Daniel Mont

Building on what Peter said, at least from the perspective of people working on inclusive policies, the focus is usually on participation outcomes — going to school, going to work, starting a family, voting, etc. — AT is always mentioned as a necessary thing to achieve those ends, but often in a secondary way. “Hey, this is important, someone should do it” but right now we’re talking about building accessible schools, getting workplace accommodations or employment quotas, etc because we are education policy people or employment policy people, etc.  Clearly all this is needed, but people’s attention to policy is often siloed even though (obviously) people don’t live their lives in silos.

In our work on inclusive social protection we are trying to bring the focus on what supports — in-kind, cash, regulatory, etc. – are needed for full participation, which hopefully can put AT a but more in the center among people thinking about social protection policies. So they are not just focused on cash top-ups or things like that.

As an example, a study of the extra costs of disability in Indonesia as part of work done for the development of social protection policy showed that cost of AT was a barrier to participation, and so Indonesia is getting ready to pilot a program delivering subsidies for AT.