This is the html version of the file http://iussp2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=50094.
Google automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.
Disability in Mauritius – pattern, trend and policy implications By K.V. Ramachandran and Jumoondar Sunkur 1. Introduction Wit
Page 1
Disability in Mauritius – pattern, trend and policy implications
By
K.V. Ramachandran
1
and Jumoondar Sunkur
2
1. Introduction
With creditable achievements on health front resulting in sustained
increases in expectation of life, the focus of government of
Mauritius is to further improving the quality of life of the people.
However, a major threat to the country is non communicable
diseases ( NCD ) representing 75% of disease burden including
diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular diseases, cancer, mental
illness, diseases linked to tobacco, alcohol and substance abuse
resulting in blindness, leg/arm amputation, paralysis and other
disabilities.( Mauritius, 2002 ). The United Nations declared the
years 1983 – 1992 as the decade of the disabled, the theme of the
decade being “Full participation and Equality”. In this context, the
Government started working for the integration of the disabled
persons in the mainstream of society.
A prime consideration therefore has been the importance of
relevant policy and programmes concerning the rehabilitation needs
of and the equalisation of opportunity for persons with disabilities.
Towards this aim, data on disability were collected at the 1990 and
2000 Housing and Population Censuses of Mauritius. The 2000
census followed the recommendations set out in the manual :
Principles and Recommendations for Housing and Population
Censuses – Revision 1 ( UN,1998).
.
.
1
Consultant, Mumbai, India;
2
Principal Demographer, Ministry of
Health and Quality of Life, Mauritius
Page 2
2
The question asked at the 2000 Population Census was as follows:
“Does the person experience any disability (i.e.,
any limitation to perform a daily-life activity in
a manner considered normal for a person of
his/her age) because of a long-term
physical/mental condition or health problem?”
if the person stated “Yes”, he was requested to insert as many
disabilities as applicable as follows:
MTION walking, running and other ambulation
disabilities
MANU manual activity disabilities such as fingering,
gripping and holding
EYE seeing disabilities even with glasses
EAR hearing and listening disabilities even with
hearing aid
SPCH speaking and talking disabilities
LEARN disturbance of ability to learn and acquire
education
BEH disturbances of behaviour, including antisocial
behaviour, maladjustment and liability to self
injury
CARE inability to look after oneself with regard to
personal care and hygiene, feeding, etc.
OTHER other disabilities
At the 1990 census, persons answering ‘ yes ‘ to the question:
“Does the person have any long-term disabilities
or handicaps which limit his/her participation in
Page 3
3
individual and/or social activities which are
considered normal for a person of his/her age?”
were requested to insert as many disabilities as applicable as
follows:
LF incomplete use of legs/feet
AF incomplete use of arms/fingers
EYE partial or total loss of sight even with glasses
EAR partial or total loss of hearing
SPCH partial or total loss of speech
SLOW slow development/learning difficulties
BEH behaviour problems/mental disability
CFB
loss of consciousness, fits, blackouts
OTHER other disabilities
Although respondents were asked to list all disabilities that they had,
only the first three disabilities were coded in the recent census.
After examination of a sample of returns, it was found that most
disabled persons fell in one of the 12 categories and 4 groups listed
below.
I. MOBILITY
II. COMMUNICATION III. DEVELOPMENT IV. OTHER
( MOB )
( COM )
( DEV )
( OTH )
1
MTION
4
EYE
9
LEARN
12 OTHER
2
MANU
5
EAR
10
BEH
3
MTION &MANU
6
EYE & EAR
11
CARE
7
SPCH
8
EAR & SPCH
Classifications used at the 1990 and 2000 Censuses are not strictly
comparable. The differences lie in the category “BEH”. Also, the
category “CARE” was not in 1990 but there was a category “ CFB”.
The residual category “Other” therefore also differs. To allow
Page 4
4
comparison between 1990 and 2000, some categories were grouped
into the above 12 categories
.
2. Prevalence of disability
At the 2000 Population Census, there were 40,790 persons in the
Republic of Mauritius who were reported as being disabled
compared to 27,852 in 1990. This represents an increase of 46.5%
in the number of disabled persons during the inter-censal period.
The 40,790 disabled persons reported a total of 51,064 disabilities -
25,475 by males and 25,589 by females ( sex ratio 99.6 ) as shown
in Table 1. On the average, a disabled female suffered from 1.3
disabilities against 1.2 disabilities for a disabled male. “Walking,
running and other ambulation disabilities” was the most common
disability with 12,017 cases. This was followed by “Seeing
disabilities ” with 7,954 cases. These disabilities were also the two
most common ones reported at the 1990 Census.
Table 1. Cases of disability by type- 1990 and 2000, Mauritius
Number Of cases
Type of Disability
2000
1990
Male
Female
Male
Female
Walking, running and other
Ambulation disabilities
6,427
5,590
4,100
3,012
Manual activity disabilities
2,100
1,745
2,109
1,425
Seeing disabilities
3,519
4,435
2,892
3,871
Hearing and listening disabilities
1,648
2,123
1,254
1,552
Speaking and talking disabilities
2,023
1,578
1,091
913
Disturbance of ability to learn
1,216
1,072
912
799
Disturbance of behaviour
3,116
2,518
3413
2755
Inability to look after oneself with regard to
personal care and hygiene, feeding etc.
2,576
3,674
666*
658*
Other disabilities
2,850
2,854
1067
869
All Disabilities
25.475
25,589
17,504
15,854
*Note: In 1990 the category was “ loss of consciousness, fits and blackouts “.
Page 5
5
Further analysis will consider number of disabled persons rather
than number of cases of disabilities.
In 2000 among the disabled population enumerated there were
20,576 males and 20,214 females, giving a sex ratio ( number of
disabled males per 100 disabled females) of 101.8. Comparatively,
there were 14,613 disabled males and 13,239 disabled females in
1990 with a sex ratio of 110.4, indicating that in both censuses
there were more males than females among the disabled population.
However, the decline in the sex ratio in 2000 denotes that female
disabled population has been growing at a faster rate than the
corresponding male population or that coverage ( awareness ) has
improved more for females.
In 2000, the crude disability rate, defined as the number of disabled
per 1,000 mid-year population, was 34.6 (35.2 for males and 34.0
for females). Corresponding figure for 1990 was 26.4 (27.7 for
males and 25.0 for females). The higher prevalence rates observed
at the last census may be due to a change in the age structure. This is
removed by standardising the rates for year 2000 using the
population of 1990 as standard. The rate was 30.6 for both sexes
(31.6 for males and 29.7 for females). The results still point to
higher prevalence in 2000 but at a lesser extent.
2.1 Spatial aspects
For effective planning, some idea of the geographical distribution of
the disabled is required. Government has identified six health
regions and it will be useful to have disability characteristics for
these regions. Table 2 shows the disability rate by sex and broad age
Page 6
6
groups in the six regions and the proportion of persons by broad
disability type.
The highest rate for both sexes is in Port Louis region, but lowest
for males is in Island of Rodrigues for males and in Grand Port &
Savanne region for females. For males Mobility type disabilities
predominate among males in regions 2, 3, 4 and 6 whereas
Communication type disability dominates among males in Port
Louis and Plaines Wilhems & Black River. Among females,
excepting Rodrigues where Mobility type is highest, it is
Communication type disabilities in all other regions. There are
variations over age regarding the type of disability . Especially in
young ages, Communication type dominates for both sexes in all
regions. At ages 60 -74, Communication is dominant among both
males and females in all regions, except in regions 2,3,4 and 6
among males and in region 6 among females where Mobility type is
reported. At the oldest ages 75+, again Communication disability is
reported in all regions and among both sexes except in Island of
Rodrigues where it is Mobility among males and Development
among females.
