Exploring the Voices and Livelihoods

Choices of Villagers with Disability in

Indonesia

Final Report
Ekawati Liu, Hezti Insriani, Yuhda Wahyu Pradana, Listia Khairunnisa, Nirla Hastari, Santi
Setyaningsih, Mohammad Rizal Dhukha Islam, Lyla J. Brown



This collaborative research is supported by The Asia Foundation’s Peduli Program and SHG Grant from
Deakin University. Opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors. TAF and Deakin University
do not accept legal liability for materials contained in this document.
 CONTENTS
Page

Executive Summary 1

Part I: Introduction 3
Research Sites 6
Research Design/ Methods 9

Part II: Our Findings 14

Part III: Discussion and Recommendation 21

References 24

Appendices 25

Appendix 1. Research Instruments (In-depth Interviews; Focus Group Discussion)

Appendix 2. Livelihoods Data Set
Appendix 3. Summary of Findings on Village Disability Group Mapping Exercise

Acknowledgements 36
Executive Summary

This collaborative research investigates the livelihoods experiences and

situations of people with disability in Yogyakarta. In order to gain a better
understanding of how people with disability participate in economic activities at
the village level, particularly after the implementation of Inclusive Village Initiative
(known as Rintisan Desa Inklusi, Indonesian acronym RINDI), the data collected
in this research include:

1) type of livelihoods or income-generating activities

2) access and services related to loans
3) social safety nets
4) factors crucial to livelihoods and business success
5) skills developments
6) reasons for working and not working

Access to services and participation in village governance, including perceptions

and expectations, of the villagers with disability along with those of Village
Disability Groups are also explored.

This research used a combination of activities: qualitative research training,

disability inclusive approach and ethics, and collaborative data analysis.
Preliminary research findings generated have been communicated to the general
public through plays performed by research participants. A number of key issues
identified through the research have been communicated with district and
village-level government through two sessions of focused discussion. The
sessions also facilitated exchange of ideas and proposed recommendations
related to issues of data, livelihoods situations and financial inclusion for villagers
with disability.

1
This collaborative research makes three major contributions to disability and
knowledge sectors: it engages with SIGAB1, a local disability-led organisation,
from design to completion stage; it offers a much-needed insight into dimensions
of lived experiences of villagers with disability related to their livelihoods that are
locally situated; and it re-enacts those experiences and voices through a cultural
approach that is central to on-the-ground knowledge production.

This report is organised into three parts. Part One elaborates the impetus for
locally-situated livelihoods research and its political context. Part Two draws
together themes identified from in-depth interviews and focus group discussions,
exploring the interaction of multiple factors influencing livelihoods experiences
and choices of villagers with disability. Part Three lay outs recommendations
based on insights from the findings.

Although this report is confined to participants from 8 villages participating in the

RINDI program, the findings provide the key insight that people with disability
work to contribute to their community and be accepted by their community.

1 SIGAB considers itself as civil society organization and advocacy organization rather than
as a Disabled Peoples’ Organization (DPOs). It started to engage with the concept of social
exclusion and inclusion to rethink, renegotiate and reposition its relationship with the
disability groups, wider society and government at both regional and national levels since
2003. The United Nations Development Group’s guidance note (2011) defines DPOs as
representative organizations of persons with disabilities established under principles of
“self-determination and control by disabled persons, self-advocacy and mutual support,
aimed at strengthening the participation of persons with disabilities." Generally, DPOs in
Indonesia have strong reliance on a charity-mindset and presumed government funding,
which hamper their ability to be proactive in seeking other sources of funding and support
(Scoping and Qualitative Needs Assessment of Disabled Persons Organizations in Eastern
Indonesia, 2015). What set SIGAB apart from most DPOs in Indonesia is its collaborative
approach to better identify and respond to the needs of persons who have a disability,
persons whose family members as well as persons who have family member with a
disability, as well as local community.

2
Introduction
The Indonesian government has begun to demonstrate an increased willingness
to support better participation of people with disability in the country’s economy
and foster inclusive societies. Indonesia has ratified the Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), Article 27 of which endorses the dignity and
worth of people with disability where it states:

the right of persons with disabilities to work, on an equal basis with

others… includes the right to the opportunity to gain a living by work
freely chosen or accepted in a labor market and work environment that is
open, inclusive and accessible to persons with disabilities.

Indonesia has yet to put this Article fully into operation. Since 1997, it has
enacted Law 4/1997 on Disabled People, passed an implementation regulation
43/1998 and set a one percent disability quota on companies employing more
than 100 employees (ILO 2013). Two decades later, Indonesia enacted Law
8/2016 which is considered to be a substantial shift from a long-standing
paternalistic view to a more contemporary rights-based view towards disability.
This law also raised the disability employment quota to two percent. However,
the effectiveness of these disability laws, regulations and decrees, and the extent
of their impact on labor market participation, employment and engagement in
livelihoods production across the diversity of the disability population in national
and provincial levels are unknown.

The Government of Indonesia (GoI) is one of the key players that negotiates and
positions the decent work and employment creation for all agenda2. With regards
to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), both the country’s long-term and
medium-term development agendas have an overarching aim to promote
inclusive and sustainable economic growth and poverty reduction. This emphasis
on employment creation can be extended towards income generating
opportunities for marginalised groups, particularly people with disability, and

2From Keynote Remarks by M. Hanif Dhakiri, Indonesian Minister of Manpower on the SDGs
Conference 2016 in Jakarta http://www.ilo.org/jakarta/info/public/pr/WCMS_452662/lang--en/
index.htm. Accessed 6 July 2018

3
should be seen as an important change in how government perceives the role of
people with disability in the country’s economy and society.

Credible Disability Data Is Critical to Improve Economic Opportunities

Details on Indonesia’s population with disability are scarce and

highly fragmentary, severely constraining effective policy responses.
In a general sense, it is known that people with disability are at
higher risk of falling into and staying in poverty. Women with
disability are even more at risk ie., three times more likely to fall into
poverty than men with disability (WHO-WB 2011).

The barriers confronting people with disability are universally cited:

globally of some 1 billion population with disability, 750 million are
of working age, yet their participation in economic life is
complicated by less access to skills training, discrimination, low
educational attainment or achievement, comparative social
isolation, lower earning power particularly if they are women, and
working in the unprotected, informal economy.

These general features are likely to apply to Indonesian population

with disability and dictate how the government and CSOs address
disability employment, ie., through selected vocational training and
job placement which are often not aligned with work opportunities
and interests of individuals with disability. The lack of precise, up to
date data hampers both government and donors in designing
responses to increasing the economic inclusion of people with
disabilities.

Last year, GoI agencies expressed some interest in better understanding the size,
scope and dimensions of how people with disability are included in Indonesia’s
economic life3. The Ministry of Social Welfare, the Ministry of Manpower and
Transmigration and the Ministry of National Development Planning (Bappenas)
have identified the needs for better data to support implementation strategies
through their inclusive disability employment and economic participation work
plans.

3Meeting Minutes between Bappenas and DPOs on Disability Law’s regulation dated 11 August
2017.

4
Donors have signalled a strong interest in prioritising inclusive economic growth,
and have encouraged partner institutions to build capacity in order to better
formulate and implement evidence-based policy4 and engage in deeper
collaboration with the private sector in partner countries5. As a result, empirical
research is needed to inform the development of strategies that will support the
GoI in translating its employment policies into reality. Such strategies can be
based upon nascent political will, but it will also require further support through
additional mechanisms such as: developing an appropriate and functioning
legislative framework and encouraging debate, collaboration and contributions of
resources from different sectors, groups and organisations.

This research project sought to generate evidence from villagers with disability in
two Regencies, in order to understand the extent and type of, and facilitators and
barriers to, participation in livelihoods and work for people with disability, in order
to inform future actions.

4See Australia Indonesia Economic Cooperation Partnership (AIECO) Investment Design Document
2017 http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/australia-indonesia-economic-
cooperation-partnership.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2018.

5 See Mark Green, USAID Administrator’s testimony on the Fiscal Year 2019 Budget Request https://
www.usaid.gov/news-information/congressional-testimony/jun-20-2018-administrator-mark-green-
sfrc-fy19-budget-request. Accessed 1 July 2018.

