Section 4: Findings of the Field Study

The primary source of data for the study was the experiences of people with disabilities. The field work involved face to face interviews with the people with disabilities in their natural habitation. A hundred and three interviews were conducted in three sites and ninety-nine were used in the analysis. The interviews were tape recorded and notes were made immediately after the interviews. The project’s Management Team chose three areas in Kenya: Central – Nairobi, Rift Valley – Nakuru, and Western – Kisumu to be study sites. The sites reflect diversity of ethnic homogeneity/heterogeneity of the population, high and low levels of overall poverty, and high and low levels of literacy. Due to the difficulty of obtaining a definitive sampling frame with the population of people with disabilities, we used a purposeful sampling technique to recruit individuals with different disabilities, geographic location, age and gender. The interview teams spent approximately 20 days in the field in each site. In the Rift Valley 33 persons with disabilities, 16 men and 17 women were interviewed in 20 days. In Nairobi, 34 persons with disabilities were interviewed over 21 days of which 18 were women and 16 men. In Nyanza the interview period for the 36 people interviewed was 22 days.

Characteristics of the Participants

The results presented below are based on 95 interviews conducted with adults with different disabilities living in three distinct regions of Kenya. Table 1 summarizes the demographics of the population surveyed.

Table 1a: Research Participants Categorized by Gender
Male	Female	Total
45	49	94

Table 1b: Research Participants Categorized by Age
18-25 years	26-40 years	41-55 years	56-70 years	Over 70 years	Total
8	44	37	4	0	94

Table 1c: Research Participants Categorized by Region
Nairobi	Nyanza	Rift Valley	Total
30	32	32	94

Table 1d: Research Participants Categorized by Disability
Mobility	Sensory - Blind	Sensory - Deaf	Intellectual	Other33	Total
22	48	17	4	3	94

Given the absence of statistics concerning people with disabilities in Kenya, and the relative small size of the sample used in this study, probability sampling was not an option. Instead, the research team considered purposeful sampling the most appropriate sampling strategy. Based on the four demographic criteria described above - gender, age, location and type of disability – the team used snowball sampling to recruit and select participants. However, difficulties in reaching the target population in the field resulted in a sample that is sometimes skewed towards particular groups. In fact while the sample is quite balanced in terms of gender and geographic location, it shows significant disparities in relation to age and disability types. The majority of the respondents are between the ages of 26-40 and 41-55, and are blind, deaf or have a mobility impairment. Consequently, old and young adults (those over 56 or below 25 years old) as well as persons with intellectual, psychiatric, or other disabilities are seldom or not at all represented in this sample. This has some implications for data analyses and affects the ability to make comparisons across groups, particularly across different types of disabilities. Despite this limitation, the data gathered through this research address, for the first time, human rights issues of Kenyans with disabilities pointing to some very interesting results reported below.

Data Analysis

Barriers Experienced

In general, the analysis carried out suggests that the lives of people with disabilities in Kenya are marked by experiences of discrimination, prejudice and inequality. Tables 2-4 summarize the different barriers emergent from this research experienced by people living with disabilities in this country. Results indicate that people living with disabilities face barriers ranging from discriminatory attitudes, abuse and violence and barriers to access that lead to segregation and exclusion in the family context, at work, at school and in society, where disability is often seen as a burden and shameful.

Abuse and Violence

Abuse and violence refer to situations of abuse and violence that the interviewee as a person living with a disability, or someone else with a disability known to the respondent, have experienced. Table 2 presents results on abuse and violence.

Table 2: Interviewees' Experiences with Abuse and Violence
Abuse / Violence Context	Experience Type	Sources Coded 34	Percentage35
Family	Personal / Direct	34	35.8%
Family	Through Aquaintance / Indirect	12	12.6%
Public Authorities	Personal / Direct	11	11.6%
Public Authorities	Through Aquaintance / Indirect	3	3.2%
School	Personal / Direct	7	7.4%
Society at Large	Personal / Direct	54	56.8%
Society at Large	Through Aquaintance / Indirect	9	9.5%
Workplace	Personal / Direct	24	25.3%
Workplace	Through Aquaintance / Indirect	6	6.3%

These results indicate that for the majority of people with disabilities (approximately 57%) situations of abuse and violence occurred in the community and society at large. People who are blind or have low vision, for instance, reported problems being guided in town or within their lived environment. Others faced obstacles left on the road such as stones or logs and many others fell into trenches and deep pits within the town and its surroundings and injured themselves. Many others have been hit by vehicles which later disappeared from the scene. Sometimes their white cane was accidentally hit by a passer-by and they were left to look for it. For example a blind man complained of how someone he asked for assistance in reaching the outskirts of Nairobi treated him without consideration of his condition. He was moving very fast, used abusive words and did not warn him when crossing the road or when approaching stairs, as our interviewee shared in the following excerpt:

… He [the person our interviewee asked for help] said, 'Can’t you hear even if you are blind, what sort of a blind person are you?' We have seen many. So I held my pace since I needed the assistance… He climbed one [step] and did not inform me so when I climbed up, he did not tell me, there was a [step] down one next so he left me and I fell down and rolled and he told me to get up and continue walking instead of picking me up. He said to me, 'Stand up. What are you trying to show me? We have seen many people who are blind'…he hurled some insults at me but thank God I had reached well…

Other respondents reported mistreatment and abuse by public service vehicle operators. Many complained that they were given incorrect change or change in Ugandan or Tanzanian currencies, just because they could not see. On occasion when some noticed and demanded their correct change, they were abused and sometimes forced to leave the vehicle before they reached their destination, on false explanation that they had not paid the correct bus fare. People with disabilities not only faced abuse from the bus operators but also from fellow commuters. In some stage terminals where commuters are expected to queue, many people with disabilities particularly those who are blind are bypassed and pushed aside by fellow commuters as they scramble for spaces. Those with physical disabilities reported that many public service vehicle conductors and drivers ignored them deliberately and treated them with contempt as evidenced in the statements below:

I tried to board a bus and the conductor [and the driver] kept saying, 'Faster! Faster!' and yet we were very many people. Because of this I fell down but the vehicle went on ahead. My hands got hurt.

Another person reported:

… When the conductor sees me he tells the driver, 'Lets move! Let's move!' Many of them ignore me.

Those with hearing disabilities have also had their share of mistreatment in their daily lives. Many have been branded thieves, and others, because they cannot communicate, have been severely beaten by mobs. One deaf man told the story of how he was on the verge of being killed by thieves who had hijacked a public service vehicle he was traveling in because he could not hear the instructions the thieves had given. He explained:

…Robbers boarded our vehicle and ordered people to lie down but I couldn’t hear. They ordered people to hand over their mobile phones and I did not understand. It was lucky I sat at the back. They were even shooting guns and I felt its vibrations. I just lay down on the floor of the vehicle. I was shot in my stomach, lying helplessly.

Because of the lack of jobs, some people with disabilities in Kenya have been forced to hawk products in the city. They too face abuse and discrimination from the city council askaris, as this person narrated:

… The city council officers confiscated my material and bundled me into the back of the truck the same way you would handle a sack. The rough handling gave me bruises and I cried in pain. However they went ahead and put me in jail.

People living with disabilities also experienced situations of abuse and violence within the family. About 36% of the people with disabilities interviewed reported having experienced abuse and violence at the hands of their family members. Quite a large percentage of this group were oppressed, denied food and education and beaten by their mothers, stepmothers, husbands and siblings because they are considered different and not able to efficiently perform activities they are expected to carry out. Others were victims of sexual harassment. In many cases their share of inheritance was taken away by their able bodied relatives leaving them in poverty. This explains why so many people with disabilities are poor and beg on the street where they are forced to endure more mistreatment. One of the interviewees, for instance, remembered how she was badly treated by her own mother simply because she had lost her pen at school. She reported:

… She beat me up badly, threatening to break my legs or throw them out. Even my siblings hit me. They even refused to pay for my fees in secondary school. They disowned me and discriminated against me. Indeed, my food was different from the rest of the family’s. I was not bought clothes like others. I felt different

In the work place, people with disabilities were also exposed to numerous situations in which their rights were violated and they were abused and discriminated against. More than 25% of the respondents reported situations of abuse and violence in the work place. Many complained of double standards, especially with regard to their salaries. Their salaries were not paid in full because the employer alleged that they had incurred extra expenses. The mistreatment of people with disabilities was evident in almost all work placements, including housework. Many women reported having worked as maids for months without being paid. The interview findings also indicated that many people with disabilities were asked to leave their jobs because of their disability. When someone became disabled while working, there was pressure from the management on the individual to leave the job even when their disability did not interfere with their ability to perform required tasks. For example one person complained that blame was placed on her even when she was not the one who committed the errors:

They used to give me a lot of work, other staff members would make mistakes and I would be blamed as if I was the one who made the mistake… Then later, at the end of the day, the management and everybody else would turn the blame on me

Quite a substantial number of people living with a disability (approximately 12%) experienced situations of abuse and discrimination in their relationships with public authorities. Respondents reported how difficult it was to get the authorities to listen if you had a disability. Sometimes people with disabilities reported being chased away from the office, or there being no action taken after they filed a claim. Those with disabilities not easily noticeable, such as deafness and partial blindness, found themselves involved in conflicts with the police, and suffered situations of abuse and violence due to barriers in communication. Many were severely punished because their impairment didn’t allow them to follow instructions from the authorities. For example, one partially sighted person did not see police officers who, when escorting bank money, waved or warned the public not to come any closer for security purposes. In this case the individual was seen as ignoring the order and therefore presumed to be a dangerous person who intended to steal the money. This resulted in serious consequences. One deaf man explained his ordeal with the police:

… When I was arrested, I was mixed with the hearing people in the cell. The police called out names during roll call but I never raised my hand because I couldn’t hear. Finally, they looked for me and I was slapped hard…

People with disabilities also reported having experienced situations of abuse and violence at school. Close to 8% of those interviewed reported that they underwent harsh treatment in learning institutions at the hands of people without disabilities. It is likely this percentage underestimates the situation because many people with disabilities never have the opportunity to enroll in a learning institution. The few who have been to school confirmed it was not an accepting environment for them. Many had terrible experiences ranging from being scolded without reason to being the focus of gossip to being physically abused. A student who could not see the blackboard well from the back of the classroom had his request to move to the front denied by his teacher. Others were subjected to serious abuse from their fellow students, such as harsh words, being forced to carry out activities that were practically impossible for them because of their impairments, or isolating them by pushing their beds away from others. There were reports from some blind students that they were mishandled by having been pulled by their clothes unwillingly. Others have been severely physically punished by their teachers. For example this boy had a terrible experience with his teachers as shown in the passage below:

… as I was at school in Thika Joy School, the teachers would beat me up when I got late yet I could not push my wheelchair fast enough. Once I got late for lunch, I never used to go to eat because I would not be allowed to eat… Even in the dinning hall I used to be beaten and would tell the teacher not to beat me because my hands were not very strong to be able to push my wheelchair along and that it would be better to deny me food than beat me on the hand because he would make it more weak and I would not be able to write well and do my homework

Respondents also reported situations of abuse and discrimination experienced by others they know with disabilities. Harsh treatment occurring in the family context, in the workplace, at school, and in society was reported. Many had families who neglected, hid and locked them in the house, never took them to school or hospitals and did not allow visitors. Many people interviewed have lived in great pain (both physically and psychologically) with no help given to them to relieve their circumstances. In government offices, many people with disabilities witnessed their colleagues being bypassed in the queue as they waited to be served. One of the respondents reported the case of a disabled boy who was being mistreated by his family by being made to live with a dog and eat dog food.

Discrimination

Discriminatory attitudes include perceptions, images and attitudes that isolated and excluded interviewees. Table 3 presents the results of the interviews related to discriminatory attitudes.

Table 3: Interviewees' Experience with Discriminatory Attitudes
Discrimination Context	Experience Type	Sources Coded	Percentage
Family	Personal / Direct	43	45.3%
Family	Through Aquaintance / Indirect	2	2.1%
Public Authorities	Personal / Direct	8	8.4%
Public Authorities	Through Aquaintance / Indirect	1	1.1%
Society at Large	Personal / Direct	71	74.7%
Workplace	Personal / Direct	28	29.5%
Workplace	Through Aquaintance / Indirect	1	1.1%

Results indicated that approximately 75% of those interviewed had faced negative perceptions, including images of disability and attitudes that isolated and discriminated against them in their own communities and in society at large. Prevailing negative social attitudes and perceptions of disability reportedly affected the self-esteem of people with disabilities. They faced harsh treatment especially when they used public facilities such as transportation systems. This respondent complained of how he was treated by other commuters in a public service vehicle:

…At other times you may sit close to a person on a bus and the person moves away as if blindness is contagious… …People just look at you and it’s like they are afraid of you. I feel so disrespected…

Basic needs of belonging and love are hard to fulfill because the community considers people with disabilities inferior. People feel ashamed to walk or be seen in the company of, or be friends with a person with a disability. People with disabilities are often seen as a burden to society. In some communities disability is seen as a curse. People who are superstitious consider disability hereditary or a curse, which might be transmitted from parents to children.

