DISABILITY POLICIES AND PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL

Download PDF
0 downloads 0 Views 555KB Size Report
Comment
Mar 10, 2015 - ENVIRONMENT IN BAYELSA STATE, NIGERIA ... Globally, one billion people live with some form of disability of whom nearly two hundred .... The target population of this study consisted of persons with special needs. ... Table 1 below shows the socio – demographic characteristics of our respondents.
IfePsychologIA 2018, 26(2), 90-102 Copyright (c) 2018 © Ife Centre for Psychological Studies/Services, Nigeria ISSN: 1117-1421 DISABILITY POLICIES AND PEOPLE WITH SPECIAL NEEDS IN THE WORK ENVIRONMENT IN BAYELSA STATE, NIGERIA 1

Michael-Olomu Oyintonyo, 2Robert Tari Love & 2Uzobo Endurance 1 Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Federal University Otuoke, Bayelsa State, Nigeria 2 Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Niger Delta University, Wilberforce Island, Bayelsa State, Nigeria Email: [email protected]

Abstract Despite the numerous socio-psychological challenges that People with special need face in the society, the work place has come to compound these problems in spite of the many disability policies found in the society to protect them. This study is therefore designed to assess the level of implementation of the disability policies from both the international communities and that of Nigeria with regards to their work environment. The study which was conducted in Bayelsa state purposively sampled 315 respondents drawn from various government and private establishments. The study made use of the social model of disability and labelling theories as its theoretical foundations. Data for the study was collected through the use of the questionnaire and were analysed using descriptive statistical tools such as; mean, standard deviation, and percentages, while hypotheses for the study were tested using the Pearson correlation and chi-square test. Findings from the study revealed that despite the high knowledge of employers of labour about the various disability policies in the world and Nigeria, its implementation has not been carried out. Hence, the study recommended for a monitoring unit of the government to be set up to ensure that employers of labour fully implement the stated policies. Keywords: Work Environment, People with special needs, Disability policies, Assistive Devices, Social model of disability etc. Introduction Globally, one billion people live with some form of disability of whom nearly two hundred million (200,000,000) experience difficulties in functioning (Shakespeare, 2006). These difficulties comprise barriers in accessing services that many of us have taken for granted. These services include; health, employment, information, security etc. They also constitute a social group that is vulnerable to societal discrimination and negative public perception, which compound these harrowing experiences. Consequently, people with special needs have high regard for work and yearn to take part in regular paid employment (Holwerda, Groothoff, de Boer, van der Klink, & Brouwer, 2013). But the work place is an embodiment of obstacles-stereotype, discrimination, stigmatization, misconceptions, job insecurity, low salaries and inaccessible physical structureswhich are not propitious to persons with special needs. Often times, these obstacles make access to employment difficult. The burgeoning question is, what are those obstacles that pose a challenge to people with special needs in their organization. Furthermore, Unemployment amongst these persons is as high as 70% (United Nations, 2012). A 2006 United States survey, found out that only 35% of working-age persons with disabilities are employed, compared to those without disabilities. One-third of the employers surveyed said, “persons with special needs cannot effectively perform the required job, and also fear of costly special facilities” (Disabled World, 2017). These misconceptions are reasons, both for continued untapped professional potential, and if employed, for their continued exclusion from opportunities for promotion in their careers (Sheir, Graham, & Jones, 2009). This is not a surprising “trend” as it happens in any country, regardless of its development status. For instance, in South Africa, only 19% of people with special needs are employed (PWSNs) compared to 35% of the total population (International Labour Organisation-ILO information sheet, 2011). In Zimbabwe, the birth of a child with impairment is considered as a bad omen (Chimedza & Peters, 2008). Accordingly, the United Nations Development Program opined that 80% of persons with disabilities live in developing countries of which Nigeria is one. The latest National Census (2006) did not capture the true position of the disability rate, but it was estimated that about 4.8 million Nigerians

