A Situation Analysis of Children with Disabilities in Malawi

July 2020

i
FOREWORD

As you read this study providing a situation analysis of children with disabilities in Malawi, find key
information aspects essential to facilitating and barring their development. The aspects, according to the
scope of the study, stem from the prevalence rate of disability among children (below 18 years) and these
children’s access to social services.

As a sector, having this report is an important milestone as it indicates where we currently stand and
thereby guides us as to where we ought to be heading as a service provider and coordinator. Not only
does this report provide an updated situation analysis of Children with disabilities from that of 2011, but
it has included other prevailing disability conditions existing among children, namely, epilepsy and
albinism. In future, it would be imperative for data sets informing these situation analyses to respectively
harmonize labeling of disability conditions in their works which will consequently shape the skill demand
training relevant for effective intervention of those labels.

It is worth noting that according to the study, a significant proportion (48.7%) of disabilities presented by
our children arises from diseases and thereby is preventable. This calls for early identification, assessment
and intervention in our programming that is collaboratively integrated and multi-sectoral.

We acknowledge the Centre for Social Research (CSR) for carrying out the study and the support of UNICEF
in funding it.

---------------------------------- --------------------------------

(SIGN – Hon Minister/ PS Disability) (SIGN – Rep, UNICEF)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................................... vi

List of figures ................................................................................................................................... vii
Definitions ......................................................................................................................................... x
Executive summary ........................................................................................................................... xi
2. Legislative and policy context .................................................................................................... xi
1. Context ..........................................................................................................................................1
2. Objectives of the SITAN ..................................................................................................................1
3. Methodology .................................................................................................................................1
3.1 Comprehensive review of literature ..........................................................................................2
3.2 Secondary analysis of existing data sets.....................................................................................2
3.2.1 Education Management Information System (EMIS) data 2009-2019 ...................................2
3.2.2 Malawi population and housing census 2018 ......................................................................2
3.2.3 Living conditions among persons with disability 2016/2017.................................................3
3.3 Limitations ...............................................................................................................................4
4. Results ...........................................................................................................................................4
4.1 Global and regional conventions on disability ............................................................................4
4.2 The national context .................................................................................................................5
4.3 Accountability and coordination structures ...............................................................................7
4.4 Prevalence of disability among persons aged 0-17 .....................................................................8
4.5 Child functioning and disability ............................................................................................... 10
4.6 Prevalence of epilepsy and albinism ........................................................................................ 13
4.7 Categories of impairments to which respondents belonged. .................................................... 16
4.8 Causes of disability ................................................................................................................. 16
4.9 Rights of children with disabilities ........................................................................................... 17
4.9.1 Health .............................................................................................................................. 18
4.9.2 Accessibility ..................................................................................................................... 19
4.9.3 Access to education.......................................................................................................... 23
4.9.3.1 Number of learners/students with special needs .......................................................... 23
4.9.3.2 Dropping out of school ............................................................................................... 28
4.9.3.3 Approaches to educating children with disabilities ....................................................... 29

iii
 4.9.4 Challenges in the implementation of inclusive education .................................................. 31
4.9.4.1 Transportation for itinerant teachers ........................................................................... 32
4.9.4.2 Inadequate specialist teachers .................................................................................... 32
4.9.4.3 Inaccessible infrastructure .......................................................................................... 32
4.9.4.4 Inadequate material resources .................................................................................... 32
4.9.4.5 Reluctance to enroll children with special needs........................................................... 32
4.9.4.6 Lack of assistive devices .............................................................................................. 34
4.9.4.7 Poor attitudes of teachers and parents towards learners with disabilities ...................... 34
4.10 Rehabilitation ....................................................................................................................... 34
4.11 Work and employment ......................................................................................................... 39
4.12 Adequate standard of living and social protection ................................................................. 39
4.13 Alternative care of children with disabilities .......................................................................... 41
4.14 Involvement in different aspects of family, social life and society among children aged 12-17 . 43
4.15 Participation in political and public life .................................................................................. 44
4.16 Decision making.................................................................................................................... 45
4.17 Respect for home and the family ........................................................................................... 45
4.18 Freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse .................................................................... 45
4.19 Equality and non-discrimination ............................................................................................ 46
4.20 Main sources of energy for cooking ....................................................................................... 47
5. Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................... 47
5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................ 47
5.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 48
Annex 1: Prevalence of disability among children aged 0-17 (MPHC, 2018) ........................................ 51
Annex 2: Disability prevalence among children aged 0-17 (MPHC, 2008)............................................ 53
Annex 3a: Prevalence walking difficulties among children aged 0-17 (MPHC, 2018) ........................... 55
Annex 3b: Prevalence of hearing difficulties (MPHC, 2018) ................................................................ 56
Annex 3c: Prevalence of seeing difficulties (MPHC, 2018) .................................................................. 57
Annex 3d: Prevalence of speaking difficulties (MPHC, 2018) .............................................................. 58
Annex 4a: Access to services by persons with disabilities .................................................................. 59
Annex 4b: Access to services by children without disabilities............................................................. 60
Annex 5a: Persons aged 5-17 years by district and educational level 2018 Census .............................. 61
Annex 5b: Persons aged 5-17 years by educational level and age 2018MPHC ..................................... 63
Annex 6a: Persons aged 5-17 years by educational level attended 2008 Census ................................. 69
iv
Annex 6b: Educational level by age group and district 2008 MPHC .................................................... 71
Annex 7: Highest education level attained for persons aged 5-17 years (2016 MDHS) ........................ 76
Annex 8: Household members received any assistance, 2018 MPHC .................................................. 78
Annex 9: Challenges experienced by children with disabilities ........................................................... 80
Annex 10a: Ownership of toilets by district and type of facility among households with children with
disabilities (MPHC, 2018).................................................................................................................. 81
Annex 10b: Ownership of toilets by district and type of facility among households with children
without disabilities (MPHC, 2018)..................................................................................................... 83
Annex 11a: Sources of energy for cooking for households with children with disabilities (MPHC, 2018)
........................................................................................................................................................ 85
Annex 11b: Sources of energy for cooking for households without children with disabilities (MPHC,
2018) ............................................................................................................................................... 86
References ....................................................................................................................................... 87

v
List of Tables

Table 1: Proportion of children aged 0-17 years old who had specific types of disability (MPHC, 2018) ....8
Table 2:Proportion of different types of disability among children aged 0-17 (2008 MPHC)................... 10
Table 3: Prevalence of function problems or disability among children aged 5-17 by gender (MDHS,
2015-2016) ...................................................................................................................................... 11
Table 4: Number and prevalence of epilepsy and albinism among children aged 0-17 by gender (MPHC,
2018) ............................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 5: Categories of impairments that children aged 0-17 years had (LCs, 2016/17, N=1536) ............. 16
Table 6: Health problems experienced by respondents at the time of the interview (N=674; LCs,
2016/17) .......................................................................................................................................... 18
Table 7: Accessibility of rooms and toilets by children with disabilities (LCs, 2016/2017, N=1283) ......... 21
Table 8: Types of toilet facilities that household had (MPHC, 2018) ..................................................... 21
Table 9: Accessibility of other places (LCs, 2016/2017, N=1283) .......................................................... 22
Table 10: Total number of learners with special needs enrolled in primary school 2009-2018 (EMIS
reports, 2008-2018) .......................................................................................................................... 24
Table 11: Total number of students with special needs enrolled in secondary schools 2009-2018 (EMIS
reports, 2009-2018) .......................................................................................................................... 25
Table 12: Types of schools attended by children with disabilities (LCs, 2016/2017, N=1038)) ................ 27
Table 13: Proportion of respondents who dropped out of school by level and gender (LCs, 2016/2017) 28
Table 14: Reasons for dropping out of school (LCs, 2016/2017) ........................................................... 29
Table 15: Whether respondents studied as far as they wanted (LCs, 2016/2017) .................................. 31
Table 16: Proportion of respondents who have ever been refused entry into school because of disability
(LCs, 2016/2017) .............................................................................................................................. 33
Table 17: Proportion of respondents who reported they had ever dropped out of school because of
money (LCs, 2016/2017) ................................................................................................................... 33
Table 18: Types of assistive devices used by children with disabilities (LCs, 2016/2017; N=31) .............. 36
Table 19: Working status of children with and without disabilities (LCs, 2016/17)................................. 39
Table 20: Sources of income for households with children with and without children with disabilities
(MPHC, 2018) ................................................................................................................................... 40
Table 21: Special needs schools in Malawi (Malawi Human Rights Commission, 2017) .......................... 42
Table 22: Involvement in family, social life and society (N=495; LCs, 2016/17) ...................................... 43
Table 23: Proportion of respondents aged 12+ who made their own decisions about their own life (LCs
study, 2016/17) ................................................................................................................................ 45
Table 24: Experience of violence against children with disabilities (LCs, 2016/17) ................................. 46
Table 25: Sources of energy for cooking (MPHC, 2018) ....................................................................... 47

vi
List of figures

Figure 1: Proportion of children aged 0-17 who had specific types of disability (MPHC, 2018) .................8
Figure 2: Percentage of children aged 0-17 years with a disability in 2008 (MPHC, 2008) ........................9
Figure 3: Proportions of different types of disability among children aged 0-17 years with disability in
2008 (MPHC, 2008).............................................................................................................................9
Figure 4: Causes of impairments (N=1536; LCs, 2016/17) .................................................................... 17
Figure 5: Number of resource centres in primary schools in Malawi 2009-2018 (EMIS reports) ............. 30
Figure 8: Trends in the number of permanent and temporary resource centres in secondary schools
2009-2028 (EMIS reports) ................................................................................................................. 30
Figure 8: Type of medication taken by respondents to relive pain caused by their disability (N=557, LCs,
2016/2017) ...................................................................................................................................... 34
Figure 8: Sources of assistive devices (LCs, 2016/17) ........................................................................... 37
Figure 9: Person or institution responsible for maintenance of assistive devices (LCs, 2016/17) ............ 37
Figure 10: Were you given enough information or help/training on how to use your main assistive device
(LCs, 2016/17) .................................................................................................................................. 38
Figure 11: Level of content/satisfaction with main assistive device (N=35; LCs, 2016/17) ...................... 38
Figure 12: Characteristics of heads of households receiving cash transfers (MoGCDSW, 2019) .............. 40
Figure 13: Characteristics of beneficiary members of the households for the SCTP (MoGCDSW, 2019) .. 41

vii
Abbreviations

APAM Association of Persons with Albinism of Malawi

APDM Association of the Physically Disabled in Malawi
CBCC Community Based Childcare Centre
CCI Child Care Institution
CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child
DIWODE Disabled Women in Development (DIWODE).
DWOOM Disabled Widows Orphans Organisation in Malawi
EA Enumeration Area
ECD Early Childhood Development
EMIS Education management Information System
FEDOMA Federation of Disability Organisations in Malawi
FGD Focus Group Discussions
GoM Government of Malawi
IDI In-depth Interviews
HIS Integrated Household Survey
HSSP Health Sector Strategic Plan
KII Key Informant Interviews
LCs Living Conditions Study
MANAD Malawi National Association of the Deaf
MDA Ministries, Departments and Agencies
MEHUCA Mental Health Users and Cares Association
MGDS Malawi growth and Development Strategy
MHRC Malawi Human Rights Commission
MoE Ministry of Education
MPHC Malawi Population and Housing Census
MDHS Malawi Demographic and Health SurveyMoGCDSW Ministry of Gender, Community
Development and Social Welfare
MoPWDE Ministry of Persons with Disability and Elderly
MoLG Ministry of Local Government
MUB Malawi Union of the Blind
NACCODI National Coordinating Committee on Disability
NDMS&IP National Disability Mainstreaming Strategy and Implementation Plan
NEA National Epilepsy Association
NESP National Education Sector Plan
NGOs Non-Governmental Organisations
NSO National Statistics Office
PODCAM Parents of Disabled Children Association in Malawi
PS Principal Secretary
SCTP Social Cash Transfer Programme
SIAM Spinal Injuries Association of Malawi
SDGs Sustainable Development Goals
SITAN Situation Analysis of Children with Disabilities

viii
SNE Special Needs Education
UNESCO United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund
VIHEMA Visual and Hearing-Impaired Association of Malawi

ix
Definitions

Impairment: Any temporary or permanent loss or abnormality of a body structure or function, whether
physiological or psychological. An impairment is a disturbance affecting functions that are essentially
mental (memory, consciousness) or sensory, internal organs (heart, kidney), the head, the trunk or the
limbs1.

