Attitudes towards Inclusion

Interviews with directors reflected two different interpretations of inclusion that would influence the course of deinstitutionalization. Some directors asserted that the role of institutions was to provide necessary rehabilitation to facilitate the inclusion of persons with disabilities in society. Others contended that the role of institutions was to protect persons with disabilities from society.

Most directors, particularly those who believed in inclusion, emphasized the role of governments in creating a physical and cultural environment that accommodates persons with disabilities, including to participate in social institutions and navigate public spaces without external help. Directors of private institutions, particularly those providing educational services, stressed participation in education and employment as key elements of inclusion. For example, a director in Yemen highlighted that the national education curriculum is not inclusive and does not cater to the needs of persons with disabilities. Some directors also expressed the view that inclusion is more successful among persons with mild and moderate disabilities.

The majority of directors also emphasized the role of the government in promoting a culture free from stigmatization and shame. A director in the State of Palestine explained that “families of persons with disabilities refused to disclose their children out of shame”. This issue was also raised by a director of a private institution in Lebanon, who stated, “Society should stop shaming and bullying persons with disabilities. We [the institutions] cannot make a difference on our own.” According to the majority of directors, parents also need help and support in understanding and accepting their family members’ disability.

Directors who were less optimistic about inclusion tended to stress the importance of controlled contacts between residents and people outside the institution, such as through receiving visitors, short visits outside the institution, weekend family visits, outdoor walks, strolls in the mall and lunch at restaurants. A director in Lebanon, however, stated that visits were not effectively helping persons with disabilities integrate into formal schooling and the community at large. Some directors interpreted integration as the comingling of sexes and of persons with various types of disabilities in prearranged schedules.

In contrast to perceptions of persons with disabilities as helpless people who need institutional protection, a director of a public institution in Tunisia stated that the will of persons with disabilities to improve their lives is crucial for their inclusion in society. This director argued that persons with disabilities have “to strive for getting an education, be it mainstream or vocational education.” This institution was the only one that allowed its residents to go in and out of the institution freely each day. The director added that institutions for persons with disabilities should mainly focus on providing quality education so residents can develop their strengths and work towards leading independent lives.