90

Micheal-Olomu O., Robert T.L. & Uzobo E.: Disability Policies and People…. are living with one form of disability or the other. The rates were higher in the geo-political zone of the North-west (5.09%), South-east (4.5%) South - south (3.3%). In addition, the physically challenged are not disabled except the society makes them feel so. This was why 50 members of the Joint National Association of persons with disabilities (JNAPD) Bayelsa state chapter staged a peaceful protest on the 10th of March 2015. They insisted that 5% inclusion is imperative out of the 3,000 empowerment chances given to the state. They yelled “we’re part of Niger Delta, stop discriminating us” (Nigerianeye.com, 2015). Finally, for this reason and other vital reasons, Article 27 of the UN convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities requires that States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to work, on an equal basis of others; this includes the right to the opportunity to gain a living by work freely chosen or accepted in labour market and work environment that is open, inclusive and accessible to persons with disabilities. And that States Parties shall safeguard and promote the realization of the right to work, including for those who acquire a disability during the course of employment, by taking appropriate steps, including through legislation, to inter alia: 1. Prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability with regard to all matters concerning all forms of employment, continuance of employment, career advancement and safe and healthy working conditions; 2. Protect the rights of persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others, to just and favourable conditions of work, including equal opportunities and equal remuneration for work of equal values, safe and healthy working conditions, including protection from harassment, and the redress of grievances; 3. Ensure that persons with disabilities are able to exercise their labour and trade union rights on an equal basis with others; 4. Enable persons with disabilities to have effective access to general technical and vocational guidance programmes, placement services and vocational and continuing training; 5. Promote employment opportunities and career advancement for persons with disabilities in the labour market, as well as assistance in finding, obtaining, maintaining and returning to employment; 6. Promote opportunities for self-employment, entrepreneurship, the development of cooperative and starting one's own business. 7. Ensure that reasonable accommodation is provided to persons with disabilities in the workplace. 8. Promote the acquisition by persons with disabilities of work experience in the open labour market. 9. Promote vocational and professional rehabilitation, job retention and return-to-work programmes for persons with disabilities. 10. States Parties shall ensure that persons with disabilities are not held in slavery or in servitude, and are protected, on an equal basis with others, from forces or compulsory labour (UN, 2012) The convention also insisted that sufficient standards should be made for the protection of the civil, cultural, political and social rights of persons with disabilities, on the basis of inclusion, equality and non-discrimination. Theses initiates the physically challenged to be entitled to live independently in the communities to make their own choices and play an active role in the society. There are several policies and work environment act to encourage the recruitment and promotion of disabled persons, but the question here is; are employers aware of these policies and to what extent are they implemented? Theoretical framework Therefore, the theories applied in this research work, are to help explain the entire gamut of this work and enable prediction of future events as well as to serve as a guideline for further analysis of the work. The theories are based on the social model of disability and labelling theory. The social model of disability The social model of disability, coined by Mike Oliver in 1983 is a starting point for reframing how society views disability. This model is constructed and expressed in Marxist terms and assumes that human nature and the resultant choices that individuals can make for themselves are determined by

91

IfePsychologIA, 26(2) 2018 the structure and ideology of society, it is therefore argued that the kind of society in which the physically challenged live has a profound effect upon how their disability is experienced and structured (Barnes, 2012). Similarly, Owens (2015), opined that the social model of disability arose to debunk the notion of the medical treatment of disability which reduced disability to impairment and states that disability was located within the body or mind of the individual and the power to define, control and treat disabled people was located within the medical and paramedical professions. In my opinion, the social model of disability arose to re-instate the opinion that disability is not under the auspices of the medical profession but ought to be defined in the context of a disabling environment, in other words, the interaction between people with special needs and an environment filled with physical, attitudinal, communication and social barriers exacerbates disability. It therefore implies that these obstacles must be circumvented to enable PWSNs participate fully on an equal basis with others However, this theory provides a framework for identifying those systemic, attitudinal and physical barriers that places restriction on the physically challenged and the changes required to curb this menace. This implies that an organization whose physical structures are rigid can be counterproductive to persons with special needs. This rigidity stems from the fact that the society has misconceived PWSNs as incompetent and therefore finds them unfit to enjoy those services which are meant for those without disabilities. In this light, the social model theory steps in to state that if these barriers are circumvented then disability will be a forgotten issue; in other words, there is no disability in an enabling environment. In addition, the social model of disability focuses on changes required in society. These are; a more positive attitude towards certain mental traits or behaviours; social support for e.g. help dealing with barriers, providing resources or aids, physical structures e.g. buildings with slope, elevators and flexible work hours for people with sleep disorders or those who experience anxiety (Equality and Human Rights Commission, 2010). It is worthy to note here that the social model of disability is based on a distinction between the terms “impairment” and “disability”. Impairment refers to actual attributes (or lack of attributes), the abnormality of a person. Furthermore, the social model is based on a distinction between the terms “impairment” and “disability”. Impairment refers to actual attributes (or lack of attributes), the abnormality of a person, whether in terms of limbs, organs or mechanisms including psychological disorders. Disability is used to refer to the restrictions caused by society when it doesn’t give equivalent attention and accommodation to the needs of individuals with impairment (Thomas, Gradwell, & Markham, 2012). It also addresses issues such as the under-estimation of the potentials of people with special needs to contribute to society and add economic value if given equal rights, suitable facilities and opportunities as others. Economic research on companies that attempt to accommodate disabled persons in their workforce suggests they outperform competitors (Donovan, 2012). Labelling Theory Labelling theory has its origin in a book “outsiders” published by Howard Becker 1963. This work became the manifesto of the labelling theory movement among sociologist. However, labelling theory depicts how the self-identity and behaviour of individuals may be determined or influenced by the terms used to classify them. It is also associated the concepts of self-fulfilling prophesy and stereotyping, it holds that deviance is not inherent to an act but focuses on the tendency for majorities to negatively label minorities or those seen as deviant from standard cultural norms (Macions & Gerber, 2010). In addition, the deviant is one to whom the label has been successfully applied; here, disability is considered as deviation from social norm and such label is applied to persons with disability, while society uses the stigmatic label to justify its condemnation, the deviant actor (PWSNs) uses it to justify their actions. However, the labelling theory hypothesizes that the labels applied to individuals influence their actions and promote deviant behaviour. This explains why the deviant is left with no choice but to conform to the essential meaning of the judgement (Boundless sociology, 2016). Gleaning from the above, the labelling theory is apparent in this work by justifying the claim that the physically challenged experience stigmas because of the label “disability”. Stigma which is created from society labelling groups associate negative qualities to disabled persons which results in them (PWSNs) being treated differently and being discriminated against. In addition, one major reason for