Disability: A long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment, which in interaction with
various barriers may hinder the full and effective participation of a person on an equal basis with other
persons2.

Functioning: A dynamic interaction between a person’s health condition, environmental factors and
personal factors3.

Handicap: This is the result of an impairment or disability that limits or prevents the fulfilment of one or
several roles regarded as normal, depending on age, sex and social and cultural factors 4.

1
Barbotte, E., F. Guillemin, N. Chau & the Lorhandicap Group. (2001). Prevalence of impairments, disabilities,
handicaps and quality of life in the general population: a review of recent literature. 79(11): 1047-1055.
2
GoM. 92012). Disability Act. Lilongwe: GoM
3
WHO. (2013). A practical manual for using the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF).
Geneva: WHO.
4
Barbotte, E., F. Guillemin, N. Chau & the Lorhandicap Group. (2001). Prevalence of impairments, disabilities,
handicaps and quality of life in the general population: a review of recent literature. 79(11): 1047-1055.
x
Executive summary

1. Introduction

The overall objective of this study was to conduct a comprehensive situation analysis of children with
disabilities in Malawi (SITAN). The specific objectives of this SITAN were as follows: (i) Using existing
datasets, estimate the national, regional and district prevalence and types of disability5 in children aged
below 18 years old; (ii) Analyse potential inequalities by demographic and socio-economic characteristics
of families with children with disabilities aged below 18 years; and (iii) Analyse education, health, housing,
child protection, basic socio and economic coverage of services for children with disabilities. In order to
address these objectives, existing data sets on children with disabilities were used. These datasets
included the 2008 and 2018 MPHC; the Education Management Information System data sets 2009-2018;
the 2015/2016 MDHS and (iv) The 2016/2017 study on living conditions of persons with disability in
Malawi (LCs). SPSS was used to analyse data from these data sets.

2. Legislative and policy context

Malawi is a signatory to a number of international and regional conventions including the UN CRPD, the
CRC, the African Charter on the Rights of the Child and the Marrakesh Treaty which was recently ratified
At national level, Malawi’s Constitution promotes the rights of persons with disabilities. The 2012
Disability Act has been revised and Government has developed the Persons with Disabilities Bill (2019)
which comprehensively domesticates the CRPD. The following strategic plans and policies guide the
implementation of interventions to improve the welfare of persons with disabilities: the MGDS 2011-
2016, the National Disability Mainstreaming Strategy and Implementation Plan (DMS&IP) 2018-2023, the
National Education Sector Plan 2018-2020, and the National Special Needs Education Policy. The National
Policy on the Equalisation of Persons with Disabilities expired and is currently under review.

3. Accountability and coordination structures for the disability sector

The MoGCDSW is the line ministry responsible for disability issues. The NDMS&IP guides the
mainstreaming of disability in all sectors including the private sector. The National Coordinating
Committee on Disability (NACCODI), chaired by the Chief Secretary, with membership from all the
Principal Secretaries advises the GoM on policy, legislation and other technical issues. Issues from this
committee are taken to Ministers by their respective PSs.

3. Prevalence of disability among children aged 0-17

Among children aged 5-17 years, the 2018 and the 2008 MPHCs found a disability prevalence of 5.6
percent and 2.4 percent, respectively. There was no major difference in the prevalence of disability
between boys (6 percent) and girls (5.2 percent) in the 2018 MPHC. In 2008 disability prevalence was
lower than in 2018 mainly because there were more types of disabilities that were included in 2018. The
2016/2017 LC study found a disability prevalence of 3.2 percent among children aged 2-4 and 3.3 percent
among those aged 2–17. The overall prevalence of albinism, based on the 2018 MPHC, was 0.9 percent,
with no difference between boys and girls both being at 0.9 percent. The prevalence of epilepsy was 1.6
percent (boys (1.7 percent and girls (1.4 percent) in the 2018 census. In the 2018 MPHC the most common

5
This includes albinism.
xi
types of disabilities among children were hearing (25 percent) and visual impairments (24 percent)
followed by self-case (16 percent) and then intellectual impairments (15 percent).

5. Rights of children with disabilities

Health: The LCs study found that 40 percent (boys (39.1 percent), girls (39.9 percent)) of the children with
disabilities were aware of medical rehabilitation services, 25 percent (boys (23.8 percent, girls (26
percent)) required such services but 13 percent (boys (13.1 percent), girls (13.2 percent) received these
services. The study also found that 82 percent of the children (boys (79.4 percent), girls (84.3 percent)
with disabilities were aware of health services, 79 percent (boys (75.2 percent), girls (82.4 percent))
required these services, only 74 percent (boys (70.2 percent), girls (77.9 percent)) received them. While
boys and girls with disabilities may be aware of available health services and may require them, a lower
proportion access them due to their disability.

Education: According to the EMIS, the proportion of children with special needs in both primary and
secondary schools slightly increased from 2 percent to 3 percent between 2009 and 2018. Ninety one
percent of the children without disabilities (boys (91 percent), girls (91 percent)) in the LCs study had ever
received formal education compared to 80 percent (boys (81 percent), girls (78 percent) of the children
with disabilities. A slightly higher proportion of children with (15.7 percent) than children without
disabilities (13.2 percent) reported they ever dropped out of school in regular primary school mainly
because of disability, lack of money and illness. Barriers to the delivery of inclusive education include the
lack of transport for itinerant teachers, inadequate specialist teachers, inaccessible infrastructure for
learners with special needs, inadequate SNE teaching and learning materials and lack of assistive devices,

Rehabilitation: Only 2 percent of children (boys (1.5 percent, girls (2.6 percent)) with disabilities reported
using assistive devices in LCs study: of these, 64.7 percent used assistive devices for personal mobility
followed by those who used assistive devices for accessing information (31.6 percent) and for personal
care and protective purposes (9.1 percent percent). These assistive devices are mainly obtained from GoM
health services (39.4 percent), the private sector (24.2 percent) and NGOs (24.2 percent). Very few
children with disabilities access assistive devices.

Work and employment: There were no differences between children with disabilities (7.1 percent) and
those without disabilities (7.4 percent) in the proportion of those who were working. Among children with
disabilities, 9.3 percent of the boys and 4.1 percent of the girls were working. On the other hand, among
children with disabilities, 11.9 percent of the girls and 3.2 percent of the boys were working. The
Employment Act forbids anyone below the age of 14 working. This Act allows persons aged 15-18 to work
but not in hazardous employment. However, the LCs study did not look into whether these children with
disabilities were involved in hazardous employment or not.

Social protection: In 2019 28 percent of the beneficiary households of the social cash transfer programme
were headed by persons with disability. Data from the MoGCDSW does not disaggregate the beneficiaries
of the SCTP by children with disabilities. Sixty percent of the beneficiaries of the SCTP are children aged
0-17 and that 14 percent of the beneficiaries are persons with disabilities. The LCs study found that only
1.3 percent of the children with disabilities (boys (1.4 percent) and girls (1.2 percent) reported receiving
social security or disability grants: of these, 65 percent received social cash transfer. This money was

xii
mainly used for household necessities (65 percent) or education (9.5 percent). Of the beneficiaries of
these social security interventions, only 15.4 percent said they made the decisions on how to use the
grant.

Alternative care for children: Two percent of the children with disabilities in the LCs study reported ever
staying in an institution or special home. In 2017 the Malawi Human Rights Commission found that there
were 110 children with disabilities in institutions and that 1,211 children with disabilities were resident in
21 special needs schools. These special needs education institutions experience challenges such as
inadequate funding. About half of these institutions are for all types of special needs, a third are
specifically for those with visual impairments and about a fifth are for the deaf. Most of these institutions
are in rural areas. There is a need to promote inclusive education and that all children in institutions should
be reintegrated with their families.

Accessibility: The LCs study found that most children with disabilities reported that kitchens (92.3
percent), bedrooms (96.4 percent), living rooms (89.9 percent) and toilets (94.5 percent) in their homes
were accessible to them with no major gender differences. However, 5.5 percent of the persons with
disabilities and 3.8 percent of children with disabilities could not access kitchens and toilets, respectively

Involvement in different aspects of family, social life and society among children aged 12-17: Children
without disabilities more likely (i) are consulted about making household decisions (66.8 percent), (ii) go
with the family to events such as family gatherings (78.9 percent), (iii) feel involved and part of the
household or family (91.4 percent), (iv) involved in family conversations (89.2 percent) and (v) participate
in local meetings (42.2 percent). The corresponding proportions among children with disabilities were
51.5 percent, 74.7 percent, 87.7 percent, 85.3 percent and 25.9 percent, respectively. Boys with
disabilities were more likely consulted in making family decisions or going with their families to events
such as family gatherings than girls with disabilities. On the other hand, girls with disabilities were more
likely involved and felt part of the household or family, in conversations, helped by family in doing daily
activities/tasks and taking part in traditional practices than boys with disabilities.

Participation in political and public life: While about 24.7 percent (boys (26.3 percent, girls (22.9 percent)
of the children with disabilities were aware of DPOs, 12.1 percent (boys 15.7 percent, girls (6.9 percent))
were actually members.

Respect for home and the family: In the LCs study, 6.3 percent (boys (5.6 percent, girls (7.1 percent) of the
children with disabilities aged 12-17 were either married or in a relationship. None of the males reported
that his spouse had a disability while 3 females reported that their spouses had a disability. For those in
relationships or married, 7.3 percent (boys (3.2 percent, girls (11.3 percent)) reported they had children.

Equality and non-discrimination: Nine percent of the children with disabilities in the LCs study reported
ever experiencing discrimination in public services with slightly a higher proportion of males (9.8 percent)
than females (8.3 percent) reporting this.

6. Conclusions and recommendations

There have been variations in prevalence of disability among children aged 0-17 over the last 10 years due
to differences in sampling and the types of disability covered. For example, while the 2018 MPHC included
xiii
intellectual disabilities, these were not included in 2008. This SITAN has also found that children with
disabilities experience a wide range of challenges in accessing social services. While they may be aware of
social services that are available (e.g. education, health, vocational training) and they need such services,
in most cases the proportion of children with disabilities who receive the services they need is lower
compared to those who required such services. The following recommendations are therefore made.

• The MoGCDSW should discuss with the NSO, other GoM ministries and departments, academic
institutions and other stakeholders to mainstream disability in national surveys.
• The NSO in conjunction with academic institutions should build the capacity of researchers on the us e
of Washington Group on Disability Statistics screening questions for disability.
• The MoGCDSW, DPOs and other stakeholders should create awareness about the rights of children
with disabilities.
• A significant proportion of children with disability are due to disease such as malaria. There is a need
to promote the prevention and early treatment of disease as this would contribute significantly
towards the prevention of disability.
• The MoGCDSW, the Ministry of Health and other stakeholders should improve the availability of
assistive devices for persons with disabilities including children.
• Schools, health facilities and other places should be made accessible to children with various types of
disabilities.
• The MoGCDSW, FEDOMA and other stakeholders should advocate for service providers to learn sign
language in order to improve communication with children who have hearing impairments.
• The MoGCDSW should fast track the development of the new national disability policy.
• The Ministry of Health should work very closely with the MoGCDSW to develop a national strategy
that will improve access to health services by persons with disability
• Disability should be included in the curriculum for training of all health workers.

xiv
1. Context

In 2013 a comprehensive situation analysis (SITAN) on children with disabilities was conducted in Malawi.
This study was commissioned by the Ministry of Gender, Community Development and Social Welfare
(MoGCDSW) and funded by UNICEF. This SITAN, among other issues, explored existing legislative and
policy frameworks for children with disabilities, access to social services including education, health,
sanitation and hygiene and skills development by children with disabilities and the challenges being
experienced by children with disabilities and their parents and guardians. In order to collect data for this
SITAN, a number of methodologies were used including (i) a comprehensive review of literature; (ii) key
informant interviews (KIIs) with staff in both government and non-governmental organisations (NGOs)
whose work was related to children with disabilities at national and sub-national levels; (iii) in-depth
interviews (IDIs) with children with disabilities and their caretakers; (iv) IDIs with children whose parents
had a disability and their parents; and (v) focus group discussions (FGDs) with children with disabilities at
community level and those residing in institutions.
Since this comprehensive situation analysis was conducted in 2013, 3 surveys on disability have been
conducted. The current SITAN on children with disabilities in Malawi was commissioned by UNICEF in
order to inform the development of practical strategies to advance policy and programming towards
realizing the rights of children with disabilities including those with albinism and epilepsy in all relevant
sectors. The results of this situation analysis will be used by UNICEF, MoGCDSW and other stakeholders
working with children with disabilities in Malawi.

