%) slower Rural increase (26%) slower

than urban increase (33%) than urban increase (33%) between 1981 & 2002between 1981 & 2002

Increase in prevalence of men’s Increase in prevalence of men’s disability in movement (32% in disability in movement (32% in urban and 22% in rural) urban and 22% in rural) compared to women’s (58% in compared to women’s (58% in rural and 34% urban) tends to rural and 34% urban) tends to make women’s problem more make women’s problem more an issue in near futurean issue in near future

Mainly a males’ problem, and a Mainly a males’ problem, and a urban phenomenon- rural urban phenomenon- rural prevalence tends to exceed prevalence tends to exceed urban by 2010urban by 2010

Male-Female gap closing up, Male-Female gap closing up, both rural and urbanboth rural and urban

403(2010) from 470 (2002)-403(2010) from 470 (2002)-ruralrural

414(2010) from 328 (2002)-414(2010) from 328 (2002)-urbanurban

Prevalence of Locomotor Disability

10741046

679

962901

597

784 804

1047

1345

1274

544

728 730

800

1170

828

1058

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1981 1991 2002

Year

No

. pe

r 10

0,0

00

po

pln

rural

urban

Female-rural

Males-rural

Females-urban

Males-urban

Males = 1440 (2010 rural) =1269 (2010 urban)

Females = 937 (2010 rural) = 855 (2010 urban)

Literacy Gap( 7yr +)Literacy Gap( 7yr +)

54

26

11

9

58

24

10

7

39

29

14

18

44

30

14

12

69

19

75

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

all persons rural urban males females

Per cent distribution of disabled persons of age 7 years and above by level of general education

not literate literate upto primaryliterate middle literate secondary & above

Literacy Gap( 7yr +)Literacy Gap( 7yr +)

Women with disabilities had 69% Women with disabilities had 69% illiterates ag. 44% illiterates among illiterates ag. 44% illiterates among men with disabilitiesmen with disabilities

Among the literates, 19% women Among the literates, 19% women with disabilities had education upto with disabilities had education upto primary level ag. 30% for disabled primary level ag. 30% for disabled menmen

Enrolment Gap ( 5-18 yr)Enrolment Gap ( 5-18 yr)

No. per No. per 1000 1000 disabledisabledd

In ordinary In ordinary schoolschool

In special In special schoolschool

RuralRural UrbanUrban RuraRurall

UrbanUrban

MaleMale 511511 461461 88 7979

FemalFemalee

420420 421421 44 145145

Enrolment Gap ( 5-18 yr)Enrolment Gap ( 5-18 yr)

51% boys (5-18 yrs) with disabilities in rural areas 51% boys (5-18 yrs) with disabilities in rural areas enroled in ordinary schools ag.42% girls with enroled in ordinary schools ag.42% girls with disabilitiesdisabilities

Situation in urban areas no better for girls and Situation in urban areas no better for girls and even worse for boyseven worse for boys

Special school is mainly an urban phenomenon Special school is mainly an urban phenomenon and serve the mentally disabled and the blindsand serve the mentally disabled and the blinds 8% disabled boys and 14% disabled girls were in special 8% disabled boys and 14% disabled girls were in special

schools in urban areas, of which about 2% each were schools in urban areas, of which about 2% each were mentally disabled boys and girlsmentally disabled boys and girls

In rural areas, enrolment in special schools for both boys In rural areas, enrolment in special schools for both boys and girls alike was negligible in absence of such facilitiesand girls alike was negligible in absence of such facilities

Enrolment Gap ( 5-18 yr)Enrolment Gap ( 5-18 yr)

Interestingly, children with movement Interestingly, children with movement disability and blindness had higher disability and blindness had higher enrolment in ordinary schools than in special enrolment in ordinary schools than in special schoolsschools

Blind girls however, had higher enrolment in Blind girls however, had higher enrolment in special schools than blind boys- very low special schools than blind boys- very low enrolment of blind girls in ordinary schoolsenrolment of blind girls in ordinary schools