92

Micheal-Olomu O., Robert T.L. & Uzobo E.: Disability Policies and People…. the continued discrimination and stigmatization of individuals with special needs despite the antidiscrimination laws is the label “unproductive”, “inefficient”, “slow”, and “helpless”. Etc. In addition, if the society can re-phrase these labels to positive statements then disabled persons will be encouraged to exhibit their God given potentials. Finally, it is worthy to note that once the heavy stereotypical label of “disabled” is placed on a person, they are seen as different enough to be categorized in a different social group (able-bodied vs. disabled). People classified by society as disabled are then discriminated against in a variety of social situations; even those individuals who suddenly became disabled may be treated differently by people they knew before their disability (Anderson & Taylor, 2008,). Thus, when people are cast in subordinate roles or are assigned inferior labels; implying limited competence, they perform activities which denote less skill than when they do not bear the negative labels or the subordinate role designation. Research methods and techniques This research made use of the cross-sectional and co-relational study design. The cross-sectional design was used to investigate the effect of a Conducive work environment on the productivity of disabled persons. The co-relational study design on the other hand, was used to assess the statistical relationship between the work environment and compliance with policies for people with special needs. The target population of this study consisted of persons with special needs. Based on statistics from the Ministry of Gender and Social Development, Yenagoa in 2015, the population of disabled persons recorded in the state was 1500 (one thousand five hundred persons). Hence this figure constituted the sampling frame for this study. Since the target population is known, the Yaro Yemeni’s formula was applied in determining the sample size of 315 respondents. Considering the nature of this research, the probability and non-probability sampling technique was used to select the required sample for the study. However, out of the 8 local governments that makes up Bayelsa state, two local government areas were selected, one randomly (Southern Ijaw LGA) and the other purposively (Yenagoa). Yenagoa was purposely selected as it has the highest number of private business and government establishment. In addition, the cluster sampling technique wa s used to cluster organisations in these selected LGAs into the 8 major sectors of the economy namely; banking institution, higher institution, oil and gas industry, communication and entertainment, mining industry, manufacturing industry, state parastatals and private sectors. Using the purposive sampling technique, 5 sectors were purposively selected, because they comprise a substantial proportion of the target population based on the information provided by the Ministry of Gender and Social Development. Also, these sectors could easily be accessed, given the limited time and resources available to the researchers. The five sectors selected include; Higher Institution (Niger Delta University), Banks (in Yenagoa and Amassoma), State Parastatals (Ministries), Private Businesses, and Sports councils. Data for this study was gathered using a structured questionnaire based on the research questions and also administered to the respondents to highlight their views, given the available options. Three hundred and fifteen (315) copies of questionnaires were printed and administered to the respondents. The questionnaires were structured into six (6) sections. Section A pertains to questions on the sociodemographic characteristics of the respondent’s e.g. age, sex, type of organization. etc., Section B covered questions on assistive devices available in organizations. Similarly, Section C covered questions on barriers encountered by the physically challenged. Section D covered questions on employer’s knowledge on disability policies. More so, section E covered questions on the extent to which disability policies are implemented. Finally, section F covered questions on the product of a Conducive environment. Finally, a 5 – point Likert scale response was used in most questions, ranging from Strongly Agree (1), Agree (2), Undecided (3), Disagree (4) and Strongly Disagree (5). Also, their response was categorized into Very Good (1), Good (2), Undecided (3), Poor (4) and Very Poor (5). The quantitative tool of data analysis was adopted for this study given its quantitative nature of investigation. In analysing the data for this study, the aid of statistical package for social sciences (SPSS) version 21.0 was used to run various statistical packages necessary for the study. Univariate