Table 2. Resident population by health region, type of disability, age
and sex, 2000
Disability
Total
Rate per
Percentage by type of disability
Region, Sex
and Age
Total
Not
Disabled
Disabled 100 pop.
MOB
COM
DEV
OTH
MALE
Region 1: PORT LOUIS
All ages.
63,458 60,836
2,591
4.1
30.2
31.6
23.7
14.5
0 – 14
16,677 16,463
211
1.3
18.0
44.1
21.8
16.1
15 – 44
31,626 30,679
924
2.9
26.2
20.2
35.4
18.2
45 – 59
40,777 39,212
1,539
3.8
30.9
22.5
29.2
17.4
60 – 74
4,649
4,113
534
11.5
36.5
39.1
12.9
11.4
75+
1,344
1,038
306
22.8
24.2
55.9
15.7
4.2
Region 2: PAMPLEMOUSSES & RIVIERE REMPART
All ages
109,649 105,802
3,808
3.5
35.2
28.9
24.2
11.6
Page 7
7
0 - 14
28,746 28,458
282
1.0
27.3
36.2
22.7
13.8
15 – 44
57,667 56,342
1,298
2.3
30.2
24.4
31.3
14.1
45 – 59
16,145 15,109
1,033
6.4
41.9
25.1
17.6
15.4
60 – 74
5,557
4,807
749
13.5
39.1
33.0
21.0
6.9
75+
1,529
1,084
445
29.1
33.0
39.3
25.6
2.0
Region 3: MOKA & FLACQ
All ages
100,824 97,478
3,320
3.3
34.6
29.9
23.1
12.5
0 – 14
26,304 26,044
259
1.0
27.0
33.2
26.6
13.1
15 – 44
53,776 52,516
1,239
2.3
27.4
24.3
34.1
14.3
45 – 59
14,171 13,304
864
6.1
43.2
23.0
17.4
16.4
60 – 74
5,176
4,547
628
12.1
42.2
38.9
12.3
6.7
75+
1,395
1,065
330
23.7
30.6
49.1
14.5
5.8
Region 4: GRAND PORT & SAVANNE
All ages
85,798 83,018
2,744
3.2
35.8
26.4
26.9
10.9
0 – 14
22,524 22,277
246
1.1
30.1
32.5
28.5
8.9
15-44
45,294 44,275
989
2.2
27.3
20.0
39.6
13.0
45 – 59
11,647 10,957
686
5.9
43.9
22.9
17.9
15.3
60 – 74
5,003
4,497
505
10.1
45.3
31.1
16.8
6.7
75+
1,326
1,009
317
23.9
33.8
42.0
21.1
3.2
Region 5: PLAINES WILHEMS & BLACK RIVER
All ages
206,327 198,553
7,571
3.7
30.0
30.4
25.8
13.9
0 – 14
50,276 49,639
618
1.2
18.4
35.6
30.4
15.5
15 – 44
103,780 101,051
2,580
2.5
24.5
23.2
36.5
15.8
45 – 59
33,017 31,124
1,875
5.7
36.5
24.6
22.8
16.1
60 – 74
15,094 13,514
1,570
10.4
35.6
37.7
14.8
11.9
75+
4,141
3,211
924
22.3
29.9
46.3
17.6
6.2
Region 6 : ISLAND OF RODRIGUES
All ages
17,700 17,148
542
3.1
39.3
31.7
27.1
1.8
0 – 14
5,578
5,481
97
1.7
27.8
44.3
23.7
4.1
15 – 44
8,768
8,566
197
2.2
33.0
29.4
37.1
0.5
45 – 59
2,020
1,953
66
3.3
48.5
22.7
25.8
3.0
60 – 74
1,071
963
108
10.1
52.8
30.6
13.9
2.8
75+
259
183
74
28.6
43.2
31.1
25.7
0.0
FEMALE
Region 1: PORT LOUIS
All ages
64,397 61,681
2,695
4.2
25.3
35.6
22.7
16.4
0 - 14
16,071 15,902
167
1.0
15.6
40.7
22.8
21.0
15 -44
30,545 29,915
618
2.0
15.9
28.3
34.8
21.0
45 - 59
9,874
9,266
605
6.1
27.4
27.8
22.0
22.8
60 - 74
5,688
5,009
676
11.9
29.7
42.2
14.9
13.2
75+
2,204
1,578
625
28.4
30.6
41.8
19.8
7.8
Region 2: PAMPLEMOUSSES & RIVIERE REMPART
All ages
111,457 107,853
3,578
3.2
28.3
33.6
25.4
12.8
0 -14
120,544 116,846
3,671
3.0
27.9
33.8
25.5
12.8
15 -44
58,068 57,173
884
1.5
24.2
27.0
31.2
17.5
45 - 59
16,294 15,327
962
5.9
33.6
25.5
23.3
17.7
60 - 74
6,591
5,800
787
11.9
30.5
41.7
17.9
9.9
75+
2,493
1,757
735
29.5
26.3
40.8
29.8
3.1
Region 3: MOKA & FLACQ
All ages
101,494 98,219
3,265
3.2
27.8
34.4
25.5
12.3
Page 8
8
0 - 14
25,803 25,600
203
0.8
22.7
41.4
25.1
10.8
15 - 44
51,930 51,023
903
1.7
22.8
24.5
37.3
15.4
45 - 59
14,812 13,991
816
5.5
33.1
27.1
20.6
19.2
60 - 74
6,522
5,814
707
10.8
33.1
43.3
15.6
8.1
75+
2,419
1,786
633
26.2
24.2
45.7
25.9
4.3
Region 4: GRAND PORT & SAVANNE
All ages
87,223 84,609
2,605
3.0
27.8
31.4
27.8
13.1
0 - 14
22,053 21,891
160
0.7
21.9
41.9
27.5
8.8
15 - 44
43,847 43,133
710
1.6
19.3
27.5
36.5
16.8
45 - 59
12,652 12,014
635
5.0
36.7
20.0
22.2
21.1
60 - 74
6,381
5,813
568
8.9
31.9
39.4
20.1
8.6
75+
2,277
1,746
531
23.3
25.8
38.4
31.3
4.5
Region 5: PLAINES WILHEMS & BLACK RIVER
All ages
212,442 204,659
7,463
3.5
26.0
34.8
26.8
12.4
0 - 14
49,626 49,222
389
0.8
17.0
43.2
27.2
12.6
15 - 44
104,411 102,432
1,702
1.6
19.0
28.1
36.8
16.1
45 - 59
33,640 32,003
1,628
4.8
28.3
29.3
24.6
17.8
60 - 74
17,622 15,886
1,725
9.8
30.6
38.3
19.5
11.5
75+
7,114
5,094
2,013
28.3
27.8
40.4
26.1
5.7
Region 6 : ISLAND OF RODRIGUES
All ages
18,079 17,471
608
3.4
39.8
29.3
28.9
2.0
0 - 14
5,571
5,481
90
1.6
27.8
42.2
25.6
4.4
15 - 44
8,932
8,769
163
1.8
34.4
34.4
28.8
2.5
45-59
1,938
1,850
88
4.5
46.6
25.0
26.1
2.3
60 - 74
1,205
1,083
122
10.1
55.7
22.1
21.3
0.8
75+. . . . . . . . .