More than 45% of people living with a disability had also faced discriminatory attitudes in their own families, often because they were not able to participate in family activities in the same way as others. Some had not gone to school because their parents refused to pay their school fees, considering the education of a disabled child a waste of money. Many of those interviewed had been oppressed by negative remarks and attitudes from family members that were insinuated or overtly expressed through such words as useless, hopeless, and good for nothing, a burden to the family, and a curse. This woman recounted:

My parents and my siblings all see me as a burden and have gossiped about me since I was young. My father decided to hide me for 6 months. My mother was not supposed to tell anyone…My father didn’t want to pay the hospital bills, because he thought he would be throwing away his money. He felt I wasn’t worth it. He doesn’t like to be reminded of me. He took me to a pastor, and said I was a bother because of the money he wasted on me while I was as good as dead…

Another 30% have faced discriminatory attitudes in the workplace and about 9% have faced discrimination by public authorities. In most cases, people with disabilities faced direct rejection – that is, they were told to their face they were no good. This was most often found in cases where the performance of a person with a disability was considered to be “low.” In many other cases fellow workers who were able bodied denied people with disabilities the opportunity to work alongside them. Many workers with disabilities also faced mistreatment from their bosses. If filed their grievances were usually disregarded and they were likely to face even more abuse for their complaint. This is what one respondent was told by his boss:

…you are in fact not so useful in comparison to the rest, and your work is not at all voluminous.

This young man summarized in few words what many people with disabilities undergo at work:

The most serious challenge we face at work is discrimination. Interactions become difficult since we are always seen as misfits. We face a lot of rejection

As people with disabilities sought services in public offices, they reported that they were not helped as they would have expected. For example, many of those interviewed expressed fear of going to a police station to report their problems because they believed they would not be served well. However, when things were too hard for them to bear, it was their only option. In many cases, they reported that in those situations they were treated with contempt. Many blind people in this study reported that when they went to government offices with their children as guides, the child was called on to explain the problem rather than asking them directly. This suggests that there is a perception of blind people as unable to think, which in turn affects their sense of dignity and self-esteem. Such negative perceptions and attitudes compounded the situations of abuse and violence people with disabilities experienced. This woman had this to say about police officers:

… They discriminated against me at the police station. You know others think because we are blind, our minds also don’t think. … the O.C.P.D. thought that maybe I was not normal and didn’t have money to give to him or something of the sort.

Another individual summed it up as follows:

The government does not help, ever. They are so complicated. They are liars and make empty promises. It is difficult to work with the government.

At school, students with disabilities were often excluded and mistreated by their teachers and fellow students. They were treated by their classmates and teachers as if they were less important than others in the class. Some teachers and students showed disrespect by wondering whether the disabled students were capable of doing things the right way and as well as non-disabled students.

Limited Access

Another type of barrier facing people with disabilities, which emerged in this study, was the lack of opportunities and access to diverse contexts and settings. Results concerning access related barriers are presented in table 4.

Table 4: Interviewees' Experiences of Limited Access
Barriers and Obstacles	Experience Type	Sources Coded	Percentage
Communicating with Others	Personal / Direct	15	15.8%
Accessing Education	Personal / Direct	32	33.7%
Accessing Education	Through Aquaintance / Indirect	4	4.2%
Accessing Public Services and Authorities	Personal / Direct	6	6.3%
Accessing the Physical Environment and Transportation	Personal / Direct	30	31.6%
Accessing the Physical Environment and Transportation	Through Aquaintance / Indirect	4	4.2%
Accessing Work	Personal / Direct	21	22.1%
Poverty		38	40.0%
Religion-Related		6	6.3%

Results indicate that accessing education and a suitable job were especially difficult, leading many people with disabilities to precarious forms of work (such as selling small quantities of good on the streets) or begging as the only possible way to survive. Indeed, approximately 34% of respondents in this study stated that they have faced all forms of barriers and obstacles in accessing education. Many faced difficulties in getting admission to secondary schools and colleges of their choice on the basis of their disability. A large proportion of people with disabilities had not been able to go to school because their parents were not able or did not want to pay school fees as they thought it would be a waste of resources. In other instances, families could not afford the fees because they lived in poverty. The opportunity for a good education was also often denied by the directors of the institutions when they realized that the student they had admitted was a person with disability. The experience reported by this young man was shared by many others as well. When he tried to enroll in a secondary school he was refused:

…I was not allowed to study there because I was disabled. I tried to find out why and all they could say was that the boys’ dormitory was upstairs and that I could not manage to get there…The head mistress said that because I had a wheelchair I would have a problem in the school…

More than 22% of the respondents also reported barriers and obstacles in accessing work. Managers often held misconceptions and believed that people with disabilities are not able to perform the work tasks, or to move around safely in the work environment and on that basis refused to employ them. People with disabilities who turned to hawking also reported having a very difficult time with the city council authorities, as hawking became illegal in the city of Nairobi. Without appropriate education and facing discrimination at work, the life prospects for people with disabilities in Kenya are quite low, as this interviewee asserted:

Our education standards are very low in comparison to other people. We cannot get well paying jobs and have to make do with jobs like being a cleaner or just a subordinate employee. While the technology in the world has been changing over time, the deaf still use obsolete technology used by the missionaries to train

People who are deaf or blind or who have physical disabilities faced significant barriers in communication and transportation. Results indicated that close to 16% of the respondents faced problems in accessing physical environments including hospitals, public institutions and transportation. As expected, communication was a particularly difficult problem for deaf people. They reported how hard it was for them to contribute to family matters, meetings, seminars and conferences, or to follow radio and television news because of a lack of interpreters. A deaf woman confided:

…One time I was very sick and went to the hospital to consult the doctor and explain to him about my problem. I couldn’t get an interpreter and yet I was seriously sick and needed a doctor very urgently, of course…… It was not explained to me properly how I was supposed to take the medication …… I was so confused. I scarcely understood what was said, due to inadequate communication.

For those with physical disabilities, and for people who are blind, accessing the transport system was a major problem which often forced them to be late for work or activities which they had to attend. Many public transport vehicles operators found it a waste of time to stop the additional time necessary for a person with a disability to board the vehicle. Accessing public facilities, such as offices, without lifts was problematic for persons with physical disabilities and for blind persons. Stairs were frequently reported as the most difficult to handle.

A small but significant number of respondents (more than 6%) reported facing barriers and obstacles from a sector that is supposed to assist them. For them, accessing assistance from public services and authorities was very difficult. Those who desperately needed help reported that they spent money trying to reach the right people in the government offices. In a country where corruption reportedly permeates all levels of government and the payment of bribes is apparently not an uncommon means of obtaining what one is entitled to by law, people with disabilities are further marginalized by their lack of material resources.

Another small but important proportion of interviewees (more than 6%) cited negative experiences that took place in religion-related contexts. The majority of these reports came from deaf people who complained that their churches did not take into account their inability to hear and continued to preach without interpreters.

The most significant obstacle that people with disabilities in Kenya face, however, is poverty. A large number of respondents (approximately 40%) indicated that poverty or economic deprivation was one of the major causes of the discrimination they faced in their daily lives. Some of those interviewed reported they were poor because their rights to inherit property and land were denied by their family members. Lacking adequate education and jobs, many were forced to turn to the streets and beg to survive, a status they felt ashamed of. Those who wanted to start their own small business, found it hard to accumulate or get the initial investment, thus they also turned to begging.

In most cases (more than 62% of the time), the various types of barriers experienced by people with disabilities (whether discriminatory attitudes, negative perceptions, abuse and violence or limited access) were not isolated events; on the contrary, they tended to occur more than once throughout the lives of each respondent.

Positive Life Experiences

Despite the negative experiences recounted by the interviewees, on occasion they felt they were treated in a positive way. Such positive experiences have taken place at school, in the family, and in both social and work contexts. Positive experiences were also reported in religion-related settings and in relationships with public authorities. Results are presented in table 5.

Table 5: Positive Experiences
Variable	Sources Coded	Percentage
Positive life experiences in the school context	5	5.3%
Positive life experiences in the family context	39	41.1%
Positive life experiences with public authorities	9	9.5%
Positive life experiences in the community/society	35	36.5%
Positive life experiences religion-related	9	9.5%
Positive life experiences in the context of work	6	6.3%

Results indicated that most positive experiences tended to take place within the family (41%), community and social life (37%). Positive experiences reported included the willingness of family to provide adequate education and health care to the person with the disability and her or his children. It also included being fully involved in family decision-making and activities, or being helped by neighbours in a variety of difficult situations. It also involved interacting with the community freely like any other person on a daily basis.

A few interviewees also reported being treated positively at school, at work, by public authorities or government officials and in religious settings. At school, some teachers understood their students with disabilities well and cared and assisted them in their studies. They even tried to sensitize their colleagues to change their attitudes towards people with disabilities. In one case it was reported that a teacher requested that his colleagues change the teaching methods to accommodate a disabled student.

Access to Human Rights Principles

One of the main goals of this study is to document situations of human rights violations experienced by people with disabilities in Kenya. Rather than simply inquiring about service needs, as is traditionally done in the disability field, this study was designed to monitor the extent to which people with disabilities enjoy their fundamental human rights.
Although a few descriptions of positive experiences have been gathered through this study, interviewees overwhelmingly reported having encountered, throughout their lives, recurrent violations of key human rights principles. Results on Human Rights Implications are presented in tables 6 to 10. Violations of the rights of people with disabilities took place in different contexts: in the family, at school, in the workplace, in the community/society in general, and even in their relationships with public authorities.

As discussed in the previous section, the barriers that people with disabilities experienced in their daily lives included discriminatory attitudes, emotional and physical abuse and limited access to diverse contexts and settings. These barriers led to violations of the rights of people living with disabilities. In this study, we investigated how the barriers and obstacles faced by people with disabilities affected their rights, by examining four key human rights principles: dignity (perceptions of self-worth), autonomy (ability to make choices and decisions on issues that affect one’s own life), equality (having disability differences respected and disadvantages addressed and being able to participate fully on equal terms), and inclusion (being recognized and valued as equal participants and having needs understood as integral to the social and economic order and not identified as special needs ). We also explored the respondents’ perceptions regarding the way in which disability is treated and viewed in Kenyan society in relation to other “social differences” (namely those related to ethnicity and gender).

Dignity

As a human right, dignity refers to the impact of particular life experiences on the individuals’ perceptions of self-worth. Results are presented in table 6.

Table 6: Dignity
Interviewee Experience	Sources Coded	Percentage
Reports feeling disrespected and devalued	90	94.7%
Reports of other persons feeling disrespected and devalued	2	2.1%
Reports being respected and valued	24	25.3%

Examples of discrimination, abuse and violence that led to the violation of rights of people with disabilities were found in virtually every single interview. Results indicate that approximately 95% of the interviewees reported feeling disrespected and devalued in their experiences and opinions or were not able to form opinions without fear of physical, psychological and/or emotional harm. Locked in the house permanently or forced to spent sleepless nights in the open seem to be common experiences for many people with disabilities. Some disabled women reported having been sexually abused and even raped. When they saw their rights violated the majority of the respondents reported feeling disrespected, not cared for, neglected, oppressed, less valued than others, unwanted, unworthy, and most of all felt that their needs were not taken into account. For instance, a woman who is blind and used to sell on the street with the help of her children reported:

…On this day I was selling kerosene but my children were not around. I called on a woman to help me pour kerosene into a customer’s container. She however brought an extra container and took some for herself and left without paying. Someone (I do not remember who) told me what had transpired and I felt so bad that I decided to discontinue with the business. I also tried to sell charcoal and open a shop but people would steal from me and I had to leave. Some people would pretend to give me a high denomination currency so that I gave them greater change. Someone even used Tanzanian [neighbouring country] currency to buy merchandise from me. These people despised me a lot. If they did not despise me, then they would never have done to me what they had. They looked on me as an incomplete person. I think the reason was my lack of sight

According to many interviewees, human rights violations often took place in schools and workplaces . Some workers with disabilities were not paid their salaries, and students were frequently denied equal opportunities and discriminated against on the basis of their disability. An interviewee, who had a visible disability, recalled the following event at school:

I was a member of a school choir. I practiced with them. We went for western Kenya music festivals. Come the day of festivals, the choir master refused to let me sing. He told me to sit somewhere and guard the sweaters. May be he thought the adjudicators would see a disabled child in his team and deduct marks. It was not comfortable during those days.

Close to 25% of the respondents however, reported cases of being respected, accepted cared for and valued. But even for them, situations of abuse and discrimination overcame the good memories of being treated with dignity.

Autonomy

Autonomy as a human right means the ability to make choices and decisions on issues that affect one’s own life (including choosing forms of supported decision-making). Results are presented in table 7.

