Key Findings

Basic needs: 

Stringent lockdown measures resulted in loss of livelihoods and halts in income generation; with no financial assistance from the government, PWDs found themselves dealing with further financial hardships. Paying for basic necessities (i.e., food and rent) became a challenge. Healthcare needs of PWD were often disregarded within pandemic response measures; PWD also feared contracting COVID-19 in case they were unable to pay the medical bills. Treatment by service providers, i.e., healthcare workers, did not always take into consideration the additional needs of PWDs, particularly around disability-friendly access to the hospitals. School closures and interruptions in education created further challenges for PWDs who needed to find additional food, educational alternatives, and resources for their children, whilst often lacking the technology/internet services that online schooling required.

For a fuller picture of the situation, see animation.

Human rights:

Restrictions on mobility resulted in an increase in human rights violations. Police and security personnel who were monitoring adherence to lockdown restrictions were particularly authoritative and intimidating, making it difficult for persons with disabilities (who had special permissions to travel during this period) to move freely without fear. There was also a reported increase in other human rights violations against PWD, for example domestic violence and abuse.

Social exclusion and marginalisation:

PWDs reported adhering strictly to the special operating procedures (SOPs). Reasons for which were twofold: 1) being considered ‘higher risk’ as PWD and recognising that the virus would have greater consequences for them and 2) to avoid additional community stigma for not adhering to SOPs and placing others at risk. The social stigma and marginalisation faced by PWD pre-COVID, which impedes their full and inclusive participation in society, intensified and widened due to fears of them being a high-risk category, and more susceptible to contracting and spreading the virus. PWD experienced disempowerment, trauma, and isolation due to these various forms of exclusion.

Community relationships:

PWD reported feeling greater social isolation during the nationwide lockdowns. Though this was not exclusive to PWD, they felt that, prior to the lockdowns, they had the support and care of their community and neighbours. Due to accessibility issues and additional needs, PWD acknowledged that they had a greater reliance on others and being deemed higher risk and more susceptible to contracting the virus, this reliance was amplified. Some noted that community members would sympathise with them and offer support where they could, but this was limited and became restricted as non-disabled people also began feeling the socio-economic impacts of the pandemic.

Co-researchers reported feeling greater unity and togetherness through this project and recognised the importance of organising as a group, benefits of which are threefold: 1) that they are stronger as a collective, 2) that friendships, networks, and solidarity can be gained from doing so, and 3) their collective voice is vital for organising and lobbying.

Government and civil society response:

Government support was reported as being limited, sporadic and challenging to obtain; where it was received, it was difficult to decipher whether it was disability-specific or for the general population. Some PWD were also not able to access such support due to mobility issues.

Disability-specific needs and inclusion:

PWD have additional needs and specific requirements which became amplified during the pandemic, for example, needing to obtain information about the pandemic in accessible formats (i.e., in sign language, through audio, in braille etc.). PWD also required specific services and support targeted for them, i.e., more at home healthcare visits. Pregnant PWD, for example, faced greater challenges and difficulties as a result of the additional barriers (disability, limited mobility options and stretched healthcare services).

Co-researchers of the project, Gulu (Uganda)

Methodology

The project was led by 16 persons with disabilities living in Northern Uganda who were employed as co-researchers and co-producers of this research, and thus became part of the project team. Co-researchers were selected through YOLRED, and based on those that had been severely impacted during the pandemic and thus were most in need of support. Co-researchers were aged between 19-70 and comprised of 12 women and 4 men; a greater proportion of women were included to support Sustainable Development Goals 5 (gender equality) and 10.2 (reduced inequalities). The project team worked together to provide new evidence to produce a disability-specific and inclusive situational analysis for Northern Uganda, which addressed the needs of persons with disabilities who have largely been excluded from pandemic safety and recovery measures. Co-researchers, rather than being participants of this project, held temporary contracts issued by YOLRED – making them an integral part of the research team. They worked on this project from July 2021 to August 2022, which included a series of data collection workshops, planning dissemination events, and attending and participating at civil society outreach activities, and the stakeholder meetings. All co-researchers and project team were paid the same during the data collection and dissemination workshops, to ensure an equitable distribution of resources.