5
Research Sites


Research was conducted from

(regional) and micro (household and
November 2017 to May 2018 in six
individual) levels. The villages in
villages in Kulon Progo Regency,
Sleman Regency have relatively better
namely: Bumirejo, Gulurejo,
welfare, upward mobility and
Ngentakrejo, Wahyuharjo, Jatirejo and
movement out of poverty when
Sidorejo; as well as in Salmon
compared to villages in Kulon Progo
Regency, namely Sendangadi and
Regency (Statistics Indonesia 2015).
Sendangtirto. All eight villages had
The proximity of Sleman Regency to
participated in the Inclusive Village
Yogyakarta city has considerably
Initiative (Rintisan Desa Inklusi) since
improved its public services and
2015. Although both Regencies
infrastructure whereas Kulon Progo is
appear to have similar ethnic groups
known for its proximity to an active
(predominantly Javanese) and
volcanic site and is geographically
religious affiliation (predominantly
more isolated with poor infrastructure
Muslim), each experiences poverty
and experiences water shortages. 

and growth differently at macro

6
The prevalence of Kulon Progo residents living in poverty is higher compared to
all regions under the Yogyakarta municipality. According to the latest national
poverty data, Sleman Regency contributes the largest regional GDP, while Kulon
Progo has the smallest value of regional GDP compared with other regencies
under Yogyakarta (Statistics Indonesia 2015).

The exact population with disability in Sleman and Kulon Progo Regencies is
unknown and the official figures are dubious as there is no dedicated disability
census and household survey by either local or national governments. At the
time of this research, the eight villages had already implemented the Village
Information System (Indonesian acronym SID- Sistem Informasi Desa) to improve
the quality and quantity of disability data through better collection and
integration of numerous data points such as poverty, assets, village profile,
village budgets and monitoring. However, the accuracy of the SID data is
questionable. Although the Village Information System has adapted the disability
questionnaires from the Washington Group 6, our research team members
discovered discrepancies between official disability data and the nature of
disability among the majority of our respondents during our data collection
exercise.

Those with intellectual disability and mental illness are categorised in the SID
under a catch-all term - psychotic disorders – when in fact the respondents are
slow to respond to questions or are mute or deaf. A handful of individuals are
misidentified in the SID as having physical mobility when they actually
experienced a bout of illness rendering them immobile in bed and had long been
recovered when our researchers visited. Such inaccuracies are most likely due to
census-takers being unfamiliar with and untrained about various disability
definitions and types.

Our research team members who work as village facilitators alluded to a lack of
disability sensitization training among census takers, however we have no way to

6The Washington Group (WG) disability questionnaires comprised of a set of short questions that

can be modified and included in population survey to identify individuals who experience restricted
social participation because of difficulties undertaking basic activities. Indonesia officially adapted
and tested the WG short questionnaires in Intercensal Population Survey (SUPAS) in 2015.

7
corroborate that assessment. It should be therefore noted that the general lack of
reliable data makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the representativeness
of any of the villages included in this research study, and therefore confidently
generalise conclusions to other regions.

RINTISAN DESA INKLUSI (RINDI) was launched in December

2014, building on the results of a three-day meeting arranged
by SIGAB, a local disability-led organisation with a coalition of
grassroot DPOs. The meeting happened six months after
Indonesia passed a village law signalling a major policy shift
guaranteeing high- level autonomy and authority to every village.

This Village Law (UU 6/2014) is expected to significantly impact

the lives of marginalised groups, including persons with
disabilities, for it provides villages with greater autonomy to
determine their governance structures, development priorities
and natural resources management among other issues at the
local level. This legislation also means a substantial increase in
both regional and national budgets resulting in greater funds
available to villages.

Seizing the momentum on the Village Law and availability of

Village Fund, RINDI aims to create various village models, each
with accessible and inclusive services and resource for everyone 
that can be easily replicated and adopted by other villages on an
ad hoc basis. The proposed strategies include taking on cultural
issues, addressing communication and resources access, as well
as deliberately forging and facilitating networks among existing
marginalised groups.

8
Research Design/ Methods

We collected qualitative data related to:

1. the type and diversity of livelihoods or income generating activities
2. access and services to loans
3. social safety nets
4. factors crucial to livelihoods and business success
5. skills developments
6. reasons for working and not working

We collected these data through:

• In-depth interviews with 157 people with disability between age 20- 65+
(116 adults in Kulon Progo and 41 adults in Sleman);

• 4 focus group sessions with women with disability group, male group
and deaf only group

The research adopted a collaborative or participatory design, embedded in

SIGAB and drawing on a team of researchers with and without disability to
engage villagers in both the inquiry and in taking action about research findings.

A team of 12 researchers conducted in-depth interviews with 157 respondents

with disability from early December 2017 to late January 2018 in 8 villages. Due
to the diverse backgrounds and abilities among the researchers in our team,
novice researchers were paired with seasoned researchers in the field to allow
opportunities for skills and knowledge transfer between researchers, improved
communication and to maintain a positive work ethic.

To meet the communication needs of two deaf researchers and deaf respondents
in the villages, local sign language interpreters and real time captioning were
used as well. For respondents identified as having intellectual disability with
cognitive limitations and/or communication difficulties, the team utilized paired
interviewing where individual respondents were interviewed along with someone
they interact and communicate with on a daily basis at home or surroundings.

9
Such approaches are necessary to ensure research information and questions
are communicated well and researchers are able to understand information
conveyed by respondents.

DISABILITY OR DIFFERENTLY ABLED (DIFFABLE)

The definition of disability has evolved from its original and historical
interpretation where the source of barriers or impediments was located
in the individual to revised and contemporary interpretations where the
source of barriers is located in the wider environment. With the change
in interpretation, disability is no longer seen as a damaged body,
whether physical, sensory, psycho-social or cognitive that limits an
individual’s participation in society. Rather, it is seen as result of
interactions between individuals with disability and their environment
which in turn affects the quality of their participation in all aspects of life
and society. Environmental barriers such as lack of access to public
facilities and infrastructure, attitudinal barriers that lead to
discrimination by family members and others, and communication
barriers are all key factors that can be changed.

The term diffable (differently abled), initiated by Mansour Fakih (INSIST)

and Setya Adi Purwanta (Dria Manunggal) in 1998, is the culmination of
efforts to dismantle the views of society about disability. The use of
diffable reflects the attitude of disability activists and advocacy
movements in Yogyakarta and Solo that seek to position people with
disability in more active roles and a more positive light. The terms
diffable and disability are both used in this study to illustrate the
diversity and complexity of the disability experience.

10
Stages of Collaborative Research
Research process that is both collaborative and participatory engages a range of
stakeholders and perspectives (Chambers 1997; Ibid. 2007). It also emphasizes
continuous reflection and actions where diverse voices, learning insights and
findings from every process and stage inform the design of the next process and
next stage. By extension, both collaborative and participatory approach enables
disability issues to be mainstreamed throughout research process and allows
people with disability to shape the research process and outcomes.

STAGE ONE (mid-October 2017- February 2018)

The recruitment process for researchers started in mid-October and resulted in a
team of 12 researchers with diverse backgrounds and abilities. Gender and
disability / non-disability composition of the team reflects community
demographics with 4 females to 8 males. Four members are disability leaders.
We ran briefing and research capacity training sessions from 13 November to 12
December. All members of the team provided input with regards to what types of
data to collect and revised the interview instruments prior to actual data
collection activities

Santi, Doddy, Pak Sarjiyo and Imam discussed how to map out themes identified from coding exercise.
11
STAGE TWO (January – March 2018)
Data collected in Stage One were used as study material for collaborative data
analysis. Due to the diverse educational backgrounds among team members,
ranging from high school diplomas to masters degrees, our learning approach
towards data analysis was experiential and conversational. For nearly 8 weeks,
the whole team coded every interview transcript, identified and discussed the
themes before conducting a concept mapping of the overall findings. The
identified themes are further used as guiding questions for focus group
discussions to explore issues related to loans, livelihoods maintenance and
production and reasons to participate in economic activities.

During the data analysis stage, the research team and SIGAB also coordinated
with local theatre activists (Joned Suryatmoko, Budi S. Gemak, Lusia Cahyani,
Muhammad Abe) to design training modules in order to facilitate people's theater
workshops. The purpose of 5-day theatre workshop session was held in SIGAB’s
office to engage twelve research participants in a culturally relevant and
accessible method of communicating their experiences to their wider
communities, as a mechanism of attitude change and awareness raising. The
people’s theatre workshop incorporated the preliminary findings generated from
collaborative coding and analysis which enabled the research participants to
verify and revise the findings.