432
287
145
33.6
35.9
24.1
39.3
0.7
Considering the districts, the largest number of disabled were found
in the district of Plaines Wilhems and the lowest in Black River in
2000. Comparison of the disability rates by district however shows
that the district of Port Louis had the highest prevalence with a
disability rate ( DR ) of 41.3 per 1000 population . Black River had
the lowest rate. Rodrigues also had comparatively lower rate.
Nevertheless, given that the number of disabled is also affected by
the age structure, standardised disability rates ( SDR ) are used to
compare disability prevalence among districts. The SDR per 1,000
population given in Table 3, using the total population as the
standard, shows that highest rate is still in the district of Port Louis
(SDR of 38.8) but Savanne had the lowest. Interestingly, Rodrigues
indicates higher rate ( 34.9 ) than even Island of Mauritius ( 34.5 ),
Page 9
9
perhaps because of higher prevalence among females. Age-sex
structure therefore seems to play important role in differentials in
disability. In 1990 also Port Louis had the highest rate but Rodrigues
showed lowest rate, may be because of under reporting. The high
rate in the capital, Port Louis could be because of better facilities or
more awareness.
Table 3 – Disabled population by district and sex – 1990 and 2000
1990
2000
SDR
District
Number of disabled
DR per
Number of disabled
DR per
per
Male
Female
1000
Male
Female
1000
1000
Port Louis
2,129
2,128
32
2,591
2,695
41.3
38.8
Pamplemousses
1,434
984
23.8
2,061
1,880
32.2
35.4
R.du Rempart
1,216
951
25
1,747
1,698
34.8
37.7
Flacq
1,453
1,328
24.7
2,101
1,990
32.3
35.2
Grand Port
1,304
1.188
25.8
1,693
1,630
31.2
32.6
Savanne
957
772
28.4
1,051
975
30.5
31
Plaines Wilhems
4,407
4,337
27.2
6,582
6,635
36.9
33.5
Moka
762
705
22.5
1,219
1,275
33
34.6
Black River
568
474
23.8
989
828
30
33.1
Island of Mauritius
14,230
12,867
26.5
20,034
19,606
34.7
34.5
Rodrigues
383
372
22.1
542
608
32.1
34.9
Mauritius
14,613
13,239
26.4
20,576
20,214
34.6
34.6
2.2. Disability by type
The type of disability prevalent is important for designing
preventive and protective action programs. According to Table 4,
some types of disability have a greater incidence on the population
than others. The most common disability reported in 2000 was
“Walking, running and other ambulation disabilities” with 9,144
persons representing 22.4% of all disabled persons. This was
followed by “Seeing disabilities” reported by 6,670 persons or
16.4% of the disabled.
Page 10
10
These two disabilities were also predominant in 1990. It should be
mentioned that those suffering from “Ambulation and manual
activity disabilities” decreased from 1,689 in 1990 to 803 in 2000.
This may be due to the fact that many of those suffering from this
type of disability may have reported as suffering from “Inability to
look after oneself, with regard to personal care and hygiene, feeding
etc.”- a category which was introduced at Census 2000 with a
reported about 4,000 persons.
Table 4. Type of disability by sex, 1990 and 2000
1990
2000
DISABILITY
Male
Female
Male
Female
Walking, running and other ambulation
disabilities ( MTION )
3034
2239
4996
4148
Manual activity disabilities ( MANU )
813
463
1321
974
Ambulation and manual activity
disabilities ( MTION & MANU )
972
717
417
386
Seeing disabilities ( EYE )
2476
3237
2977
3693
Hearing and listening disabilities ( EAR )
712
885
887
1146
Seeing, hearing and listening
disabilities ( EYE & EAR )
206
333
322
533
Speaking and talking disabilities ( SPCH )
631
514
1523
1107
Hearing and listening and speaking
and talking disabilities ( EAR ^ SPCH )
253
233
403
398
Disturbance of ability to learn ( LEARN )
767
641
813
689
Disturbances of behaviour ( BEH )
3144*
2569*
2755
2150
Inability to look after oneself with regard to
personal care and hygiene ,feeding etc ( CARE )
577*
572*
1571
2412
Other
1028
836
2591
2578
TOTAL
14613
13239
20576
20214
Note: In 1990 categories were : Mental and Fits respectively
Summarizing table 4 into broader meaningful categories, table 5
shows that both in 1990 and 2000, “MOB” was more frequent
Page 11
11
among the males and accounted for around a third of disabled male
population compared to slightly more than a quarter for the female
disabled population. Conversely, “ COM” was most frequent
among the females accounting for more than a third compared to
less than a third for the male. The pattern by sex could be due to age
structure.
Table 5.Disabled population by broad group of type of disability and
sex- 1990 and 2000
Broad type of
1990
2000
Disability category
Male Percent Female Percent Male Percent Female Percent
Mobility ( MOB )
4819
33
3419
25.8
6734
32.7
5508
27.2
Communication ( COM ) 4278
29.3
5202
39.3
6112
29.7
6877
34
Development ( DEV )
4488
30.7
3762
28.6
5139
25
5251
26
Other ( OTH )
1028
7.0
836
6.3
2591
12.6
2578
12.8
All
14613
100
13239
100
20576
100
20214
100
2.3. Disability by age and sex
Table 6 indicates that the disabled population was relatively older
than the overall population. About two thirds of the disabled
persons were aged 45 years and over compared to less than a quarter
for the overall population. The median age of the disabled
population works out to 53.0 years compared to 29.2 for the total
population. Furthermore, the female disabled population was
relatively older than its male counterpart, the median age of the
female disabled being 57.4 years against 48.7 for the male. It is to
be noted that in 2000, nearly half of the total female disabled were
aged 60 years and over.
Between 1990 and 2000, the increase in number of disabled was
more among females and at ages 35 and above.
Page 12
12
Table 6. Percentage age distribution of the disabled population and
of the total population by sex: 2000
Disabled Population, ( percentage ) Total Population,( percentage )
Age group
Male
Female
Male
Female
0 – 14
8.3
6
25.7
24.7
15 – 44
35.1
24.7
51.5
50
45 – 59
25
23.4
14.8
15
60 – 74
19.9
22.7
6.3
7.4
75 +
11.6
23.2
1.7
2.8
All Ages ( Number )
20,576
20,214
583,756
595,092
Table 7 shows that the likelihood of having a disability increases
with age . In 2000, among children aged 0 to 14 years, 10 out of
1,000 had some form of disability. In the age groups 15 to 39 years
it was around 20, at ages 40-59 it increased to around 60 , further
increased to around 100 at ages 60-74 and was more than 200 at
ages 75 and over. Prevalence of disability was higher among males
than among females at all age groups except at very old ages,
because of much larger proportions of oldest old among females.
Similar patterns were noted at the 1990 Census. Also, the likelihood
of having a disability was higher in 2000 than in 1990. This is true
for all age groups irrespective of sex.
Table 7. Number of disabled population and disability rate ( DR per 1000)
by sex: 1990 and 2000
2000
1990
Age
Male
DR
Female
DR
Male
DR
Female
DR
0 – 4
277
5.8
231
5
203
4,2
161
3.4
5 – 9
656
12.4
448
8.6
484
9.2
406
8
10 - 14. . . . . .
780
15.8
539
11.2
763
13.4
530
9,5
15 - 19. . . . . .
833
16.1
592
11.7
733
14.9
541
11.3
20 - 24. . . . . .
901
16.3
597
10.7
947
18.1
593
11.8
25 - 29. . . . . .