93

IfePsychologIA, 26(2) 2018 statistical tools were used to analyse descriptive data; these include the use of frequency table, percentages, mean and standard deviations. Whereas in analysing the socio – demographic characteristics of the respondents, simple percentage was used, in testing the hypothesis, spearman correlation coefficient and chi-square test were adopted at 0.05 level of significance. The likert scale measurements were analysed using the mean and standard deviation. A mean score of 3.00 and above were accepted, while any mean score less than 3.00 was rejected Content validity was used to ensure that all the instruments measured the relevant scope they were designed to measure. This was measured by depending on the knowledge of people who are acquainted with the subject matter of the measurement tool. However, to ensure that the data collected are internally consistent, the reliability coefficient of the measure of this study at Cronbach’s Alpha is 0.7. This indicates that the variables measure strongly agree to one another. Hence it is strongly reliable. Findings and discussions Socio-demographic characteristics of respondents Table 1 below shows the socio – demographic characteristics of our respondents. The educational background indicates that 13.3% of the respondents have just primary education, 48.6% have secondary education, 25.4% have tertiary education, while 12.27% had no formal education. By implication, most of our respondents have attained university education which should qualify them for well-paid jobs. Also, majority of our respondents (44.1%) are within the age bracket of 15-29, 38.1% of them are within the age bracket of 30-34, while 17.8% of them are within the age bracket of 35-49. This means that most of the respondents in our study are still within the youthful population. More so, in determining the sex of our respondents, the study revealed that; 57.8% of the respondents were male, while 42.2% are females. This means that the gender gap in paid employment among people with special needs is not very wide. With regards to marital status, 71.1% of the respondents were single while only 28.9% of them indicated that they are married. This means that majority of the respondents in the area of study might be having the challenge of getting a spouse. Furthermore, the religious status of our respondents reveals that majority of them (77.1%) are Christians, while 22.9% indicated that they were Muslims. Additionally, 11.1% of our respondents indicated that they occupy Management positions in their organisations, 23.8% stated that they are within the Administrative cadre in their place of work, 30.5% indicated that they are junior staffs, while the highest number of them (34.6%) are support staff. By implication, majority of the respondents are within the junior cadre in their work place. Still, in determining the duration of work, the highest respondents (56.8) stated that they have worked between 1-5 years, 30.5% have worked between 5-10 years, while only 12.7% have worked for over 10 years. This might not be unconnected with the fact that it is difficult for people with disability to find paid jobs. Additionally, the average work hours put in by the respondents shows that 40.3% of the respondents work between 2-4hrs per day, this is followed by 26.7 who work between 5-7hrs per day, 20.0% worked between 8-10hrs, while only 13% of the respondents work for over 11hrs. Finally, the table below indicates that the highest number of respondents (27.9%) earn between N16,000-N25,000 per month, this is followed by 24.4% who indicated that they earn between N8,000-N15,000 per month. Still, 20% earn less than N8,000, 18.4% earn between N26,000N40,000, 6.7% earn between N41,000-N60,000, while those who earn N61,000 and above have the lowest percentage (2.5%). Given the above analysis, it is obvious that the monthly income of the respondents despite their high educational qualification is very low as only an insignificant number of them have an average monthly income of up to N50,000.

94

Micheal-Olomu O., Robert T.L. & Uzobo E.: Disability Policies and People…. Table 1: Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Respondents Variables Frequencies (N) = 315 Education Primary 42 Secondary 153 Tertiary 80 No Formal Education 40 Age 15-29 139 30-34 120 35-49 56 Sex Male 182 Female 133 Marital Status Single 224 Married 91 Religion Christianity 243 Muslim 72 Position occupied Management 35 Administrative staff 75 Junior staff 96 Support staff 109 Duration of Work 1-5 179 5-10 96 10 & above 40 Average work hours 2-4 127 5-7 84 8-10 63 11 41 Average Income Less than ₦8,000 63 ₦8,000-₦15,000 88 ₦16,000-₦25,000 77 ₦26,000-₦40,000 58 ₦41,000-₦60,000 21 ₦61,000 & above 8

Percentage (%)= 100 13.3 48.6 25.4 12.7 44.1 38.1 17.8 57.8 42.2 71.1 28.9 77.1 22.9 11.1 23.8 30.5 34.6 56.8 30.5 12.7 40.3 26.7 20.0 13.0 20.0 27.9 24.4 18.4 6.7 2.5