What we did not anticipate was the level of support and interest expressed by
the general public attending the performance. Some of the audiences were
involved in the discussion and provided feedback directly to the performers
about the themes enacted. Although our productions were performed in
inclement weather, the audiences comprised of community members were
greater than expected. Unfortunately, the inclement weather also resulted in a
handful of government officers attendance.

Raising disability awareness through performance art and culture has potential to
be effective in delivering messages and engaging the general public in dialogues
on locally situated issues. Performers shared the communication skills they
learned from the 5-day intensive theatre workshop and exercised their courage
to stand in front of the audience to voice their lived experiences, thoughts and
memories related to making a living, being rejected and/or accepted by others,
and their hopes related to self and society.

12
STAGE THREE (April – mid July 2018)
The research team was halved as some researchers had no interest in report
writing and data cataloging. The remaining team members shared tasks
including: 1. writing up research manual; 2. infographic design; 3. assisting
Ethnoreflika team on video-related documentation of theatre workshop and
performance sessions.

Three of the team members returned to the research sites to document

participants’ daily lives and economic activities for a film documentary. SIGAB
also conducted two workshop sessions with local government to discuss the
research findings. Issues and strategies with regards to findings raised by
workshop participants are incorporated into Discussion and Recommendation
section.


13
Our Findings

1. People with disability of both sexes in rural and peri-urban areas perform
diverse informal work to make ends meet.

Our research shows that most male and female villagers with disability work. Seven
in ten (69.8%) people with disability in Kulon Progo are working, whereas only five in
ten (51%) are working in Sleman.

Table 1. Share of respondents working and not working by village and sex

KULON PROGO (N=116)

WORKING NOT WORKING
Village Female Male Total Female Male TOTAL
Jatirejo 6 7 13 3 3 6

Sidorejo 4 12 16 3 1 4

Wahyuharjo 1 8 9 5 6 11

Ngentakrejo 2 11 13 3 3 6

Gulurejo 3 12 15 1 3 4

Bumirejo 5 10 15 1 3 4
TOTAL 21 60 81 (69.8%) 16 19 35 (30.2%)

SLEMAN (N= 41)

WORKING NOT WORKING
Sendangadi 4 5 9 5 5 10

Sendangtirto 3 9 12 7 3 10
TOTAL 7 14 21 (51%) 8 12 20 (49%)

Almost half of them engage in more than one livelihood activity— 44 do two
activities and 7 perform more than two off-farm activities to meet their daily needs.
This tendency towards
diverse livelihoods
among our research
participants reflects the
findings articulated in
mainstream livelihoods
literature regarding
those who live in small
regions and rural areas.

14
Data regarding income is difficult to capture due to participants doing different kinds
of work, either for shorter or longer duration. The majority of our respondents were
unable to give precise or verifiable information on incomes earned, whether they
were able to supplement their income needs through additional activities, and what
alternative means are available to support their household’s needs. The majority of
villagers with disability participate in the informal economy as tofu factory workers,
goat or chicken farmers, mechanics, garbage collectors, home-based food
business owner, broom maker, masseuse, shopkeeper, tailor, restaurant clerk, batik
maker, carpenter, toy seller, and angkringan (a popular light-bite hawker).

Table 2. Share of respondents accessing loans by village, type of livelihoods, incomes and amount of loans
KULON PROGO
Village N Types of Livelihoods Income Amount of Loans Obtained
(in IDR per month) (in IDR)
Jatirejo 6 Batik maker 700-800,000 1,000,000
Wig maker 1,000,000 n.d.
Snack seller and school administrative helper 500,000 2,000,000
Laundry service 800,000 7,000,000 (BRI); 4,000,000
(PNPM); 5,000,000 (KUD)
Tofu factory worker and brick maker 1,000,000 – 1,200,000 25,000,000 (commercial
bank)
Services provider (Driver license application 600,000 500,000
processing) and catfish farmer

Sidorejo 7 Waste scavenger and sisal rope maker 900,000 2,000,000

Coconut farmer and casual farm laborer 200,000 500,000
Conical hat seller n.d. 5,000,000
Village leader n.d. 30,000,000
Bamboo weaver and goat farmer 300,000 250,000
Auto mechanic and catfish farmer 100,000 5,000,000
Food stall owner and musician n.d. 10,000,000

Wahyuharjo 9 (Chicken) Butcher, grocery stall, pre-paid phone cards n.d. 50,000,000

Noodles seller in market 50,000 (per day) 10,000,000

Unemployed n.d. 1,000,000
Brick maker, goat farmer and waste scavenger n.d. in-kind (equipment)
Conical hats seller n.d. (numbers not given)
n.d. n.d. 5,000,000
n.d. n.d. 1,000,000
peanut cracker maker and goat famer n.d. 200,000
Not working - -

Ngentakrejo 6 Traffic worker for sand delivery trucks 800,000 6,000,000

Farmer 300,000 1,000,000 – 7,000,000
Tempeh benguk maker, soy grower, chicken, goat and 165,000 (per day) 2,000,000
cow farmer
Casual laborer (patchwork craft) 15,000 (per day) 30,000,000
Not working n.d. 500,000
Bamboo crafts 200,000 n.d.

Gulurejo 4 Care for neighbor’s lawn 50.000 3,000,000

Not Working No income 200,000
Batik Maker 10,000 n.d.
Gardener at village hall 900,000 1,000,000

Bumirejo 6 Bags maker 700,000 (per week) 3,500,000

Not working n.d. 12,000,000
Occasional laborer (village infrastructure projects) 150,000 (per day) 2,000,000
Dumplings maker 660,000 4,000,000
Catfish and goat farmer, key chain maker 1,000,000 25,000,000
Crochet bags and purses business 240,000 (per week) 2,000,000
TOTAL 32

SLEMAN
Sendangadi 4 Grocery stall 450,000 1,500,000
Light bite night hawker (angkringan) and motor bike 1,400,000 12,000,000
realtor
Carpenter n.d. 2,000,000
Mushrooms grower and advertising business 200,000 (per day) 4,000,000

Sendangtirto 2 Screen printing business 500.000 (per week) 5,000,000

Staff at small company 600.000 2,000,000
TOTAL 6

15
Skill set is one of the key determinants of livelihoods choices for people with
disability. Those who received skill training aligned with their interests, needs and
physical conditions were likely to stay working. They may have acquired such skills
from formal training provided by NGOs and village vocational training centers or
from informal sources such as families, friends or may even have been self-taught.

Incompatibility between skill sets acquired from training and interests or aspiration
is the main reason for those trained to abandon their skills. Instead of using the skill
given in training, they develop other skills which they use at their current work.

Social Safety Nets

Regardless of their employment situation, the majority of people with
disability we interviewed credit informal and formal social safety nets
with helping to meet their basic needs and coping with household
hardship. Those with irregular monthly incomes are able to meet their
basic needs due to financial and/or residential support from their
parents or relatives. Other forms of informal social safety support
received are food, goats and occasional one-off job offers. Village
and national governments also provide rice subsidy (Rastra/ Raskin),
direct/ conditional cash transfer (Bansos/ Family Hope Program
PKH), as well as health insurance (Jamkesus or Jamkesda).

2. Livelihoods choices, success and failures among people with disability are
influenced by interaction of multiple factors.

Livelihoods or work success and failure are conditioned by both internal and
external factors. Internal factors include strong motivation, possession of
marketable skills, the presence or absence of support from family, skills mastery,
whereas external factors encompass those such as a life changing event (for
example, becoming disabled due to accident or injury as opposed to a congenital
disability), availability of capital, networks and market access. Additionally, how well
individuals with disability psychologically and physically adapt to their disability/
impairments also plays a role, especially if their disability is recently acquired (e.g.
from accidents).

Those who are successful in their current livelihoods are those who persevere with
what they have started, are capable of developing their business by optimizing the
opportunities available in the market (or are able to anticipate market demand), and
are agile in finding solutions when encountering work-related problems or when
their livelihoods venture hits unexpected roadblocks.