915
19.6
582
12.4
1059
19.7
733
14.1
30 - 34. . . . . . 1,255
25.1
814
16.4
989
20.7
709
15.5
35 - 39. . . . . . 1,702
33
1,159
23
999
24.2
744
18.6
Page 13
13
40 - 44. . . . . . 1,621
35.4
1,236
27.7
888
29.5
861
28.4
45 - 49. . . . . . 1,797
45.9
1,499
38.6
1,039
47.4
835
36/6
50 - 54. . . . . . 1,675
60.3
1,619
55.5
981
53.1
785
40.1
55 - 59. .. . . .
1,667
86.7
1,616
76
1,127
71.8
815
49.5
60 - 64. . . . .
1,413
92.3
1,396
78.4
1,180
80
1,000
62.2
65 - 69. . . . . . 1,264
107.5
1,413
100.9
1,128
99.8
1.063
82.1
70 – 74
1,417
149.3
1,776
145.5
857
132.3
1,034
125.1
75+
2,396
239.7
4,682
276.4
1,236
199.6
2,429
210.3
All ages
20,576
35.2
20,214
34
14,612
27.2
13,239
25
A summary measure of mortality and disability is disability free life
and duration of disability.
Table 8 shows that whereas life expectation in 1990 was 65.6 for
males and 73.4 for females, in 2000 there was increase for both
sexes to 68.2 for males and 75.3 for females. Taking into
consideration the prevailing disability rates, disability free
expectations came to 62.8 for male and 70.1 for females in 1990 and
64.7 for male and 70.9 for female in 2000. Thus, there seem to be
disability life of about 2.8 years for male and 3.3 years for females
on an average at birth in 1990. In 2000. corresponding figures are
3.5 years for males and 4.4 years for females. Though mortality
conditions improved, the increased disability of recent period more
than wiped off the gain.
Table 8. Disability free life table, by sex: 1990 and 2000
1990
2000
Male
Female
Male
Female
Age
ex
eDx
DFLx
ex
eDx
DFLx
ex
eDx
DFLx
ex
eDx
DFLx
0
65.6 2.7
62.9
73.4 3.3 70.1 68.2
3.5
64.7 75.3
4.4
70.9
1 – 4
66.1 2.7
62.4
73.7 3.3 70.4 68.4
3.5
64.9 75.5
4.4
71.1
5 – 9
62.3 2.7
59.6
69.9 3.3 66.6 64.6
3.5
61.1 71.4
4.4
67.0
10 - 14 57.4 2.7
54.7
65.0 3.2 61.8 59.7
3.4
55.3 66.5
4.3
62.2
15-19
52.5 2.6
49.9
60.1 3.2 56.9 54.8
3.4
51.4 61.6
4.3
57.3
20-24
47.7 2.6
45.1
55.3 3.1 52.2 50.0
3.3
46.7 56.7
4.2
52.5
25-29
42.9 2.5
40.4
50.6 3.1 47.5 45.3
3.2
42.1 51.8
4.2
47.6
30-34
38.3 2.4
35.9
45.8
3
42.8 40.6
3.2
37.4 47.1
4.1
43.0
35-39
33.8 2.3
31.5
41.0
3
38.0 36.0
3.1
32.9 42.3
4.1
38.2
30-44
29.4 2.3
27.1
36.3 2.9 33.4 31.5
3
28.2 37.5
4
33.5
45-49
25.3 2.2
23.1
31.7 2.8 28.9 27.3
2.9
24.4 32.9
3.9
29.0
50-54
21.4 2.0
18.4
27.3 2.7 24.6 23.3
2.7
20.6 28.4
3.8
24.6
55-59
18.0 1.9
16.1
23.1 2.6 20.5 19.6
2.6
17.0 24.2
3.6
20.6
Page 14
14
60-64
14.8 1.8
13.0
19.1 2.4 16.7 16.1
2.4
13.7 20.3
3.4
16.9
65-69
12.0 1.7
10.3
15.4 2.3 13.1 13.2
2.2
11.0 16.6
3.2
13.4
70-74
9.6
1.6
8.0
12.2 2.2 10.0 10.6
2.1
8.5
13.3
3.1
10.2
75+
7.5
1.5
6.0
9.6
2
7.6
8.4
2
6.4
10.5
2.9
7.6
ex = expectation of life at age x,x+5 , eDx = disability life at age x-x+5, DFLx = disability free life at age x-x+5
2.4.Type of disability by age and sex
In Table 9, prevalence of disability at Census 2000 has been
calculated by broad type of disabilities, age group and sex. Among
males of all ages, “ MOB” was the most prevalent, while among
females, “COM” predominated (both with rate of 11.5 per 1,000
population). “ DEV “ type disabilities prevailed almost equally
among males and females but at lower intensity than “ MOB “ and “
COM “ .
However, disability pattern changed with age. Thus, among both
sexes for the very young ( 0-14 years ) and oldest (75 years and
above ) “ COM “ was most prevalent, while among those aged 15 –
44 years “ DEV” dominated. Disabilities prevailing most in ages 45
to 74 years was “ MOB “ for males but for females it was “ MOB “
at ages 45 – 59 and “ COM “ at 60-74. It seems that males face more
“ mobility “ related issues and females encounter “ communication “
problems.
Table 9. Disability prevalence ( per 1000 ) by age group, sex and
broad category of disability: 2000
Male
Female
Age
MOB COM DEV OTH Total MOB COM DEV OTH Total
0 – 14
2.7
4.2
3.1
1.5
11.4
1.6
3.5
2.1
1.1
8.3
15 – 44
6.5
5.5
8.5
3.5
24
3.5
4.6
5.9
2.8
16.7
45 – 59
23.9
14.5
11.9
9.4
59.7
16.7
14.1
12.2
10
53.1
60 – 74
43.7
40.5
17.4 10.4
112
33
41.6
18.8 10.7 104.2
Page 15
15
75 +
73.7 109.3 45.9 10.8 239.7 75.9 112.3 74.1 14.1 276.4
All ages
11.5
10.5
8.8
4.4
35.2
9.3
11.5
8.8
4.3
33.9
3. Social Characteristics
3.1. Disabled persons by living arrangements
Disabled populations in institution
Of the 40,790 persons with disabilities, 96.5% ( 39,361 ) were living
in private households and only 3.4% (1,380 persons) were living in
institutions . Thus, in the country, the family still caters for most of
the disabled, despite break up of families and reduction in family
size.
However, among the disabled population in institutions a higher
proportion were females - some 58.7% compared to 49.3% in
private households. They were also older – about 52.4% were aged
60 years and over compared to about 38.1% in private households.
Only 2.0% of the institutional population were aged less than 15
years. More than 50% of the disabled population living in
institutions were single compared to about 35.1% for the total
disabled population . Some 17.0% were widowed.
Disabled persons in private households
Among those residing in private households, just over 50% were
males. A breakdown by age group shows that 7.4% of the disabled
in private households were less than 15 years, 30.2% were in the age
group 15 to 44 years, and 38.1% were aged 60 years and over.
Page 16
16
In 2000, there were 2,266 disabled persons living alone compared to
1,537 in 1990. Furthermore, some 639 two-member households and
91 three-member households comprised disabled members only.
The corresponding figures for year 1990 were 368 and 42
respectively. Thus around 3000 households in 2000 were composed
of disabled persons only, as compared to about 2000 households in
1990. Even though, number of disabled persons in institutions is
small, the wholly disabled person households may have some
problems which need looking into.
About 34,000 or 11.5% of all households enumerated in 2000 had
one or more disabled members against 23,600 or 10.0% in 1990.