Table 7: Autonomy
Interviewee Experience	Sources Coded	Percentage
Lack of Autonomy - Interviewee	70	73.7%
Lack of Autonomy - Others	3	3.2%
Self-Determination	35	36.8%

Approximately 74% of people with disabilities in this study reported they were denied the right to make decisions on issues affecting their own lives. Others described how they had been forced into situations against their will, because they had been judged incapable of deciding on their own, because of their disability. Lack of autonomy was also an experience shared by many other people with disabilities known to the respondents. Being dependent on others for daily living tasks, as blind people often reported they were, was seen as limiting the individual’s ability to make decisions. Lack of ability to participate in some activities, because of communication obstacles, for example, also prevented autonomy. Decisions that significantly affected a disabled person’s life were taken by their family members or friends without considering the views of the person themselves. This was especially grave when they related to issues that involved the sharing of resources as this respondent reported:

In family matters, my brothers sometimes discriminate me a little and I think that they are having an upper hand e.g. we share a land with my brother and since I was blind he decided he is going to do what he wants and went ahead to plant trees without caring at all for my opinion which offended me

Some respondents, nevertheless, reported being able to exercise autonomy. Results indicate that close to 37% of the respondents felt that they determined at least some of the decisions they considered important in their lives despite their disability. Those who were aware of their rights protested issues they felt infringed on their rights, such as inheritance, access to school, to work and so on. They have fought to be heard and participate in activities in which they would have otherwise been included in. This respondent, who is a lawyer by profession, showed his self-determination in the following quote:

…I have protested to the land control board by writing a letter that if that land is to be divided it has to be divided with my consent because I am an interested party. I am hoping that when the division of the land comes I will be there and voice my opinion. I did this on my own.

Another individual felt proud that he contributed successfully to the constitutional review process because of his own determination and confidence. He says:

Yes, I have autonomy and I have much freedom. I especially contributed a lot to the constitution review process. My views were very much welcome. I had a clear knowledge of what the constitution review process was. Indeed, fourteen out of the fifteen issues I mentioned were addressed in the draft constitution.

Equality

Equality as a human right involves situations in which a respondent sees their own differences respected and their disadvantages addressed and is able to participate fully on equal terms. Results are presented on table 8.

Table 8: Equality
Interviewee Experience	Sources Coded	Percentage
Equality	11	11.6%
Inequality - Interviewee	82	86.3%
Inequality - Others	12	12.6%

Results indicate that more than 86% of the respondents reported being treated unequally by non-people with disabilities. They claimed they had been exploited by their own family members by being forced to do more housework, such as fetching water, washing clothes and other tasks, than their siblings, despite the fact that their disabilities made it harder on them to perform these tasks. When money was shared among family members, the disabled member of the family often received less than the others even though they had done extra work. They were often given different food than other members of the family and were not bought clothes although other members of the family were. In many cases boys and girls with disabilities were not sent to school while their able bodied siblings were. Members of the same family sometimes slept in different places from other family members and in some cases the person with a disability was forced to sleep in the kitchen while others slept in the main house. At work, things were no different - workers with disabilities were discriminated against and paid a much lower salary than their able bodied counterparts even when their job description was the same, as this man recounted:

Yes, although I work very hard, appreciation is hard to come by. People think that normal people should be appreciated more and despise us. When anything good is happening it is awarded to the normal teachers while I am left out. They (the normal teachers) keep on progressing while we remain static or regress. For example, letters for admission for further studies are awarded to the normal teachers, usually without our knowledge…

More than 12% of the respondents reported incidences in which other people they knew were treated with a similar lack of respect and consideration for their differences.

However, approximately 11% cited incidences, in which they had been respected for their differences, and had their disadvantages addressed and thus were able to participate fully on equal terms. Some people were treated well by their families, employers, and teachers. A few claimed that they were allowed to participate in school activities such as group discussions, games and drama equally, without any discrimination. Some interviewees reported that their employers also cared and treated them on equal terms with others. Some even claimed that their employers might have attended to them more than their able bodied colleagues and that they got all the services and help they needed from their employers.

Inclusion

Inclusion as a human right relates to being recognized and valued as an equal participant and having one’s own needs understood as integral to the social and economic order and not identified as special needs. Table 9 presents results on the interviews with respect to inclusion.

Table 9: Inclusion
Interviewee Experience	Sources Coded	Percentage
Exclusion - Interviewee	76	80.0%
Exclusion - Others	4	4.2%
Inclusion	65	68.4%

Results from table 9 indicate that 80% of the respondents had experienced segregation, isolation and lack of support for their needs on the grounds of disability. They reported being alienated by the community due to their disability. Many had been rejected by people without disabilities and denied opportunities to interact and share with them. Approximately 4% of the respondents reported incidences where other people with disabilities were segregated, isolated and/or not supported in their needs on the grounds of disability.

Surprisingly, and not anticipated, about 68% of the respondents reported incidences in which they were recognized and valued as an equal participant. Some reported being invited to preside over important meetings and seminars and also participate as officials of certain organizations in society. This man boasts of how he attended and contributed to public meetings:

When I go to Barazas (Public Meetings) I do not go as a disabled but as a resident of the estate. Like now, I live in Kayole Estate, when there is a meeting I attend as a resident of Kayole and participate like a resident of Kayole like any other member of society.

Although the proportion of those who reported positive experiences of inclusion was still lower than that of those who have experienced segregation, rejection and isolation, this is an important result that suggests that people with disabilities struggle for rights and recognition is beginning to bear results in Kenyan society.

Respect and difference

Despite the positive note in the paragraph above, the picture that emerges from the present study indicates that largely, people with disabilities in Kenyan society are treated differently and in demeaning ways. Table 10 summarizes how disability is viewed in this country.

Table 10: Respect for Difference
Interviewee Experience	Sources Coded	Percentage
Being Labeled - Interviewee	51	53.7%
Being Labeled - Others	3	3.2%
Being Respected (regardless of difference)	4	4.2%

Results indicate that people with disabilities are often labeled on the grounds of their disability. Approximately 54% of the respondents recounted that, in one circumstance or another, they had been given a negative nickname based on their disability. Labeling of people with disabilities seemed to be a very common experience for people with disabilities in Kenya. Disrespectful ways of addressing people with disabilities such as “kipofu” (blind person), “bubu” (deaf person) represented for the people labeled as such, a serious violation of human dignity. In Kenya these labels were used with a lot of contempt. Some even labeled the children of disabled parents by calling them “mtoto wa yule kipofu” (son or daughter of the blind man). Using such nicknames made the respondent feel invisible behind the label and a loss of their individuality. Individually as well as collectively, people with disabilities were set apart from the rest of society as less worthy or something less than human beings. This in turn, legitimized their oppression, segregation and discrimination, as this interviewee reported:

…You will hear names like, “Yule Kipofu amefika” to mean the blind man/woman has arrived. You will also hear things like “Hebu uliza yule kipofu anataka nini (ask that blind person what he/she wants) showing some form of despise. That makes us even not get assisted.

Even in schools the teachers referred to some students with disabilities by their labels and not their names as this respondent revealed:

Yes. In school, the owner of the school referred to me as the walking dead. My mathematics teacher did not like my glasses so he used to call me ‘Chupa’ to mean bottle. This troubled me much. Yes it did (“chupa” became my nickname)

Responses to Abuse and Discrimination

Having faced repeated discrimination, sometimes even abuse, interviewees responded in different ways. Some have chosen to distance themselves from the contexts in which they have faced discrimination in order to avoid further discrimination; others have resisted by trying to change the situations and contexts in which they have experienced discrimination, and finally others have reported or taken legal action. Results are presented in table 11.

Table 11: Response to Abuse and Discrimination
Response	Sources Coded	Percentage
Distancing	45	47.4%
Resistance	30	31.6%
Reporting	43	45.3%

Distancing

Results indicate that the majority of the interviewees chose to avoid or distance themselves from situations and contexts in which they experienced abuse and discrimination. More than 47% of those interviewed disclosed that they decided to distance themselves from those contexts and situations that had caused them pain and suffering in the past. Because of the manner in which they were treated in previous encounters, many of them have opted to keep away from situations that would embarrass them further.

Resistance

Results in table 11 also indicate that a substantial number of interviewees chose to keep returning to and trying to change situations and contexts in which they had experienced abuse and discrimination. About 32% showed remarkable resilience and strength, resisting oppression and struggling for their rights in spite of adversity and hostility. For instance, one man who had been fighting for years for government support to launch a business project kept paying visits to the offices of bureaucrats and local authorities despite their continued indifference. Yet another blind person complained that while he had been stopped on some occasions from attending conferences he did not let that stop him and forced his way in and attended anyway. Some respondents said that when they were not included, they simply included themselves. Others, as recounted by the woman in the quote below, have fought very hard for the rights of people with disabilities by arguing, informing non-people with disabilities and making sure that people with disabilities are not excluded from participating in community activities:

I have not been left out yet. It might have happened to other people but I force my way in. for example, I join some groups after a lot of explanations and complaints. I make them understand that I am also a human being. Other people may not be a problem for instance, the Food for Work activities. I had to talk to the chief to include the disabled. I also spoke to and pressured people at Social Development to include people with disabilities. We also have the association for the blind where we discuss issues about managing our lives……I ‘fought’ with them and they accepted us. That is why I never reported this to anyone.

Reporting /legal action

Results further indicate that a significant number of interviewees chose to report or complain about situations or contexts in which they experienced discrimination. Approximately 45% of those interviewed had attempted to report to local authorities, abuse and discrimination they suffered, even though many of their efforts were not successful. On some occasions, action was taken by the authorities.

Reasons for not reporting

Most respondents, however, did not file a complaint even when they were discriminated against. Interviewees presented several reasons for not reporting situations or contexts in which they were abused and discriminated against, as shown in Table 12.

Table 12: Reasons for not Reporting
Reason	Sources Coded	Percentage
Lack of Access	33	34.7%
‘Nothing would have been done’	25	26.3%
Fear	14	14.7%
Self-blame	13	13.7%
Corruption	6	6.3%
Lack of financial means or resources	6	6.3%

Lack of access

Most of the respondents (35%) had not reported situations of abuse and discrimination due to lack of access to appropriate administrative and/or legal structures or lack of information about how to proceed to make a claim. This interviewee confirmed that he did not know how to proceed in order to file a complaint:

No, I haven’t reported anywhere. I have to look for advice on how to proceed. Like I told you I discovered about the human rights offices recently. I don’t know where the offices are here in Nairobi

Others revealed that they did not report because of lack of competent authorities and/or legal structures within the government that take into consideration the disadvantages of people with disabilities and thus the resulting discrimination.

‘Nothing would have been done’

Others still, reported they did not trust public authorities and felt that it would be pointless to complain because they were convinced that reporting or taking any legal action would not have any significant consequences in changing situations and contexts of discrimination. More than 26% of the respondents revealed that they did not report their experiences because they believed that nothing would have happened anyway. Some felt that since the cause of discrimination was due to people’s attitudes, it was not possible to sue and as such no action would be taken. Others believed that without the disability act being enacted nothing would really be done even if they reported.

Fear

Results also indicated that, approximately 15% of the respondents failed to report the incidences of abuse and discrimination because they feared the consequences of reporting. For fear of bringing hatred between her and the school principal and losing her job, a teacher who, despite being albino (a condition requiring particular care with skin protection), had been forced to accompany children on a field trip on a sunny, hot day, did not report the issue to the board of governors. Others told stories of being threatened that if they reported an incident the culprit would punish them. Another respondent was afraid that if she reported the mistreatment her siblings imposed on her, they would also hate her which would lead to more discrimination.

Self-blame

A substantial number of those interviewed seem to have internalized a demeaning self-image. Close to14% of interviewees did not report abuses suffered because of their own feelings of shame and inferiority. Rather than relating discrimination to social and economic circumstances, this group of respondents tended to think that the disability itself justified the oppression they experienced. A woman who was trying to get her share of her husband’s inheritance, when asked whether she had reported the discrimination she was suffering from her co-wives replied:

No, no one. Not the Chief or the Police. I felt that it was because I was deaf and gave up.

Corruption

Others failed to report because they knew or thought that they would have to bribe the authorities. Many of the people with disabilities interviewed believed that there was a lot of corruption in the political and legal systems of the Kenyan government and thus failed to report because they had nothing with which to bribe the authorities.

Lack of financial means

Still others did not report incidences of human rights violations because they didn’t have the financial means or resources to sustain a legal claim, especially if they thought the case had to go through the courts. The financial cost that pursuing a legal claim would represent for the claimant was further reason that prevented many people with disabilities from taking legal action to fight the discrimination they face.

Systemic roots of discrimination

Systemic roots of discrimination are the social, political and economic factors that can be the root causes of abuse and discrimination. Throughout the interviews, respondents reflected on their experiences and some commented on the broader social, economic and political factors and contexts that contributed or reinforced the discrimination that people with disabilities faced in Kenya. Results of the systemic roots of discrimination are presented in table 13.