Table 2 below indicates the assistive devices that are available in the organizations of the respondents. Firstly, in finding out the respondent’s need for assistive devices, an overwhelming number of them (80.6%) indicated that they need these assistive devices, only 19.4% of them indicated that they can manage without the assistive devices. Additionally, in going a step further to find out the specific assistive devices needed by the respondents, highlighted the following in order of Importance; Wheel chairs, crutches, scooters, gait trainers, down to hand glove etc. In measuring the level of knowledge of how to use the devices mentioned, a mean score of 4.33 and a standard deviation of 2.08 was obtained, indicating that respondents have good knowledge of using assistive devices. Furthermore, based on a mean score of 3.83 and a standard deviation of 1.96, the study revealed that according to the respondents, provision of assistive devices will make they to equally perform like their able-bodied counterpart in their respective organisations. Finally, in finding out if respondent’s frequent use of the aforementioned devices will limit further impairment, a mean score of 3.9 and a

95

IfePsychologIA, 26(2) 2018 standard deviation of 1.95 was obtained, indicating accepted that their use of assistive devices will limit further impairment. Table 2: Assistive Devices that are Available in Organizations Assistive devices Available Categories Frequency/Percenta in Organization ge The need for special Yes 254 (80.6) devices No 61 (19.4) Total 315 Level of knowledge on Very good 177 (56.2) how to use the devices Good 103 (32.7) Undecided 7 (2.2) Poor 7 (2.2) Very Poor 21 (6.7) Total 315 Assistive devices can make Strongly agree 90 (28.6) respondents work like their Agree 145(46.0) able-bodied counterpart Undecided 30 (9.5) Disagree 37 (11.7) Strongly disagree 13 (4.1) Total 315 Respondent’s use of Strongly agree 97 (30.8) devices limits further Agree 15 (48.3) impairment Undecided 9 (2.9) Disagree 14 (4.4) Strongly disagree 43 (13.7) Total 315

Mean

Standard deviation

4.33

2.08

3.83

1.96

3.8

1.95

Table 3 unveils the barriers encountered by respondents in their organizations. The organizational perception about people with special needs according to the respondents reveals that 13.7% stated that they are seen as an equal co-worker, the highest number of respondents (45.1%) indicated that they are seen as less productive, 34.6% stated that they classified as inefficient, the remaining 6.7% respondents stated that are viewed in varying forms ranging from silly, weird, to absurd. Furthermore, the table unveils a mean score of 3.64 and a standard deviation of 1.91 indicating that people’s perception makes respondents to feel inferior. Also, a mean score of 3.36 and a standard deviation of 1.83 reveals that respondents present condition hinder effective participation. Again, with a mean score of 3.93 and a standard deviation of 1.98, the study revealed that respondents are being discriminated on account of their present condition. In addition, a mean score of 2.62 and a standard deviation of 1.62 indicates that a hostile environment limits respondent’s movement at work. With regards to recruitment of assistance, a mean score of 4.12 and a standard deviation of 2.03 were obtained, thereby indicating that recruiting assistance would minimise respondent’s challenges in their organisations. With regards to promotion, 48.9% revealed that they have been promoted in course of their work, 51.1% indicated they have never been promoted. In pressing further to know why some of the respondents have not been promoted, they advanced the following reasons; No higher certificate, they were still apprentice, because of negative perception, short term appointment etc. For respondents that were promoted, the numbers of times they have been promoted include; 65.8% were promoted once, 20% have been promoted twice, 11.0% of the respondents have been promoted up to three times, only 0.01% of the respondents indicated that he/she has been promoted about four times, while 2.6% indicated that they have been promoted between 5 times and above. An analysis of the major barrier encountered in organizations indicates that 41.3% of the respondents indicated low salaries, 10.5% stated negative perception, 20% opined that it is inaccessible environment, 24.8% choose discrimination in the work place as their major barrier, while only 3.5% indicated lengthy hours.

96

Micheal-Olomu O., Robert T.L. & Uzobo E.: Disability Policies and People….