The proportion of households with disabled persons decreased from
12.3% for one-member households to 7.9 % for four-member
households; the proportion then steadily increased to a maximum of
25.3% for households of size ten and above.
Small households ( 1-2 members ) had around 13% of their
members disabled. It decreased to 10% for middle sized households
( 3-4 members), then it steadily increased to reach 33 % in
households with 10 or more members.
The burden on members of household increased when household
size increased. Whereas the average size of households with no
disabled members was 4.0 in 2000, it increased, but relatively
slowly to 5.5 in households with 3 or more members , implying that
whereas one disabled member households had 3.3 non disabled, it
reduced steadily to less than 2.5 among households with 3+
disabled. In 1990, corresponding figures were more favourable
with 3.9 non disabled members among households with one disabled
members to more than 3 non disabled members in large households,
Page 17
17
implying that there is reduction of almost one non disabled member
per household in recent period.
Table 10. Disabled resident population in private households by size
of household: 1990 and 2000
Household size
Total
Households with indicated number of disabled
Households
Disabled
population
0
1
2
3+
2000
All households. . . . . .
296,294
39,361
262,307
29,373
3,987
627
1 person hh. . . . . .
18,484
2,266
16,218
2,266
0
0
2 persons . hh . . . . . .
39,184
5,407
34,416
4,129
639
0
3 persons . hh . . . . . .
59,082
6,346
53,560
4,789
642
91
4 persons . hh. . . . . .
86,512
7,844
79,672
5,992
713
135
5 + persons hh
93,032
17,498
78,441
12,197
1,993
401
Average hh size
4
4.4
4
4.3
4.7
5.5
1990
All households. . . . . .
236,110
27,177
212,523
20,589
2,534
463
1 person. Hh.. . . . . .
12,336
1,537
10,799
1,537
0
0
2 persons .hh . . . . . .
25,092
2,998
22,462
2,262
368
0
3 persons .hh. . . . . .
39,673
3,247
36,838
2,465
328
42
4 persons .hh . . . . . .
55,797
4,185
52,143
3,215
358
81
5 + persons hh
103,212
15,210
90,281
11,121
1,480
340
Average hh size
4.5
5
4.4
4.9
5.3
6.4
An average household headed by disabled member had slightly
more than half a member under age 15 with male headed households
showing a much higher number of 2/3 of a member and female
headed ones having only around a third of a youngster member.
Households with male heads younger than 35 or older than 45 had
lower number of youngsters , but among female headed households
there was a decreasing trend of youngsters. In other words, female
heads are older and have less number of youngsters also.
Table 11. Households headed by disabled persons by age of head,
by sex and number of members under age 15: 2000
Page 18
18
Age in years
Number of members under 15
Total
20-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65+
Both sexes
All households. . . . . . . .
14,758
546
1,824
3,197
3,353
5,834
Total members under 15
8405
647
2333
1954
1456
2015
Average no. of members under 15
0.57
1.18
1.28
0.61
0.43
0.35
Male heads
All households. . . . . . . .
10,447
483
1,542
2,472
2,438
3,508
Total members under 15
6861
581
2135
1639
1086
1420
Average no. of members under 15
0.66
1.2
1.38
0.66
0.45
0.4
Female heads
All households. . . . . . . .
4,311
63
282
725
915
2,326
Total members under 15
1544
66
198
315
370
595
Average no. of members under 15
0.36
1.05
0.7
0.43
0.4
0.26
3.3. Relationship with other members of household
Out of 39,361 disabled persons living in private households, 14,747
(10,437 males and 4,310 females) were reported as heads of
households in 2000, giving headship rates of 37.5% ( 52.3% for
male and 22.2% for female ). This is a slight increase from 1990 of
35.1 for both sexes - 49.2 for male and 21.5 for female.
Female disabled heads of households were relatively older than their
male counterparts. Thus, in 2000, the mean age of disabled heads
was 57.8 years for males and 65.1 years for females; the
corresponding figures for year 1990 were 56.6 and 61.6 years
respectively. Furthermore, disabled heads are relatively much older
than other heads of households, the mean age of all heads being only
46.0 years for the males and 56.2 years for the females.
Table 12 shows the relationship of the disabled with the head of
household. Headship rate increased slightly for both sexes between
1990 and 2000 and was around 50% among males and slightly
above 20% for females. Proportion of spouses remained similar
between 1990 and 2000 and was naturally very much higher among
females, reaching more than a fifth. There was fall in proportion of
Page 19
19
children mostly comprising single children. Parents indicated a
desirable trend of an increase, especially female.
Table 12. Percentage distribution of disabled population in
private households by relationship to head and sex:
1990 and 2000
1990
2000
Relationship to
head
Male Female Male Female
Head
49.1
21.5
52.3
22.2
Spouse
1.6
20.3
1.5
22.5
Children
33.8
27.9
30.1
21.3
Spouse of child
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
Grand child
1.5
1.2
1.7
1.1
Parent of head
3.2
12.4
4.7
15.9
Other relative
9.9
15.5
9.1
16.3
Total number
14344 12833 19956 19405
It is worth noting that the proportion of parent of head among
disabled was much higher than among the overall population (2.0%)
at Census 2000. As regards children, the proportion decreased by
about 5 percent points between 1990 and 2000 reflecting the general
decline in fertility. Naturally, female heads are older, but among
spouses, males are older, as expected. There are also sizeable
number of other relatives, especially older females.
Table 13. Disabled population by relationship to head, age and sex.
Relationship to
Age in years
Head of household
Total
Under 15
15-24
25-44
45-64
65+
Head . . . . . . . . . . .
14,747
-
40
2328
6545
5,830
Male . . . . . . . . .
10,437
-
35
1988
4905
3,505
Female . . . . . . . .
4,310
-
5
340
1640
2,325
Spouse of head . . . ..
4,672
-
59
1122
2391
1,100
Male . . . . . . . . .
306
-
1
47
158
100
Female . . . . . . . .
4,366
-
58
1075
2233
1,000
Unmarried child. . . .
9,174
2,485
2374
3558
746
8
Male . . . . . . . . .
5,450
1,472
1466
2167
342
2
Female . . . . . . . .
3,724
1,013
908
1391
404
6
Page 20
20
Ever married child . .
974
1
62
660
238
13
Male . . . . . . . . .
567
-
23
421
119
4
Female . . . . . . . .
407
1
39
239
119
9
Spouse of child. .. . .
130
-
27
62
29
12
Male . . . . . . . . .
56
-
5
25
19
7
Female . . . . . . . .
74
-
22
37
10
5
Grand-child. . . . ..
565
339
151
64
5
6
Male . . . . . . . . .
337
197
94
45
0
1
Female . . . . . . . .
228
142
57
19
5
5
Parent of head . .. . . .
4,016
-
6
7
607
3,396
Male . . . . . . . . .
935
-
-
2
114
819
Female . . . . . . . .
3,081
-
6
5
493
2,577
Other relative . . . . . .
4,973
75
165
1204
1634
1,888
Male . . . . . . . . .
1,813
30
94
656
646
385
Female . . . . . . . .
3,160
45
71
548
988
1,503
3.2 Marital characteristics
Among the 36,412 disabled aged 20 years and over enumerated in
2000, 9,970 were single, 15,606 were married, 8,763 were widowed
and 1,973 were divorced/separated; representing respectively 27.4%,
42.9%, 24.1%, and 5.4%. Disaggregated figures by sex show that
the proportion of married among males (56.9%) was much higher
than the corresponding proportion among the females (29.2%) while
the proportion of widowed was much higher among females, that is
40.3%, compared to only 7.5% among the males. This may be due
to: ( 1 ) there is a higher proportion of elderly among disabled
women, ( 2 ) male mortality is higher than female and ( 3 ) husbands
are older than wives. The proportions of single was higher in 1990 (
30.7%) .However, for all other marital categories, there was increase
in 2000.