Table 13: Systemic Roots of Discrimination
Systemic Root	Sources Coded	Percentage
Social	33	34.7%
Economic	32	33.7%
Legislative	68	71.6%

Social

Often, acts of exclusion and discrimination against people with disabilities were related to the ways in which social (reproduction) activities and social relationships operated and were organized. In about 72% of the interviews abuse and discrimination seemed to emerge from broad social factors and contexts. Examples were many and varied. For instance, the discrimination that many people with disabilities faced has social roots, and originates in the deep, entrenched stereotypes prevailing in Kenyan society which portrays people with disabilities as burdens, useless, good for nothing, and curses. One man commented:

… from the community where I come from, disability is regarded as a curse. So people who are superstitious say that this might be a generational curse, which might affect even our children…

Another example came up when discussing the difficulties people with disabilities faced in getting a job. An interviewee remarked:

It seems that these days to get a job, you have to know someone or pay some money.

To the extent that accessing a job seemed to depend more on social capital (personal relationships) and financial ability than on ability and willingness to work, people with disabilities, who often are poor, socially isolated and marginalized, faced additional barriers and easily got trapped in a spiral of increasing poverty and exclusion.

People with disabilities were also frequently discriminated against and left out by public service vehicles. Again, the issue here was not so much the particular discriminatory attitude of an individual bus driver, but rather the lack of resources and the total indifference towards the needs of those with disabilities by the whole public transportation system. It was clearly a systemic, rather than an individual issue. In many other cases where people with disabilities were misdirected, left by public service vehicles or even chased away, the problem was a broader social issue. It was social in the sense that the stereotype that people with disabilities are beggars and will not pay for anything is so deeply entrenched that the bus conductors would not direct the individual to the right vehicle for fear that he or she would not pay.

Discrimination within the family often happened in the context of extreme poverty. When asked why people with disabilities are considered ‘people of problems’ to their families, this man replied:

They are a burden. Their hands must be held while food must be brought to them; hence people consider them a burden. They cannot even go to garden.

As this answer shows, the need for assistance with daily tasks associated with some disabilities, represented to these families nothing less than dependence, an added cost, and little or no contribution at all to the family economy. In contexts of extreme poverty, this is more than many families would be willing to endure. Again discrimination in this case seems to be related to broader social and economic factors that impacted on this family rather than simply the attitudes of the members of this particular family.

Economic

Other acts of exclusion and discrimination against people with disabilities can be related to the ways in which economic (production) activities are organized and delivered in Kenyan society. In fact, 34% of our respondents reported barriers rooted in the economic system. In particular, many considered discrimination to stem from deep rooted poverty in which they are forced to live.

Legislative

Discrimination also stems from the lack of adequate laws or policies to protect the rights of people with disabilities. Existing laws and policies in the country do not adequately protect people with disabilities from broad mistreatment within society. In this case, disability was not the main problem. Many people with disabilities were able to do most of the tasks that were expected of them. The environment was the challenge. The denial of their rights was the greatest problem.

For instance, if legislation were in place that provided for interpreters in hospitals, schools and churches, barriers in communication and the problems that result from that could be avoided.

Police and other public authorities also need to be trained about disability issues in order for them to learn how to deal with people with disabilities in an appropriate way. The government has not effectively formulated and implemented laws and/or policies that guarantee people with disabilities the attention and care they need.

Recommendations

In face of all the barriers and discrimination described, interviewees provided a number of valuable suggestions to improve the situation of people with disabilities in their country. A summary is presented in table 14.

Table 14: Recommendations
Recommendation	Sources Coded	Percentage
Raise Awareness	46	48.4%
Improve Respect	42	44.2%
Social Supports	33	34.7%
Legislation	28	29.5%
Economic Supports	25	26.3%
Political Representation	13	13.7%
Peer Support	12	12.6%

Raise Awareness

The majority of the respondents (more than 48%) would like society to be better educated about disability issues and how to deal with people with disabilities. A number of respondents alleged that if their parents and communities had proper information about disability, they would probably accept them. An interviewee explained:

Sensitization of the community should be true and should be told that [people with disabilities] are normal people just like you and I and they can do what you do if accorded necessary assistance.

Many complained that the government and other organizations concerned with disability issues have done very little to sensitize people on how to interact with people with disabilities.

Improve Respect

Another significant proportion of the respondents (approximately 44%) demanded more respect and consideration from the government in regards to the needs of people with disabilities. These interviewees felt that the government should be at the forefront in increasing attention to and respect for disability issues. One respondent made the following suggestion:

The people in the government should be taught how best to do their jobs. They should also know that people with disabilities are human beings with basic human rights and as such they should be treated with due respect.

One of the respondents concluded that society should not look at disabilities but should focus on what people with disabilities can do better.

Social Supports

Many respondents suggested that the government should do more in terms of social support. Close to 35% of those interviewed proposed that the government should strive to improve the living conditions and income of people with disabilities and their families. They suggested that the government should assist people with disabilities with transportation, residence and employment supports. Yet others advocated better personal services to people with disabilities including guidance and counseling services for the people who suffered discrimination and abuse. Others demanded financial support for their families including payment of school fees for their children, so that their living conditions and income could improve.

Legislation

Approximately 29% of the people with disabilities interviewed advocated the development and implementation of new laws and policies to protect the rights of people with disabilities. Some argued that legal frameworks should be put in place to protect people with disabilities from discrimination and enable them to have a full life, while adequate penalties should be given to the perpetrators of discrimination. Many recommended policies and legislation such as affirmative action that are disability-sensitive to ensure certain positions be reserved for people with disabilities.

Economic Support

Over a quarter of the population surveyed recommended improving access to work for people with disabilities. This would also contribute to improve the lives of the people with disabilities. Some suggested that the government give them spaces to put up their own businesses, thus avoiding confrontations with the county council that often resulted in injuries. Others wanted the government to assure them self-reliance and independence by providing them with good employment so that they can live like other people.

Political Representation

For a number of respondents improving the participation and representation of people with disabilities in the civil service and the parliament was reported as what was most needed. More than 13% of the respondents believed that better representation in the parliament would result in finding responses to many of the problems people with disabilities face. They suggested that people with disabilities be given a chance to participate in all areas of life and to speak on behalf of others with disabilities. A person with a physical disability had this to say:

My opinion is that we the handicapped should also be involved when it comes to issues of land distribution so that they can have their portion.

Others recommended that people with disabilities be involved in various decision making processes including being nominated to the parliament in order to explain their situation adequately.

Peer Support

More than 12% of those interviewed believe that people with disabilities should be able to get together and support each other. Some suggest that all disabilities be handled as one through a single forum as a way of avoiding situations where some groups of people with disabilities oppress others. All people with disabilities should group up and deal with issues together, learn from each other and defeat their challenges together. This is viewed as very important to improve the livelihoods of people with disabilities so that people with disabilities can enjoy their rights to life, education, work, interaction, belonging and hence a decent standard of living.

Gender, Ethnicity and Class vs. Disability

This study also explored respondents’ perceptions about the way in which disability is viewed in Kenyan society relative to other social differences, namely those related to class, ethnicity and gender. It further examined how respondents perceived the intersections of disability with class, ethnicity and gender, and their impact on discrimination.

Gender and Disability

Respondents seemed to be divided with respect to their views about the ways in which gender and disability intersected to result in discrimination. About 70% of interviewees answered this question, with a similar number of respondents in each gender. The majority of them, both women and men, think that gender has no impact on the discrimination faced by people with disabilities in Kenya (although more men are of that opinion than women). In other words, according to these respondents, men and women are equally likely to be oppressed and experience exclusion and discrimination if they have a disability. However, when we look at those who DO think that gender has an effect on discrimination, we find some more interesting differences. In fact, more women than men (32% vs. 18%) are of the opinion that being both female and disabled represents a double disadvantage, while more men than women (15% vs. 7%) said the opposite (that being disabled and a man creates greater hardships). One male respondent had this to say:

…Women have bigger advantage for they are treated with more respect than men, maybe twice the advantage…

In sum, results indicate that women were less convinced than men that disability-related experiences of discrimination were the same for both genders, and they were more outspoken in denouncing the harder challenges they face. As many explained, discrimination for disabled women is compounded by the low value placed on female lives in general and prevailing gender norms and roles that contribute to oppress women (and even more so women with disabilities) in African society, as this woman so well expressed:

The mistreatment is common in women, because they are less likely to get someone to help them. Because ….a woman does not count in the family. Men are most valued.

Ethnicity and Disability

About 75% of the interviewees offered comments on this topic. Here again, responses varied. While some considered ethnicity to influence disability, others disagreed. In general, however, disability appeared to be considered a more determinant social marker that overrode the impact of race or ethnicity. Above all, the important issue appeared to be one of economic power, as the comments of this respondent, who was rejected by his girlfriend on the basis of disability, so well illustrated:

…You know there is a belief that a white man has the money and money is everything. If it was a white man, she would not have left because there would have been money… if you offered a Kenyan girl a white man on a wheelchair and a very able bodied Kenyan on the other hand; I can assure you that this girl would settle for the white man on the wheelchair. All Kenyans are interested in money and in going abroad… however, if the reason why one faced rejection is disability, racial background notwithstanding, this person may face similar rejection as I.

Class and Disability

As previously discussed, in Kenya, as in many other parts of the world, disability is closely associated with poverty. A large number of respondents, 67% of the interviewees, offered comments on the ways in which class (simply defined as being poor or rich) intersected with disability to compound or protect people with disabilities from abuse and discrimination. Their views were quite diverse. Nevertheless, some consensus seemed to exist around the idea that in a society where the standard of living is generally low, as in Kenya, economic power is the most significant means of gaining social status, and a protector against the violations of human rights that people with disabilities so often experience. In short, being disabled and rich ensured access to basic human rights, while those who were disabled and poor (as are the largest majority of people with disabilities in this country) were pushed to the margins of society and suffered discrimination, oppression and persistent denial of their human rights and dignity.

Intersections

In addition to describing the meaning and content of the variables used in this study, this research has explored the relationships among variables36. This analysis focused on four attributes: age, gender, type of disability and the region from which the respondent came, and examined the relationships among these variables, the types of barriers, as well as respondents access to and exercise of human rights principles.

Barriers by Attributes

Barriers by Age Group

Table 15 shows the relationships between types of barriers faced by interviewees according to their age rank.

Table 15: Incidences37 of Barriers by Age Rank
Barrier	18-25 years			25-40 years			41-55 years			56-70 years
Barrier	SC38	R%39	C%40	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%
Attitude	12	7.4	40	73	44.8	36.5	71	43.6	39.9	7	4.3	31.8
Abuse	11	7.0	36.7	75	47.8	37.5	61	38.9	34.3	10	6.4	45.5
Access	7	6.4	23.3	52	47.3	26.0	46	41.8	25.8	5	4.6	22.7
All Barriers	30	7	n/a	200	47	n/a	178	41	n/a	22	5	n/a

Because a large proportion of our sample falls in the age brackets 25-40 years and 41-55 years, the highest incidences of discriminatory attitudes, abuse and access barriers were also found in these groups.
On average, people with disabilities in Kenya experience discriminatory attitudes more often than incidences of abuse and violence and the former two more than limited access. However, within the age groups 25-40 and 56-70, reports of abuse and violence outnumber those of discriminatory attitudes (see column percentages).

Barriers by Gender

Table 16 compares the various types of barriers by the gender of the respondents.

Table 16: Barriers by Gender
Barrier	Males			Females
Barrier	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%
Attitude	81	49.1	38.8	84	51.0	36.8
Abuse	74	46.3	35.4	86	53.6	37.7
Access	54	48.2	25.8	58	51.8	25.4
All Barriers	209	48	n/a	228	52	n/a

Results for women and men appear to be very close. However some significant differences need to be highlighted. For instance, results indicate that female interviewees reported higher incidence of every type of barrier as compared to their male counterparts. While this might be partly due to the fact that slightly more women were interviewed than men, it is important to examine how barriers affected each gender.

The results indicate that a distinct pattern of barriers exists for males and females - males are more likely to suffer from discriminatory attitudes (39%) than abuse (35%) and access barriers (26%), while females are more likely to report incidences of abuse and violence (38%) than discriminatory attitudes (37%) and access barriers (25%), (see column percentages). Furthermore, a close examination of the reports gathered shows that abuse and violence of women with disabilities occurs mainly in the domestic sphere, at the hands of their parents, partners and siblings, as is commonly found in the general female population. Because women’s roles in Kenyan society generally encourage dependency and submissiveness, disabled women are also more vulnerable to abuse and violence than men.

Barriers by Region

Barriers faced by region or geographic location of respondents are presented in table 17.

