Inside the Kenyan disability corridors of power Author Mugambi Paul

Over the past few years, the discourse agenda of many disabled Kenyans has been dominated by service delivery and public participation debate] Mugambi 2017] this is because both incredibly important issues. But amid these dominating subjects, have the voices of disabled Kenyans been hard?
Has Kenya improved its level of inclusiveness?
Globally, persons with disabilities are estimated to represent 15 per cent of the world’s population, but in many developing nations this percentage
can be significantly higher] world report 2011 UN enable 2011].
this is to say, population of 1.3 billion, disabled persons constitute an emerging market the size of China. Their Friends and Family add another 2.4 billion potential consumers who act on their emotional connection to PWD] Ilo 2017].
Together, PWD control over $8 trillion in annual disposable income] ILO 2016].
The aging Boomer population is adding to the number of the disabled daily. As Boomers’ physical realities change, their need and desire to remain active in society dovetails with the demands of PWD. This group controls a larger share of the national wealth than any previous generation. Does Kenya government know this?
Just like many developing nations Kenya is on automobile settings on matters disability inclusion.
Most public policies are well woven but poorly executed. This is quite evidenced by the rare and sometimes absence seen in leadership and decision-making roles, the visibility in
popular culture and media are low, absence of disabled representation in key policy decision organs and stakeholders, and recognition of the work as thought leaders and influencers is almost non-existent. What has been happening?
The Kenyan government has strongly concentrated on developing policies geared towards social safety nets. In other words, the Kenya government sees disabled persons as people who need care and do not deserve to contribute to the economy.
Debatably, if the Kenyan government could turn the coin, they would gain more tax collection from this single largest minority in Kenya.
This can be achieved once the government realizes and focusses on effective, first service and maximization of social assets] Whiteford 2018].
How will Kenya government meet the sustainable development goals 2030?
How will the vision 2030 be achieved?
How will the big 4 agenda be achieved?
The reality is disabled Kenyans have been left behind.
This has led to artist and disability activist to start to compose or entertain with the song “do not live us behind”
As evidenced in twitter tags and music.
Moreover, The work of the disability rights
movement often consists of them highlighting their absence from the public domain.
In other words, most regulations and legislation on disability are still shelved in the cabinet. this has led to continuous charity model of delivery of service with out clear roadmap towards right based approach. This is affirmed by the implementation of education policy practises etc
Needless to say, its popular for public and private organisations to claim that they are being inclusive, yet retention rates remain low for disabled people in most organisations, with very
few moving into positions of leadership or responsibility.

I observe, A key factor in understanding inclusion is that it lies in the eye of the beholder. Many organisations have good intentions on inclusion, yet their staff
members from minority groups don’t feel comfortable and leave within a short period. For other organisations inclusion is a reality, so long as everyone
fits in and conforms to company culture] eddy robber 1988].

It’s very easy to say you are being inclusive, it’s another matter to be viewed as being so by those who are the target for being included. I don’t want to sound like a broken glass “why should someone claim his or her organization, yet a disabled person can’t access a toilet?”
According to my findings Most people mean
well, but they forget their unconscious behaviours. Very few people are comfortable with stepping back to allow a person from a minority group (like a
disabled person) to take an opportunity over themselves. Even fewer seem comfortable with a disabled person being their supervisor.
Could this be one of the reasons of the low rate employment recorded by Kenyan public service report
in 2015?
There are those who consider inclusion to be not “seeing” a person’s difference. This isn’t inclusion, its assimilation.
There isn’t much point in having disabled employees to your team if they aren’t valued for their contribution. This seems like an unnecessary thing
to say, yet social media has heard many stories about disabled staff who are never sent the documents in a format they can read
and work on, or aren’t given time to hear what is happening via their interpreter, and even highly experienced employees who are never given the opportunity
to speak and share their views. They are, quite literally, token appointments.
As a public policy scholar and with lived experience on disability, I affirm that the focus must shift from charity model and have accommodation to a plan focused on specific actions to attract customers and talent in disabled persons markets.
Even the available market opportunities for the disabled are being snatched under our noses.
Why aren’t we represented in many government bodies?
Who is supposed to audit the leadership gaps in the disability sector?

All in all, many disabled people work in invisible ways, shifting ground from within existing business and government structures. This work is just as important, just
as necessary, as the work of those who use the public domain to challenge assumptions and perspectives on disabled people. Internal institutional barriers
need to be addressed as much as social assumptions and social policy. Without taking our place as 15% of Kenyan employment and leadership we won’t be in a position to
challenge the ableist structural barriers which deny an equitable disabled presence across the public and private domains.

The views expressed here are for the author and do not represent any agency or organization.
Mugambi Paul is a public policy, diversity, inclusion and sustainability expert.

The future of poverty policy Five years of momentum must not go to waste Guest Author SHARON BESSELL

New ways of measuring and tackling poverty are making crucial progress, but the scale of the problem is large, and many challenges and negative trends remain. Addressing these will be crucial to ending poverty, Sharon Bessell writes.