2. Objectives of the SITAN

The overall objective of the SITAN was to conduct a comprehensive situation analysis of children with
disabilities in Malawi.

The specific objectives of SITAN, as detailed in the ToRs, were as follows:

1. Using existing datasets, estimate the national, regional and district prevalence and types of
disability6 in children aged below 18 years old;
2. Analyse potential inequalities by demographic and socio-economic characteristics of families with
children aged below 18 years old with disabilities;
3. Analyse education, health, housing, child protection, basic socio and economic coverage of
services for children with disabilities.

3. Methodology

There were two major sources of data for this study: (i) A comprehensive review of studies that have been
done in Malawi between 2011 and 2019; and (ii) Secondary analysis of existing data sets. These secondary
data sets included the 2008 and 2018 Malawi Population and Housing Census (MPHC); (iii) the Education
Management Information System (EMIS) data sets and annual reports for the period 2009-2018; the
2015/2016 Malawi Demographic and Health Survey (MDHS) and (iv) The 2016/2017 study on living
conditions of persons with disability in Malawi (LCs).

6
This includes albinism.
1
3.1 Comprehensive review of literature

At a global level there are international agreements on matters relating to people with disabilities, which
have been ratified by Malawi. For example, the 2015 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the 2006
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (CRPD) and the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child (CRC). At national level, there are pieces of legislation that protect the rights of people with
disabilities. For example, the 1994 Constitution of the Republic of Malawi (as amended); the 2012
Disability Act; the 2010 Child Care, Protection and Justice Act; and the 2013 Education Act. Both the
international and national instruments were reviewed in order to, among other things, determine the
extent to which global and regional treaties have been domesticated by the Government of Malawi
(GoM). The Malawi Growth and Development Strategy (MGDS) 2017-2022, Health Sector Strategic Plan
(HSSP) 2017-2022, the National Disability Mainstreaming Strategy and Implementation Plan (NDMS&IP)
2018-2023, Inclusive Education Strategy 2017-2021 and other sector plans were also reviewed mainly to
have a better understanding of the policy context for disability in Malawi. There are also a number of
studies that have been conducted in Malawi on children with disabilities. These include 2003 and 2016/17
LCs, the 2010 Equitable access to health services by vulnerable populations and the 2015/2016 MDHS.
The review of legislation, policies and strategies helped to have a better understanding of the changes
that have taken place regarding children living with disabilities.

3.2 Secondary analysis of existing data sets

There were three data sets that were used in this study. Other data sets such as Health Management
Information System (HMIS) and Integrated Household Survey (IHS) were not used because they did not
capture data on children with disabilities.

3.2.1 Education Management Information System (EMIS) data 2009-2019

The Ministry of Education (MoE) collects routine data on a number of issues including learners with special
needs. Each year the MoE produces an annual report which provides data disaggregated by, among other
variables, standard/form, type of need/disability, sex, district and education division. Students and
learners with disability are classified into the following categories: (i) low vision, (ii) blind, (iii) hard of
hearing, (iv) deaf, (v) physical impairment and (vi) learning difficulties. This classification, as will be
demonstrated later, changed around 2015. The EMIS data collected over a period of 10 years between
2009 and 2018 was used to determine the trends in the number of children with different types of
disabilities enrolled in both primary and secondary schools in Malawi. This data was also used to
determine the proportion of children with disabilities out of the total enrolment at national, regional and
district level. This data was obtained from MoE. This data was also used in order to determine the number
of resource centres in Malawi over the reference period. Despite the existence of this EMIS data, children
with disabilities who are not in school are not included.

3.2.2 Malawi population and housing census 2018

The National Statistical Office (NSO) conducted the last Malawi Population and Housing Census (MPHC)
in 2018 Which collected data on, among other parameters, persons with various types of disability. As
recommended at a global level, the NSO used some of the Washington Group on Disability Statistics

2
questions in order to screen for persons with various types of disability. Approval was obtained from the
NSO in order to use the 2008 and 2018 MPHC data for this SITAN. The analysis focused on persons aged
less than 18 years and their households.
Data from the two censuses was used to determine the prevalence of disability among persons aged less
than 18 years at national, regional and district level. The data was further analysed in order to determine
the prevalence of different types of disability. With regard to water and sanitation, the focus was on main
sources of water for drinking for the household, the source of energy for cooking and lighting and then
the availability of the toilets, kitchens and bathroom in the household with children with disabilities
compared to those without children with disabilities.
Lastly, there are a number of programmes that are providing different types of assistance to vulnerable
households for example the social cash transfer programmes (SCTP). The census data was further analysed
to find out whether households with children with disabilities had received any form of assistance in the
12 months preceding the census and the type of assistance received. Maps of Malawi were drawn showing
the prevalence of disability including albinism by region and district. Using census data, the following maps
were drawn: (i) Prevalence of disability by district; (ii) Prevalence of albinism; (iii) Prevalence of Visual
Impairment; (iv) Prevalence of Hearing Impairment; (v) Prevalence of Physical Impairment; (vi) Prevalence
of learning difficulties; (vii) Prevalence of albinism and (vii) Prevalence of Epilepsy.

3.2.3 Living conditions among persons with disability 2016/2017

The 2016/2017 LCs, like the 2018 MPHC, used the Washington Group of Disability Statistics screening
questions in order to identify persons with disability. There are 3 regions in Malawi and each region is
divided into districts. Each district is further divided into Traditional Authorities (TAs) which are further
divided into smaller administrative units called Enumeration Areas (EAs). Each EA has about 231
households. Two hundred thirty-three (233) EAs were randomly selected. A total number of 6,990
households were sampled from 41 EAs in the northern region, 113 EAs in the central region and 79 EAs in
the southern region. In each EA, a comprehensive household listing was conducted and the screening
questions for disability developed by the Washington Group on Disability Statistics were used to identify
households with persons with disabilities. Using the household listing, 25 households with disabled
members were randomly selected in each EA. A further 13 households were sampled in each EA and these
acted as control households where no one had a disability. There were 3 questionnaires which were
administered: (i) a household questionnaire administered to head of household, (ii) a questionnaire for a
person with a disability in households with a person with a disability, (iii) a questionnaire for a person
without a disability in control households. Fifty research assistants and 10 supervisors participated in data
collection. Only one person with a disability was interviewed per sampled household.
For purposes of the SITAN on children with disabilities in Malawi, data on persons aged less than 18 years
from the larger data set was extracted and used for this analysis. Using this data, the prevalence of
disability among children aged less than 18 years was determined. This data was not representative at
district level but at national and regional level. The major output from this data was the prevalence of
disability among children. The LCs survey also looked at causes of disability, satisfaction with services (such
as health, medical rehabilitation and assistive devices services), whether children with disabilities aged 5
years and above had received formal primary education or not, whether they dropped out of school or
not and accessibility of rooms and toilets in the home. This data has been presented at national and
regional levels.

3
3.3 Limitations

Some data used in this report was collected quite recently for example the 2018 MPHC and the 2016/17
LCs. Some data on children with disabilities, however, are quite old and outdated. However, such old data
were still used in order to determine trends for example in the prevalence of disability and access to social
services by persons with disabilities. Secondly, most data used in this report was collected by others;
hence, there was no influence on data quality. The other limitation was that some important variables
required to address the research questions in this particular study on situation analysis of children with
disabilities may not have been collected, hence, not available for analysis. The ToRs for this study also
suggested the use of Integrated Household Survey (IHS) data. The 2016/2017 IHS, however, did not
include questions on disability.

4. Results

The results of this study have been presented in 5 sections namely: (1) Global and regional
conventions/treaties to which Malawi is a party, (2) Malawi legislation and policies on disability, (3)
Accountability and coordination structures for disability, (4) The prevalence of disability and (5) Access to
services by persons with disabilities.

4.1 Global and regional conventions on disability

There are a number of conventions that have been developed at a global level to promote the rights of
persons with disabilities. With regard to children with disabilities, the two main international conventions
are the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) and the Convention on the Rights
of the Child (CRC). The CRPD recognizes that children should fully enjoy their rights and fundamental
freedoms regardless of disability, to actively be involved in the development and implementation of
policies and legislation, to express their views freely, to access all social services and the right to family
life. In all actions, the best interest of children with disabilities should come first.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child ensures that the rights of the child, regardless of disability
status, are respected, that the child enjoys a full and descent life, that the child has access to all social
services and it further recognizes the right of the child to special care. Malawi is a signatory to the CRPD
and the CRC. It is mandatory that the country reports to the UN on the status of persons with disabilities
including children with disabilities. Malawi’s combined initial and second state party report on the CRPD
was presented to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in October 2016. Over the
years, the country has either revised or developed new legislation and policies that have been aligned
with the CRPD and the CRC. At regional level, Malawi is a signatory to the African Charter on the Rights of
the Child, which, just like the CRC, emphasizes on the rights of the child to social services, special measures
of protection and access to movement, public buildings and highways and other places.

The following are other international conventions and agreements on disability and related issues that
Malawi has either signed and/or ratified.

o Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): The Declaration promote fundamental human rights
to all. Each article applies to every individual regardless of disabilities, gender, race, color, religion or
any other status of life. Any form of discrimination violates the principle of Equality.

4
o The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (1966): It uses language similar to Universal
Declaration of Human Rights to protect the right to privacy and to actual title to "UN Convention
Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment" that are major
causes of disability.

o Convention of the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women (1971): The Convention
provides the basis for realizing equality between women and men through ensuring women's equal
access to, and equal opportunities in, political and public life -- including the right to vote and to stand
for election -- as well as education, health and employment. States parties agree to take all
appropriate measures, including legislation and temporary special measures, so that women can
enjoy all their human rights and fundamental freedoms.

o African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (1981): This is also known as the Banjul Charter and it
is an international human rights instrument that promotes and protects human rights and basic
freedoms on the African continent.

o The World Program of Action concerning Disabled Persons (1982): This aims at promotion of
effective measures for the prevention of disability, rehabilitation and the realization of equal
opportunities for PWD.

o The UN Standard Rules on the Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities (1993):
This is a set of objectives implying a strong political and moral commitment by the State to take action
for the equalization of opportunities for PWD.

o UN Convention on Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment of Persons with Disabilities (1983?):

The Convention prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in all forms of employment, and calls
on states to open up opportunities in mainstream workplaces to job seekers with disabilities. The
Convention further promotes the access of disabled persons to freely chosen work, general technical
and vocational guidance programmes, placement services and vocational and continuing training.

The signing of these conventions and agreements demonstrates that the Government of Malawi (GoM) is
committed towards improving the welfare of persons with disabilities.

4.2 The national context

There are a number of pieces of legislation that the GoM has put in place relating to persons with disability
including children and these include:

The 1994 Constitution of the Republic of Malawi: It recognises the rights of persons with
disabilities including children, prohibits discrimination based on disability, guarantees protection
for persons with disability, promotes greater access to public places, advocates for fair
opportunities for employment, education and other social services. The Constitution further
provides for the fullest possible participation of persons with disabilities in all spheres of the
Malawi society (Government of Malawi, 1994). Malawi’s Constitution is in line with international
policy and legislative frameworks.