Disability itself was reported as the main Disability itself was reported as the main reason for not attending any special schools reason for not attending any special schools for both boys (32.5%) and girls (30.8%) – for both boys (32.5%) and girls (30.8%) – this speaks of deficiencies and inadequacy of this speaks of deficiencies and inadequacy of special schooling methodsspecial schooling methods

Employment gap (15-59 yrs)Employment gap (15-59 yrs)

62% disabled men in rural areas and 62% disabled men in rural areas and 64% in urban areas were out of labour 64% in urban areas were out of labour force ag. 89% disabled women in rural force ag. 89% disabled women in rural areas and 91% in urban areasareas and 91% in urban areas

Among the employed with disabilities, Among the employed with disabilities, 36% were male and only 10% women – 36% were male and only 10% women – these proportions were slightly higher these proportions were slightly higher in rural areas than in urban areasin rural areas than in urban areas

Employment gap (15-59 yrs)Employment gap (15-59 yrs)

56

943

126

1

873

912

907

188

3

809

343

4

653

263

7

730

282

10

708

257

7

735

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

mental retardation

mental illness

blindness

low vision

hearing

speech

locomotor

all disa

bled

Per 1000 distribution of disabled persons by broad usual activity status for each type of disability

employed unemployed out of labour force

Employment GapEmployment Gap

In general, 55% disabled men and 60% of In general, 55% disabled men and 60% of disabled women were working in the disabled women were working in the primary sector- showing lobour imbalance primary sector- showing lobour imbalance against women with disabilitiesagainst women with disabilities

Lesser proportion of disabled women in Lesser proportion of disabled women in secondary (16%) and tertiary (22%) secondary (16%) and tertiary (22%) sectors as compared to disabled men’s sectors as compared to disabled men’s proportions of 17% and 28% respectivelyproportions of 17% and 28% respectively

In rural areas the proportion of disabled In rural areas the proportion of disabled men and disabled women in primary men and disabled women in primary sector is the same (70%)sector is the same (70%)

Family life (All ages)Family life (All ages)

Attitude towards the disabled is Attitude towards the disabled is reflected in how they lead family lifereflected in how they lead family lifeThey are not generally left alone – 3% They are not generally left alone – 3%

only found living alone ag. 92% living only found living alone ag. 92% living with spouse and/or, familywith spouse and/or, family45% of the disabled men were married, 47% 45% of the disabled men were married, 47%

never married and 8% widowed/ divorced / never married and 8% widowed/ divorced / separatedseparated

On the other hand, 31% of the disabled On the other hand, 31% of the disabled women were married, 39% never married women were married, 39% never married and 30% widowed/ divorced / separatedand 30% widowed/ divorced / separated

Family life (15 yr+)Family life (15 yr+)

28

50

32

47

33

57

22

39

29

49

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Rural Urban Male Female All persons

% distribution of disabled persons of ages 15 years and above by marital status

Never married Married Widowed Divorced/Separated n.r.

Family life (15 yr+)Family life (15 yr+)

29% of the disabled (15+) never 29% of the disabled (15+) never marriedmarried22% women22% women33% men33% men

49% of the disabled (15+) married49% of the disabled (15+) married39% women39% women57% men57% men

20% of the disabled (15+) widowed20% of the disabled (15+) widowed28% widows28% widows7% widowers7% widowers

Care/AssistanceCare/Assistance

61% disabled men and 59% disabled 61% disabled men and 59% disabled women can take self-care without women can take self-care without any aid/assistanceany aid/assistance

Critical section for social measures Critical section for social measures comprises 12% of disabled men and comprises 12% of disabled men and 15% of disabled women who can not 15% of disabled women who can not take care of themselves even with take care of themselves even with aid/assistanceaid/assistance

ConclusionConclusion

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

ThanksThanks