16
For informants with disabilities who are unemployed or inactive, this research
suggests that the following factors might be in play:

• lack of access to information about job opportunities;

• lack of marketable skills and access to job training;

• in the case of self-entrepreneurship, lack of networks and support

systems to start a business they want.

Physical condition is the most often cited reason for not working, especially for
informants with severe mobility impairments. They perceived that the physical
capacity needed to work is beyond their physical and/or health condition.

Interestingly, the focus group sessions with women with disability show some
degree of awareness among participants that such physical limitation to labor (work)
can be overcome as explained by a woman whose catering business floundered:

Doesn’t matter if I can’t see and can’t go out much, as long I gather others
with different disabilities like deaf, amputee, wheelchair or any kind of
disability. We can work together, split tasks to each physical abilities. I can
plan for catering menu, those stayed home can cook and pack the dish, the
deaf can do delivery, others can promote via phone. This way we can sell
more and earn more. We actually can hire our own kind [other persons with
disability]. My profit is pas-pagan (barely enough). No money to start big or
hire worker [with disability].

3. Access to loans and financial services is influenced by financial literacy

and people with disability display low financial knowledge and skills.

In the absence of access to the labour market and limited employment

opportunities, loans can be considered as a key enabling factor for people with
disability to become self-employed or to promote their inclusion in the labour
market. Loans, in this context, refer to financial services that include the formal
provision of money or capital to people with lower earnings/ limited assets or
informal self-organized credit/ saving within a group or community.

Informants who participated in our focus group discussions shared that they
obtained money from either formal institutions or informal networks. They do not
experience significant barriers in accessing loans and use certificates of land and/or
vehicle ownership as collateral.

Although the role of social networks and trust with regard to sponsorship and
lending behaviours was left largely unexplored during the focus group discussions,
we note that those lacking the minimum to meet asset requirements for loans, but
who have viable livelihoods, are able to obtain loans through informal channels
(such as by joining group rotating savings and credit in their villages, attending

17
 TABLE 3. FORMAL AND INFORMAL LOANS ACCESSED

SOURCE OF LOANS TYPES LOANS LOANS USAGE LOANS

OF REQUIREMENT INFORMATION
LOANS
FORMAL
Village Microcredit Institutions (LKM Money National identity Relatives/
Desa, KUD, Kelompok Desa- PKK, and Family cards Friends/
Saving and Loan from PNPM, BPR) Credit with Seed capital for catfish Neighbors/ Work
low or 0% Vehicle ownership farming, home business, Place
State-owned Banks (BRI, BMT, interest (for papers (BPKB market food stall, or
Mandiri, credit unions) group Motor) carpentry Info session from
lending) Loan and Saving
Commercial Banks (Adira Finance) Property or land Celebration/ community Programs/ Bank
Credit for title deeds or giving (wedding, funeral,
Factory cooperative motorbike certificates medical treatment) Asking the banks
directly
MOKASE (market institution that
School fees
provides credits/ loans for vehicle
purchase)- part of Adira Finance Land or house purchase
INFORMAL Motorbike or vehicle
Family/ relatives, friends, neighbors, Money, NONE purchase for work
community leaders, employers goats,
chickens Electricity bills
Communal rotating saving and
credit (arisan) Daily needs
Yasinan (religious meeting)
Renovating or building house
Islamic Microfinance Fodder purchase for cattle,
Badan Amil Zakat (Islamic Money NONE
poultry feed
philanthropy)

Ventura Islamic Fund

yasinan7, borrowing from family/ relatives/ friends and village heads) and Islamic
microfinance. Under the sponsorship of family members, some research
participants who had no and/or low assets were able to access formal loans.

Those who have performed well with their efforts tend to have their loans increased
by formal institutions in subsequent years. Interestingly, our findings relating to the
usage of loans are consistent with the literature8, where access to credit is

Social Capital and Disability Inclusion

One unexpected finding from our research is the forging of networks or social
capital among all informants through community giving. Many of the participants
echoed each other during focus group discussions sharing that donating food,
money, labour and time made them part of the community. “Even if I do not have
enough to eat or no money to give, I will borrow money to donate my part”,
remarked one informant. Others added that they worked in order to be able to
donate and be accepted by the community. This finding carries important
theoretical and practical implications regarding disability inclusion and merits
further exploration.

7 Yasinan derived its name from Yasin, one chapter in the Qur’an. It is one of traditional
religious practices common in rural areas and mostly done once a week on Thursday night.
It is sort of community gathering with religious purposes where the Yasin chapter is read
out loud together.
8See randomized evaluations on microcredit impacts conducted by Banerjee, Karlan and
Zinman (2015) across six countries https://economics.mit.edu/files/10475

18
beneficial and has a positive effect on measures of well-being, investment and daily
needs. The informants use the loans to improve their housing conditions, such as
installing electricity or adding a roof on the house, purchase a motorbike to work or
deliver their products, pay for their child’s school uniform and fees, general
consumption (food purchases) and community giving.

It is worth noting that the majority of informants with disability display a low level of
financial knowledge and understanding. Many do not keep records on their
household budget and income. More than half of the respondents we interviewed
allow non-disabled family members to hold the saving accounts and make financial
decisions on their behalf. Such limited understanding of finances or lack of financial
skills has considerable impact on utilization of financial services as well as
independence / self-sufficiency.

4. The involvement of women with disability in livelihoods and economic

activities is influenced by the dynamics between gender and disability.

Although the sample size of females with disability is relatively small (N=37) and
does not present the complete picture of the population with disability in the two
regions, our study was able to collect data to briefly explore how gender roles
and disability interact to influence the participation of women with disability in
livelihoods and economic activities.

TABLE 4. Share of women with disability working and without work based on status or roles.

KULON PROGO SLEMAN

18 10
16 9
14 8
12 7
6
10
5
8
4
6 3
4 2
2 1
0 0
Member of Member of
Not married/Single Head of Household Not married/Single Head of Household
Household Household
Working 3 16 2 Working 1 6 0
Without Work 1 14 1 Without Work 9 3 0

From women-only focus group discussions, we learned women who worked prior
to becoming disabled choose not to work after they became disabled. These
women feel that their disability affects their mobility and capacity to work. They
also deal with disability-related health issues (i.e., they are easily tired or
frequently sick). Interestingly, gender roles are also a factor in women ceasing
income-generating activities as some report giving up these roles in order to care
for a sick child or parent, even though they may be the primary breadwinner or
earn more than their spouse.

19
 In accordance with Indonesian Family Law, widowed women,
including women with disability, are automatically categorized as
heads of household. Women with disability who work to
supplement their husbands’ incomes or who are primary
breadwinners are categorized as member of households because
their names are registered under their husband’s or parents’ name
on the family card. The lack of recognition regarding female heads
of household also happens to women with disability who work to
support their inactive or unemployed disabled husband.

When women with disability were asked about their reasons for engaging in
employment or economic activities, some cited working as their obligation to the
family. "As long I’m able to work, I will work" is the attitude adopted by those
who wish to avoid unemployment. Some mentioned they enjoyed working,
feeling useful and not burdening others. Those not participating in employment
or income-generating activities tend to do unpaid work around the house like
parenting, caretaking of sick family members, housekeeping and cooking for
other family members. In addition to (physical) disability, their lack of skills and
startup capital, as well as a mismatch between their skills and work
opportunities, are reasons why they stay home. Previous failures to maintain
livelihoods can result in less motivation to try again also affecting the
participation of women with disability in economic activities.

5. Elderly with disability are still actively working to contribute to household’s

livelihoods.

We also encountered elderly persons with disability (age 65 above) who are still
working. Rather than sitting still at home, they spend their time doing work
activities such as raising goats and chickens, foraging grasses for their goats
and harvesting coconuts. Their skills and tasks are inherited from family and
parents, which they have learned and done since childhood. The work done by
elderly with disability is usually dependent on the availability of natural resources
in their surrounding environment.

20
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Economic participation is considered a concrete indicator of an inclusive society
where people with disability are able to contribute to society and local economic
growth. However, as the above research suggests, the majority of people with
disability experience barriers to work or livelihoods opportunities and do not earn
enough income to improve their household well-being.

The proposed recommendations below are informed by our findings and, to

some degree, integrate with the GoI and key donors’ strategies and priorities
with regards to disability and development. The recommendations aim to offer a
multi-pronged approach towards supporting livelihoods among people with
disability in order to promote and ensure economic inclusion. As this study
focused on the greater Yogyakarta region, our recommendations continue that
geographic focus. It is not to say that these recommendations could not be
implemented elsewhere in Indonesia, but rather that context matters and what
works well in one area may not easily work elsewhere.