When comparison is made with the overall population of the
corresponding age group, we find that the proportion of single or
never married persons, especially among females, was higher for
the disabled than for the overall population. There was only a 10%
difference for males as against a 70% difference for females. One
possible reason may be that disabled persons have a lower
propensity/opportunity to get married because of their disabilities
which may also be most acute for females.
Page 21
21
Table 14. Proportion of disabled population by marital status and
sex : 1990 and 2000
1990
2000
Marital status
Disabled
population
Total population
Disabled
population
Total population
Male Female
Male
Female
Male Female
Male Female
Single
32.6
28.5
39.4
26.3
30.3
24.5
26.9
14.7
Married
54.8
28.2
57.3
57.6
56.9
29.2
68.6
65.9
Widowed
6.8
37.6
1.8
12.5
7.5
40.3
2
14.7
Divorced/separated
4.5
5.6
1.5
3.6
4.8
6
2.3
4.2
Table 15. Proportion of disabled population by marital status and
type of disability by sex: 2000
Type of disability
Marital status
MOB
COM
DEV
OTH
Male Female
Male Female
Male Female
Male Female
Single
25.9
24.5
33.9
28.1
63.9
43
37.3
30.2
Married
62.5
31.3
54.7
25.2
25.2
19.2
54.7
34
Widowed
7
39
8.8
43.2
5.4
31.2
3.2
26.2
Divorced/separated
4.7
5.2
2.5
3.4
5.6
6.6
4.7
9.6
Whereas “ MOB “ and “ COM “ are foremost among the married
males , “ DEV” is most prevalent among single men. The highest
proportion among all types of disabilities is shown by widowed
females. Mostly the pattern reflects the peculiar age structure of the
groups . Table 16 shows the age-sex distribution by marital status
and clearly indicates that males are predominantly married and
comparatively younger whereas females are mostly widowed,
divorced/ separated and are much older. Also Mobility was a
significant issue for single, married, widowed and older divorced
men, “ DEV “ showed up among the single and younger divorced
men. Among women, “ COM “ was dominant among widows, “
Page 22
22
DEV “ was among young single and old divorcees and “ DEV “ was
shown among older single and younger divorcees.
Table 16. Percent of disabled population by age, sex and marital
status by of type of disability: 2000
Male
Female
Age
SIN GLE
Total
MOB% COM% DEV% OTH%
Total
MOB% COM% DEV% OTH%
All ages. . . . .
8,005
22
26
40
12
6,300
21
31
36
12
under 35
4,956
22
30
36
12
3,127
18
37
33
12
35-59
2,546
21
18
48
13
1,326
23
23
40
14
60+ . . . . . . . .
501
24
25
44
8
678
30
31
32
7
MARRIED
All ages. . . . . 10,238
41
33
12
14
5,392
32
32
19
17
under 35
572
39
23
17
19
537
23
27
26
24
35-59
3,843
45
27
11
18
1,995
33
29
17
21
60+
4,504
38
42
12
8
537
33
38
19
10
WIDOWED
All ages. . . . .
1,363
34
40
20
6
7,412
29
40
22
9
under 35
4
25
25
25
25
20
25
15
30
39
35-59
119
46
16
20
18
914
32
30
18
20
60+ . . . . . . . . 1,238
33
42
20
5
6,360
28
42
23
7
DIVORCED & SEPARATED
All ages. . . . .
871
36
18
32
14
1,107
26
21
31
22
under 35
75
28
8
51
13
116
16
16
43
24
35-59
572
35
16
34
14
756
27
16
33
24
60+ . . . . . . . .
222
43
26
22
9
234
27
42
18
13
3.4 School attendance
There has been a general improvement in the school participation of
the disabled during the inter-censal period and it was more
perceptible for females. Thus, the proportion of disabled females
aged 2 years and over who never attended school decreased by about
5 percent points between 1990 and 2000. Correspondingly, the
proportion of those who attended in the past increased. On the other
hand, for males, there was only slight increase in proportion who are
attending and those who attended in the past with corresponding
decline in the never attended group.
Page 23
23
Thus, the proportion of males currently attending school and those
who attended school in the past were significantly higher than those
of females. while the proportion of disabled females who never
attended school was almost twice as high as the males, indicating
the persistence of gender disparity in school participation of the
disabled.
Disabled persons are less likely to attend school than the non-
disabled persons. Comparison with overall population shows that
disabled persons had a currently attending school rate in both 2000
and 1990 of only a fifth of those for overall population. Moreover,
there was enormous gap in the proportion of those never attended
school between disabled and overall population and gender gap was
also more pronounced. These observations may be explained to
some extent by the fact that the disabled population was relatively
older than the overall population, but may be more due to
accessibility or availability of opportunities.
Table 17. Percentage distribution of the resident population aged 2
years and over by school attendance and sex and disability status:
1990 and 2000
1990
2000
School attendance
Disabled
population
Total population
Disabled
population
Total population
Male
Female
Male
Female Male
Female
Male Female
Now
5.9
5
26.1
25
6.7
4.6
26
24.8
Past
64.7
46.3
65.3
58
68.6
50.8
67.8
62.8
Never
28.2
48
8.5
16.9
23.5
43.3
6
12.3
3.5 – Level of education
Table 18 shows the distribution of the disabled and the overall
population aged 5 years and over by educational attainment.
Broadly, there has been an improvement in the educational
attainment of both the disabled males and females during the period
1990 – 2000.
Page 24
24
The proportion of disabled with no education and with only primary
level of education has decreased with some corresponding
improvement in secondary and tertiary level education. Thus, the
proportion of disabled persons with no education and with only
primary level of education, excluding those with Certificate of
Primary Education (CPE), decreased from 78.3% for male and 86.8
% for female in 1990 to 71.1% and 82.6% respectively for males
and females in 2000. However it was way above that for the overall
population with only 46.6% among males and 52.9 among females .
During the same period, holders of CPE increased by about 20% for
both sexes but was more for males than females, and was
comparable with overall population. Secondary level of education
increased for both sexes by about 50% but was only half the level of
overall population among males and a quarter among females.
A study of the educational attainment by sex reveals that disabled
females are more disadvantaged than their male counterparts. About
half of the females had no formal education compared to a quarter
for the males. At all levels of education males were ahead of
females.
Marked differences are observed between the educational attainment
of the disabled and that of the overall population. The proportion of
disabled with no formal education (34.2%) was significantly higher
than that of the overall population (8.7%). The proportion of the
overall population with secondary level of education was about 3
times that for the disabled while the proportion of SC and HSC
certificate holders for the overall population was about four times
higher than for the disabled.
Table 18. Percentage distribution of resident ( disabled and overall )
population aged 5 years and above by educational attainment and
sex: 1990 and 2000
1990
2000
Level of educational
Disabled population
Disabled
Total population
Page 25
25
population
Attainment
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
Nil and pre primary
28.8
48.8
24.1
44.4
5.3
12.1
Std I-VI but not passed CPE
49.5
38
47
38.2
41.3
40.8
Passed CPE
4.1
2.8
4.9
3.5
4.5
4.6
Primary
53.6
40.8
51.9
41.7
45.8
45.4
Forms I - but not passed SC
10.2
6.2
14.6
8.1
28.6
25.5
Passed SC or HSC
4.5
2.3
6.4
3.2
17.3
15.5
Secondary
14.7
8.5
21
11.3
45.9
41.4
University degree or
equivalent
0.6
0.1
0.6
0,2
2.5
1.1
4 – ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
Physical and/or mental conditions of the population of disabled
amplified by lower educational/training qualifications may impose
serious restrictions on the quantity and types of jobs that they are
able or perceived able to perform and made available and hence may
have an impact on their level and variety of activity.