5
 The 2012 Disability Act: This piece of legislation promoted the rights of persons with disabilities
to accessing health care, education, rehabilitation, employment, the physical environment,
economic empowerment and sporting and recreational facilities(Government of Malawi, 2012).
However, the GoM has developed the Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2019. The review of the 2012
Disability Act started in 2017 due to the fact that at the time (i) there were multiple Acts dealing
with disability issues, (ii) there were challenges with the implementation of the Disability Act and
(iii) there was a need to incorporate emerging and modern issues into the Act. The 2019 Persons
with Disabilities Bill has merged the Disability Act (2012) and the Handicapped Persons Act (1971)
and comprehensively domesticate the CRPD and embraces a human rights approach. The Bill has
since been submitted to the Ministry of Justice and Constitutional Affairs for review and vetting.

Child Care, Protection and Justice Act (2010): This Act provides for the protection of all children
including those with disabilities. It required that local government authorities should keep
registers of all children with disabilities and accord them assistance so that they can live with
dignity and develop their potential and self-reliance (Government of Malawi, 2010)

Employment Act (2000): This Act prohibits the employment of children under the age of 14 while
it allows those aged 14-17 to work but not in hazardous work. The Act further forbids
discrimination against any employee or prospective employee based on disability. The Act also
emphasises on equal pay for work of equal value, without discrimination and prohibits against
dismissal of an employee because of disability, or any other form of discrimination (Government
of Malawi, 2000).

Education Act (2013): It advocates that education is for all people regardless of, among other
factors, disability (Government of Malawi, 2013).

In addition to legislation, there are a number of strategic plans and policies that have been developed and
are being implemented to address challenges being experienced by persons with disabilities including
children. Unlike the previous MGDS 2011-2016, the current one for the period 2017-2022 includes
interventions for example improving access to education, employment, health services and other social
services for persons with disabilities (Government of Malawi, 2017). There are some sector strategic plans
for example the National Disability Mainstreaming Strategy and Implementation Plan (NDMS&IP) 2018-
2023 and the National Education Strategic Plan (NESP) 2018-2020. The NDMS&IP promotes equitable
access to services such as education, health, livelihoods and empowerment for persons with disability. It
particularly focuses on the need to mainstream disability in all sectors (Ministry of Gender, Children,
Disability and Social Welfare, 2018). The NESP details interventions that are being implemented in the
education sector to improve access to education by children with disabilities (Ministry of Education,
Science and Technology, 2008). The Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MoE) also developed
the National Strategy on Inclusive Education which spells out the interventions that are being
implemented over the period 2017-2021 to improve or strengthen the delivery of inclusive education in
Malawi (Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, 2017).

In terms of policies, the GoM adopted the National Policy on the Equalisation of Persons with Disabilities
in 2006. However, this Policy expired and currently GoM through the Department of Disability and Elderly
Affairs is developing a successor policy. There are, however, some sectoral policies: for example, the
National Special Needs Education Policy which guides the implementation of special needs education in
Malawi. The policy specifically provides guidance on issues such as the early identification and assessment
6
of special needs; advocacy, care and support for children with special needs; and access, quality and equity
in access to education (Ministry of Education and Vocational Training, 2007). The adoption of the Persons
with Disabilities Bill (2019) and the development of the national policy on disability will strengthen the
legislative and policy environment for the disability sector.

4.3 Accountability and coordination structures

A number of structures have been established in Malawi for the coordination of interventions to improve
the welfare of persons with disabilities. The MoGCDSW is the line GoM ministry that is responsible for
disability issues. It is responsible for (i) reviewing and development of policies and legislation on disability,
(ii) monitoring of the implementation of interventions to improve the welfare of persons with disabilities,
and (iii) building the capacity of GoM ministries, departments and agencies (MDA) and other institutions
to ensure they mainstream disability in their programming. In addition to this, the MoGCDSW is also
responsible for mobilizing financial and other resources required for implementation of interventions
(Ministry of Gender, Children, Disability and Social Welfare, 2018).

It is not only the MoGCDSW which is responsible for disability issues but that all GoM MDA including at
district level as well as other stakeholders should mainstream disability in their programming. In order to
strengthen coordination on disability issues, the GoM has established the National Coor dinating
Committee on Disability (NACCODI) which is chaired by the Chief Secretary in the Office of the president
and Cabinet. The membership of this committee is drawn from key the Principal Secretaries (PSs) while
the PS for MOGCDSW is secretariat. This Committee advises the GoM on policy, legislation and other
technical issues. Issues from this committee are taken to Ministers by their respective PSs for decision
making.

At district level the Ministry of Local Government (MoLG) is responsible for ensuring that disability is
mainstreamed in all district development plans. In addition to this, district councils promote the
implementation of plans, policies and strategies on disability and related issues including the development
and implementation of by-laws, monitoring of the implementation of programmes and the mobilization
of resources for disability and other programmes at district level.

The NDMS&IP further acknowledges that the development and implementation of interventions is not
only the responsibility of GoM: there are other players such as NGOs, DPOs and academia who play
important roles.

1. DPOs such as FEDOMA advocate for inclusive development as well as allocation of adequate
resources for the implementation of programmes. These DPOs have also been in the forefront in
the implementation of programmes to improve the welfare of persons with disabilities.
2. Universities are involved in the identification of research areas, development of proposals and
looking for funding to implement the research and consequently the dissemination of the
research results to inform policy and programming.
3. The private sector has potential to support the financial and social empowerment of persons with
disabilities.
4. Development partners provide financial and technical resources for the implementation of the
NDMS&IP.

7
While the MoGCDSW is the line Ministry on disability issues, the GoM is promoting mainstreaming
disability in various sectors and the NACCODI is playing an important coordinating and networking role
among different key stakeholders in the disability sector.

4.4 Prevalence of disability among persons aged 0-17

A number of studies have been conducted over the last 10 years aimed at, among other things,
determining the prevalence of disability including among children aged 0-17. The 2018 MPHC looked at
visual, hearing, physical and speech impairments and other types of disability/functioning problems
including intellectual, self-care, albinism and epilepsy. Annex 1 shows the prevalence of disability among
boys and girls aged 0-17 years in 2018. The overall prevalence of disability among children aged 0-17 was
6 percent without taking into account children with albinism and epilepsy. Annex 1 also shows that there
were variations among the districts with Rumphi having the highest prevalence at 10 percent followed by
Chitipa, Dedza and Mzimba all at 8 percent and then Nkhata Bay and Mwanza at 7 percent. Figure 1 shows
the specific types of disability as a proportion of the overall number of children with disabilities.

Figure 1: Proportion of children aged 0-17 who had specific types of disability (MPHC, 2018)

15.5
24.2

15

11.3 24.9

9.2

Visual Hearing Physical Speech Intellectual Self care

Figure 1 shows that the most common types of disabilities among children aged 0-17 were hearing (25
percent) and visual impairments (24 percent). These were followed by self-care (16 percent) and then
intellectual impairments at 15 percent.

Table 1: Proportion of children aged 0-17 years old who had specific types of disability (MPHC, 2018)

Type of Disability Boys Girls Total

Visual 23.1 25.4 24.2
Hearing 23.6 26.4 24.9
Physical 8.8 9.7 9.2
Speech 13.4 8.9 11.3
Intellectual 15.0 15.0 15.0
Selfcare 16.1 14.7 15.5
8
Table 1 shows that there the proportion of girls with visual, hearing and physical impairments was higher
that among boys. On the other hand, the proportion of boys who had speech and self-care impairment
was higher than among girls. There were no differences between girls and boys in the proportion of those
who had intellectual impairments. Annexes 3a, 3b, 3c and 3d show the prevalence of walking, hearing,
seeing and speech difficulties among children aged 0-17 by district on the map of Malawi. The 2008 MPHC
looked at the prevalence of visual, hearing, physical and speech impairments. Annex 2 shows that the
prevalence of disability among children aged 0-17 years was at 2.4 percent. The highest prevalence of
disability was among children resident on Likoma Island at 5 percent while the lowest was in Nsanje (1.4
percent), Mulanje (1.4 percent), Zomba (1.4 percent) and Blantyre City (1.3 percent). Figure 2 below
shows the prevalence of different types of disabilities among boys and girls in 2008.

Figure 2: Percentage of children aged 0-17 years with a disability in 2008 (MPHC, 2008)

0.9
0.8
0.8

0.6 0.6 0.5

0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.3 0.2

Visual Hearing Walking Speaking Other

Total Boys Girls

Figure 2 shows that the national prevalence of different forms of disability among children is less than one
percent: 0.6 percent of the children had hearing impairments followed by those with visual and physical
impairments both at 0.4 percent and then speech at 0.2 percent. Overall, Figure 2 shows that the
prevalence of different types of disability was slightly higher among boys compared to girls. Figure 3 shows
the proportion of different types of disability among children with disabilities during the 2008 MPHC: 35
percent of the children with disability had other forms of disability (which were not specified in this
census) and this was followed by those with hearing (23 percent), visual (17 percent) and then physical
(16 percent) impairments. Those with speech impairments were the lowest at 10 percent.
Figure 3: Proportions of different types of disability among children aged 0-17 years with disability in 2008 (MPHC, 2008)

17
35.4

23.2

9.6
16.2

Visual Hearing Physical Speech Other

9
Table 2 shows the proportion of children who had different types of disability by gender during the 2008
MPHC.
Table 2:Proportion of different types of disability among children aged 0-17 (2008 MPHC)

Type of disability Boys Girls Total

Visual 16.4 17.6 17.0
Hearing 22.7 23.8 23.2
Physical 16.2 16.1 16.2
Speech 10.7 8.3 9.6
Other 35.3 35.5 35.4

Table 2 shows that there were no differences between boys and girls in terms of the proportion who had
physical and other types of disability. The proportion of girls who had visual and hearing impairments was
slightly higher than among boys. The proportion of boys with speech impairment was slightly higher than
among girls.

The prevalence of disability among persons with disability was higher in the 2018 MPHC compared to the
one conducted in 2008. This was mainly because there were more types of disabilities included in 2018
for example intellectual and self-care impairments. The use of the 2018 instrument should therefore be
preferred as it covers more types of disability. The 2016/2017 LC study found that 3.2 percent of the
persons aged 2-4 years old and 3.3 percent among children aged 2–17 years were persons with disability.
The difference between the LC study and the 2018 census was that screening questions in the LC were
not administered to children aged less than 2 percent.

4.5 Child functioning and disability

The 2015/16 MDHS household questionnaire had questions on child functioning and disability among
children aged 2-17. In this situation analysis, we look at child functioning and disability among children
aged 5-17. Respondents were asked questions about the specific functioning problems or disability of
children and these questions included on speech and language, hearing, vision, learning (cognition and
intellectual development), mobility and motor skills, emotions, and behaviours7. Table 3 below shows that
16.5 percent of the children aged 5-17 had at least one reported functioning problem or disability with
the highest being in Mchinji at 23.4 percent and the lowest in Likoma at 7.6 percent. There were no
differences in the proportion of girls (16.7 percent) and boys (16.3 percent) who had disability or
functioning problem. In most districts, as can be seen in Table 3, the proportion of girls with
disability/functioning problems was higher than among boys. The percentage of children with functioning
problems/disability is much higher in the 2015/16 MDHS than the 2018 and 2008 MPHC. This is because
the MPHC does not include questions on speech and language, mobility and motor skills, emotions and
behaviours.