Bearing that caution in mind, these recommendations are listed in no particular

order or priority. Rather, we suggest that prospective funders consider
incorporating flexibility and adaptability in their planning and implementation in
order to fit with local circumstances when choosing and mixing possible ways to
partner with the disability community. One important factor that we wish to
emphasize is that the onus for economic inclusion falls on all parties, not simply
the disability community. While we appreciate the sentiment that Disabled
Persons Organisations (DPOs) are major players when it comes to advocacy,
implementation and evaluation, the reality is that DPOs are quite limited in their
capacity to implement. This reality reflects that effective economic inclusion
‘takes a village’ and requires the support of the entire community and partners at
all levels: international and local funders, local / provincial / national government,
private sector, etc.

Recommendation 1: improve data collection and analysis on

livelihoods among people with disability.

Existing data are insufficient for planning purposes when it comes to initiatives
pertaining to disability and livelihoods. Census data have proven to be largely
inaccurate and even if census data were approximate or accurate, there are other
data that would be significantly helpful for creating effective program design and
implementation to improve economic inclusion. Such data include, but are not
limited to and are posed with regards to people with disability:

21
 Formal / informal income (sources, amounts)
Formal / informal expenses (spending; categories, amounts)
Frequency and type of unexpected income / expenses
Debts (causes, amounts, effects – immediate, mid-term and long-term)
Hidden costs that are compounded for persons with disability, both one-off
and on-going (transportation, medical, batteries, tune-ups, interpreters,
etc.)
Account ownership (including savings and credit)
Impacts of gender and disability on economic activities of women with
disability and household well-being
Financial services mobilization and payment behavior among persons with
disability
Business skills (observed and desired).

Recommendation 2: Provide ‘no strings’ small grants.

At the present time, the vast majority of people with disability and DPOs currently
have very limited capacity to pursue and secure funding via ordinary channels
and mechanisms. Requiring them to meet certain criteria prior to receiving
funding can mean continued disenfranchisement and sustains the impossible
conundrum of funding required to acquire skills and skills required to acquire
funding. Additionally, the technical requirements of creating a Theory of Change,
a logframe analysis or other unnecessarily arcane and intricate justification for
often small amounts of funds is an undue burden on this population,
perpetuating their dependence on others. Alternatives to such an approach have
been used by The Edge Fund in the UK (www.edgefund.org.uk/), which has a
track record of success with its no-strings grants made to grassroots groups,
and by GiveDirectly, which has also demonstrated the success of small no-
strings cash transfers to individuals (Lowrey 2018).

The provision of small grants (possibly with varying maximum limits to be

adjusted to context, such as USD 500 or USD 1,500 over a year) to a disability
group, individuals with clear year end accounting of expenditures, but no
restrictions, would be valuable in improving livelihood outcomes. If tracked, this
initiative would also provide concrete insights as to where and how funds are
spent, providing instruction for future large grants to support livelihood initiatives
focused on people with disability.

22
Recommendation 3: Provide financial literacy and small business
training.

People with disability require further skills development in business. Given that
DPOs and their staff themselves have limited financial knowledge, skills and
networks, some possible options for supporting people with disability include:

Accreditation courses ensuring legitimacy of business

Business incorporation, registration and compliance; basic accounting
skills
Mentoring programs between novices and those with more experience
Partnership or incubation projects under the umbrella of existing and
mainstream businesses
Networking, both among disability-owned businesses and among
sectoral-interest business (e.g. farmer to farmer)
Acquisition of and training in adaptive technology for small businesses
Basic organizational leadership skills (e.g. personnel management,
team facilitation, planning, etc.)

Recommendation 4: Expand microfinance grants.

Microfinance generally has proven successful both throughout Indonesia and

elsewhere. However, the majority of microfinance programs have limited or no
outreach to people with disability. While several online lending platforms (people
to people or group to people) exist in Indonesia, the low literacy and technology
usage among those in rural or peri-urban areas, including people with disability,
means that such platforms automatically and inadvertently exclude these
groups. Our research strongly suggests that there is a niche opportunity for a
microfinance program focused on people with disability, particularly if offered in
tandem with small business training. The establishment of a microfinance
program structured to adapt to the unique circumstances of people with
disability would open up opportunities for both lenders and borrowers. There
would be, perhaps, space to invest in people with disability beginning a new
business, through this initiative, and contingent on success, bridging
opportunities to transition into standard existing microfinance programs,
increasing their inclusion in the mainstream economy.

23
REFERENCES
BAPPENAS (2017) Personal communication

ILO 2013. Decent Work for People with Disabilities ‘Inclusion of People with Disabilities

in Indonesia.

Kulon Progo, B. P. S. K. (2015). Kulon Progo dalam Angka. Kulon Progo (ID): Badan Pusat Statistk.
http://kulonprogokab. bps. go. id. Last checked on 7 July 2017.

Lowrey, A. (2018). Give People Money: How a Universal Basic Income Would End Poverty,
Revolutionize Work, and Remake the World. New York.

Mont, D. and Nguyen C. (2013) ‘Spatial Variation in the Disability-Poverty Correlation: Evidence from
Vietnam’ Working Paper 20: Leonard Cheshire Disability, University College London.

Sleman, B. P. S. K. (2015). Sleman dalam Angka. Sleman (ID): Badan Pusat Statistk. http://
slemankab. bps. go. id. Last checked on 7 July 2017.

Washington Group on Statistics (2014) ‘Washington Group on Disability Statistics.’ http://

www.cdc.gov/nchs/washington_group.htm. Last checked on 15 October 2017.

World Bank (2015) PNPM Special Program on Disability Eastern Indonesia Disabled Persons
Organisations Mapping Report.

24
 APPENDIX 1. RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS
In-depth Interviews Questions

WAWANCARA MATA PENCAHARIAN DIFABEL

NAMA CO-PENELITI:
Tanggal Wawancara: Lokasi Wawancara: Desa:
Durasi Wawancara:
Kode Informan: Jenis Kelamin: L / P Usia:
Sumber Pendapatan/ Mata Pencaharian Utama: Kegiatan Tambahan yang menghasilkan pendapatan
(Jika tidak ada, jelaskan/ berapa lama tanpa mata hidup?
pencaharian (Catat seberapa sering dan berapa lama kegiatan
tersebut telah dilakukan)
Kategori Informan:
(1) Difabel usia produktif dengan mata pencaharian tetap
(2) Difabel usia produktif dengan mata pencaharian serabutan/ tambahan
(3) Difabel usia produktif gagal mencari pekerjaan dan menyerah
(4) Difabel usia produktif gagal mencari pekerjaan namun tetap gigih
(5) Perempuan difabel yang menafkahi rumah tangga/ ibu yang punya anak difabel

HASIL PENGAMATAN (Tak perlu langsung ditanyakan pada responden) kecuali menggunakan lembaran pertanyaan singkat
tambahan Washington Group
DISABILITAS (termasuk alat bantu)
KONDISI TEMPAT TINGGAL termasuk bahan dinding, bahan atap,
bahan lantai, jendela kaca, dan kondisi keseluruhan hunian:

MATA PENCAHARIAN
1a. Sumber pendapatan/ mata pencaharian/ 1b. Jika tidak ada sumber pendapatan, sumber
pekerjaan (Alasan memilih atau melakukan pendapatan/ mata pencaharian/pekerjaan yang dulu
kegiatan tersebut) (Alasan tidak melakukan kegiatan ini)

