General Conclusions

Jordan has demonstrated political will and commitment to the development of comprehensive policies aimed at addressing the equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities. Specifically, it has ratified key international conventions and a regional agreement; issued a law to guarantee the rights of persons with disabilities; and developed a comprehensive strategy that sets forth a wide array of social policy measures and initiatives to be taken in the fields of education, health, employment and social protection. This report has provided an analysis of the policymaking process, content and implementation of these policy initiatives. 

A series of conclusions can be drawn from the analysis provided in this paper. One set of conclusions relates to the capacity of Jordanian policies and initiatives to address the issues of availability, accessibility, adaptability and acceptability of social services.

1. Availability

Availability of specific services for persons with disabilities in Jordan is addressed in the policy documents and encompasses, for example, developing such specific social protection tools as funds for counselling services for persons with disabilities; or making available health services specific to disability, including diagnostic centres. However, in practice, the availability of specific services, especially in the areas of education and employment, seems to deserve further attention.

The National Strategy emphasizes the objective of social integration of persons with disabilities. Following up on this objective requires looking at the accessibility and adaptability of mainstream social infrastructures and services. This means assessing whether the general social services available to the population at large can include persons with disabilities and are adapted to their needs.

2. Accessibility

Accessibility is clearly the main focus of Jordanian policies and initiatives. Facilitating the physical accessibility of social infrastructures is one of the most salient aspects of the documents and initiatives examined in this paper. It is particularly emphasized in the fields of education and employment. However, as documented in chapter IV, physical accessibility still remains limited and needs further effort. 

Accessibility is also judged by the extent to which the services are affordable. In the field of health care, for example, the existence of free health insurance must be considered a positive step given that it enables persons with disabilities to make unrestricted use of the services the health-care system can provide. However, if the public transport system is not accessible for persons with disabilities and they have to buy transportation services from the private sector, these costs can negatively impact on the affordability of public services even if these are provided for free. 

3. Adaptability

The issue of adaptability is a problematic one. While policy documents mention measures aimed at enhancing the adaptability of education, employment and health services, these services remain generally inadequate for persons with disabilities. Specifically, staff in schools, universities, hospitals and firms lack knowledge and awareness to respond to the needs of persons with disabilities.

One of the main effects of these limited accessibility and adaptability has been the persistence of discrimination towards persons with disabilities in the provision of mainstream social services.

4. Acceptability

Acceptability, which represents the fourth component of the rights-based approach to the equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities, is barely discussed in Jordanian policy documents. Acceptability, especially gender sensitivity, has indeed not been integrated yet in social policies that address the rights of persons with disabilities in Jordan. Taking into account acceptability will be crucial if social services are to respond to the specific needs and challenges facing women with disabilities. For example, there is insufficient information to assess whether women with disabilities are comfortable consulting a male diagnostics doctor.

In addition to these conclusions on the content of Jordan’s policies and initiatives to equalize opportunities for persons with disabilities, a series of conclusions on the policymaking and implementation processes can also be drawn from the analysis provided in this paper. These processes have shown to have a number of technical limitations. 

First, there is a need to enhance the quality and availability of data on persons with physical disabilities. Accurate data on their number, access to social services and needs is lacking. This seriously hinders the design of efficient social policies. 

Moreover, the participation of representatives of persons with physical disabilities in the policymaking process deserves to be addressed. This participation is currently weak to non-existent. Incorporating representatives allows for a more accurate picture of the real needs of persons with disabilities.  

The issue of institutional cooperation is also critical. The delivery of social services appears to be fragmented and coordination between relevant bodies is often minimal. Moreover, the follow-up of the implementation of policy documents is weak. 

Finally, the issue of funding is of pressing concern. Sources of funding for the implementation of Law No. 31 and the National Disability Strategy are not clarified. This renders the implementation of these policy documents problematic.