Part III: Discussion and Recommendation

DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Economic participation is considered a concrete indicator of an inclusive society where people with disability are able to contribute to society and local economic growth. However, as the above research suggests, the majority of people with disability experience barriers to work or livelihoods opportunities and do not earn enough income to improve their household well-being.

The proposed recommendations below are informed by our findings and, to some degree, integrate with the GoI and key donors’ strategies and priorities with regards to disability and development. The recommendations aim to offer a multi-pronged approach towards supporting livelihoods among people with disability in order to promote and ensure economic inclusion. As this study focused on the greater Yogyakarta region, our recommendations continue that geographic focus. It is not to say that these recommendations could not be implemented elsewhere in Indonesia, but rather that context matters and what works well in one area may not easily work elsewhere.

Bearing that caution in mind, these recommendations are listed in no particular order or priority. Rather, we suggest that prospective funders consider incorporating flexibility and adaptability in their planning and implementation in order to fit with local circumstances when choosing and mixing possible ways to partner with the disability community. One important factor that we wish to emphasize is that the onus for economic inclusion falls on all parties, not simply the disability community. While we appreciate the sentiment that Disabled Persons Organisations (DPOs) are major players when it comes to advocacy, implementation and evaluation, the reality is that DPOs are quite limited in their capacity to implement. This reality reflects that effective economic inclusion ‘takes a village’ and requires the support of the entire community and partners at all levels: international and local funders, local / provincial / national government, private sector, etc.

Recommendation 1: improve data collection and analysis on livelihoods among people with disability.

Existing data are insufficient for planning purposes when it comes to initiatives pertaining to disability and livelihoods. Census data have proven to be largely inaccurate and even if census data were approximate or accurate, there are other data that would be significantly helpful for creating effective program design and implementation to improve economic inclusion. Such data include, but are not limited to and are posed with regards to people with disability:

Formal / informal income (sources, amounts) Formal / informal expenses (spending; categories, amounts) Frequency and type of unexpected income / expenses Debts (causes, amounts, effects – immediate, mid-term and long-term) Hidden costs that are compounded for persons with disability, both one-off and on-going (transportation, medical, batteries, tune-ups, interpreters, etc.) Account ownership (including savings and credit) Impacts of gender and disability on economic activities of women with disability and household well-being Financial services mobilization and payment behavior among persons with disability Business skills (observed and desired).

Recommendation 2: Provide ‘no strings’ small grants.

At the present time, the vast majority of people with disability and DPOs currently have very limited capacity to pursue and secure funding via ordinary channels and mechanisms. Requiring them to meet certain criteria prior to receiving funding can mean continued disenfranchisement and sustains the impossible conundrum of funding required to acquire skills and skills required to acquire funding. Additionally, the technical requirements of creating a Theory of Change, a logframe analysis or other unnecessarily arcane and intricate justification for often small amounts of funds is an undue burden on this population, perpetuating their dependence on others. Alternatives to such an approach have been used by The Edge Fund in the UK (www.edgefund.org.uk/), which has a track record of success with its no-strings grants made to grassroots groups, and by GiveDirectly, which has also demonstrated the success of small nostrings cash transfers to individuals (Lowrey 2018).

The provision of small grants (possibly with varying maximum limits to be adjusted to context, such as USD 500 or USD 1,500 over a year) to a disability group, individuals with clear year end accounting of expenditures, but no restrictions, would be valuable in improving livelihood outcomes. If tracked, this initiative would also provide concrete insights as to where and how funds are spent, providing instruction for future large grants to support livelihood initiatives focused on people with disability.

Recommendation 3: Provide financial literacy and small business training.

People with disability require further skills development in business. Given that DPOs and their staff themselves have limited financial knowledge, skills and networks, some possible options for supporting people with disability include:

Accreditation courses ensuring legitimacy of business Business incorporation, registration and compliance; basic accounting skills Mentoring programs between novices and those with more experience Partnership or incubation projects under the umbrella of existing and mainstream businesses Networking, both among disability-owned businesses and among sectoral-interest business (e.g. farmer to farmer) Acquisition of and training in adaptive technology for small businesses Basic organizational leadership skills (e.g. personnel management, team facilitation, planning, etc.)

Recommendation 4: Expand microfinance grants.

Microfinance generally has proven successful both throughout Indonesia and elsewhere. However, the majority of microfinance programs have limited or no outreach to people with disability. While several online lending platforms (people to people or group to people) exist in Indonesia, the low literacy and technology usage among those in rural or peri-urban areas, including people with disability, means that such platforms automatically and inadvertently exclude these groups. Our research strongly suggests that there is a niche opportunity for a microfinance program focused on people with disability, particularly if offered in tandem with small business training. The establishment of a microfinance program structured to adapt to the unique circumstances of people with disability would open up opportunities for both lenders and borrowers. There would be, perhaps, space to invest in people with disability beginning a new business, through this initiative, and contingent on success, bridging opportunities to transition into standard existing microfinance programs, increasing their inclusion in the mainstream economy.