BAGI RESPONDEN YANG BERTANI Jika responden menyatakan pertanian sebagai pendapatan utama:
2. Punya tanah/ lahan? Ya/Tidak/ Lainnya
2a. (Jika YA) Berapa luas/ hektar lahan yang dimiliki Jika responden TIDAK memiliki lahan:
3a. Berapa hektar yang sudah sertifikat? 2b. Mengelola lahan milik siapa?
4a. Siapa yang kelola tanah/ lahan? (Sebutkan siapa 3b. Berapa luas lahan yang dikelola?
yang bantu kelola tanah) 4b. Siapa saja yang bantu Anda kelola lahan?
5a. Jumlah hektar tanah yang ditanam pada panen 5b. Jumlah hektar tanah yang ditanam pada panen
terakhir (12 bulan terakhir)? terakhir (12 bulan terakhir)?
6a. Tanaman apa saja? 6b. Lahan ditanami apa saja?
7a. Berapa banyak hasil panen yang dijual? 7b. Bagaimana sistem pembayarannya? [Bagi hasil
8a. Berapa banyak untuk dimakan sendiri atau atau dibayar atau lainnya]
keluarga? JIKA DIBAYAR, dibayar berapa?
JIKA BAGI HASIL, berapa bagi hasilnya?
8b. Apakah mencukupi kebutuhan rumah tangga?
10. Berapa jumlah anggota keluarga yang Anda tanggung
11. Selain Anda, adakah anggota keluarga yang juga menghasilkan pendapatan?
12. Jika ada, apakah mereka ikut membiayai keperluan keluarga? (Jelaskan)
13. Dari sumber apa Anda dapatkan informasi tentang pertanian? [Penyuluh spesialis, LSM, anggota
keluarga, kelompok agama, lainnya]
14. Ada alat pertanian yang dimodifikasi? Ya/ Tidak/ Tidak Tahu

25
14a. (Jika YA) Siapa yang modifikasi? 14b. (Jika TIDAK) Mengapa?
Apakah modifikasi alat membantu Anda kelola
lahan? (Jelaskan)
15. Apakah Anda bergabung dengan GAPOKTAN-Gabungan Kelompok Tani atau kelompok semacamnya?
(Sebutkan nama kelompok jika bukan GAPOKTAN)
16a. Apa manfaat yang didapat setelah bergabung 16b. Jika tidak bergabung dengan kelompok tani,
dengan Gabungan Kelompok Tani (GAPOKTAN) atau apakah Anda ingin ikut?
lainnya?

MATA PENCAHARIAN TAMBAHAN

17a. Kegiatan lainnya yang menghasilkan 17b. Jika TIDAK ada kegiatan yang menghasilkan
pendapatan tambahan [kolam ikan, jual makanan, pendapatan, probing apakah responden melakukan
produk, jasa, lainnya] kegiatan yang tidak dibayar
Seberapa penting kegiatan ini bagi Anda?
Hasil pendapatan digunakan untuk apa saja?

18. Transportasi apa saja yang digunakan? Untuk apa?

19. Jika diantarkan, siapa saja yang antarkan? Seberapa sering diberikan tumpangan? Kemana saja?

PEMODALAN ATAU PENGEMBANGAN USAHA

20. Apakah Anda pernah mengikuti program simpan pinjam dan sejenisnya? Jelaskan
21. Apakah Anda pernah mendapatkan pinjaman/kredit?
- Jumlahnya berapa?
- Dari mana?
- Berapa lama?
22. Digunakan untuk apa saja pinjaman tersebut?
23. Apa manfaat yang dirasakan dari pinjaman tersebut? Jika tidak ada manfaat, jelaskan.
24. Dari mana mendapatkan informasi tentang program simpan pinjam?

LEMBARAN KHUSUS BAGI RESPONDEN YANG PENGHIDUPAN/ PENDAPATAN UTAMA BUKAN BERTANI
(PROBING) Apa pekerjaan utama Anda?
Sudah berapa lama melakukan pekerjaan tersebut?
Mengapa memilih pekerjaan tersebut?
Apakah pendapatan/penghasilan Anda mencukupi? Jelaskan.
Mendapatkan ketrampilan tersebut dari mana?
Apakah ada kendala dalam melakukan pekerjaan tersebut?
Bagaimana cara menghadapi kendala tersebut?
Apakah ada pekerjaan lain yang ingin dikerjakan? Mengapa?

Jika responden menyatakan belum mendapatkan pekerjaan

- Alasan belum mendapatkan pekerjaan
- Pekerjaan apa yang ingin dilakukan?
- Usaha apa saja yang telah dilakukan untuk mendapatkan pekerjaan tersebut?
- Siapa yang bisa membantu untuk mendapatkan tersebut? [keluarga, teman, sodara, kerabat atau
instansi lainnya] Sebutkan
- Selama ini kebutuhan hidup dipenuhi dengan cara bagaimana?

26
PANDUAN PERTANYAAN WAWANCARA 1:1 BAGI CO-PENELITI

1. Pengalaman terkait kegiatan mata pencaharian atau kegiatan yang menghasilkan pendapatan sekarang
(ATAU kegiatan yang dahulu bagi yang tidak melakukan mata pencaharian).

2. Tanyakan seberapa pentingnya kegiatan yang dilakukan sekarang (ATAU dahulu)? Probing tentang
pilihan mata pencaharian lain atau kesempatan untuk melakukan mata pencaharian lainnya.

3. Berdasarkan jawaban dari probing no.2 Tanyakan tentang ketrampilan yang dimiliki dan ketrampilan
yang ingin dikembangkan.

4. Probing pelatihan ketrampilan apa saja yang telah diikuti (atau ingin diikuti)? Siapa yang berikan?
Apakah manfaat yang dirasakan setelah ikut pelatihan.

5. Tanyakan hambatan atau tantangan yang dihadapi terkait mata pencaharian yang dilakukan sekarang
(dahulu). Probing apa saja yang dilakukan oleh responden untuk mengatasi tantangan tersebut. Siapa/
program mana yang didekati untuk atasi tantangan tersebut? Atau sumber dukungan yang didapat
untuk mengatasi tantangan tsb

6. Apakah Anda pernah mendapatkan simpan pinjam/kredit? Probing sumber pinjaman/ kredit, jumlah
yang didapat, jangka waktu dan manfaat yang dirasakan atau tidak dirasakan dari simpan pinjam/kredit

7. Apakah anda pernah ikuti pelatihan wirausaha/binalokakarya/ pelatihan lainnya? Probing siapa yang
memberikan, kapan, hasil/ dampak, tahunya informasi terkait pelatihan dari mana/ siapa

8. Jika tidak ikut, kenapa? Apakah Anda ingin ikut? Kalau ya, pelatihan seperti apa yang Anda inginkan?
Probing

27
Focus Group Discussion

Panduan Diskusi Terarah

Mata Pencaharian Bagi Difabel Kecamatan Lendah Kulon Progo

Kelompok Besar: Menonton film bersama (2 film)
• Perkenalan singkat fasilitator yang bertugas memandu menontof film dengan
peserta FGD (Surono)
• Menonton film Bersama (masing2 film durasi 3 menit)
• Fasilitator kelompok besar (Surono) membagi peserta menjadi 3 kelompok:
o Kelompok tuli: Eka & Mada
o Kelompok difabel perempuan: Nirla & Listi
o Kelompok difabel laki-laki: Hezti & Yuhda
• Peserta diminta untuk masuk ke kelompok kecil

Kelompok kecil:
1. Perkenalan antara fasilitator dan peserta (nama, alamat, pekerjaan)
2. Penjelasan tujuan diskusi kelompok & aturan dalam diskusi kelompok
3. Minta 2 orang untuk berkomentar singkat terkait film tersebut
4. Mata pencaharian apa saja yang dilakukan oleh peserta saat ini
5. Apa yang dilakukan pertama kali ketika melakukan usaha/pekerjaan
6. Dari mana mendapatkan pekerjaan/ketrampilan tersebut
7. Apakah ada hambatan ketika melakukan pekerjaan/ketrampilan tersebut
8. Apakah pernah mendapatkan pelatihan? Apa saja dan siapa yang melatih
9. Ketika mengalami hambatan/keterpurukan dalam pekerjaan/usaha apa yang
dilakukan untuk bangkit kembali
10. Ketika mengalami hambatan/kesulitan uang siapa saja yang dihampiri untuk
membantu mengatasi persoalan tersebut
11. Apakah pernah mengakses simpan pinjam (fomal: bank, koperasi, BMT; non formal:
saudara, tetangga, rentenir/bank plecit/mendring, arisan: dasawisma, PKK, RT/RW,
KWT, berapa jumlahnya, jangka berapa lama, apakah sudah lunas atau belum,
apakah ada pengembalian dari bank, apakah dipermudah untuk melakukan
peminjaman lagi)
12. Mendapatkan informasi simpan pinjam dari mana saja?
13. Jaminan apa saja yang diberikan ketika melakukan peminjaman
14. Kendala yang dihadapai ketika mengakses simpan pinjam formal dan non formal
15. Selain meminjaman apakah juga melakukan penyimpanan/menabung, dimana
menabungnya?
16. Manfaat apa yang didapat ketika mengakses pinjaman formal dan informal