Table 3: Barriers Encountered in Organizations Measurement of Categories Barriers Encountered How respondents As an equal co-worker are viewed in their Less productive organization Inefficient Others Total People’s perception Strongly agree makes you feel Agree inferior Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree Total Disability hinders Strongly agree performance Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree Total Discriminated on Strongly agree account of disability Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree Total Hostile environment Strongly agree limits your Agree movement Undecided Total An assistant would Strongly agree minimize your Agree limitations Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree Total Promotion Yes No Total Numbers of time Once promoted Twice Thrice Four Times 5 & above Total Major Challenge Low Salary Negative Perception Inaccessible Environment Discrimination Lengthy Work Hours Total

Frequency/ Percentage (%) 43 (13.7) 142 (45.1) 109 (34.6) 21 (6.7) 315 70 (22.2) 121(38.4) 85 (27.0) 15 (4.8) 24 (7.6) 315 87 (27.6) 108 (34.3) 11 (3.5) 54 (17.1) 55 (17.5) 315 96 (30.5) 156 (49.5) 33 (10.5) 10 (3.2) 20 (6.3) 315 207 (65.7) 97 (30.8) 11 (3.5) 315 152 (48.3) 108 (34.3) 11 (3.5) 32 (10.2) 12 (3.8) 315 154 (48.9) 161 (51.1) 315 102 (65.8) 31 (20.0) 17 (11.0) 1 (0.01) 4 (2.6) 154 130 (41.3) 33 (10.5)

Mean

Standard Deviation

Research Decision

3.64

1.91

Accept

3.36

1.83

Accept

3.93

1.98

Accept

2.62

1.62

Accept

4.12

2.03

Accept

63 (20.0) 78 (24.8) 11 (3.5) 315

Table 4 below indicates that 63.49% of the respondents stated that their employers are aware of disability policies, 36.51% stated that their employers are not aware. A further investigation on the extent of implementing disability policies, 9.2% of respondents indicated that disability policies have

97

IfePsychologIA, 26(2) 2018 been implemented to some extent in their organisations, 25.7% of the respondents stated that the policies are rarely implemented in their organisation. The highest number of respondents (65.1%) none of the available disability policies have been implemented. In ascertaining if 10% employment quota have been given in the various organisations, a mean score of 1.65 and a standard deviation of 1.28 was obtained indicating that 10% employment quota have never been given to people living with disability in their organisations. A further investigation on training and development indicates a mean score of 2.81 and a standard deviation of 1.68 signifies that respondents are not sent for training and development. Also, a mean score of 2.00 and a standard deviation of 1.41 indicate that most respondent’s income has never been upgraded. Finally, in terms of work place adjustment to suit persons with disability, a mean score of 1.98 and a standard deviation of 1.41, indicates that most respondents stated that their work place has never been adjusted to become disabled-friendly. Table 4. Employers Awareness of Disability Policies Measurement of Categories Frequency/ Employers Awareness Percentage of Disability Policies (%) and implementation Employers Awareness Yes 200 (63.49) of Disability Policy No 115 (36.51) Total 315 Extent of To some extent 29 (9.2) implementation Rarely 81 (25.7) Not at all 205 (65.1) Total 315 10% employment for Agree 22 (7.0) respondent’s Undecided 11 (2.4) Disagree 119 (26.3) Strongly Disagree 163 (36.1) Total 315 Training and Strongly Agree 11 (3.5) Development for Agree 137 (43.5) respondent’s Undecided 22 (7.0) Disagree 75 (23.8) Strongly Disagree 70 (22.2) Total 315 Upgrade of respondent’s Strongly Agree 20 (6.3) income Agree 12 (3.8) Undecided 18 (5.7) Disagree 166 (52.7) Strongly Disagree 99 (31.4) Total 315 Adjustment of work Strongly Agree 22 (7.0) place for respondent Agree 44 (14.0) Disagree 154 (48.9) Strongly Disagree 95 (30.2) Total 3

Mean

Standard Deviation

Research Decision

1.65

1.28

Reject

2.81

1.68

Accept

2.00

1.41

Reject

1.98

1.41

Reject

In a bid to investigate the extent of implementing disability policies, table 5 revealed that respondents rejected the notion that assistive devices such as; ramps, adjustable tables, communication boards, powered devices, and widened doors have been provided for them, as all these items received a mean score of less than 3.00.

98

Micheal-Olomu O., Robert T.L. & Uzobo E.: Disability Policies and People…. Table 5 Extent of Implementing Disability Policies Extent of Implementing Categories Disability policies Provisions like ramps are Agree made for respondents Disagree Strongly Disagree Total Tables with adjustable height Strongly Agree are made for respondents Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Total There are Communication Disagree Boards for blind respondents Strongly Disagree Total The door ways are widened Disagree for respondents Strongly Disagree Total There are powered assisted Strongly Agree doors for respondents Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly Disagree Total

Frequency/Percentage (%) 98 (31.1) 120 (38.1) 97 (30.8) 315 21 (6.7) 43 (13.7) 154 (48.9) 97 (30.8) 315 185 (58.7) 130 (41.3) 315 131 (41.6) 184 (58.4) 315 12 (3.8) 22 (7.0) 10 (3.2) 112 (35.6) 159 (50.5) 315