7
The actual questions that were asked in the survey are available in the MDHS 2015/16 report on NSO website:
http://www.nsomalawi.mw/images/stories/data_on_line/demography/mdhs2015_16/MDHS%202015-
16%20Final%20Report.pdf
10
 Table 3: Prevalence of function problems or disability among children aged 5-17 by gender (MDHS, 2015-2016)

With disability/functioning
Children 5 - 17 years old impairments Without Disability/functioning impairments
District Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female
Total 46196 23218 22978 16.5 16.3 16.7 83.5 83.7 83.3
Chitipa 495 250 245 16.8 17.5 16.0 83.2 82.5 84.0
Karonga 1018 517 501 8.9 8.6 9.2 91.1 91.4 90.8
Nkhatabay 739 384 355 12.8 14.0 11.5 87.2 86.0 88.5
Rumphi 568 291 277 17.0 17.2 16.8 83.0 82.8 83.2
Mzimba 2508 1230 1277 13.7 13.7 13.7 86.3 86.3 86.3
Likoma 32 15 17 7.6 6.9 8.3 92.4 93.1 91.7
Mzuzu City 450 217 233 9.8 7.2 12.1 90.2 92.8 87.9
Kasungu 1925 945 980 14.1 14.9 13.2 85.9 85.1 86.8
Nkhota kota 1056 528 527 11.8 13.2 10.4 88.2 86.8 89.6
Ntchisi 851 422 429 15.9 14.3 17.5 84.1 85.7 82.5
Dowa 1956 992 964 17.5 16.7 18.3 82.5 83.3 81.7
Salima 1478 737 741 17.0 18.7 15.4 83.0 81.3 84.6
Lilongwe Rural 4324 2107 2218 19.5 19.4 19.7 80.5 80.6 80.3
Mchinji 1379 694 684 23.4 23.5 23.4 76.6 76.5 76.6
Dedza 2064 1060 1004 16.3 15.8 16.7 83.7 84.2 83.3
Ntcheu 1651 836 815 14.8 16.5 13.0 85.2 83.5 87.0
Lilongwe City 1709 811 898 13.0 9.8 16.0 87.0 90.2 84.0
Mangochi 3296 1679 1617 15.9 16.7 15.0 84.1 83.3 85.0
Machinga 1881 952 929 21.0 21.5 20.4 79.0 78.5 79.6
Zomba Rural 2210 1143 1067 19.2 18.9 19.5 80.8 81.1 80.5
Chradzulu 989 526 462 19.1 18.6 19.6 80.9 81.4 80.4
Blantyre rural 1146 578 568 21.6 20.8 22.4 78.4 79.2 77.6
Mwanza 340 175 165 11.7 11.4 12.1 88.3 88.6 87.9
Thyolo 2186 1092 1094 18.8 18.0 19.7 81.2 82.0 80.3
Mulanje 2344 1143 1201 17.4 15.4 19.2 82.6 84.6 80.8
Phalombe 1371 694 677 14.9 13.2 16.7 85.1 86.8 83.3
Chikwawa 1511 788 723 13.6 12.1 15.3 86.4 87.9 84.7
Nsanje 797 401 396 15.4 14.5 16.4 84.6 85.5 83.6
11
Balaka 1259 634 625 14.2 14.5 13.8 85.8 85.5 86.2
Neno 463 237 227 17.4 18.9 15.7 82.6 81.1 84.3
Zomba City 347 159 188 11.1 11.8 10.5 88.9 88.2 89.5
Blantyre City 1851 977 874 15.3 15.6 15.0 84.7 84.4 85.0

12
As can be seen in Table 1, most of the children aged 0-17 (84 percent) had no disability/functional
impairments.

4.6 Prevalence of epilepsy and albinism

WHO recognises epilepsy as a disability (WHO, 2001; Leonardi & Ustum, 2002). Albinism has also been
classified as a disability because persons with albinism have both visual and skin impairments (Under the
Same Sun, 2014). Table 4 shows the number and percentage of children with albinism and epilepsy in
Malawi by sex and district based on the 2018 MPHC. In 2018, the total population of children aged 0-17
years in Malawi was 8,894,534, of whom 79,032 were children with albinism and 138,712 had epilepsy.
The overall prevalence of albinism was 0.9 percent and that of epilepsy was 1.6 percent. The prevalence
of albinism by district ranged from 0.4 percent for Blantyre and Likoma Island to 1.2 percent for Dedza.
Ntchisi had the highest prevalence of epilepsy at 3.6 percent followed by Mchinji at 3.5 percent while
Blantyre City had the lowest at 0.4 percent. There were no differences in the proportion of boys (0.9
percent) and girls (0.9 percent) who had albinism. The corresponding proportions for boys and girls with
epilepsy were 1.7 percent and 1.4 percent, respectively. There were no major variations in the proportion
of boys and girls who had albinism and epilepsy by district.

13
Table 4: Number and prevalence of epilepsy and albinism among children aged 0-17 by gender (MPHC, 2018)

Population 0-17 Years Albinism Epilepsy

District Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female
Total 8,894,534 4,401,352 4,493,182 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.6 1.7 1.4
Chitipa 120,208 59,466 60,742 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.4 1.2
Karonga 188,492 92,628 95,864 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.5 1.5 1.5
Nkhata Bay 146,530 73,107 73,423 0.7 0.7 0.7 1.1 1.2 1.1
Rumphi 116,880 57,969 58,911 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.3 1.1
Mzimba 483,307 238,923 244,384 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.5 1.2
Likoma 6,471 3,176 3,295 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.4
Mzuzu City 98,177 47,445 50,732 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4
Kasungu 434,161 214,519 219,642 1.0 1.0 0.9 2.0 2.2 1.8
Nkhotakota 207,446 102,702 104,744 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.4 1.5 1.3
Ntchisi 162,636 80,394 82,242 0.8 0.8 0.7 3.6 4.0 3.3
Dowa 381,637 188,754 192,883 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.8 3.1 2.5
Salima 253,777 126,114 127,663 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.4 1.5 1.2
Lilongwe Rural 825,005 407,564 417,441 0.9 0.9 0.9 2.7 3.0 2.4
Mchinji 309,854 153,572 156,282 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.5 3.8 3.3
Dedza 418,881 206,652 212,229 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.7 2.9 2.4
Ntcheu 332,734 166,170 166,564 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.4 1.5 1.2
Lilongwe City 436,514 212,954 223,560 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.6
Mangochi 631,635 313,648 317,987 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.0
Machinga 407,243 201,444 205,799 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.5 1.6 1.3
Zomba 386,502 191,751 194,751 0.9 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 1.0
Chiradzulu 172,870 86,249 86,621 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.9
Blantyre Rural 220,710 109,498 111,212 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.9
Mwanza 65,966 32,611 33,355 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.8 2.0 1.6
Thyolo 361,868 179,396 182,472 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

14
Mulanje 346,782 172,654 174,128 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.1 0.9
Phalombe 228,492 113,398 115,094 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.2 1.0
Chikwawa 289,745 144,029 145,716 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8
Nsanje 158,094 78,174 79,920 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.6
Balaka 232,958 116,323 116,635 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.1 1.2 0.9
Neno 71,679 35,766 35,913 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.0
Zomba City 46,637 22,716 23,921 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5
Blantyre City 350,643 171,586 179,057 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.4

15
4.7 Categories of impairments to which respondents belonged.

The above sections have shown the prevalence of disability among children aged 0-17 years during the
2008 and 2018 MPHCs and the 2016/17 LCs study. The 2016/2017 LCs of persons with disabilities in
Malawi, among other things, looked at categories of impairments that respondents had. Table 5 below
shows the proportion of respondents who had specific types of disabilities/impairments.
Table 5: Categories of impairments that children aged 0-17 years had (LCs, 2016/17, N=1536)

Category of Respondents with

Male Female
impairment disability (N=1536)
Visual 5.5 6.8 12.4
Hearing 12.8 11.0 23.8
Albinism 1.3 1.2 2.5
Epilepsy 11.7 10.9 22.5
Physical 12.1 10.2 22.3
Intellectual 5.7 4.8 10.4
Autism 1.3 1.1 2.4
Mental (Illness) 2.3 1.3 3.6
Total 52.7 47.3 100

Table 5 shows that among respondents aged 0-17 in the LCs study, the three most common impairments
that respondents had were hearing (24 percent), epilepsy (23 percent) and physical impairments (22
percent). This was then followed by those with visual impairments (12 percent) and those with intellectual
impairments (10 percent). Both the 2008 and 2018 MPHC found that hearing impairments were the most
common type of disability just as it was found in the 2016/17 LCs. Table 5 further shows that the
proportion of boys with different forms of impairment was higher than among girls with an exception of
visual impairment.

Table 5 also shows that 2.5 percent of the children aged 0-17 years in the LCs survey were children with
albinism. This percentage was actually higher than that found during the 2018 MPHC which was 0.9
percent. The proportion of children with epilepsy was also higher in the LCs than in the 2018 MPHC. Before
2018 MHPC, it was estimated that there were between 7,000 and 10,000 persons with albinism in Malawi
representing 1 in every 1,800 persons (Amnesty International, 2018) giving a prevalence of 0.06 percent.
The 2018 MPHC, however, demonstrates that the prevalence of albinism is actually higher than initially
estimated.

4.8 Causes of disability

Figure 4 shows that the major causes of disability as found in the LCs study were diseases/illnesses (49
percent) and birth injuries or congenital (40 percent) with no differences between boys and girls. Four
percent (4 percent) and 2 percent of the respondents attributed their disability to accidents/falls and
witchcraft, respectively. An earlier study found that insufficient initiatives to effectively prevent and treat
malaria and a general lack of attention, especially among community members, to the long-term disabling

16
effects of a malaria attack significantly contribute to occurrence of disability in rural communities (Ingstad
et. al., 2012).

Figure 4: Causes of impairments (N=1536; LCs, 2016/17)

100
Total 100
100

3.6
Don’t know/refuse 4.4
2.8

2.1
Others 2.1
2.1

1.6
Witchcraft 1.5
1.6

48.7
Disease/Illness 48.7
48.7

3.9
Accident 3.6
4.2

40.2
From birth/Congenital 39.8
40.5

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Total Girls Boys

Lynch & Lund (2011) found that people perceive that albinism is a hereditary condition and that a baby
can be born with this condition if the mother had an infection when she was pregnant There were other
informants in this study who attributed the condition to God namely that God had wanted the child to be
white. People also believe that albinism is contagious and that a baby can be born with albinism if its
mother comes close to or looks at a person with albinism during pregnancy (Lynch & Lund, 2011). The
belief that the will of God can cause albinism and other forms of disabilities has also been found in other
studies (Barlindhaug,et. Al., 2016 & Chimwaza, 2015).

4.9 Rights of children with disabilities

Children including those with disabilities have rights as enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of
Malawi as well as other pieces of national legislation. The rights include the right to health, education,
access to information and infrastructure, rehabilitation, work and employment, social pro tection,
alternative care, family life and freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse. These children’s rights are
also detailed in international conventions to which Malawi is a signatory. This section explores the extent

17
to which children with disabilities enjoy these rights using the 2008 and 2018 MPHC, the EMIS data and
the LCs study for persons with disabilities.

4.9.1 Health

Respondents in the LCs study were asked about the health conditions that they were experiencing at the
time of the study. In cases where the children would not be able to talk themselves, their parents and
guardians responded to the questions. Table 6 shows the health problems that respondents had.

Table 6: Health problems experienced by respondents at the time of the interview (N=674; LCs, 2016/17)

Health condition Children with disabilities Children without disabilities

Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
(809) (727) (1536) (328) (339) (674)
Heart problem 3.5 5.5 4.4 1.2 2.0 1.6
Acute respiratory 4.7 4.0 4.4 2.1 1.7 1.9
infection
Asthma 3.3 3.1 6.4 4.9 2.6 3.7
Epilepsy 28.1 27.0 27.5 1.5 0.9 1.2
Cancer 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1
Diabetes 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.0 0.1
Malfunction of the 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3
kidneys
Cirrhosis of liver 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
High or low blood 0.6 1.8 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.3
pressure
HIV/AIDS 1.2 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.6 0.6
Malaria 21.5 24.3 22.9 16.8 17.3 17.1
Tuberculosis 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.1
Mental Illness 6.4 4.4 5.5 0.6 0.3 0.4
Others 2.0 1.2 1.6 2.4 0.6 1.5

Table 6 shows that 27.5 percent of the children with disabilities had epilepsy while 22.9 percent had
malaria. The corresponding proportions among children without disabilities were 1.2 percent and 17.1
percent. Malaria is a major public health problem in Malawi with an estimated 6 million cases occurring
annually. This disease accounts for over 30 percent of outpatient visits and 34 percent of in-patients in
the country (Government of Malawi (National Malaria Control Programme), 2020). Malaria is a common
illness and if it is not treated properly it can lead to disability (Ingstad, Munthali, & Braathen, 2012).
National surveys looking at the prevalence of epilepsy have been scarce in Malawi. It can, however, be
observed above that the 2018 MPHC also looked at persons (including children) with epilepsy and among
the children the prevalence was at nearly 2 percent. A 2010 study found that 2.8 percent of the people in
Malawi had epilepsy (Amos & Wapling, 2010). Table 6 shows that more children with disabilities suffered
from various diseases than those without disabilities.