Table 17: Incidences of Barriers by Region
Barrier	Nairobi			Nyanza			Rift Valley
Barrier	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%
Attitude	71	43.0	43.5	47	28.5	33.8	47	28.5	35.1
Abuse	54	33.8	32.9	52	32.5	37.4	54	33.8	40.3
Access	39	34.8	23.8	40	35.7	28.9	33	29.5	24.6
All Barriers	164	37	n/a	139	32	n/a	134	29.5	n/a

The distribution of the sample by region or location of respondents was quite even. Comparisons of types of barriers across regions (row percentages), is thus possible. Results reveal that Nairobi (the urban setting in this study) led in terms of incidences reported in all types of barriers faced with the exception of limited access41. Nyanza (representing rural Kenya) is where the highest incidences of barriers to access were found (approximately 36%). In addition, there were more incidences of discriminatory attitudes reported in Nairobi (43%) than in the other two regions each with a prevalence of approximately 28%. In terms of abuse and violence, Nairobi and Rift Valley led with a prevalence close to 34% each.

Results indicate that in Nairobi more incidences of discriminatory attitudes were reported (approximately 43%) than of abuse and violence (approximately 33%) or limited access (approximately 24%) (see column percentages). By contrast, in the Nyanza region most incidences of barriers reported by people with disabilities were related to abuse and violence (approximately 37%), followed by discriminatory attitudes (approximately 34%) and finally limited access (approximately 29%). In Rift Valley, just like in Nyanza, results indicated that people reported more incidences of abuse and violence (approximately 40%) followed by discriminatory attitudes (approximately 35%) and lastly limited access at approximately 25%.

These differences suggest that distinct perceptions and views of disability and people with disabilities prevail in urban and rural contexts. In urban areas such as Nairobi, people appear to be more likely to be sensitized on issues of violence against people with disabilities than they are in rural areas where disability is still regarded as a scourge. Therefore, situations of abuse and violence of people with disabilities occurred more frequently in rural than in urban areas, although the large, anonymous cities were still the places where people with disabilities encountered more discriminatory attitudes.

Barriers by Type of Disability

This section examines barriers faced by respondents according to the type of disability. Results are presented in tables 18 and 19.

Table 18: Incidences of Barriers by Disability (Sources Coded)
Barrier	Mobility	Sensory - Blind	Sensory - Deaf	Intellectual	Other
Attitude	41	91	29	1	9
Abuse	35	77	35	7	6
Access	29	40	35	2	6
All Barriers	105	208	99	10	21

A comparison of particular types of barriers faced by people with particular types of disabilities (row percentages) must be done with caution since the distribution of our sample was very uneven with respect to this attribute. Indeed results revealed that people who are blind are the most affected by discriminatory attitudes (53%) followed by those with physical disabilities(24%), those who are deaf (17%) and then by those with other types of disability However, this distribution matches closely the weight of each disability type in the sample for this study. The pattern is the same for abuse and violence, with percentages of 48%, 22% and 22% respectively. Only in the category of access barriers is this slightly inverted with blind people (36%) being the most affected followed by deaf persons (31%), and then those with mobility disabilities (26%).

Table 19: Incidences of Barriers by Disability Type (Row and Column %)
Variable	Mobility		Sensory - Blind		Sensory - Deaf		Intellectual		Other
Variable	R%	C%	R%	C%	R%	C%	R%	C%	R%	C%
Attitude	24.0	39.1	53.2	43.8	17.0	29.2	0.6	10.0	5.3	42.9
Abuse	21.9	33.3	48.1	37.0	21.9	35.4	4.4	70.0	3.8	28.6
Access	25.9	27.6	35.7	19.2	31.3	35.4	1.8	20.0	5.4	28.6
All Barriers	23.7	n/a	47.0	n/a	22.3	n/a	2.3	n/a	4.8	n/a

The comparison of each disability group across the three types of barriers (column percentages) yields more significant results. For instance, both those who are blind and those with mobility impairments reported experiencing more discriminatory attitudes than abuse and violence or limited access. This may be due to the fact that blindness and mobility issues are usually visible disabilities and thus reactions and possibly negative attitudes from others are immediately prompted. Blind people are also the most likely to collide with physical obstacles and to ask for assistance, which again creates many situations in which negative attitudes can occur. On the other hand the deaf more often experience limited access and abuse related barriers (both at 35%) than discriminatory attitudes. Since not many people learn sign language, the most probable cause of limitation in access by deaf people is communication barriers. Unlike people who are blind and those with physical disabilities it is often difficult and almost impossible to figure out from a distance that someone is deaf, but this circumstance in itself may sometimes be a source of discrimination and abuse, because deaf people’s needs might remain unacknowledged, and therefore unaddressed.

Access to Human Rights Principles by Attributes

Access to Human Rights Principles by Age Rank

Table 20 examines the relationship between access to human rights principles and the age rank of respondents.

Table 20: Access to Human Rights Principles by Age Rank
Experience	18-25 years			25-40 years			41-55 years			56-70 years
Experience	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%
Autonomy
Lack of Autonomy	7	10.1	63.6	33	47.8	68.8	27	39.1	64.3	2	2.9	100
Self-determination	4	11.8	36.4	15	44.1	31.2	15	44.1	35.7	0	0	0
Dignity
Devalued	8	9.0	72.7	40	44.9	78.4	37	41.6	78.7	4	4.5	100
Valued	3	12.5	27.3	11	45.8	21.6	10	41.7	21.3	0	0	0
Equality
Equality	4	36.4	36.4	3	27.3	7.5	4	36.4	10.8	0	0	0
Inequality	7	8.6	63.6	37	45.7	92.5	33	40.7	89.2	4	4.9	100
Inclusion
Exclusion	7	9.3	63.6	32	42.7	51.6	33	44.0	53.2	3	4	60
Inclusion	4	6.2	36.4	30	46.2	48.4	29	44.6	46.8	2	3.1	40
Respect for Difference
Labeled	6	12	85.7	19	38.0	90.5	23	46.0	95.8	2	4.0	100
Respected	1	25	14.3	2	50.0	9.5	1	25.0	4.2	0	0	0

Given that the distribution of our sample in terms of age groups was uneven, comparisons across the age ranks (row percentages) are limited. As expected, the age rank between 25-40 years reported the highest incidences of lack of autonomy, lack of dignity, and inequality than the other age brackets. The age bracket between 41-55 years reported the highest incidences of exclusion and labeling but it was followed very closely by the age rank between 25-40 years.

In all age ranks considered, reports of incidences involving violation of basic human rights principles significantly outnumbered reports of access to and exercise of those same principles. In other words, what these results clearly indicate is that, people with disabilities in Kenya, regardless of their age, are being treated with inequality and disrespect, are excluded from mainstream society and prevented from exercising autonomy and self-determination even on decisions that affect their own lives. Devalued in the eyes of society and sometimes even their family, their dignity as human beings is seriously violated.

Access to Human Rights Principles by Gender

This section looks at access to human rights principles by gender. Outcomes are presented in table 21.

Table 21: **Access to Human Rights Principles by Gender**
Experience	Males			Females
Experience	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%
Autonomy
Lack of Autonomy	34	48.6	69.4	36	51.4	64.3
Self-determination	15	42.9	30.6	20	57.1	35.7
Dignity
Devalued	43	47.8	71.7	47	52.2	87.0
Valued	17	70.8	28.3	7	29.2	13.0
Equality
Equality	8	72.7	16.3	3	27.3	6.8
Inequality	41	50	83.7	41	50	93.2
Inclusion
Exclusion	34	44.7	53.1	42	55.3	54.5
Inclusion	30	46.2	46.9	35	53.8	45.5
Respect for Difference
Labeled	23	45.1	88.5	28	54.9	96.6
Respected	3	75.0	11.5	1	25.0	3.4

Clearly, access to and exercise of human rights principles is different for women and men. While for both, negative experiences of inequality, exclusion, disrespect and lack of autonomy outnumber positive experiences, females are more likely to be treated with disrespect and inequality than males. This may be related to gender roles and values prevailing in Kenyan society which compound for women the disadvantages associated with disability. In contrast, men are much more likely than women to report that others treated them with respect and equality (75% vs. 25% and 72% vs. 27%). While there might be a gender protective factor operating here, it is also possible that, again because of prevailing gender norms, disabled men have a more difficult time admitting to others that they are treated as inferior and less worthy. Their responses may then be biased and influenced by ideal norms and values of masculinity. Despite these considerations, results suggest that disabled women’s rights in Kenyan society are at greater risk than men’s.

Access to Human Rights Principles by Regions

Table 22 compares access to human rights principles by location where the interviews were conducted.

Table 22: Access to Human Rights Principles by Region
Experience	Nairobi			Nyanza			Rift Valley
Experience	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%
Autonomy
Lack autonomy	24	34.3	66.7	21	30.0	75.0	25	35.7	61.0
Self-determination	12	34.3	33.3	7	20.0	25.0	16	45.7	39.0
Dignity
Devalued	30	33.3	78.9	28	31.1	87.5	32	35.6	72.7
Valued	8	33.3	21.1	4	16.7	12.5	12	50.0	27.3
Equality
Equality	4	36.4	12.5	2	18.2	6.9	5	45.5	15.6
Inequality	28	34.2	87.5	27	32.9	93.1	27	32.9	84.4
Inclusion
Exclusion	27	35.5	56.3	24	31.6	50.0	25	32.9	55.6
Inclusion	21	32.3	43.7	24	36.9	50.0	20	30.8	44.4
Respect for Difference
Labeled	18	35.3	94.7	6	11.8	85.7	27	52.9	93.1
Respected	1	25.0	5.3	1	25.0	14.3	2	50.0	6.9

Comparisons across regions (row percentages) indicate that the highest occurrences of denial of human rights principles took place in Rift Valley, except in relation to the principles of equality and inclusion, where Nairobi fares worse than any other region. Paradoxically, it is also in Rift Valley that we have found the highest access to and exercise of human rights principles. Since Rift Valley in this study represents the semi-urban contexts of Kenya, it is possible that in the region rural features coexist side by side with urban characteristics, thus explaining this mix of attitudes and behaviours towards people with disabilities. In contrast, Nyanza, a rural region where more neighbours know each other, seems to offer a more inclusive environment for people with disabilities.

Turning now to comparisons within groups (column percentages) it is possible to conclude that in all three regions, Nairobi, Nyanza and Rift Valley more incidences of human rights violations were experienced. It is in Nyanza that the gap between positive and negative experiences is the widest, suggesting harsher life conditions for people with disabilities living there. However it is interesting to note that labeling is a practice more common in the urban or semi-urban environments of Nairobi and Rift Valley than in the countryside while experiences of inclusion occur more often in rural contexts.

Access to Human Rights Principles by Type of Disability

Access to human rights principles according to disability types is presented in tables 23 and 24 below.

Table 23: Access to Human Rights Principles by Types of Disability (sources coded)
Experience	Mobility	Sensory - Blind	Sensory - Deaf	Intellectual	Other
Autonomy
Lack autonomy	17	38	10	4	1
Self-determination	8	19	6	1	1
Dignity
Devalued	22	47	16	3	2
Valued	1	11	5	1	1
Equality
Equality	2	6	3	0	0
Inequality	21	41	16	3	1
Inclusion
Exclusion	19	40	12	3	2
Inclusion	15	35	11	2	2
Respect for Difference
Labeled	14	24	11	1	1
Respected	0	3	0	1	0

Given the uneven distribution of our sample according to types of disability, comparisons across groups are limited. Blind people, being the most numerous group in our sample, are also the ones who show highest incidences across all variables.

Results show that for all groups of disabilities, incidences involving denial of human rights principles are more typical than experiences of access to and exercise of human rights (column percentages).

Table 24: Access to Human Rights Principles by Disability Type (Row and Column %)
Experience	Mobility		Sensory - Blind		Sensory - Deaf		Intellectual		Other
Experience	R%	C%	R%	C%	R%	C%	R%	C%	R%	C%
Autonomy
Lack autonomy	24.3	68	54.3	66.7	14.3	62.5	5.7	80.0	1.4	50.0
Self-determination	22.9	32	54.3	33.3	17.1	37.5	2.9	20.0	2.9	50.0
Dignity
Devalued	24.4	95.7	52.2	81.0	17.8	76.2	3.3	75.0	2.2	66.7
Valued	25.0	4.3	45.8	19.0	20.8	23.8	4.2	25.0	5.3	33.3
Equality
Equality	18.2	8.7	54.6	12.8	27.3	15.8	0	0	0	0
Inequality	23.1	44.1	53.9	46.7	16.9	47.8	3.1	40.0	3.1	50.0
Inclusion
Exclusion	25	55.9	52.6	53.3	15.8	52.2	4.0	60.0	2.6	50.0
Inclusion	23.1	44.1	53.9	46.7	16.9	47.8	3.1	40.0	3.1	50.0
Respect for Difference
Labeled	27.5	100	47.1	88.9	21.6	100	2.0	50.0	2.0	100
Respected	0	0	75.0	11.1	0	0	25.0	50.0	0	0

Numerous reports of being labeled on the grounds of disability were found among all disability groups indicating that this disrespectful and oppressive practice prevails in Kenyan society. Incidences of unequal treatment, exclusion and violations of human dignity are also often reported, particularly by those with physical disabilities (who were not the most numerous group). Certainly the fact that mobility impairments are more exposed to the public gaze than other types of disabilities helps explain these outcomes.