Mean

2.00

1.96

1.58

1.41

1.78

Hypotheses testing In course of this study, two hypotheses have been formulated and tested. These hypotheses were tested using the Pearson correlation coefficient and the chi-square statistical test. In testing our hypotheses, a P-value less than 0.05 signifies a significant relationship, and a rejection of the null hypotheses. On the other hand, any P-value of 0.05 and above shows no relationship between the variables under test, and a subsequent upholding of the null hypotheses. Ho1 There is no relationship between Awareness of Disability Policies and Provision of Assistive Devices From the table below, the spearman ranks coefficient is -0.003 while the coefficient significant level is 0.000. Based on this, we reject the null hypothesis of no relationship between employers’ awareness of disability policies and provision of assistive devices and accept the alternate hypotheses which states that there is a relationship between awareness of disability policies and provision of assistive devices at their places of work. Table 6: Relationship between Awareness of Disability Policies Devices Employer’s awareness on disability policies Spearman Rho Employer’s awareness on disability policies 1 Correlation coefficient

315

and Provision of Assistive Provision of assistive devices -0.003 0.954 315

Sig. (2 tailed) N Provision of assistive devices correlation coefficient

-0.003 0.954 315

1 315

Sig. (2 tailed) N

99

IfePsychologIA, 26(2) 2018 Hypothesis Ho2: There is relationship between Socio-Demographic Characteristics and the Need for Assistive Devices The socio-demographic characteristics were correlated with respondents needs for assistive devices using the chi-square. The results revealed that Educational status was not significantly related to respondents need for assistive devices as this variable have a P-value of 0.242, hence we fail to reject the null hypothesis that there is no significant relationship between educational status of respondents and their need for assistive devices. Furthermore, investigation on the sex of respondents and the need for assistive devices yielded a P-value of 0.004, revealing statistically significant relationship between sex of respondents and their needs for assistive devices. The null hypothesis is therefore rejected. Again, age was not significantly related to respondent’s needs of assistive devices based on the obtained P-value of 0.626, hence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis again. Additionally, an analysis of the religion of respondents and their needs of assistive devices yielded a P-value of 0.316 indicating no significant relationship between respondents’ religion and their need for assistive devices. The null hypothesis is again upheld. With regards to respondents’ position and their need for assistive devices, the result from our analysis revealed that no relationship exists based on the obtained P-value of 0.121. Hence, we fail to reject our null hypothesis of no significant relationship. In determining the relationship between work duration and need for assistive devices, our result indicated a significant relationship based on a P-value of 0.000, the null hypothesis is therefore rejected. Lastly, our test of hypothesis between average monthly income of respondents and their need for assistive devices yielded to significant relationship between the two variables based on the obtained P-value of 0.345. Conclusively, of all the socio-demographic variable correlated with respondents needs for assistive devices, only sex and work duration yielded a significant relationship. Table 7: Relationship between Socio-Demographic Characteristics and the Need for Assistive Devices Model fitting criteria Likelihood Ratio Test Effect -2 log likelihoods of Reduced Chi-square Df Sig Education Sex Age Religion Position Occupied Work Duration Average Monthly Income

Model 805.690 809.001 800.354 800.051 807.837 820.100 808.917

7.940 11.252 2.605 2.302 10.088 22.350 11.168

6 2 4 2 6 4 10

0.242 0.004 0.626 0.316 0.121 0.000 0.345

Conclusion and recommendations Based on the findings from this study, the following conclusion could be reached. Firstly, from the analysis of the socio-demographic data, the study concluded that most of the people with special needs have tertiary educational qualifications, yet they earn meagre monthly incomes. Again, the study concluded most of the people with special need are still in their youthful age (15-34 years) and mainly occupy low positions in their place of work (Junior and Support staff). More so, the study discovered that the percentage of male who have special needs is relatively higher than that of the female. Furthermore, with regards to the marital status of the respondents, the study concluded that people with special need might have difficulties having a spouse which might be because of their conditions. In addition, an overwhelming number of persons with special needs who work in organizations indicated that they need special devices, despite the fact that these devices are not readily available, a good number of them claim to have a good knowledge in using these special aids. Also, it was discovered that these special aids can make respondents to work like their able-bodied counterpart.