Aturan:
Peserta harus aktif berpendapat
Semua pendapat tidak ada yang salah
Menerima telepon dilakukan diluar ruangan
Tidak memotong pembicaraan dan menghargai orang yang sedang bicara
Hasil diskusi ini akan dipakai untuk penelitian dan mendorong advokasi/kebijakan ke
pemerintah

28
Difabel Sendangadi & Sendangtirto Sleman

Kelompok Besar: Menonton film bersama (2 film)

• Perkenalan singkat fasilitator yang bertugas memandu menonton film dengan peserta FGD (Supri)
• Menonton film bersama

Fasilitator kelompok besar (Supri) membagi peserta menjadi 3 kelompok:

Kelompok tuli: Mada & Santi
Kelompok difabel perempuan: Listi & Surono
Kelompok difabel laki-laki: Sugeng & Sarjio
Peserta diminta untuk masuk ke kelompok kecil (lihat roster pembagian kelompok)
1. Perkenalan antara fasilitator dan peserta (nama, alamat, pekerjaan)
2. Penjelasan tujuan diskusi kelompok & aturan dalam diskusi kelompok
3. Minta 2 orang untuk berkomentar singkat terkait film tersebut
4. Apa yang dilakukan pertama kali ketika melakukan usaha/pekerjaan
5. Keberhasilan usaha yang selama ini dicapai apa saja? --> (peserta diminta untuk menceritakan)
6. Apakah pernah mendapatkan pelatihan? Apa saja dan siapa yang melatih
7. Bagaimana tindak lanjut dari pelatihan tersebut? Apakah masih lanjut, seperti apa?
8. Selama ini apakah memiliki jaringan pemasaran?
9. Bagaimana pemasaran yang dilakukan? ->( Peserta diminta untuk bercerita tentang Teknik
pemasaran yang selama ini dilakukan
10. Apakah pernah mengakses simpan pinjam (fomal: bank, koperasi, BMT; non formal: saudara,
tetangga, rentenir/bank plecit/mendring, arisan: dasawisma, PKK, RT/RW, KWT, berapa jumlahnya,
jangka berapa lama, apakah sudah lunas atau belum, apakah ada pengembalian dari bank, apakah
dipermudah untuk melakukan peminjaman lagi)
11. Alasan tidak melakukan simpan pinjam kenapa?
12. Mendapatkan informasi simpan pinjam dari mana saja?
13. Apakah ada kemudahan ketika mengakses simpan pinjam? Apa saja kemudahannya, ceritakan -->
kalau tidak ada kemudahan ditanyakan kendalanya
14. Jaminan apa saja yang diberikan ketika melakukan peminjaman
15. Manfaat apa yang didapat ketika mendapatkan pinjaman formal dan informal
16. Selain meminjaman apakah juga melakukan penyimpanan/menabung, dimana menabungnya?

Aturan:
• Peserta harus aktif berpendapat
• Semua pendapat tidak ada yang salah
• Menerima telepon dilakukan diluar ruangan
• Tidak memotong pembicaraan dan menghargai orang yang sedang bicara
• Peserta menunggu orang yang bicara sampai selesai bicara
• Hasil diskusi ini akan dipakai untuk penelitian dan mendorong advokasi/kebijakan ke pemerintah

29
APPENDIX 2. LIVELIHOODS DATA SET

Share of respondents and livelihoods diversification

KULON PROGO
Village 1 livelihood 2 livelihoods More than 2 Total
livelihoods
Jatirejo 9 3 1 13
Sidorejo 5 11 - 16
Wahyuharjo 3 3 2 8
Ngentakrejo 9 4 - 13
Gulurejo 3 10 2 15
Bumirejo 9 5 1 15
TOTAL 42 33 6 81

SLEMAN
Sendangadi 2 7 - 9
Sendangtirto 7 4 1 12
TOTAL 9 11 1 21

Reasons given by respondents during in-depth interviews and focus group discussions
REASONS FOR WORKING REASONS FOR NOT WORKING
Survival strategy to meet daily needs; to buy land (for investment); Being disabled (from accident); Severe disability; limited mobility,
saving for old age weak body
To anticipate contingency and community giving (kebutuhan sosial/ Limited networks to market
nyumbang)
Financial independence and self-sufficiency Lack of resources and supports
Primary breadwinner; to support family Struggling with self-acceptance
While able to work, will keep working; Failed and gave up; Tried once and do not want to try again
heeding the call (vocation)
Do not want to be looked down on by others Do not have access to work information
Motivated by father (family role model); encouraged by family Do not have suitable and desired skills
members; inherited work/ livelihoods
Opportunities from NGOs; obtained resources (skills training, startup Child rearing; caregiving for ill parent
capital)
Because of disability; being disabled; have prior work experiences Receiving supports from family/ relatives (negates need to work)
before being disabled
Helping husband; supplementing husband’s income; replacing Not allowed by parents
(disabled) husband as breadwinner
Good salary with permanent position Got cheated out of pay
To gain experience

30
Factors contributing to livelihoods or work success and failures
FACTORS LEADING TO
SUCCESS FAILURE
Climate and natural Favorable climate Unfavorable climate, pest infestation
causes and animal diseases

Actively looking for alternative work; Not confident, afraid of being cheated;
Entrepreneurial high motivation to work have no desire to work
resilience/ drive/ traits
Consider alternative solutions when
facing setbacks; able to read market
demands and opportunities; persistent
in keeping business going;

Open to solicited or unsolicited advice

on business development; verbally
promoting products

Support from family, Supportive Unsupportive; lack of labor support

relatives and friends
Possess work-related skills; have Skills not marketable; limited skills;
Skills/ Trainings/ previous work experience unfamiliar with technology; poor time
Education management

Networks Strong networks (relatives, political

parties, and non-profit organizations)
for promotion

(Financial) Capital Sufficient capital to maintain Difficult to obtain poultry feed and
production; low or zero interest loans fodder; difficult to obtain superior
and able to re-invest profit into catfish seedlings; raw materials are
production expensive and in limited supply

Limited capital; available capital used

to cover daily needs rather than re-
invested in business; afraid to take out
business loans; consumers pay in
installments or do not pay

Physical Barriers/ Healthy and fit to work Declining physical/ health condition;
Infrastructure limited mobility and transportation
access; no communication aids;
location between shop and house is
quite far away, shop location is not
strategic (rarely frequented by people)

Sales/ Production Good packaging, management and Slow sales; low demand from
Performance marketing strategy consumers; similar competitors within
the market stalls; limited marketing
through media channel; not familiar
with social media or mobile phone

Outdated production process; products

failure; limited product quantity

Gender Roles Supporting household as primary Child rearing and caretaking of ill
breadwinner parent

31
APPENDIX 3. SUMMARY OF KDD MAPPING’s FINDINGS AND INSTRUMENT

Introduction
Preliminary findings from collaborative livelihoods research has highlighted the
unusual niche village disability group Kelompok Difabel Desa (Indonesian acronym
KDD). The majority of respondents we interviewed about their livelihoods situations
and experiences repeatedly shared their expectation of KDD to facilitate economic
participation. Some even mentioned their reasons for joining KDD were to obtain
support such as skills training, subsidized materials, funding for self-enterprises and
market access. These suggest that KDD is expected to play a role bigger than its
current purpose and capacity as a community group9.

In order to better understand the existence of KDD, its purposes, capacity and
challenges, the livelihoods research team conducted focus group sessions and
organizational mapping exercises with representatives and active members of KDD
from two villages in Sleman Regency and six villages in Kulon Progo Regency
respectively from 4 to 11 March 2018. Each focus group discussion and mapping
exercise lasted between two and three hours.

KDD Overview
The emergence of KDD in villages participating in the Inclusive Village Pilot (RINDI)
can be considered as social capital formation where individuals with disability and
parents of children with disability come together to engage in dialogues and do
activities that empower them, raise disability inclusion issues with other villagers
and in village meetings. Furthermore, KDD is expected to influence the village
development agenda in ways that benefit villagers with disability. Initially, KDD
formation was part of intentional design and strategic approach within RINDI
program to foster social acceptance and inclusion of people with disability in
villages.