Results of Statistical Tests Run on Intersectional Data

The data collected through the interviews clearly illustrates the general human rights situation of disabled people in Kenya. This study focuses on qualitative data and in this sense its main purpose was to give voice to disabled people and use their life stories to exemplify the kinds of barriers and discrimination associated with experiences of disability in Kenya. The sample used provided us the opportunity to explore in depth the meanings and contexts of disability in Kenya but it was not meant to statistically represent the disabled population in this country. Nevertheless in a few cases, our findings can be generalized more widely which confers greater validity to our study.

Indeed, Chi Square tests were run on those data tables with sufficient frequencies: Tables 15, 16, 17, 18, 21 (Autonomy, Dignity and Inclusion only), and 22 (Autonomy and Inclusion only), and statistically significant results were found for:

Table 18 (Incidences of Barriers by Disability Type): Level of significance p <.10.
Table 21 (Access to the Principle of Dignity by Gender): Level of significance p <.05.

These results thus suggest that the differences encountered among different disabilities, in terms of barriers experienced - with people with physical impairments or blindness being the most exposed to discriminatory attitudes, abuse and violence, and deaf as well as blind people experiencing the most severe barriers in terms of access - are possible to generalize to the whole population. Similarly, differences found between disabled men and women in our sample regarding access to the human rights’ principle of dignity - with disabled women less likely to experience a sense of self-dignity than men - seem to reflect population-wide inequalities.

Conclusion

This study constitutes the first attempt to holistically monitor people with disabilities access and exercise of human rights in Kenya. Giving voice to male and female adults with diverse disabilities living in rural, semi-urban and urban regions of the country, this research yields three very important conclusions.

First, it clearly indicates that experiences of oppression, discrimination and
violation of basic human rights pervade the lives of many people with disabilities in Kenya. As it emerged from the stories gathered, most people with disabilities, regardless of their age, gender, where they live or disability type, are prevented from making decisions on issues that affect their lives. They are treated unequally and with disrespect by their families, communities, and even public authorities. They face prejudice and negative stereotypes, and are excluded in a multitude of ways from their communities and mainstream society. Viewed as a burden and a curse to their families, they are regarded as second class citizens. Their dignity, as members of the human family, is seriously affected.

Second, this study clearly shows that poverty is wide spread among people with disabilities in this country. Because many people with disabilities lack access to appropriate education and work they are forced to sell or beg on the streets. Those who try to obtain government supports, that would enable them, for example, to set up a small business, face many obstacles including inefficient, bureaucratic services and high levels of corruption that seem to cut across the Kenyan government. Lacking adequate financial resources, people with disabilities remain socially isolated and unable to access the necessary conditions to live a life with dignity.

Third, it is evident that while both women and men experience hardships and discrimination, prevailing gender norms and roles contribute to placing women’s human rights at greater risk than men’s. Indeed, traditional views that portray women in the family as dependent and submissive to men increase disabled women’s vulnerability to discrimination, as data gathered through this research has shown. In fact, incidences of abuse and violence were not only more common for women with disabilities, as they are generally for women; they were also reported to occur most often in the domestic sphere, at the hands of parents, partners and siblings. Disabled men, in contrast, were more likely to experience discriminatory attitudes and access barriers in the public sphere – in their workplaces, communities and while interacting with non-disabled peers in multiple social settings. These gender differences in patterns of discrimination and exclusion should be taken seriously for they have important implications in the design and implementation of policies aimed at advancing human rights of disabled women and men in Kenya.

More research is needed to continue exploring these inequities. Future research efforts should include both quantitative studies using large and randomly selected samples as well as qualitative ones to examine in detail and collect evidence on the experiences of disability and discrimination in Kenya.

Summary Report: On Access to Human Rights for Blind People in Kenya in Contrast with all Other Disability Groups

This section of the report examines the human rights situation of people who are blind in Kenya, by contrasting it with all other disability groups. Blind Kenyans made up approximately 50% of our sample, thus constituting a group large enough to make possible these comparisons. Unfortunately, the distribution of respondents by all other disability types was uneven and too small in most of the cases to allow meaningful analyses. The tables that follow summarize the most significant results obtained. They enable us to understand how blind Kenyans fare in comparison with all other respondents taken together (deaf people, people with mobility impairments, intellectual, and other disabilities), both in terms of discrimination and access to human rights.

Table 25: Barriers and Obstacles – Blind Kenyans and People with Other Disabilities (%)
Barriers and Obstacles	Blind Interviewees	All Other Disabilities
Discriminatory Attitudes
In the family context	43.8	46.8
In relationships with public authorities	10.4	8.5
At school	14.6	6.4
In the community and in society at large	83.3	66.0
In the workplace	31.3	27.7
Abuse and Violence
In the family context	27.1	44.7
In relationships with public authorities	10.4	12.8
At school	8.3	6.4
In the community and in society at large	60.4	53.2
In the workplace	18.8	31.9
Limited Access and Barriers
In communicating with others	2.1	29.8
In access to education	25.0	42.6
In accessing public services and authorities	2.1	10.6
In accessing the physical environment (including transportation)	29.2	34.0
In accessing work	18.8	25.5
Poverty	33.3	46.8

Table 26: Access to Human Rights Principles – Blind Kenyans and People with Other Disabilities (%)
Experience	Blind Interviewees	All Other Disabilities
Autonomy
Lack of Autonomy	79.2	68.1
Self-Determination	39.6	34.0
Dignity
Devalued	97.9	91.5
Valued	22.1	27.6
Equality
Equality	12.5	10.6
Inequality	85.4	87.2
Inclusion
Exclusion	83.3	76.6
Inclusion	72.9	63.8
Respect for Difference
Labeled	50.0	57.4
Respected	6.3	2.1

Table 27: Responses to Abuse and Discrimination – Blind Kenyans and People with Other Disabilities (%)
Responses to Abuse and Discrimination	Blind Interviewees	All Other Disabilities
Distancing	45.8	48.9
Resistance	37.5	25.5
Reporting / Legal Action	54.2	36.2

Table 28: Reasons for not Reporting – Blind Kenyans and People with Other Disabilities (%)
Reasons for not Reporting	Blind Interviewees	All Other Disabilities
Lack of Access	22.9	46.8
'Nothing would have been done'	29.2	23.4
Fear	14.6	14.9
Corruption	4.2	8.5
Lack of Financial Means	8.3	4.3
Self-Blame	14.6	12.8

Table 29: Recommendations – Blind Kenyans and People with Other Disabilities (%)
Recommendations	Blind Interviewees	All Other Disabilities
Raise Awareness	56.3	40.4
Improve Respect	47.9	40.4
Social Supports	35.4	34.0
Legislation	29.2	29.8
Political Representation	12.5	14.9
Economic Supports	35.4	17.0
Peer Support	12.5	12.8

In general, blind people seem to fare slightly better than all other groups of people with disabilities. Like others, they are not exempt from facing multiple obstacles and discrimination on the grounds of their disability, however, they do appear to be more able to fight for and defend their rights.

Family contexts in particular, seem to be more supportive of blind people than they are of persons with other kinds of disabilities. Indeed, blind people are less likely to experience discriminatory attitudes and significantly less likely to suffer abuse and violence in family relationships. Schools and workplaces however, present added obstacles to those who are blind as these are the contexts where they tend to face greater discrimination. Paradoxically though, blind people reported less barriers in accessing work than all other disability groups together, which might be explained by their higher levels of education42. Consequently too, they were significantly less likely than all other groups to report experiencing poverty, although an impressive one third of blind respondents still did report being poor.

It is in the community, on the streets, when using public transportation or public facilities that blind people were more exposed to situations of abuse and violence (and significantly more so than people with other kinds of disabilities). The lack of information in Kenyan society about the appropriate ways of dealing with those who are blind, and the insensitivity of many who take advantage of their impairment to steal from them and deceive them were often what caused such abuse and violence.

In terms of access to the key human rights principles the situation of people who are blind, in comparison with other groups, is complex. While on one hand they appear to be more constrained in their personal autonomy (due to the lack of accessibility in the physical environment) and they report lacking dignity and being excluded more often than other groups, they were also more likely than others to experience inclusion and respect. This might reflect the heterogeneity within the group of people who are blind, which may well encompass better educated and less educated persons, more affluent and poor individuals, paid workers and beggars, etc, each with unique experiences of discrimination and oppression. Unfortunately, our data and the sample size do not allow us to probe these differences and examine their consequences in terms of access to human rights for those who might only have in common the physical attribute of their blindness.

When it comes to responding to situations of abuse and discrimination, however, people who are blind appear to be a more consistent group, and their attitudes differ interestingly from those of other disability groups. In fact, overwhelmingly, in face of the discrimination those who are blind tend to report or to take legal action, which again in part may reflect a higher level of education, but certainly too, is indicative of a greater awareness of their rights in consequence of their affiliation with better organized representative associations. Among all other disabilities, in contrast, distancing (in the sense of avoiding persons and contexts where discrimination has occurred in the past or is likely to occur) is, by contrast, the most frequent approach. Not surprisingly then people who are blind are also less likely than other people with disabilities to indicate lack of access as the main reason for not reporting discrimination they have faced. They reported that they were more often prevented from taking legal action due to lack of financial means.

Consistent also with the stories they shared about the discrimination and oppression they endured (most of which took place in the public sphere) people who blind people, who were interviewed recommended raising awareness as the most important measure to be taken in order to advance the human rights for all people with disabilities in Kenya. They were indeed more vocal than other groups in asking for better education of the public in disability-related issues and in demanding increased social respect for disabled citizens in Kenyan society. Finally, and also in contrast with all other groups, they wanted more significant economic supports from the state, particularly access to work and to fair working conditions, and availability of funds to create self-employment. This result further suggests that, possibly because they are a more educated group, blind people, more than all others, see work and economic independence as critical to achieve their human rights.

ce to face interviews with the people with disabilities in their natural habitation. A hundred and three interviews were conducted in three sites and ninety-nine were used in the analysis. The interviews were tape recorded and notes were made immediately after the interviews. The project’s Management Team chose three areas in Kenya: Central – Nairobi, Rift Valley – Nakuru, and Western – Kisumu to be study sites. The sites reflect diversity of ethnic homogeneity/heterogeneity of the population, high and low levels of overall poverty, and high and low levels of literacy. Due to the difficulty of obtaining a definitive sampling frame with the population of people with disabilities, we used a purposeful sampling technique to recruit individuals with different disabilities, geographic location, age and gender. The interview teams spent approximately 20 days in the field in each site. In the Rift Valley 33 persons with disabilities, 16 men and 17 women were interviewed in 20 days. In Nairobi, 34 persons with disabilities were interviewed over 21 days of which 18 were women and 16 men. In Nyanza the interview period for the 36 people interviewed was 22 days.

Characteristics of the Participants

Table 1a: Research Participants Categorized by Gender
Male	Female	Total
45	49	94

Table 1b: Research Participants Categorized by Age
18-25 years	26-40 years	41-55 years	56-70 years	Over 70 years	Total
8	44	37	4	0	94

Table 1c: Research Participants Categorized by Region
Nairobi	Nyanza	Rift Valley	Total
30	32	32	94

Table 1d: Research Participants Categorized by Disability
Mobility	Sensory - Blind	Sensory - Deaf	Intellectual	Other33	Total
22	48	17	4	3	94

Data Analysis

Barriers Experienced

Abuse and Violence

Table 2: Interviewees' Experiences with Abuse and Violence
Abuse / Violence Context	Experience Type	Sources Coded 34	Percentage35
Family	Personal / Direct	34	35.8%
Family	Through Aquaintance / Indirect	12	12.6%
Public Authorities	Personal / Direct	11	11.6%
Public Authorities	Through Aquaintance / Indirect	3	3.2%
School	Personal / Direct	7	7.4%
Society at Large	Personal / Direct	54	56.8%
Society at Large	Through Aquaintance / Indirect	9	9.5%
Workplace	Personal / Direct	24	25.3%
Workplace	Through Aquaintance / Indirect	6	6.3%

… He [the person our interviewee asked for help] said, 'Can’t you hear even if you are blind, what sort of a blind person are you?' We have seen many. So I held my pace since I needed the assistance… He climbed one [step] and did not inform me so when I climbed up, he did not tell me, there was a [step] down one next so he left me and I fell down and rolled and he told me to get up and continue walking instead of picking me up. He said to me, 'Stand up. What are you trying to show me? We have seen many people who are blind'…he hurled some insults at me but thank God I had reached well…

I tried to board a bus and the conductor [and the driver] kept saying, 'Faster! Faster!' and yet we were very many people. Because of this I fell down but the vehicle went on ahead. My hands got hurt.

Another person reported:

… When the conductor sees me he tells the driver, 'Lets move! Let's move!' Many of them ignore me.