The LCs study just asked respondents the conditions they were suffering from. It did not explore how they
seek care or indeed if they sought health care during these illness episodes. However, in this study
18
respondents were also asked whether they were aware of a wide range of services including health
services and medical rehabilitation, whether they needed these services and whether they received these
services. Annex 4a shows that while a higher proportion of children with disabilities, both boys and girls,
were aware of a wide range of services and they needed the services, a lower proportion of children with
disabilities, regardless of gender, actually received the services. For example, Annex 4a shows that 40
percent of the children with disabilities were aware of medical rehabilitation services, 25 percent required
such services but only 13 percent received the services. With regard to medical rehabilitation, the
MoGCDSW reports that there are insufficient numbers of specialist staff in the field of medical
rehabilitation to effectively provide interventions (MoGCDSW, 2018).

In terms of access to health services, Annex 4a shows that while 82 percent of the children with disabilities
were aware of the health services and 79 percent required these services, 74 percent received the services
they required. The corresponding proportion of children without disabilities were 82 percent, 79 percent
and 74 percent, respectively (Annex 4b). This demonstrates that there were no differences between
children with disabilities and those without disabilities in terms of accessing health services. For traditional
and faith healers, 67 percent and 54 percent were aware of these services, 27 percent and 20 percent
required these services and only 11 percent and 14 percent, respectively, received these services. Among
children without disabilities, Annex 4b shows that 67 percent were aware of the services provided by
traditional healers, 27 percent required these services and 23 percent received these services. While there
were no differences between children with disabilities (67 percent) and children without disabilities (67
percent) who were aware of traditional healers and those who needed their services, respectively, a
higher proportion of children without disabilities (23 percent) accessed these services than those with
disabilities (11 percent). Children with disabilities were also asked: “In the past 12 months, how often has
the availability of health services and medical care been a problem for you?”. Most children with
disabilities (66.9 percent) reported that the availability of health services and medical care had not been
a problem for them. Annex 9 shows that for the rest of the children with disabilities availability of health
services and medical care had been a problem for them with varying frequencies.

These results from the LCs study demonstrate that while children with disabilities and their guardians may
be aware of the health services available and may require these services, a lower proportion of children
with disabilities will access such services mainly because of their disability. As mentioned above, children
without disabilities also experienced challenges in terms of accessing health services. An earlier study
conducted in 2013 found that accessing treatment for epilepsy was a challenge due to lack of medicines,
lack of knowledge about epilepsy, misdiagnosis by health workers and the belief that epilepsy caused by
witchcraft cannot be treated by western medicine (Munthali, Braathen, Grut, Kamaleri, & Ingstad, 2013) .
Another study also found that there is a significant treatment gap for epilepsy: 50 percent of the children
with epilepsy reported receiving treatment (Tataryn, et al., 2015). Other problems that persons with
disabilities, including children, experience include inaccessible health facilities for persons with mobility
and visual challenges, communication challenges between children with visual, speech, intellectual and
hearing impairments and the lack of rehabilitation services especially in rural areas (Government of
Malawi, 2016).

4.9.2 Accessibility

19
In order to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, children with disabilities, just like
other children, are supposed to have access to the physical environment, transportation, information and
communications and to other facilities and services.

Annex 4a shows that in terms of health information (such as from the media, schools and health facilities),
65 percent of the respondents were aware of the services, 56 percent required these services but only 49
percent of the respondents who required these services received the services. In terms of gender, the
proportion of girls (67 percent) who were aware of health information was higher than boys (64 percent).
A higher proportion of girls (59 percent) needed this service compared to boys (53 percent). Again, a
higher proportion of girls (53 percent) actually reported receiving the service compared to boys (46
percent).

Among children without disabilities, as can be seen in Annex 4b, 61 percent were aware of health
information, 52 percent required this information and 47 percent received information. This generally
demonstrates that while children with disabilities may want to have access to health and other
information, they may not have access. Children without disabilities also have challenges in accessing
health information. The Malawi Human Rights Commission (MHRC) conducted public enquiries on
disability and it noted that public health education campaigns were often visual in nature, hence, not
useful to persons who are blind and radio campaigns do not reach persons that are deaf (Government of
Malawi, 2016). There are also other studies which have shown that since health workers lack knowledge
about sign languages, there exist communication barriers with people who have hearing impairments
(Mji, Gcasa, Wazakili, & Skinner, 2008). In addition to this, health workers also fail to effectively
communicate health messages to persons with visual impairments because of lack of Braille information
materials (Munthali, Mvula, & Ali, 2004).

Children with disabilities were also asked “Over the last 12 months, how often has information you
wanted or needed not been available in a format you can use or understand?”. Seventy seven percent of
the children with disabilities reported that this never happened to them. Annex 9 shows that 7.4 percent,
1.6 percent, 4.3 percent and 4.7 percent of the children with disabilities reported that this had been a
problem for them daily, weekly, monthly and less than monthly, respectively. These results demonstrate
that 23 percent of the children with disabilities over this period the information that they had wanted or
needed had not been available in a format they could use or understand.

In addition to having access to information, it is also important that children with disabilities should have
access to all infrastructure including toilets and bathrooms just like other children. The 2017 MHRC’s
report on monitoring of CCIs has shown that in some CCIs including special needs education institutions
some children with disabilities have challenges in accessing infrastructure (see section 3.9). The LCs study
asked respondents whether they had access to kitchens, toilets and other rooms in the house. Table 7
shows that the kitchens (92.3 percent), bedrooms (96.4 percent), living rooms (89.9 percent) and toilets
(94.5 percent) were accessible to children with disabilities.

20
 Table 7: Accessibility of rooms and toilets by children with disabilities (LCs, 2016/2017, N=1283)

Room/Toilet Boys Girls Total

Yes No Have Yes No Have Yes No Have
none none none
Kitchen 92.0 5.2 2.8 92.6 5.8 1.7 92.3 5.5 2.3
Bedroom 96.6 3.1 0.3 96.2 3.6 0.2 96.4 3.4 0.2
Living room 89.8 2.7 7.5 90.1 3.0 6.9 89.9 2.8 7.2
Dining room 43.0 2.2 54.8 44.9 2.1 53.9 43.9 2.2 53.9
Rooms/Toilet 94.1 3.2 2.7 94.9 4.5 0.7 94.5 3.8 1.7

Table 7 further shows that while most of the rooms and toilets are accessible, there were some children
with disabilities who could not access these rooms and toilets. For example, 5.5 percent of the persons
with disabilities and 43.8 percent of children with disabilities reported that they could not access kitchens
and toilets, respectively; hence, there is a need to ensure that all persons including children with
disabilities have access to these rooms and toilets. During the 2018 MPHC, respondents were asked about
the type of toilets that they had. There were no major differences in the proportion of boys and girls in
terms of accessibility of rooms and toilets. Table 8 below shows the type of toilet facilities that households
with children with disabilities and those without children with disabilities were using.
Table 8: Types of toilet facilities that household had (MPHC, 2018)

Type of toilet facility Households with Households without

children with disabilities children with disabilities
Flush toilet 1.6 2.2
VIP toilet 1.1 1.3
Pit latrine with concrete slab 7.3 8.6
Pit latrine with earth/sand slab 48.6 47.1
Pit latrine without slab/open pit 28.5 28.8
Compost toilet 4.0 3.9
No facility/bush/field 6.6 6.0
Other 2.3 2.1
Total 100.0 100.0

Among both households with (48.6 percent) and without (47.1 percent), pit latrines with sand/earth slabs
were the most popular followed by pit latrines without slab/open pits at 28.5 percent and 28.8 percent,
respectively. Among households with children with disabilities, flush toilets were mostly found in urban
areas of Mzuzu City (14.9 percent), Lilongwe City 911.8 percent), Zomba City 921.4 percent) and Blantyre
City (12.6 percent). The corresponding proportion for households without children with disabilities were
15 percent, 12.9 percent, 25.2 percent and 12.8 percent, respectively. The rest of the districts less than 4
percent of the households with and without children with disabilities had flush toilets as can be seen in
Annexes 10a and 10b. Respondents aged 12 years and above were also asked the following question:

21
Think of getting in and out of the places and tell me for each place whether it is generally accessible to
you or not. Responses to this question are presented in Table 9 below.
Table 9: Accessibility of other places (LCs, 2016/2017, N=1283)

Place Boys Girls Total

Yes No Not Yes No Not Yes No Not
available available available
The place where you 18.5 3.2 78.3 18.3 3.0 78.7 18.4 3.1 78.5
work
The school you go to 76.4 2.8 2.8 71.8 4.1 4.1 74.2 3.4 3.4
The shops you do to 84.5 6.8 8.7 84.5 7.4 8.1 84.5 7.1 8.4
most
Place of worship 91.6 4.3 4.1 92.2 5.3 3.4 91.9 4.8 3.4
Recreation facilities 67.8 7.5 24.7 63.0 10.1 26.9 65.5 8.7 25.7
Sports facilities 81.7 6.6 11.7 79.5 8.7 11.7 80.7 7.6 11.7
Police station 49.0 13.4 37.5 47.4 17.3 35.3 48.2 15.3 36.5
Magistrates 48.4 12.2 39.4 46.5 15.5 38.0 47.5 13.7 38.7
court/Traditional court
Post office 44.2 13.4 42.4 44.1 16.5 39.4 44.1 14.9 41.0
Bank 30.9 12.6 56.6 33.3 15.7 51.0 32.0 14.0 53.9
Hospital 75.3 10.0 14.6 74.6 11.2 14.2 75.0 10.6 14.4
Primary health care 87.0 6.6 6.4 87.3 8.6 4.1 87.1 7.6 5.3
clinic
Public transportation 82.0 7.8 10.2 81.5 9.1 9.4 81.8 8.4 9.8
Hotels 26.7 11.2 62.0 27.2 13.0 59.7 27.0 12.2 61.0

There were some places which were either not available or the question was not really applicable to the
respondents regardless as can be seen in Table 9. These places were principally the following: workplaces,
hotels, banks, post office, magistrate courts, police stations and recreational services and hospitals. As
can be seen in Table 9 most of the places were, however, accessible to boys and girls with disabilities
including schools, shops, places of worship, sports facilities, health facilities and the public transportation
system.

During the LCs study respondents were also asked “In the past 12 months, how often has transportation
been a problem to you?” Most respondents (71.4 percent) reported that transportation had not been a
problem for them over this period. Annex 9 shows that 8.7 percent, 3.3 percent, 5.9 percent and 8.9
percent of the children with disability reported that availability or accessibility of transportation had been
a problem for them daily, weekly, monthly and less than monthly, respectively. These results demonstrate
that about a third of the children experienced transportation problems. In addition to transportation,
respondents were also asked if over the past 12 months they had needed someone else’s (family member
only or other person also) help in their homes and they could not get it easily: Annex 9 shows that 73.6
percent reported they did not need someone else’s help. However, the rest of the children with disabilities
needed someone else’s help but could not get it easily.

22
4.9.3 Access to education

Just like all other children, children with disabilities have the right to education. There are a number of
interventions that are currently being implemented in Malawi in order to have an inclusive education
system at all levels.

4.9.3.1 Number of learners/students with special needs

The MoE collects routine data on enrolment in both primary and secondary schools including on the
number of children with special needs. Table 8 shows the total primary school enrolment of children
between 2009 and 2018 and the proportion of learners with special needs by type of disability. Over this
period, the numbers of learners with special needs in primary school increased from 83,666 in 2009 to
173,651 in 2018. The total enrolment in primary schools also increased from about 3,671,481 to 5,187,634
in 2018. Table 10 further shows that the proportion of children with special needs attending school
remained at about 2 percent between 2009 and 2015 and it slightly increased to 3 percent over the period
2016-2019. In primary school the three most common types of disabilities over the 2009-2018 period
were learning difficulties, low vision and hard of hearing.