Key Findings

1. Incentives as motivation for participation in village disability groups

As a community group, KDD holds regular monthly meetings which are mostly
social gatherings with occasional training activities, such as cooking, computing,

9Community group here refers to a social group primarily composed of volunteers and who
act as facilitators to mobilize their target population, link their constituents with information
and access to available services in villages. The formation of such a community group is
usually facilitated by village authority (the state), it is not a fully state entity.

32
goat or chicken farming information sessions and dialogues (in reality, lectures
rather than discussions) related to disability rights and access to health, education
and other social services in the villages. Parents who participated in KDD also
mentioned that a counselling session on mental health and behavioral disorders
was the initial reason to join KDD.

Those not participating in KDD meetings cited a lack of enthusiasm due to unmet
expectations such as tangible economic benefits (specifically access and network
to subsidized raw materials and market to sell their products) and no means for
members to collaborate on livelihoods activities and issues. Additionally, lack of
communication support discourages participation from deaf members. Throughout
the mapping sessions, almost all participants mentioned that their attendance and
participation in meetings is largely motivated by transportation fee, either from
SIGAB or from the villages. Oftentimes, KDD leaders and volunteers find it
challenging to sustain participation or increase the quality of involvement among
members when the funding stopped.

2. Limited organizational capacity and skills development among KDD leaders

Leadership grooming and skills development among members of community

groups are essential for the groups to remain sustainable and this applies to KDD as
well. There is a glaring gap between the expectations of KDD leadership and
members’ expectations. Leadership is currently held by older members (aged 45
and above), female and younger members have yet to be motivated to play active
roles in KDD— ‘they cannot be bothered’ (Tidak mau repot) is the oft-given reason
for lack of female and youth leadership. During discussion on challenges faced by
KDD, participants recounted lack of necessary skills and resources to increase
membership base and engagement, improve community outreach and forge
networks with other groups such as PKK women-led Family Welfare Movement and
Karang Taruna youth organization in the villages. Interestingly, older KDD leaders
see PKK as the model of effective community organization, in term of members’
investment and mobilization, solid networking, trust and influence.

Several organizations in villages are successful in tapping the Village Fund (Dana
Desa), whereas KDD has experienced setbacks when it has attempted to access
the Fund. It is worth noting that disability groups or organizations and individuals
with disability tend to say that they want or need money, but have a difficult time
expressing why. This ability to argue (as in justify) is a skill that is learnt. But when
individuals with disability are excluded from conversations or decision making
processes, they inadvertently lose out on the opportunity to learn about how to
make a case (argument) for something. Existing challenges may not be due entirely

33
to discrimination or ignorance, but also to the reality that being able to advocate
(argue) effectively is key. WHY is it important for the village fund to give to X over Y?

A combination of factors such as weak partnerships between village government

and village disability groups, critically low organizational capacity and the marginal
space that the disability groups occupy in the village development agenda is clearly
at play here.

NEXT STEP: LEARNING TO WORK POLITICALLY?

KDD leadership and current members are open to develop and foster networks with
other village-based organizations. However, they are unsure how and where they
can learn about networking and coalition building capabilities. “We attended
trainings given by SIGAB and participated in some training events in villages, but
these trainings are above our heads, too abstract and hard to relate.” One KDD
volunteer added, “I know other village groups give marketable skills trainings we
needed but we’re rarely invited.”

The presence and work of SIGAB undoubtedly encouraged a disability inclusion

approach to be adopted by local government and other community organizations,
along with disability inclusion champions within service providers, however the
disability groups in villages feel their advocacy and lobbying efforts are less
effective because they have yet to develop necessary skills and networks to do so.

34
LIST OF QUESTIONS ASKED DURING FGD & KDD MAPPING EXERCISE

No Kategori Pertanyaan
1 Kegiatan rutin KDD Apakah KDD memiliki kegiatan rutin?
Kegiatan dan aktivitas apa yang dilakukan?
Berapa orang yang terlibat dalam kegiatan tersebut?
Apakah anggota KDD memiliki antusiasme? Jika iya maupun tidak apakah alasannya?
Upaya apa yang sudah dilakukan oleh KDD untuk meningkatkan antusiasme anggota mengikuti
pertemuan rutin?
Apa manfaat yang dirasakan oleh anggota melalui kegiatan rutin tersebut?
2 Pemahaman persoalan anggota Apakah KDD mengerti apa yang menjadi permasalahan anggotanya?
oleh pengurus KDD
Upaya apa saja yang dilakukan KDD atas permasalahan anggotanya?
3 KDD dan Pemerintah Desa Bagaimana peran KDD di Desa?
Apakah ada hambatan dalam melakukan komunikasi dengan Desa?
Upaya apa saja yang sudah dilakukan oleh KDD untuk melakukan komunikasi atau kerjasama
dengan desa?
4 Peningkatan Kapasitas pengurus Pelatihan apa yang pernah didapat oleh pengurus KDD?
KDD
Didapatkan darimana and apakah manfaat dari pelatihan tersebut?
5 Hambatan dan tantangan KDD Hambatan apa yang ditemui oleh pengurus KDD dalam mengelola KDD?
Bagaimana cara mengatasi hambatan tersebut?
6 Program dan keberlanjutannya Apakah KDD memiliki program jangka pendek, menengah, maupun panjang?
Apakah dari program tersebut ada yang berkaitan dengan mata pencaharian?
Bagaimana pengembangan/ regenerasi kepengurusan KDD berlangsung?
Apakah ada hambatan berarti dalam melakukan regenerasi tersebut?
Upaya apa yang dilakukan untuk mengatasi hambatan yang ada dalam proses regenerasi?
7 Tujuan dan misi KDD Apakah KDD memiliki AD/ART?
Apakah KDD memiliki tujuan –tujuan tertentu?
Bagaimana cara mencapai tujuan tersebut?
8. Suport LSM Bentuk dukungan yang diberikan LSM atau organisasi lainnya selama ini apa saja? Apakah
sesuai dengan kebutuhan KDD?
Apakah dukungan tersebut masih berlangsung? Berapa lama dukungan tersebut diberikan?
Jika dukungan sudah tidak ada lagi, mengapa?
Manfaat apa yang dirasakan ketika didampingi oleh LSM?
Saran untuk LSM yang mendampingi KDD
9 Keterlibatan KDD dalam Bagaimana keterlibatan KDD dalam perencanaan desa selama ini
perencanaan desa
Siapa saja yang terlibat dalam perencanaan desa?
Bagaimana keaktifan KDD ketika mengikuti perencanaan desa?
Kendala apa yang dihadapi ketika mengikuti perencanaan desa?
10 Dukungan pemerintah desa Bentuk dukungan pemdes untuk KDD selama ini apa saja?
Apakah sudah ada SK dari desa terkait fungsi dan peranan KDD? Seberapa besar manfaat atau
kegunaan SK yang didapati?
11 Cita-cita dan harapan Apa yang ingin KDD lakukan kedepan agar KDD semakin maju?
12 Jaringan Selama ini KDD memiliki jaringan dengan pihak mana saja?
Apakah jaringan tersebut bermanfaat? Jelaskan.
Jika tidak merasakan manfaat dari jaringan, jelaskan
Apakah masih ada keinginan untuk mengembangkan jaringan? Ke mana saja jaringan tersebut
ingin dikembangkan?
13 Jangkauan KDD Bagaimana hubungan KDD dengan masyarakat sekitar?
Sejauh mana KDD dikenal oleh difabel?
Apakah ada difabel desa yang belum tahu KDD?
Sejauh mana KDD dikenal oleh masyarakat umum?

35
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To all involved, this collaborative research would not have been possible with you.

The Team After Completing the Last FGD sessions in Kulon Progo. From Left to Right-
First Row: Kuni Fatonah, Listia Khairunnisa, Hezti Insriani, Mada Ramadhany.
Second Row: Supriyanto, Nirla Hastari, Thoyib, Ekawati Liu, Rizal, Kang Sarjiyo, Yuhda
Wahyu Pradana, Rumiyati, Last Row: Presti Murni Setiati, Surono, Imam Kurniawan.
Not pictured: Sugeng Wasita, Doddy Kaliri, Santi Setyaningsih, Ambar Riyadi and
Alviah.

36
37
38