4.1 Activity status
At the 2000 Population Census, there were 40,790 persons with
disabilities, among whom 38,614 were aged 12 years and over.
Only 4,751 were economically active representing 12.3% of the
disabled population of whom 11.5% also were unemployed. (Table
19).
Table 19. Disabled population aged 12 years and above by current
activity status and sex: 1990 and 2000
1990
2000
Activity status
Male
Female
Male
Female
Economically Active
3198
923
3523
1228
Employed
2972
873
3133
1070
Unemployed
226
50
390
158
Economically inactive
10239
11447
15397
17561
Household duties
184
5053
205
6531
Studies
313
208
486
329
Disability
6465
5100
9754
8690
Retired
3150
953
4816
1730
Page 26
26
Disaggregated figures by sex show that the proportion of active
among the disabled males, even though low compared with overall
population, was almost three times higher than that of disabled
females (18.2% for male versus 6.4% for female ). Almost a tenth of
the active males and females were unemployed. These were slightly
higher in 1990 but the same disparity existed.
Among the inactive population, the main cause of inactivity was
disability accounting for about two thirds for males and near half
for females. The next most important reason of inactivity among the
males was “retirement” reported by around less than a third, while
among the females it was “household duties” with more than a
third. Only a tenth of the inactive females reported “retirement” as
the reason for their inactivity perhaps because very few were in
employment assuring retirement benefits.
4.3 Level of activity
Comparison with the 1990 Census results shows that the activity
rate of the disabled, already rather low, has further regressed from
25.5 for male and 7.4 for female in 1990 to 18.2 for male and 6.4 for
female in 2000. Also the proportion of employed among the actives
dropped from 93.3% in 1990 to 88.5% in 2000. Conversely, the
proportion of the inactive has increased from 83.2% in 1990 to
85.7% in 2000.
When compared with the overall population, we find that activity
rates among the disabled population were quite low – only a fourth
for male and around a seventh for females of that for the total
population. The standardized rates using the 2000 population as
standard show some improvements, but still indicate a much lower
level of activity among the disabled (Table 20).
Table 20. Activity rate ( % ) of overall and disabled population by
sex,1990 and 2000
Page 27
27
2000
1990
Group
Male
Female
Male
Female
Activity rate of overall population
73.9
36.4
74.9
32.2
Activity rate of disabled population
19.2
6.4
25.5
7.4
Standardised rate
21.5
9.3
Figure 1 shows the activity rates of the disabled population and the
overall population by age group and sex. The level of activity was
highest, around 30%, for the disabled males at age 45 to 49 years
while it peaked at only about 14% for the disabled females at age
20 to 24 years. For the overall population, the activity rate peaked at
97% for the males aged between 30 to 34 years while for females,
the rate was highest for the age group 25 to 29 years when it reached
a level of 51%. Relatively, activity rate for the disabled, is high at
ages 30-49, but still it is only less than a third for male and a fourth
for the female overall population. Among the inactive, disability was
reason among the majority and the rate was highest between ages
30-49 for both sexes. The next reason for males was retirement with
highest observed at older ages, whereas for females household
duties contributed most of the inactive showing highest rate at age
50-69. This was even larger than the rate for the inactive due to
disability. It seems that women even though disabled, continue to do
household duties – perhaps necessitated by cultural, economic and
social patterns. Table 21 gives further details.
Figure 9 - Activity rate of the disabled and overall population by age group and sex,
2000 Population Census
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
12 -
14
15 -
19
20 -
24
25 -
29
30 -
34
35 -
39
40 -
44
45 -
49
50 -
54
55 -
59
60 -
64
65 -
69
70 -
74
75+
Age group (years)
A
ctivity ra
te
(%
)
Disabled
male
Disabled
female
Overall
male
Overall
female
Page 28
28
Table 21. Active and inactive by age group and sex, 2000
Male
Age
Total Active Employed Unemployed
Activity% Inactive hh duties Study Disability Retired
12 – 29
3117
601
420
181
19.3
2481
40
445
1940
2
30 – 49
6,375
1728
1571
157
27.1
4492
58
17
4270
94
50 – 69
6,019
1065
1019
46
17.7
4802
55
17
2770
1953
70 +
3,813
129
123
6
3.4
3622
52
7
774
2767
Female
12 – 29
2080
199
135
64
9.6
1858
327
300
1216
0
30 – 49
4708
537
470
67
11.4
4060
1188
9
2830
15
50 – 69
6044
415
392
23
6.9
5490
2391
9
2482
551
70 +
6458
77
73
4
1.2
6273
2625
11
2162
1164
4.4 Activity status by type of disability
Table 22 shows the percentage distribution of the disabled
population aged 12 years and above by current activity status and
type of disability. The economically inactive predominates among
all types of disability but was highest among “ DEV “ type of
disability with about 87% of disabled. They were less likely to be
employed.
Table 22. Percentage distribution of disabled population aged 12
years and above by current activity and type of disability: 2000
Type of disability
Current activity status
MOB
COM
DEV
OTH
Economically active
12.9
15.3
5.9
16.6
Employed
11.7
14
4.5
14.3
Unemployed
1.2
1.3
1.4
2.3
Inactive
86.9
84.3
87.2
82.9
Table 23. Households of disabled persons by number of active
and unemployed persons and household size.
Number Number of Number of Average per Number of
Number of
Number of
Average per
Active
households Persons
household
Unemployed Households Persons
household
0
4850
9831
2.03
0
12747
43514
3.41
1
4608
15915
3.45
1
1563
7014
4.49
2
3028
13777
4.55
2
358
1937
5.41
3
1440
7851
5.45
3
67
431
6.43
Page 29
29
4 +
831
5821
7.00
4+
23
177
7.70
In addition to individual economic and social burdens on account of
disability, there is yet another strain on the disabled coming through
household responsibilities. For instance, almost a third of
households of disabled persons do not have an economically active
member and even with 1 or more active member, the burden is still
quite heavy as can be noted from table 23 . Correspondingly , the
unemployed category is also quite substantial and doesn’t seem to
abate proportionately even when household size increases.
Another indicator of the problem is given in table 24 where we note
that small households have negligible proportion of active members
and even though large households may have 1 or 2 active persons,
the increment is not proportionate to increase in household size. On
an average a household has 2 or more dependents.
Table 24 Households by size and average number of active and
unemployed persons: 2000
Size of household (number of usual residents)
Number of
Number of economically active
persons by household size
Total
1
2
3
4+
members
All households . . . . . . . . . .
14,758
2,263
2,806
2,556
7,133
53355
Households with:
0 active person. . . . . . .
4,850
2,018
1,633
587
612
9831
1 active person. . . . . . .
4,608
245
1,030
1,298
2,036
15981
2 active persons . . . . . .
3,028
0
143
598
2287
13777
3 active persons . . . . . .
1,440
0
0
73
1367
7881
4 +active persons . . . . . .