Table 11 shows the trends in enrolment in secondary school between 2009-2018. The total enrolment of
students in secondary school increased from 243,838 in 2009 to 387,569 in 2018. As can be seen in Table
8, the number of students with special needs in secondary school tripled from around 2,780 in 2009 to
8,656 in 2018. The proportion of students with special needs in secondary school doubled from an average
of 1 percent between 2009 and 2015 to 2 percent between 2016 and 2018. As is the case with primary
schools, in secondary school the highest numbers of students with special needs are among those with
hard of hearing, learning difficulties and low vision. While the number of children with special needs in
primary school is higher than those in secondary school, the proportion of these children in both primary
and secondary school is the same.

23
 Table 10: Total number of learners with special needs enrolled in primary school 2009-2018 (EMIS reports, 2008-2018)

Type of disability 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Blind 355
339 339 440 18,773 474 507 18,475 496 554
Deaf
2,276 2,433 2,587 2,616 466 3,085 3,537 21,810 3,414 3,240
Hard of hearing
18,999 18,619 20,170 19,522 19,007 22,231 26,403 34,325 31,434 33,104
Learning difficulties
34,946 36,668 38,918 43,717 2,932 47,639 50,200 14,143 62,767 82,354
Low vision
19,076 17,756 18,119 18,547 8,230 20,884 25,435 19,734 35,234 39,262
Physical impairment
8,014 7,812 8,394 8,814 40,681 8,729 10,200 11,530 12,891 13,119
No. of children with special
needs 83,666 83,627 88,527 93,656 90,089 103,042 115,284 122,033 148,253 173,651

Total Enrolment 3,671,481 3,868,643 4,034,220 4,188,677 4,497,541 4,670,279 4,804,196 4,901,009 5,073,721 5,187,634

Percent of learners with 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.9 3.3
disability

24
 Table 11: Total number of students with special needs enrolled in secondary schools 2009-2018 (EMIS reports, 2009-2018)

Type of disability 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Blind
79 36 110 79 106 90 80 73 112 846
Deaf -
107 52 133 136 113 170 145 158 188
Hard of hearing
442 332 653 468 600 717 822 1,067 1,084 1,424
Learning difficulties
647 394 762 547 877 893 846 1,045 996 3,367
Low vision
1,115 943 1,812 1,254 1,259 1,908 2,228 2,454 3,214 348
Physical impairment
390 173 415 427 403 520 605 492 524 653
Total
2,780 1,930 3,885 2,911 3,358 4,298 4,726 7,305 8,135 8,656

Total Enrolment 243,838 240,918 256,343 260,081 307,216 346,604 358,033 351,651 372,885 387,569

Percent of learners with 1.1 0.8 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.2
disability

25
There are a number of other studies that have also looked at educational attainment among children with
disabilities. The LCs study, for example, found that 80 percent of the children with disabilities aged 5-17
(1284) reported that they had ever received formal education: the proportion of males with disability (81
percent) who had received formal education was slightly higher than females (78 percent). Among
children without disabilities 91 percent reported they had ever received formal education and there were
no differences between males (91 percent) and females (91 percent). A higher proportion of children
without disabilities (91 percent) than those with disabilities (80 percent) reported they had ever received
formal education. Among children with disabilities who never attended formal education, only 5 percent
reported attending classes to learn to read and write with no differences between males (5 percent) and
females (5 percent). Eleven percent of the children without disabilities reported attending classes to learn
how to read and write: the proportion of males without disabilities who reported this (17 percent) was
higher than females (4 percent. It can also be seen that the proportion of children without disabilities (11
percent) who reported attending classes to read and write was higher than among those with disabilities
(5 percent).

Children with disabilities or their parents/guardians in the LCs study who attended school were further
asked the type of school they attended. Table 12shows that most of the learners with disabilities (65
percent) did not attend preschool/early childhood and development (ECD) services. The proportion of
girls (36 percent) who reported attending preschool/early childhood and development was slightly higher
than boys (33 percent).

26
 Table 12: Types of schools attended by children with disabilities (LCs, 2016/2017, N=1038))

Level Mainstream/regular Special school (8)

Special class in mainstream/ Did not go to school
school regular school (3) (671)
Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
Preschool/early childhood 32.9 35.6 34.2 0. 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.3 66.0 63.4 64.8
development services
Primary school 94.8 91.5 93.2 1.3 2.1 1.6 0.7 0.6 0.7 3.3 5.8 4.4
Secondary school 3.6 4.1 3.9 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.1 96.2 95.4 95.8
Tertiary education 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 99.8 99.0 99.4
Vocational training 0.2 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.3 99.8 98.6 99.2

27
While the majority of the respondents (94 percent) attended mainstream or regular primary school, some
of the children with disability never went to primary school (4 percent), with the proportion of girls (6
percent) who never went to school being higher than boys (3 percent). Table 12 further shows that the
majority of the respondents did not go to secondary school, tertiary institutions and vocational training
schools.

Annex 5a and 5b show that in 2018, 5 percent of the children with disabilities had not gone to school
compared to 3 percent among those without disabilities. There were no differences between children
with disabilities (91 percent) and children without disabilities who had gone to primary school (91
percent). Annexes 6a and 6b, based on the 2008 MPHC show that slightly more children without
disabilities (11 percent) compared to those with disabilities (9 percent) did not go to school despite the
fact that normally children start going to school at age 5. It can also be seen that 88 percent of the children
with disabilities reported they had gone to primary school and this was slightly more than those without
disabilities (86 percent). There were also no major differences between children without disabilities (3
percent) and those with disabilities (2 percent) who reported having gone to secondary school.

The 2015/2016 MDHS asked respondents including children aged 5-17 the highest level of education they
had attained. Annex 7 shows that most children with disabilities (86.2 percent) and without disabilities
(87.2 percent) went as far as primary school with only 3.1 percent and 4 percent reporting that they went
to secondary school, respectively. The proportion of children with disabilities who had not gone to school
(10.8 percent) was slightly higher than among children without disabilities (8.9 percent). Annex 7 further
shows that Chikwawa (22.9 percent) had the highest proportion of children with disabilities who had not
gone to school while Lilongwe City had the lowest proportion at 2.7 percent. Among children without
disabilities, Chikwawa (16.2 percent) again had the highest proportion of respondents who had not gone
to school with Chitipa (4.4 percent), Rumphi (4.5 percent) and Zomba (4.7 percent) having the lowest.

4.9.3.2 Dropping out of school

During the LCs study children with and those without disabilities were asked whether they had to drop
out from a pre-school, primary school, secondary school or university any time in the past. Table 13 below
shows the proportion of respondents who had ever dropped out of school as determined by the LCs
survey.

Table 13: Proportion of respondents who dropped out of school by level and gender (LCs, 2016/2017)

Level Children with disabilities Children without disabilities

Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
Regular preschool 2.7 2.3 2.5 5.3 8.5 6.9
Regular primary school 14.5 18.1 16.2 13.4 13.0 13.2
Regular secondary school 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.4 1.5 0.9
Special school (Any level) 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4
Special class (remedial) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.2
University 0.2 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.2

28
Table 13 shows that the dropout rate for children with and without disabilities is quite low, and actually
less than 1 percent, in regular secondary school, special schools, special classes and university. However,
the dropout rate for children with disabilities (16.2 percent) is slightly higher than among children without
disabilities (13.2 percent). In regular pre-school, the dropout rate for those without disabilities (6.9
percent) is higher than among children with disabilities (2.4 percent). While there is no difference
between the proportion of girls and boys without disabilities in the regular primary school dropout rate,
among children with disabilities the dropout rate for girls (18.1 percent) is slightly higher than boys (14.5
percent). Table 14 shows the reasons why these children dropped out of school.
Table 14: Reasons for dropping out of school (LCs, 2016/2017)

Reasons for dropping out of school Children with disabilities Children without disabilities
Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
Lack of money 4.2 6.4 5.2 4.2 4.9 4.5
Failure in class 0.4 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.4 0.6
Sickness 3.3 2.7 3.0 0.4 0.7 0.6
Lack of interest 2.4 1.7 2.0 4.6 1.9 3.2
Because of disability 8.5 8.3 8.4 - - -
School is inaccessible 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.0 0.2
Pregnancy 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.0 2.6 1.3
Others 11.8 11.4 11.6 89.7 89.6 89.6

Nearly a tenth of the children with disability (8.4 percent) reported that they dropped out of school
because of their disability. The proportion of children with disabilities (5.2 percent) who dropped out of
school because of lack of money was higher than those with no disabilities (4.5 percent). As can be seen
in Table 14, the proportion of respondents who dropped out of school because of failure in class, sickness
and lack of interest was also higher than among children with disabilities. While a large proportion of
children with and without disabilities mentioned other reasons for dropping out of school, these were,
however, not recorded.

4.9.3.3 Approaches to educating children with disabilities

Learners with special needs are taught together with their colleagues without disabilities in mainstream
schools. The MoE has also established (i) resource centres where children with disabilities receive
additional support; and (ii) special schools for children with special needs such as Chilanga School for the
Blind in Kasungu. The MoE also deploys itinerant specialist teachers who are trained at Montfort Special
Needs Education College (Braathen & Munthali, 2015). Itinerant programmes are those where SNE
teachers travel to schools within the district or the school zone to provide SNE support services to students
identified with disabilities (Itimu & Kopetz, 2008). These teachers also visit the children with special needs
in their communities/homes. These itinerant teachers are qualified teachers with some training in
education of children with disabilities: they have several responsibilities including the identification,
assessment, referral and sensitization of communities about the importance of sending children with
disabilities to school (Lynch, 2011).

29
It has been argued that the introduction of resource centres led to an increase in the number of learners
with special needs in schools (Chataika et. al., 2019). Resource centres are rooms or classes within
mainstream schools where children with disabilities receive specialized instructions and extra teaching
and learning resources to support their learning and these are managed by specialist teachers (Ishida et.
al., 2017). The MoE reports the number of completed permanent and temporary structures that are being
used as resource centres as well as number of incomplete8 permanent and temporary structures that are
not being used. Figure 5 shows the trends in the number of complete permanent and temporary
structures that are being used as resource centres over the period 2009 and 2018.

Figure 5: Number of resource centres in primary schools in Malawi 2009-2018 (EMIS reports)

300 263
250 226 218
207 193 193
191 177
200 154 159
127 138 131
150 119
101 100
100 56
26 31 39 32 33 41
50 19
0
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Permanent structures Temporary structures Total

Figure 7 shows that the number of resource centres fluctuated over the period 2009 and 2018. The MoE
recorded the highest number of functional resource centres in 2014 when there were 263 resource
centres followed by 226 in 2017 and then 218 in 2018. The lowest number of resource centres was in 2011
when there were 127 resource centres. Figure 8 shows the number of permanent and temporary resource
centres in secondary schools in Malawi between 2009 and 2018.

Figure 6: Trends in the number of permanent and temporary resource centres in secondary schools 2009-2028 (EMIS reports)

Permanent structures Temporary structures Total

250 228
209
200

150
111
100 85
68 65 70 72
55 57 56 64 56 50 55 57
38 43 32 42
50 19 26
5 8 10 12 15 15 15
2
0
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

8
These structures are permanent in nature but they are incomplete.
30
Figure 8 shows that the highest number of resource centres in secondary school was 228 in 2014 followed
by 2018 when there were 111 resource centres.

4.9.4 Challenges in the implementation of inclusive education

As can be seen in Annex 4a, the LCs study found that 47.7 percent of the children with disabilities were
aware of the educational services available. These educational services included remedial therapists,
special schools, early childhood stimulation and regular schools. Thirty five percent (34.8 percent) of the
respondents who were aware of the services reported that they needed these educational services but
only 18 percent received the services. In terms of vocational training, 34.8 percent of the respondents
were aware of the service, 15.6 percent required this service and only 0.8 percent of those who required
these services actually received the service. The proportion children without disabilities who were aware
of vocational training and needed such services was similar to those with disabilities. However, the
proportion of children without disabilities who received the service was slightly higher at 1.6 percent.
These results demonstrate that while more children were aware and required educational services and
vocational trainings, very few children with and without disabilities received the services. Persons with
disabilities experiences barriers in attending vocational trainings and these include: lack of money to pay
training fees; no opportunities to take time off due to family responsibilities; transport challenges of
getting to and from training centres; unwillingness of trainers to train persons with disabilities; and the
lack of training materials in Braille (International Labour Organisation, 2007).

