Make Measurable What Is Not So: National Monitoring of the Status of Persons with Intellectual Disability

Autor/inn/en	Fujiura, Glenn T.; Rutkowski-Kmitta, Violet; Owen, Randall
Titel	Make Measurable What Is Not So: National Monitoring of the Status of Persons with Intellectual Disability
Quelle	In: Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 35 (2010) 4, S.244-258 (15 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1366-8250
DOI	10.3109/13668250.2010.519330
Schlagwörter	Mental Retardation; Data Collection; Data Analysis; Well Being; Disabilities; Research Methodology; Poverty; Social Isolation; Disadvantaged; Federal Government; Foreign Countries; Public Policy; Statistical Analysis; Employment Level; Access to Education; Access to Health Care; Income; Participation; Brazil; China; Egypt; Germany; India; Ireland; Japan; Nigeria; Russia; South Africa; United Kingdom (Northern Ireland); United States + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Geistige Behinderung; Data capture; Datensammlung; Auswertung; Well-being; Wellness; Wohlbefinden; Handicap; Behinderung; Research method; Forschungsmethode; Armut; Soziale Isolation; Bundesregierung; Ausland; Öffentliche Ordnung; Statistische Analyse; Beschäftigungsgrad; Education; Access; Bildung; Zugang; Bildungszugang; Einkommen; Teilnahme; Brasilien; Ägypten; Deutschland; Indien; Irland; Russland; Südafrika; Süd-Afrika; Republik Südafrika; Südafrikanische Republik; USA
Abstract	Background: Statistics are critical in holding governments accountable for the well-being of citizens with disability. International initiatives are underway to improve the quality of disability statistics, but meaningful ID data is exceptionally rare. Method: The status of ID data was evaluated in a review of 12 national statistical systems. Recurring data collection by national ministries was identified and the availability of measures of poverty, exclusion, and disadvantage was assessed. Results: A total of 131 recurring systems coordinated by 50 different ministries were identified. The majority included general disability but less than 25% of the systems screened ID. Of these, few provided policy-relevant data. Conclusions: The scope of ID data was dismal at best, though a significant statistical infrastructure exists for the integration of ID data. Advocacy will be necessary. There is no optimal form of data monitoring, and decisions regarding priorities in purpose, targeted audiences, and the goals for surveillance must be resolved. (Contains 1 figure, 2 tables, and 1 note.) (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Informa Healthcare. Telephone House, 69-77 Paul Street, London, EC2A 4LQ, UK. Tel: 800-354-1420; e-mail: healthcare.enquiries@informa.com; Web site: http://informahealthcare.com/action/showJournals
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2017/4/10