100

Micheal-Olomu O., Robert T.L. & Uzobo E.: Disability Policies and People…. Not only that, a good number of persons with special needs attested that frequent use of assistive devices limits further impairment. A further investigation on the barriers encountered in organizations reveal that majority of persons with special needs are labelled as “inefficient and less productive”, this negative label makes them feel inferior; most of them stated clearly that their present condition hinders their performance at their workplace. Also, another challenge which they encounter is discrimination and a hostile work environment (a work place that is not modified to meet the functional adaptability of people with special needs). With regards to recruitment of assistance, majority of them agreed that an assistant would minimize the challenges encountered in their organization. With regards to promotion, the study found out that most of them have been promoted just once, and only an insignificant number have promoted between five times and above. Further investigation on the major challenge indicates that a significant number of persons with special needs experience low salaries, followed by discrimination and inaccessible environment. Only an insignificant number them have lengthy hours of work as a challenge. In addition, findings from employer’s awareness of disability policies reveals despite the high knowledge among employers among disability policies, only few of the respondents attested that some of the policies have been implemented. However, the study found out that most of the respondents have gone for one training or development programmes or the other. The study also concluded that people with special needs hardly receive an upgrade of income. Again, from our findings we can also conclude that the work organisations have not provided the various assistive devices such as; ramps, communication boards, adjustable tables etc that will enable people with special needs easily carry out their functions. Finally, from our test of hypotheses we can conclude that a relationship exists between awareness of disability policies and provision of assistive devices in organizations. Again, the only sociodemographic variables significant with the need for assistive devices by people with special needs is sex and work duration. Based on our findings, the following conclusion have been made; there should be a monitoring team from the government to ensure that at least 10% percent of employees in every organisation is made up of people with special needs as contained in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Also, based on the findings that people with special needs earn lower than their able-bodied counterpart, organisations should also be made to ensure that article 27 of the UN convention policy for equal pay rights for all is strictly adhered to. Additionally, as is practicable in developed societies, employers of labour should ensure that before any organization is set up, provision of assistive devices for persons with special needs should be taken into consideration. Consequently, employers should take necessary measures to ensure that certain modifications are made in their work place in accordance with disability policies. This will give people with special needs the opportunity to function maximally in their work place. References Anderson, M.L., & Taylor, H.F (2008). Sociology: Understanding a Diverse Society, 4th ed. (Media and research update). Belmont, Calif: Thomson, Wadsworth, Barnes, C (2012). The Social Model of Disability: Valuable or Irrelevant? Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.459.1606&rep=rep1&type=pdf Boundless (2016), Boundless Sociology “Labelling theory”. Available at http://www.courses.com/boundless-sociology/chapter/the-symbolic-interactionist-perspectiveon-deviance. Chimedza, R & Peters, S. (2008). “People with Disabilities Quest for Social Justice in Zimbabwe”. Disability Human Right and Education. Open University Press, Buckingham: 7-23. Disabled World (2017), Benefits, Facts and Resources for Persons with Disabilities. Available at: https://www.disabled-world.com. Donovan, R. (2012). Emerging Giant –Big is Not Enough: The Global Economics of Disability. Available at:http://returnondisability.com/wpcontent/uploads/2012/09/The-Global-Economicsof-Disability-2012.pdf Equality and Human Rights Commission (2010), “Examples of reasonable adjustments in the work place”, available at equalityhumanright.com.

101

IfePsychologIA, 26(2) 2018 Holwerda, A., Groothoff, J. W., de Boer, M. R., van der Klink, J. J. L., & Brouwer, S. (2013). Work ability assessment in young adults with disabilities applying for disability benefits. Disability and Rehabilitation, 35(6), 498-505. ILO Information Sheet (2011). Employment and Disabled persons. Available at http://www.hpod.org/pdf/employment-disabled. Macionis, J. & Gerber, L. (2010), Sociology: Emile Durkheim’s Basic Insight (7 th edition). Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies Vol 2. No 3. Available at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/labellingtheory. NigerianEye (2015). Physically challenged persons protest non-inclusion in SURE-P. Available at: http://www.nigerianeye.com/2015/03/physically-challenged-persons-protest.html Owens, J. (2015) Exploring the critiques of the social model of disability: The transformative possibility of Arendt's notion of power. Sociology of Health and Illness, 37 (3). 385 - 403. Shakespeare, T. (2006). “The Social Model of Disability”. The disability studies reader, New York: Routledge. Shier, M., Graham, J. R. & Jones, M. E. (2009): Barriers to employment as experienced by disabled people: a qualitative analysis in Calgary and Regina, Canada, Disability & Society, vol. 24, issue 1: 63-75 Thomas, P., Gradwell, L., & Markham, N. (2012), “Defining Impairment within the Social Model of Disability”. Available at Leeds.ac.uk. United Nations (2007). Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 13 December 2006. Available at: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/61/106 United Nations (2012), Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and optional protocol. Available at http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?navid=14&pid=150.

102