832
0
0
0
832
5885
Total active persons
18870
245
1316
2713
14596
Average no. of active persons
1.3
0.1
0.5
1.1
2.2
Number of unemployed persons
2514
22
141
352
1999
Average no.of unemployed persons
0.17
0.01
0.05
0.14
0.28
4.5 Employment by industry and occupation
Page 30
30
In 2000, there were 4203 disabled persons in employment- 3133
male and 1070 female. Table 25 gives the employed persons by
major industry and occupation groups and sex for 1990 and 2000.
The four major industry and occupation groups considered are:
INDUSTRY GROUPS
AGRI
Agriculture, hunting, forestry, fishing, mining and quarrying
MANU Manufacturing, electricity, gas, water and construction
TRAD Whole sale and retail trade, restaurants, hotels, transport, storage and communication
SERV Finance, insurance, real estate, business services, community, social and personal services
OCCUPATION GROUPS
PROF Legislators, senior officials, managers, professionals, technical and associate professionals
CLER Clerks, service workers, shop and market sales workers,
SKIL
Skilled agricultural and fishery workers, craft and machine operators and assemblers
ELEM Elementary occupations
Table 25. Employed disabled persons aged 12 years and over by
industry/occupation by sex, 1990 and 2000
IINDUSTRY
1990
2000
Male Percent
Female
Percent Male Percent Female Percent
AGRI
551
18.6
152
17.6
512
16.4
164
15.5
MANU
1195
40.3
364
42.1
1062
33.9
375
35.4
TRAD
581
19.6
75
8.7
760
24.3
169
16.0
SERV
636
21.5
274
31.7
795
25.4
350
33.1
OCCUPATION
PROF
343
11.6
67
7.8
292
9.3
119
11.2
CLER
313
10.6
101
11.7
582
18.6
219
20.7
SKIL
1356
45.8
336
38.9
1315
42.0
293
27.7
ELEM
951
32.1
360
41.7
939
30.0
426
40.4
The employed disabled of both sexes were mainly working in
“MANU”, group industries followed by “SERV” categories.
Whereas there was a fall in “MANU” in the inter censal period, a
corresponding increase was noted among “SERV” group.
As regards occupation, whereas “ SKIL “ group was predominant
among males, it was “ELEM” which showed largest for females for
both periods, however for both groups there was a decrease over
time .
Page 31
31
Thus it seems that even though generally the disabled are in lower
paying/ position jobs, yet males do have an advantage over females
in types of jobs available and this may reflect their training and
other skills opportunities and acquisitions.
5. Policy implications and recommendations
Increasing disability by age coupled with the fact of an ageing
population will result in a dramatic increase in disabled population-
a good majority would be females. This will necessitate increasing
resources to be allocated for rehabilitation.
Even though institutional population of disabled is still small, about
half are aged 60 years and over and predominately female.
Also there are increasingly many households comprising only of
disabled persons who have high propensity to depend on kinship
groups. With the break up of the extended family system, they are
more vulnerable. The future of this category of disabled persons is at
stake and more and more may turn to institutional help. Also, among
households with at least one disabled person, more than one sixth of
such households are very small, which means that these people have
little family support. Effort towards amelioration of this category is
required While better services should be provided in these
institutions, special income support to carers should be encouraged
to prevent these people from moving away from their homes.
.
The social bondage and security of marriage seems less attainable
for the disabled which may be due to other reasons also like
economic and educational. This barrier seems more acute for
females. Special efforts to assist such individuals may be called for.
The disabled population, especially females also face several
problems in respect of education, employment and family support.
The National Development Plan 1992-94 took cognizance of the
special requirements and needs of the disabled and stated that in
Page 32
32
light of the objective of integrating the disabled in society and in
providing them with equal opportunities in terms of education,
employment and other facilities, needed changes will be effected:
Two pieces of legislation, namely the Trust Fund for Disabled
Persons Act and the Employment of Disabled Persons Act, were
passed in Parliament in November 1988. Their respective objectives
were (i) “to set up training centers and sheltered workshops for,
developing and providing appropriate training to, disabled persons
with a view to enabling them to secure employment or to work on
their own account” and (ii) “to provide for the employment of
disabled persons or in the alternative, a contribution to a Trust Fund
from employers”. Another piece of legislation, the Training and
Employment of Disabled Persons Act, which reinforced the existing
ones, was passed in 1996, which stipulated, inter alia that the work
force of all employers having 35 employees or more should include
3% of disabled persons. Moreover with the amendment of the
Building Act, 1999 a number of buildings have been retrofitted to
increase accessibility to disabled persons. Furthermore, the African
Union of which Mauritius is a member proclaimed the year 1999 –
2009 as the African Decade of Persons with Disabilities. The aim is
to bring about full participation, equality and empowerment of
people with disabilities. In this context, the Government took the
decision in November 2000 to set up a National Committee under
the aegis of the National Council for the Rehabilitation of Disabled
Persons (NCRD) to work out and monitor programmes for the
decade.
The Government, through the Ministry of Social Security, National
Solidarity & Senior Citizen Welfare and Reform Institutions in
conformity with the United Nations Standards Rules on Equalisation
of Opportunities for persons with disabilities has worked towards
the empowerment of the disabled. In this respect, several
institutions within the Ministry – the Rehabilitation Unit, the
National Council for the Rehabilitation of Displaced Persons (
Page 33
33
NCRD ) and the Training and Employment of Disabled Persons
Board, were set up.
Fewer disabled persons tend to attend school and even among them
many abandon education at primary level. At Census 2000, only two
thirds of the disabled persons were currently attending or attended
school in the past compared to more than 90 percent of the overall
population. Activity rate of the disabled population also was less
than a quarter of that for the total population.
Training and Employment is a key to successful integration of
disabled persons in the social and economic development.
Government and Non–Governmental Organisations should
encourage the participation of people with disabilities in education
and economic activity to enable them to play fully their role in
society. Attempts should therefore be made so that they could enrol
and pursue their studies and acquire academic / vocational / skill
training to improve employment opportunities.
The “ Trust Fund for Disabled Persons “ is also helping them in
providing vocational training so that they could be integrated in the
working environment. The legislation “ The Employment of
Disabled Persons Act 1988 “ is a further step in this direction.
Various awards are also being given so as to encourage the disabled
to pursue their studies further and also to employers to encourage
them to employ more disabled persons.
Males show higher disability rate than females and the most
frequent type of disability is “ ambulatory “. Greater exposure to
accidents and injuries on the worksite and road plus the higher
incidence of diabetes resulting in amputation is responsible. This is
true to a lesser extent for females also. Action programmes to create
awareness about diet, exercise and general life style seems called
for. Census data shows that leg and arm disability is the most
common type of disability. The main reasons could be accidents
and injuries at work and the consequences of diabetes. Thus, actions
Page 34
34
must be taken for a safe workplace and for the provision for
education on proper dieting for a healthy life.
Acknowledgment
We are thankful to Director, Central Statistics Office, Mauritius for
making available data and tables from the 2000 census and making
suggestions on the first draft. We are also thankful to Mrs. C.
Rughoobur for the Analysis Report on Disability from the 2000
census.
REFERENCES
United Nations
Principles and Recommendations for
Population and Housing Censuses,
Revision 1, United Nations, New York,
1998
World Health International Classification of Impairment,
Organization Disabilities, and Handicaps, WHO,
Geneva, 1980
Mauritius
Disability and its prevalence, Analysis
Report Vol. III Central Statistics Office,
1996
Mauritius
Analytical Report on Disability, Central
Statistics Office, 2004
Mauritius
White Paper on Health, Ministry of Health,
2002