…Robbers boarded our vehicle and ordered people to lie down but I couldn’t hear. They ordered people to hand over their mobile phones and I did not understand. It was lucky I sat at the back. They were even shooting guns and I felt its vibrations. I just lay down on the floor of the vehicle. I was shot in my stomach, lying helplessly.

… The city council officers confiscated my material and bundled me into the back of the truck the same way you would handle a sack. The rough handling gave me bruises and I cried in pain. However they went ahead and put me in jail.

… She beat me up badly, threatening to break my legs or throw them out. Even my siblings hit me. They even refused to pay for my fees in secondary school. They disowned me and discriminated against me. Indeed, my food was different from the rest of the family’s. I was not bought clothes like others. I felt different

They used to give me a lot of work, other staff members would make mistakes and I would be blamed as if I was the one who made the mistake… Then later, at the end of the day, the management and everybody else would turn the blame on me

… When I was arrested, I was mixed with the hearing people in the cell. The police called out names during roll call but I never raised my hand because I couldn’t hear. Finally, they looked for me and I was slapped hard…

… as I was at school in Thika Joy School, the teachers would beat me up when I got late yet I could not push my wheelchair fast enough. Once I got late for lunch, I never used to go to eat because I would not be allowed to eat… Even in the dinning hall I used to be beaten and would tell the teacher not to beat me because my hands were not very strong to be able to push my wheelchair along and that it would be better to deny me food than beat me on the hand because he would make it more weak and I would not be able to write well and do my homework

Discrimination

Discriminatory attitudes include perceptions, images and attitudes that isolated and excluded interviewees. Table 3 presents the results of the interviews related to discriminatory attitudes.

Table 3: Interviewees' Experience with Discriminatory Attitudes
Discrimination Context	Experience Type	Sources Coded	Percentage
Family	Personal / Direct	43	45.3%
Family	Through Aquaintance / Indirect	2	2.1%
Public Authorities	Personal / Direct	8	8.4%
Public Authorities	Through Aquaintance / Indirect	1	1.1%
Society at Large	Personal / Direct	71	74.7%
Workplace	Personal / Direct	28	29.5%
Workplace	Through Aquaintance / Indirect	1	1.1%

…At other times you may sit close to a person on a bus and the person moves away as if blindness is contagious… …People just look at you and it’s like they are afraid of you. I feel so disrespected…

My parents and my siblings all see me as a burden and have gossiped about me since I was young. My father decided to hide me for 6 months. My mother was not supposed to tell anyone…My father didn’t want to pay the hospital bills, because he thought he would be throwing away his money. He felt I wasn’t worth it. He doesn’t like to be reminded of me. He took me to a pastor, and said I was a bother because of the money he wasted on me while I was as good as dead…

…you are in fact not so useful in comparison to the rest, and your work is not at all voluminous.

This young man summarized in few words what many people with disabilities undergo at work:

The most serious challenge we face at work is discrimination. Interactions become difficult since we are always seen as misfits. We face a lot of rejection

… They discriminated against me at the police station. You know others think because we are blind, our minds also don’t think. … the O.C.P.D. thought that maybe I was not normal and didn’t have money to give to him or something of the sort.

Another individual summed it up as follows:

The government does not help, ever. They are so complicated. They are liars and make empty promises. It is difficult to work with the government.

Limited Access

Table 4: Interviewees' Experiences of Limited Access
Barriers and Obstacles	Experience Type	Sources Coded	Percentage
Communicating with Others	Personal / Direct	15	15.8%
Accessing Education	Personal / Direct	32	33.7%
Accessing Education	Through Aquaintance / Indirect	4	4.2%
Accessing Public Services and Authorities	Personal / Direct	6	6.3%
Accessing the Physical Environment and Transportation	Personal / Direct	30	31.6%
Accessing the Physical Environment and Transportation	Through Aquaintance / Indirect	4	4.2%
Accessing Work	Personal / Direct	21	22.1%
Poverty		38	40.0%
Religion-Related		6	6.3%

…I was not allowed to study there because I was disabled. I tried to find out why and all they could say was that the boys’ dormitory was upstairs and that I could not manage to get there…The head mistress said that because I had a wheelchair I would have a problem in the school…

Our education standards are very low in comparison to other people. We cannot get well paying jobs and have to make do with jobs like being a cleaner or just a subordinate employee. While the technology in the world has been changing over time, the deaf still use obsolete technology used by the missionaries to train

…One time I was very sick and went to the hospital to consult the doctor and explain to him about my problem. I couldn’t get an interpreter and yet I was seriously sick and needed a doctor very urgently, of course…… It was not explained to me properly how I was supposed to take the medication …… I was so confused. I scarcely understood what was said, due to inadequate communication.

Positive Life Experiences

Table 5: Positive Experiences
Variable	Sources Coded	Percentage
Positive life experiences in the school context	5	5.3%
Positive life experiences in the family context	39	41.1%
Positive life experiences with public authorities	9	9.5%
Positive life experiences in the community/society	35	36.5%
Positive life experiences religion-related	9	9.5%
Positive life experiences in the context of work	6	6.3%

Access to Human Rights Principles

Dignity

As a human right, dignity refers to the impact of particular life experiences on the individuals’ perceptions of self-worth. Results are presented in table 6.

Table 6: Dignity
Interviewee Experience	Sources Coded	Percentage
Reports feeling disrespected and devalued	90	94.7%
Reports of other persons feeling disrespected and devalued	2	2.1%
Reports being respected and valued	24	25.3%

…On this day I was selling kerosene but my children were not around. I called on a woman to help me pour kerosene into a customer’s container. She however brought an extra container and took some for herself and left without paying. Someone (I do not remember who) told me what had transpired and I felt so bad that I decided to discontinue with the business. I also tried to sell charcoal and open a shop but people would steal from me and I had to leave. Some people would pretend to give me a high denomination currency so that I gave them greater change. Someone even used Tanzanian [neighbouring country] currency to buy merchandise from me. These people despised me a lot. If they did not despise me, then they would never have done to me what they had. They looked on me as an incomplete person. I think the reason was my lack of sight

I was a member of a school choir. I practiced with them. We went for western Kenya music festivals. Come the day of festivals, the choir master refused to let me sing. He told me to sit somewhere and guard the sweaters. May be he thought the adjudicators would see a disabled child in his team and deduct marks. It was not comfortable during those days.

Autonomy

Table 7: Autonomy
Interviewee Experience	Sources Coded	Percentage
Lack of Autonomy - Interviewee	70	73.7%
Lack of Autonomy - Others	3	3.2%
Self-Determination	35	36.8%

In family matters, my brothers sometimes discriminate me a little and I think that they are having an upper hand e.g. we share a land with my brother and since I was blind he decided he is going to do what he wants and went ahead to plant trees without caring at all for my opinion which offended me

…I have protested to the land control board by writing a letter that if that land is to be divided it has to be divided with my consent because I am an interested party. I am hoping that when the division of the land comes I will be there and voice my opinion. I did this on my own.

Another individual felt proud that he contributed successfully to the constitutional review process because of his own determination and confidence. He says:

Yes, I have autonomy and I have much freedom. I especially contributed a lot to the constitution review process. My views were very much welcome. I had a clear knowledge of what the constitution review process was. Indeed, fourteen out of the fifteen issues I mentioned were addressed in the draft constitution.

Equality

Table 8: Equality
Interviewee Experience	Sources Coded	Percentage
Equality	11	11.6%
Inequality - Interviewee	82	86.3%
Inequality - Others	12	12.6%

Yes, although I work very hard, appreciation is hard to come by. People think that normal people should be appreciated more and despise us. When anything good is happening it is awarded to the normal teachers while I am left out. They (the normal teachers) keep on progressing while we remain static or regress. For example, letters for admission for further studies are awarded to the normal teachers, usually without our knowledge…

More than 12% of the respondents reported incidences in which other people they knew were treated with a similar lack of respect and consideration for their differences.

Inclusion

Table 9: Inclusion
Interviewee Experience	Sources Coded	Percentage
Exclusion - Interviewee	76	80.0%
Exclusion - Others	4	4.2%
Inclusion	65	68.4%

When I go to Barazas (Public Meetings) I do not go as a disabled but as a resident of the estate. Like now, I live in Kayole Estate, when there is a meeting I attend as a resident of Kayole and participate like a resident of Kayole like any other member of society.

Respect and difference

Table 10: Respect for Difference
Interviewee Experience	Sources Coded	Percentage
Being Labeled - Interviewee	51	53.7%
Being Labeled - Others	3	3.2%
Being Respected (regardless of difference)	4	4.2%

…You will hear names like, “Yule Kipofu amefika” to mean the blind man/woman has arrived. You will also hear things like “Hebu uliza yule kipofu anataka nini (ask that blind person what he/she wants) showing some form of despise. That makes us even not get assisted.

Even in schools the teachers referred to some students with disabilities by their labels and not their names as this respondent revealed:

Yes. In school, the owner of the school referred to me as the walking dead. My mathematics teacher did not like my glasses so he used to call me ‘Chupa’ to mean bottle. This troubled me much. Yes it did (“chupa” became my nickname)

Responses to Abuse and Discrimination

Table 11: Response to Abuse and Discrimination
Response	Sources Coded	Percentage
Distancing	45	47.4%
Resistance	30	31.6%
Reporting	43	45.3%

Distancing

Resistance

I have not been left out yet. It might have happened to other people but I force my way in. for example, I join some groups after a lot of explanations and complaints. I make them understand that I am also a human being. Other people may not be a problem for instance, the Food for Work activities. I had to talk to the chief to include the disabled. I also spoke to and pressured people at Social Development to include people with disabilities. We also have the association for the blind where we discuss issues about managing our lives……I ‘fought’ with them and they accepted us. That is why I never reported this to anyone.

Reporting /legal action

Reasons for not reporting

Table 12: Reasons for not Reporting
Reason	Sources Coded	Percentage
Lack of Access	33	34.7%
‘Nothing would have been done’	25	26.3%
Fear	14	14.7%
Self-blame	13	13.7%
Corruption	6	6.3%
Lack of financial means or resources	6	6.3%

Lack of access

No, I haven’t reported anywhere. I have to look for advice on how to proceed. Like I told you I discovered about the human rights offices recently. I don’t know where the offices are here in Nairobi

‘Nothing would have been done’

Fear

Self-blame

No, no one. Not the Chief or the Police. I felt that it was because I was deaf and gave up.

Corruption

Lack of financial means

Systemic roots of discrimination

Table 13: Systemic Roots of Discrimination
Systemic Root	Sources Coded	Percentage
Social	33	34.7%
Economic	32	33.7%
Legislative	68	71.6%

Social

… from the community where I come from, disability is regarded as a curse. So people who are superstitious say that this might be a generational curse, which might affect even our children…

Another example came up when discussing the difficulties people with disabilities faced in getting a job. An interviewee remarked:

It seems that these days to get a job, you have to know someone or pay some money.

Discrimination within the family often happened in the context of extreme poverty. When asked why people with disabilities are considered ‘people of problems’ to their families, this man replied:

They are a burden. Their hands must be held while food must be brought to them; hence people consider them a burden. They cannot even go to garden.

Economic

Legislative

For instance, if legislation were in place that provided for interpreters in hospitals, schools and churches, barriers in communication and the problems that result from that could be avoided.

Recommendations

Table 14: Recommendations
Recommendation	Sources Coded	Percentage
Raise Awareness	46	48.4%
Improve Respect	42	44.2%
Social Supports	33	34.7%
Legislation	28	29.5%
Economic Supports	25	26.3%
Political Representation	13	13.7%
Peer Support	12	12.6%

Raise Awareness

Sensitization of the community should be true and should be told that [people with disabilities] are normal people just like you and I and they can do what you do if accorded necessary assistance.

Many complained that the government and other organizations concerned with disability issues have done very little to sensitize people on how to interact with people with disabilities.

Improve Respect

The people in the government should be taught how best to do their jobs. They should also know that people with disabilities are human beings with basic human rights and as such they should be treated with due respect.

One of the respondents concluded that society should not look at disabilities but should focus on what people with disabilities can do better.

Social Supports

Legislation

Economic Support

Political Representation

My opinion is that we the handicapped should also be involved when it comes to issues of land distribution so that they can have their portion.

Others recommended that people with disabilities be involved in various decision making processes including being nominated to the parliament in order to explain their situation adequately.

Peer Support

Gender, Ethnicity and Class vs. Disability

Gender and Disability

…Women have bigger advantage for they are treated with more respect than men, maybe twice the advantage…

The mistreatment is common in women, because they are less likely to get someone to help them. Because ….a woman does not count in the family. Men are most valued.

Ethnicity and Disability

…You know there is a belief that a white man has the money and money is everything. If it was a white man, she would not have left because there would have been money… if you offered a Kenyan girl a white man on a wheelchair and a very able bodied Kenyan on the other hand; I can assure you that this girl would settle for the white man on the wheelchair. All Kenyans are interested in money and in going abroad… however, if the reason why one faced rejection is disability, racial background notwithstanding, this person may face similar rejection as I.