In 2015, world leaders agreed to the Sustainable Development Goals. Goal 1 is to end poverty in all its forms everywhere. This marked a significant shift in global policy, refocusing poverty alleviation strategies from income alone to a far broader set of issues.

So how far have things come in the past five years as policymakers, service deliverers, and activists grapple with the challenge of ending poverty in all its forms everywhere? Three trends are worth considering as the new decade dawns.

First, in terms of global priorities, Goal 1 signals a welcome shift. There is no doubt that increasing incomes among the poor is critically important, and must remain a priority – both globally and within countries.

Equally, it is important to recognise that low income is not the only characteristic of poverty. The structural barriers that prevent individuals and social groups from moving out of poverty reflect deep-seated inequality and discrimination that are unlikely to be dismantled by a marginal increase in incomes.

Similarly, poor quality of health care, education, and other essential services available to many are the product of insufficient and unequal public spending and investment. Individuals need very large increases in their income to be able to buy higher quality services – and such purchases may never be possible for those who are excluded due to discrimination and stigma.

More on this:Mapping deprivation across lives
As the global definition of poverty has broadened to include dimensions beyond income, an important development, policymakers have improved their ability to measure multidimensional poverty.

The Individual Deprivation Measure is a powerful example of how poverty measurement is being rethought.

It allows decision-makers to include in their understanding of poverty access to and quality of essential services, its non-material dimensions, like voice and social relationships, and intersectional analysis that reveals which social groups are being left behind.

Central to new approaches is a recognition that poverty cannot continue to be measured at the level of the household. An important step forward came in 2016 when the World Bank initiated the Global Commission on Poverty, which stated that decomposition of household-level data is simply insufficient – poverty must be measured on an individual basis.

Debates about how to measure poverty are not simply a theoretical exercise with little practical relevance, they matter deeply and determine a response. When the multidimensional nature of poverty is in the picture, policymakers are better able to identify and respond to structural barriers, deeply entrenched discrimination, and services that continually fail the poor.

When poverty is measured at the individual level, policy can move beyond the already discredited idea that resources are shared equally within a household. Decision-makers can better identify which social groups are most disadvantaged and why. Governments and service providers are able to respond on the basis of evidence.

The second trend occurring globally is a steady decline in extreme poverty – measured as those living on less than $1.25 prior to 2015, now revised upwards to those living on less than $1.90.

In 1990, 36 per cent of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. By 2010, that figure decreased to 16 per cent, and by 2015 was at 10 per cent. At the end of 2018, the World Bank observed that extreme poverty was at its lowest level ever.

More on this:Poverty, homelessness, and welfare
This is a remarkable achievement. However, two issues must be kept in mind. First, the international cut-off for extreme poverty is very low. If it were increased to just $3.20, one-quarter of the world’s population would be living in poverty. A little further – to $5.50 – and 46 per cent of the world’s population would be defined as poor.

While great progress has been made, we cannot afford to be sanguine – the misery of poverty still affects half of all people around the globe.

In many countries, those who remain in poverty are those who are hardest to reach. For example, in Indonesia, poverty based on the national poverty line dropped below 10 per cent in 2019.

While the significance of this milestone should not be underestimated, in terms of numbers, 26 million people remain below the very low national poverty line.

For Indonesia, the greatest challenge remains. The most severely marginalised people – those hardest to identify and hardest to reach – are yet to move out of poverty. This is reflected across the region and the world.

The third global trend provides a less optimistic story – and one likely to undermine the achievements of recent years. It is a story in two parts.

First, the record of some of the wealthiest countries in addressing poverty in all its forms over the past five years is dismal.

In Australia for example, one in six children live in income poverty. In the United Kingdom, where government spending on children has fallen dramatically in recent years, child poverty is at 30 per cent. The apparent preparedness of wealthy countries to abandon efforts to end poverty is alarming.

It is even more so considering the apathy of these countries towards the global shift to assessing multidimensional poverty, rather than income alone, a change that has generally resulted in poverty measurements moving up to reflect reality. If the multidimensional nature of poverty in these countries was measured and included the stigma and shame that is created by unjust policies, these figures would be far worse.

The second part of this story is the failure of leaders to seriously address the climate emergency. Without action, new groups will be plunged into poverty and achievements in reducing global poverty could go into reverse.

Over the past five years, there have been positive trends in addressing poverty around the world. The adoption of ending poverty as a global goal, the shift towards multidimensionality in both assessments of and responses to poverty, the recognition that poverty must be assessed at the individual level, and the continuing downward trend in extreme income poverty globally are all great achievements.

However, they are countered by deeply disturbing trends, especially in wealthy countries, and the link between the climate emergency and poverty. These challenges must be addressed, or the last five years of progress may go to waste. If they are not addressed, it will amount to simply abandoning the most vulnerable to their fates, and settling for a world that is divided and deeply unjust.

Sharon Bessell
Dr Sharon Bessell is the Director of the Children’s Policy Centre in Crawford School of Public Policy, and the ANU lead on the Individual Deprivation Measure Project.