29 e inclusion stops where the beneficiary cannot afford or understand ict based solutions

AEGIS Workshop and International Conference, Brussels

eInclusion Stops Where The Beneficiary Cannot Afford Or Understand ICT Based Solutions

Karel Van Isacker


ICT AT impact on Daily Life

• Definitions

• eInclusion embraces the use of ICT to achieve wider inclusion objectives. It focuses on participation of all

individuals and communities in all aspects of the information society. - 2006 Riga ministerial

declaration

• AT is any item, piece of equipment, or product

system whether acquired commercially of the shelf, modified or customized, that is used to increase,

maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities. – [2] Individuals with

Disabilities Education ACT (IDEA) 20, USC, Chapter 33, Section 1401 (25) US


Benefits AT ICT

• AT ICT provide a wide plethora of opportunities

to (again) actively participate in daily life, and communicate and interact with one's environment.

• Provides increasingly creative solutions with consumer goods (e.g. iPad applications for communication support to those with speech impairments).

• An efficient implementation of AT requires that it is recognised that people have different needs, abilities and preferences and not a “one size that fits all”.


And?

• This was the good news.

• So why is it that not everyone in need of AT ICT support is using it, or has access to it?

• Inclusion is an illusion

OR

• Successful Inclusion: Not Just an Illusion


Let‟s have a look at some data …


Various research projects

• Recent research by the AEGIS (2009),

ACCESSIBLE (2009) and ViPi (2011) EC funded projects.

• Highlighted vast array of barriers and problems

that have hampered the full take-up of AT ICT by every person with a disability.


Main barriers

• AT industry issues:

• European AT industry: patchwork of small specialised companies with limited financial basis

• Because of the limited size of local markets, products

tend to be expensive.

• Policy issues:

• Different social policy across European Member States for subsidising/reimbursing AT products

• Some countries offer full refunds (e.g. Belgium), some cover basically nothing (e.g. Greece).

• Most countries lack specialised agencies/staff to assist people with disabilities with correct choice on AT ICT.


Main barriers

• End-user issues:

• End-users largely unaware of the available AT solutions

• AT that are easiest to obtain are also the ones most easily abandoned.

• High purchasing costs for end users.

• Ongoing mismatch between needs end user and offered AT.

• High percentage (up to 30% in the USA) of obtained ATs

being discarded within a year.

• Almost half of the end-users experience problems using AT.

• Training lacks to use AT, but mainly basic ICT skills.

• End users having AT cannot use it to a full extent, or in

some cases not at all, and resulting in abandonment (between 50-70%).


Main barriers - Purchase of AT by end-users

• The medical oriented model:

• Starting point is the handicap where the physician initiates necessary procedures and must approve the need for listed and reimbursed AT based on medical arguments.

• The social oriented model

• Based upon national legislation and local and decentralised execution, and involves national/local agencies that

coordinate the provision and funding of AT, often also after the person with disability is evaluated by a panel of medical experts (like in the medical oriented model) to define the degree of disability, and the access to subsidies.

• The consumer oriented model:

• The end-user has direct contact with a retailer in order to get his/her AT product (e.g. personal budget).



HEARING AIDS BRAILLE READERSAPPLS FOR VOICE

COMMUNICATION

SOFTWARE FOR

COMMUNICATION

ENVIRONMENTAL

CONTROL SYSTEMS

AUSTRIA medical social social social social

BELGIUM medical social social social social

DENMARK social social social social social

FINLAND medical medical medical medical medical

FRANCE medical social consumer social + consumer social + consumer

GERMANY medical social social social social

GREECE medical consumer consumer consumer consumer

HUNGARY medical consumer consumer consumer consumer

IRELAND medical + consumer medical + consumer medical + consumer medical + consumer medical + consumer

ITALY medical medical medical medical social

NETHERLANDS medical social social social social

PORTUGAL medical consumer medical + social social + consumer consumer

SLOVAKIA medical social social social consumer

SLOVENIA medical medical medical social + consumer social + consumer

SPAIN medical * consumer social + consumer social + consumer social

SWEDEN medical medical medical medical medical

UK medical social social consumer social



Gérard Abramovici: Social Protection in Europe, Statistics in focus: Population and social conditions Theme 3 – 6/2004, p.1-8


A New Reality, The Financial Crisis

• 2008-2009 financial and economic crises

• Escalating effect

• Fiscal, political and largely neglected social impact

• UN “Report on the World Social Situation 2011: The Global Social Crisis”

• Many governments do not pay sufficient attention to the social implications of the global economic crisis.


Reaction…

• European Union‟s “Europe 2020” strategy

• Social inclusion 1 of the 3 pillars to strengthen Europe.

• European Disability forum (EDF) recently pointed out that:

• Current economic, social and political policies adopted by Member States and the EU may lead to an increase in the numbers of people experiencing

social exclusion in Europe.

• „EDF observatory on the impact of the

economic crisis on the rights of persons with disabilities‟


Own survey…

• Limited survey in August-September 2011 among European Anti Poverty Network (EAPN)

• Limited to no impact:

• Malta

• Hungary

• Germany

• Cuts experienced:

• Ireland

• Spain

• Greece


Greece…

• Never had any funding in

place for end-users for purchasing AT hardware or software

• No state support mechanism, such as for instance an exhibition centre or electronic gateway, for gaining information on or testing

assistive ICT devices, or even receiving training.


Greece…

• Greece

• Poor pre-crisis social system with hardly any support

• 2006, disability benefits accounted for 4.7% of all benefits expenditure compared to an EU27 average of 7.5% (2nd lowest)

• Now: social budgets have been

substantially cut

• Minimum 10% cut in social security spending

• Unemployment is growing with a record high of

18.4% in August 2011


Greece…

• Identified barriers in AT usage in Greece

• Only 4 in 10 PwD aware of AT solutions that meet their accessibility needs in using ICT.

• 11% of non-users of ICT with a disability believe

that their disability prohibits them from using AT.

• 9% indicates that there is no AT adapted to their needs.

• Non-use of ICT attributed to lack of digital skills for 23% of non-users with a disability.

• 45% of all participants with a disability believe that using ICT and AT requires a high level of digital skills.


Greece…

• Typical example how eInclusion

stops where the beneficiary cannot (longer) afford ICT based solutions.

• Typical example how eInclusion stops where the beneficiary cannot (longer) understand ICT based solutions.

• Similar situations are in the making in countries like Spain, Portugal, and potentially spreading to other European member states


Possible Solutions • Policy

• Unified policy with regards to the funding provided by governments for purchasing

AT ICT.

• Towards “lending” of AT, even across borders, to fill the gap between the

have‟s and the have not‟s among the people with disabilities.

• Austerity measures to be shared more equitably to minimise losses for lower income groups.

• Financing of social NGOs should be

preserved from cuts both at EU and national level.


Possible Solutions

• Training

• Well-organised training programmes to allow people with disabilities to become aware of how they need to use AT (Basic ICT skills). In line also with the Lisbon Summit.

• End-users should be more aware of

• what exists to address their personal needs,

• what the benefits are for each AT,

• How they can use these ATs in an optimal manner.


Technology

29 e inclusion stops where the beneficiary cannot afford or understand ict based solutions