Class and Disability

Intersections

Barriers by Attributes

Barriers by Age Group

Table 15 shows the relationships between types of barriers faced by interviewees according to their age rank.

Table 15: Incidences37 of Barriers by Age Rank
Barrier	18-25 years			25-40 years			41-55 years			56-70 years
Barrier	SC38	R%39	C%40	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%
Attitude	12	7.4	40	73	44.8	36.5	71	43.6	39.9	7	4.3	31.8
Abuse	11	7.0	36.7	75	47.8	37.5	61	38.9	34.3	10	6.4	45.5
Access	7	6.4	23.3	52	47.3	26.0	46	41.8	25.8	5	4.6	22.7
All Barriers	30	7	n/a	200	47	n/a	178	41	n/a	22	5	n/a

Barriers by Gender

Table 16 compares the various types of barriers by the gender of the respondents.

Table 16: Barriers by Gender
Barrier	Males			Females
Barrier	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%
Attitude	81	49.1	38.8	84	51.0	36.8
Abuse	74	46.3	35.4	86	53.6	37.7
Access	54	48.2	25.8	58	51.8	25.4
All Barriers	209	48	n/a	228	52	n/a

Barriers by Region

Barriers faced by region or geographic location of respondents are presented in table 17.

Table 17: Incidences of Barriers by Region
Barrier	Nairobi			Nyanza			Rift Valley
Barrier	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%
Attitude	71	43.0	43.5	47	28.5	33.8	47	28.5	35.1
Abuse	54	33.8	32.9	52	32.5	37.4	54	33.8	40.3
Access	39	34.8	23.8	40	35.7	28.9	33	29.5	24.6
All Barriers	164	37	n/a	139	32	n/a	134	29.5	n/a

Barriers by Type of Disability

This section examines barriers faced by respondents according to the type of disability. Results are presented in tables 18 and 19.

Table 18: Incidences of Barriers by Disability (Sources Coded)
Barrier	Mobility	Sensory - Blind	Sensory - Deaf	Intellectual	Other
Attitude	41	91	29	1	9
Abuse	35	77	35	7	6
Access	29	40	35	2	6
All Barriers	105	208	99	10	21

Table 19: Incidences of Barriers by Disability Type (Row and Column %)
Variable	Mobility		Sensory - Blind		Sensory - Deaf		Intellectual		Other
Variable	R%	C%	R%	C%	R%	C%	R%	C%	R%	C%
Attitude	24.0	39.1	53.2	43.8	17.0	29.2	0.6	10.0	5.3	42.9
Abuse	21.9	33.3	48.1	37.0	21.9	35.4	4.4	70.0	3.8	28.6
Access	25.9	27.6	35.7	19.2	31.3	35.4	1.8	20.0	5.4	28.6
All Barriers	23.7	n/a	47.0	n/a	22.3	n/a	2.3	n/a	4.8	n/a

Access to Human Rights Principles by Attributes

Access to Human Rights Principles by Age Rank

Table 20 examines the relationship between access to human rights principles and the age rank of respondents.

Table 20: Access to Human Rights Principles by Age Rank
Experience	18-25 years			25-40 years			41-55 years			56-70 years
Experience	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%
Autonomy
Lack of Autonomy	7	10.1	63.6	33	47.8	68.8	27	39.1	64.3	2	2.9	100
Self-determination	4	11.8	36.4	15	44.1	31.2	15	44.1	35.7	0	0	0
Dignity
Devalued	8	9.0	72.7	40	44.9	78.4	37	41.6	78.7	4	4.5	100
Valued	3	12.5	27.3	11	45.8	21.6	10	41.7	21.3	0	0	0
Equality
Equality	4	36.4	36.4	3	27.3	7.5	4	36.4	10.8	0	0	0
Inequality	7	8.6	63.6	37	45.7	92.5	33	40.7	89.2	4	4.9	100
Inclusion
Exclusion	7	9.3	63.6	32	42.7	51.6	33	44.0	53.2	3	4	60
Inclusion	4	6.2	36.4	30	46.2	48.4	29	44.6	46.8	2	3.1	40
Respect for Difference
Labeled	6	12	85.7	19	38.0	90.5	23	46.0	95.8	2	4.0	100
Respected	1	25	14.3	2	50.0	9.5	1	25.0	4.2	0	0	0

Access to Human Rights Principles by Gender

This section looks at access to human rights principles by gender. Outcomes are presented in table 21.

Table 21: **Access to Human Rights Principles by Gender**
Experience	Males			Females
Experience	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%
Autonomy
Lack of Autonomy	34	48.6	69.4	36	51.4	64.3
Self-determination	15	42.9	30.6	20	57.1	35.7
Dignity
Devalued	43	47.8	71.7	47	52.2	87.0
Valued	17	70.8	28.3	7	29.2	13.0
Equality
Equality	8	72.7	16.3	3	27.3	6.8
Inequality	41	50	83.7	41	50	93.2
Inclusion
Exclusion	34	44.7	53.1	42	55.3	54.5
Inclusion	30	46.2	46.9	35	53.8	45.5
Respect for Difference
Labeled	23	45.1	88.5	28	54.9	96.6
Respected	3	75.0	11.5	1	25.0	3.4

Access to Human Rights Principles by Regions

Table 22 compares access to human rights principles by location where the interviews were conducted.

Table 22: Access to Human Rights Principles by Region
Experience	Nairobi			Nyanza			Rift Valley
Experience	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%	SC	R%	C%
Autonomy
Lack autonomy	24	34.3	66.7	21	30.0	75.0	25	35.7	61.0
Self-determination	12	34.3	33.3	7	20.0	25.0	16	45.7	39.0
Dignity
Devalued	30	33.3	78.9	28	31.1	87.5	32	35.6	72.7
Valued	8	33.3	21.1	4	16.7	12.5	12	50.0	27.3
Equality
Equality	4	36.4	12.5	2	18.2	6.9	5	45.5	15.6
Inequality	28	34.2	87.5	27	32.9	93.1	27	32.9	84.4
Inclusion
Exclusion	27	35.5	56.3	24	31.6	50.0	25	32.9	55.6
Inclusion	21	32.3	43.7	24	36.9	50.0	20	30.8	44.4
Respect for Difference
Labeled	18	35.3	94.7	6	11.8	85.7	27	52.9	93.1
Respected	1	25.0	5.3	1	25.0	14.3	2	50.0	6.9

Access to Human Rights Principles by Type of Disability

Access to human rights principles according to disability types is presented in tables 23 and 24 below.

Table 23: Access to Human Rights Principles by Types of Disability (sources coded)
Experience	Mobility	Sensory - Blind	Sensory - Deaf	Intellectual	Other
Autonomy
Lack autonomy	17	38	10	4	1
Self-determination	8	19	6	1	1
Dignity
Devalued	22	47	16	3	2
Valued	1	11	5	1	1
Equality
Equality	2	6	3	0	0
Inequality	21	41	16	3	1
Inclusion
Exclusion	19	40	12	3	2
Inclusion	15	35	11	2	2
Respect for Difference
Labeled	14	24	11	1	1
Respected	0	3	0	1	0

Table 24: Access to Human Rights Principles by Disability Type (Row and Column %)
Experience	Mobility		Sensory - Blind		Sensory - Deaf		Intellectual		Other
Experience	R%	C%	R%	C%	R%	C%	R%	C%	R%	C%
Autonomy
Lack autonomy	24.3	68	54.3	66.7	14.3	62.5	5.7	80.0	1.4	50.0
Self-determination	22.9	32	54.3	33.3	17.1	37.5	2.9	20.0	2.9	50.0
Dignity
Devalued	24.4	95.7	52.2	81.0	17.8	76.2	3.3	75.0	2.2	66.7
Valued	25.0	4.3	45.8	19.0	20.8	23.8	4.2	25.0	5.3	33.3
Equality
Equality	18.2	8.7	54.6	12.8	27.3	15.8	0	0	0	0
Inequality	23.1	44.1	53.9	46.7	16.9	47.8	3.1	40.0	3.1	50.0
Inclusion
Exclusion	25	55.9	52.6	53.3	15.8	52.2	4.0	60.0	2.6	50.0
Inclusion	23.1	44.1	53.9	46.7	16.9	47.8	3.1	40.0	3.1	50.0
Respect for Difference
Labeled	27.5	100	47.1	88.9	21.6	100	2.0	50.0	2.0	100
Respected	0	0	75.0	11.1	0	0	25.0	50.0	0	0

Results of Statistical Tests Run on Intersectional Data

Table 18 (Incidences of Barriers by Disability Type): Level of significance p <.10.
Table 21 (Access to the Principle of Dignity by Gender): Level of significance p <.05.

Conclusion

Summary Report: On Access to Human Rights for Blind People in Kenya in Contrast with all Other Disability Groups

Table 25: Barriers and Obstacles – Blind Kenyans and People with Other Disabilities (%)
Barriers and Obstacles	Blind Interviewees	All Other Disabilities
Discriminatory Attitudes
In the family context	43.8	46.8
In relationships with public authorities	10.4	8.5
At school	14.6	6.4
In the community and in society at large	83.3	66.0
In the workplace	31.3	27.7
Abuse and Violence
In the family context	27.1	44.7
In relationships with public authorities	10.4	12.8
At school	8.3	6.4
In the community and in society at large	60.4	53.2
In the workplace	18.8	31.9
Limited Access and Barriers
In communicating with others	2.1	29.8
In access to education	25.0	42.6
In accessing public services and authorities	2.1	10.6
In accessing the physical environment (including transportation)	29.2	34.0
In accessing work	18.8	25.5
Poverty	33.3	46.8

Table 26: Access to Human Rights Principles – Blind Kenyans and People with Other Disabilities (%)
Experience	Blind Interviewees	All Other Disabilities
Autonomy
Lack of Autonomy	79.2	68.1
Self-Determination	39.6	34.0
Dignity
Devalued	97.9	91.5
Valued	22.1	27.6
Equality
Equality	12.5	10.6
Inequality	85.4	87.2
Inclusion
Exclusion	83.3	76.6
Inclusion	72.9	63.8
Respect for Difference
Labeled	50.0	57.4
Respected	6.3	2.1

Table 27: Responses to Abuse and Discrimination – Blind Kenyans and People with Other Disabilities (%)
Responses to Abuse and Discrimination	Blind Interviewees	All Other Disabilities
Distancing	45.8	48.9
Resistance	37.5	25.5
Reporting / Legal Action	54.2	36.2

Table 28: Reasons for not Reporting – Blind Kenyans and People with Other Disabilities (%)
Reasons for not Reporting	Blind Interviewees	All Other Disabilities
Lack of Access	22.9	46.8
'Nothing would have been done'	29.2	23.4
Fear	14.6	14.9
Corruption	4.2	8.5
Lack of Financial Means	8.3	4.3
Self-Blame	14.6	12.8

Table 29: Recommendations – Blind Kenyans and People with Other Disabilities (%)
Recommendations	Blind Interviewees	All Other Disabilities
Raise Awareness	56.3	40.4
Improve Respect	47.9	40.4
Social Supports	35.4	34.0
Legislation	29.2	29.8
Political Representation	12.5	14.9
Economic Supports	35.4	17.0
Peer Support	12.5	12.8

top

Affiliates menu

Section 4: Findings of the Field Study

Characteristics of the Participants

Data Analysis

Barriers Experienced

Abuse and Violence

Discrimination

Limited Access

Positive Life Experiences

Access to Human Rights Principles

Dignity

Autonomy

Equality

Inclusion

Respect and difference

Responses to Abuse and Discrimination

Distancing

Resistance

Reporting /legal action

Reasons for not reporting

Lack of access

‘Nothing would have been done’

Fear

Self-blame

Corruption

Lack of financial means

Systemic roots of discrimination

Social

Economic

Legislative

Recommendations

Raise Awareness

Improve Respect

Social Supports

Legislation

Political Representation

Peer Support

Gender, Ethnicity and Class vs. Disability

Ethnicity and Disability

Class and Disability

Intersections

Barriers by Attributes

Barriers by Age Group

Barriers by Gender

Barriers by Region

Barriers by Type of Disability

Access to Human Rights Principles by Attributes

Access to Human Rights Principles by Age Rank

Access to Human Rights Principles by Gender

Access to Human Rights Principles by Regions

Access to Human Rights Principles by Type of Disability

Results of Statistical Tests Run on Intersectional Data

Conclusion

Summary Report: On Access to Human Rights for Blind People in Kenya in Contrast with all Other Disability Groups

Characteristics of the Participants

Data Analysis

Barriers Experienced

Abuse and Violence

Discrimination

Limited Access

Positive Life Experiences

Access to Human Rights Principles

Dignity

Autonomy

Equality

Inclusion

Respect and difference

Responses to Abuse and Discrimination

Distancing

Resistance

Reporting /legal action

Reasons for not reporting

Lack of access

‘Nothing would have been done’

Fear

Self-blame

Corruption

Lack of financial means

Systemic roots of discrimination

Social