In the LCs study respondents were also asked whether they studied as far as they had wanted. Table 15
below shows the proportion of respondents who reported they studied as far as they had wanted.

Table 15: Whether respondents studied as far as they wanted (LCs, 2016/2017)

Disability Sex Yes No Still N/A or Total

status studying DK
Children with Boys 0.2 17.2 76.1 0.4 100.0
disabilities
Girls 0.6 18.5 75.7 0.4 100.0
Total 0.4 17.8 7775.9 0.4 100.0
Children Boys 1.1 13.8 83.1 1.9 100.0
without Girls 0.4 11.9 87.3 0.4 100.0
disabilities Total 0.8 12.9 85.3 1.1 100.0

The proportion of children without disabilities who were still studying (85.3 percent) was higher than
among children with disabilities (75.9 percent). While there were no differences between boys (76.1
percent) and girls (75.7 percent) with disabilities who were still in school, among children without
disabilities the proportion of girls who were still in school was higher at 87.3 percent compared to females
at 83.1 percent. Table 15 further shows that the proportion of children with disabilities (17.8 percent)
who said that they did not study as far as they had wanted was higher than among children without
disabilities (12.9 percent). This section details some of the challenges to the implementation of inclusive
education in Malawi.
31
4.9.4.1 Transportation for itinerant teachers

Itinerant teachers play an important role in educating children with special needs. They travel to a number
of schools and communities located in their catchment areas. Some studies have found that these
teachers in general lack transport to enable them visit children with special needs in the different schools
and communities they are responsible for (Lynch & Lund, 2011 and Braathen & Munthali, 2015).

4.9.4.2 Inadequate specialist teachers

Currently, there are an inadequate number of specialist teachers in Malawi who can effectively handle
children with disabilities (Chimwaza, 2015, Banks and Zuurmond, 2015 & Government of Malawi, 2016).
Most teachers in mainstream schools generally lack knowledge and skills to adequately teach learners
with special needs mainly because they have not been trained in inclusive education during the time, they
were undergoing initial teacher training (Chataika et. al., 2017). In addition to this, mainstream teachers
as well as most community members do not have the requisite knowledge and skills to identify and assist
learners with special education needs (Government of Malawi, 2016). With time this challenge will be
addressed as the MoE has embarked on a programme to train teachers in training colleges so that when
they graduate, they have the necessary skills and knowledge in inclusive education (Chataika et. al., 2019).

4.9.4.3 Inaccessible infrastructure

One of the challenges being experienced by children with disabilities in accessing education is inaccessible
and poor school infrastructure to accommodate students with disabilities (MoGCDSW, 2018 & Banks and
Zuurmond, 2015). Some studies have also found that, while community based child care centres (CBCCs)
provide children aged 3-5 with early education and development, 55 percent of the eligible children in
Malawi do not access CBCCs and this is especially the case with children with special needs. McLinden, et
al. (2018) reports that most of the CBCCs are not child and disability friendly.

4.9.4.4 Inadequate material resources

McLinden, et al. (2018) also found that while CBCCs play an important role in exposing children including
those with disabilities to ECD, there is a general lack of material resources to effectively educate children
with special needs. The lack of instructional materials is a common problem in primary schools as well
(Chataika et. al., 2017; Government of Malawi, 2016 & Banks & Zuurmond, 2015.

4.9.4.5 Reluctance to enroll children with special needs

The LCs study also looked at the proportion of children with disabilities who reported that they had ever
been refused entry into school because of disability and the results are in Table 16 below.

32
 Table 16: Proportion of respondents who have ever been refused entry into school because of disability (LCs, 2016/2017)

Level Boys Girls Total

Regular pre-school 3.0 1.5 2.3
Regular primary school 9.1 8.8 9.0
Regular secondary school 0.1 0.2 0.2
Special school (Any level) 0.1 0.0 0.1
Special class (remedial) 0.0 0.0 0.0
University 0.0 0.0 0.0

The proportion of children with disabilities who reported they had ever been refused entry into school
because of disability was almost zero for regular secondary school, special schools, special class (remedial)
and university. However, 9 percent and 2.3 percent of the children with disabilities reported they had ever
been refused entry into regular primary schools and regular pre-schools, respectively, because of
disability. In addition to disability, respondents were also asked whether they had ever been refused entry
into school because of money and the results are shown in Table 17.

Table 17: Proportion of respondents who reported they had ever dropped out of school because of money (LCs, 2016/2017)

Level Boys Girls Total

Regular pre-school 2.1 2.5 2.3
Regular primary school 6.8 4.9 5.9
Regular secondary school 0.1 0.5 0.3
Special school (Any level) 19.8 18.9 19.3
Special class (remedial) 0.0 0.0 0.0
University 0.0 0.2 0.1

The proportion of children with disabilities who reported ever dropping out of regular secondary school
(0.3 percent) and university (0.1 percent) because of money was very small as can be seen in Table 17.
However, 19.3 percent of the children with disabilities reported that they dropped out of special schools
(any level). Only 5.9 percent and 2.3 percent of the children with disabilities reported dropping out of
regular primary school and regular preschool due to lack of money, respectively. The proportion of boys
(6.8 percent) who dropped out of regular primary school was slightly higher than girls (4.9 percent).

There are other studies that have also found that children with disabilities have been refused entry into
school: for example, Lynch & Lund (2011) found that some children with albinism have been refused to
go to school; hence, they stay at home. This has been attributed to their friends laughing at them. Some
do not go to school even though these schools might be located very close to them. Another factor that
has affected school attendance among children and young people with albinism is that in recent years
there have been reports that people with albinism have been kidnapped and killed in Malawi. This is
because of the belief that their body parts can be used in charms to bring good luck. Women and children
have been targeted and because of this families of children with albinism have refused to send their
children to school in order to protect them (Lund, Massah, & Lynch, 2015). There are also beliefs that if
an HIV positive person has sex with someone with albinism they will be cured. Some community members
with daughters with albinism have made a decision not to send their children to school for fear they may
be raped (Chimwaza, 2015). In addition to this, there are some caregivers who do not send their children

33
to school because they fear that their children would not be adequately cared for (Banks & Zuurmond,
2015). Lastly, McLinden, et al. (2018) also found that there are some CBCCs that are reluctant to register
children who are unable to communicate mainly because they fail to communicate or interact well with
their friends and caregivers.

4.9.4.6 Lack of assistive devices

This challenge will be discussed in details later but the MoGCDSW acknowledges that the limited access
to assistive devices constitutes one of the barriers for children with disabilities to access education
(MoGCDSW, 2018 & Government of Malawi, 2016).

4.9.4.7 Poor attitudes of teachers and parents towards learners with disabilities

There are also some teachers who stigmatize or discriminate against learners with disabilities. This has
made some children to drop out of school. In addition to teachers, there are also some parents who lock
up their children with disabilities in their houses and do not send them to school. Among other reasons,
such parents have the perception that such children cannot excel in school. Some parents and guardians
are just ashamed of their children with disabilities (Chimwaza, 2015 & Government of Malawi, 2016).

4.10 Rehabilitation

Malawi, as is the case with all other countries, is supposed to prioritise the implementation of
interventions that enable persons with disabilities to attain and maintain maximum independence and
ensure that they participate fully in all aspects of life. One intervention to achieve this is to ensure the
availability, knowledge and use of assistive devices for all persons with disabilities who require these
devices. Respondents in the LCs study were asked whether they have used any medication or traditional
medicine for pain caused by their disability: Of the total number of respondents (N=1536), 35.7 percent
(N=557) reported that they used medication or traditional medicine for pain caused by their disability.
Figure 8 shows the type of medication that respondents who reported using any medication or traditional
medicine utilized.

Figure 7: Type of medication taken by respondents to relive pain caused by their disability (N=557, LCs, 2016/2017)

90
76.4 73.8
80 71.4
70
60
50 Boys
40
Girls
30
20 13.1 10 11.6 15.5 13.7 14.6 Total
10
0
Modern medicine Traditional medicine Both modern and
traditional

34
Most of the respondents (73.8 percent) who reported they took medicines for the pain caused by their
disability took modern medicine, 14.6 percent took both modern and traditional medicines while 11.6
percent took traditional medicine. In addition to medication, children with disabilities were also asked if
they used any form of assistive devices. Only 2 percent of the respondents reported that they used
assistive devices and the proportion of girls who used the devices (2.6 percent) was slightly higher than
boys (1.5 percent). Those who used assistive devices were requested to specify the type of assistive
devices that they used (Table 18).

35
 Table 18: Types of assistive devices used by children with disabilities (LCs, 2016/2017; N=31)

Type of device Yes No NA9 Total

Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total

Information (e.g. glasses, hearing aids, magnifying glasses, telescopic 30.8 32.0 31.6 38.5 40.0 39.5 30.8 28.0 28.9 100.0
lenses/glasses, enlarge print, braille)

Communication (sign language interpreter, fax, portable writer and 0.0 4.3 2.8 69.2 52.2 58.3 30.8 43.5 38.9 100.0
computer)

Personal mobility (Wheel chairs, crutches, walking sticks, white cane, 69.2 61.9 64.7 23.1 28.6 26.5 7.7 9.5 8.8 100.0
standing frame)

Household items (Flashing light on doorbell, amplified telephone, 0.0 4.8 3.0 58.3 52.4 54.5 41.7 42.9 42.4 100.0
vibrating alarm clock0

Personal care and protection (special fasteners, bath and shower 8.3 9.5 9.1 58.3 47.6 51.5 33.3 42.9 39.4 100.0
seats, toilet seat raiser, commode chairs, safety rails and eating aids).

For handling (gripping tongs, aids for opening containers, tools for 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.3 55.0 56.3 41.7 45.0 43.8 100.0
gardening).

Computer assistive technology (Key board for the blind) 0.0 0.0 0.0 58.3 55.0 56.3 41.7 45.0 43.8 100.0

Others 16.7 15.0 15.6 50.0 35.0 40.6 33.3 50.0 43.8 100.0

9
Do not need.
36
Most respondents (64.7 percent) used assistive devices for personal mobility with the proportion using
these being higher among boys (69.2 percent) than girls (61.9 percent). This was followed by those who
used assistive devices for accessing information for example, glasses and hearing aids. There were nearly
1 in 10 respondents (9.1 percent percent) who used assistive devices for personal care and protection.
The other assistive devices that were mentioned included protective boots and shoes. Figure 8 below
shows the sources of assistive devices.
Figure 8: Sources of assistive devices (LCs, 2016/17)

60 50
50
39.4
40 33.3
28.6
30 24.2 25 23.8 24.2
16.7
20
8.3
10 4.8 6.1 4.8 3 3 3
0 0
0
Private (Bought Government health Other government NGO Others Don’t know
oneself) services services (Not health)

Boys Girls Total

About forty percent (39.4 percent) of the respondents got the assistive devices from Government health
services and the other two sources were the private sector (24.2 percent) and NGOs (24.2 percent). There
are also other non-health ministries and departments that provide assistive devices. The proportion of
boys (50 percent) who obtained their assistive devices from government health services was higher than
girls (33.3 percent). On the other hand, the proportion of girls who bought the assistive device they were
using was higher than boys (16.7 percent). Seventy eight percent of the respondents (78 percent) reported
that the main assistive device was in good working order with more boys (83 percent) reporting this than
girls (75 percent). Figure 9 below shows the persons/organisations that are responsible for maintaining
the assistive devices which were being used by respondents.
Figure 9: Person or institution responsible for maintenance of assistive devices (LCs, 2016/17)

30 26.6
25 21.3 21.3
20
15
8.5
10 6.4 6.4
5.3
5 3.2

0
Self Government Family Employer Other Not Cannot Don't know
maintained afford to
repair or
maintain

37
About a third of the respondents (26.6 percent) reported that they did not know the ones who were
responsible for maintaining the assistive devices, 21.3 percent reported that they could not afford to
repair or maintain the assistive device and 6.4 percent reported that the assistive devices were not
maintained. Figure 9 shows that 21.3 percent of the respondents reported that they maintained the
devices on their own. Some respondents also mentioned Government (8.5 percent), family (6.4 percent)
and employers (3.2 percent) as being responsible for maintaining their assistive devices. While children
with disabilities are supposed to be given adequate information about how they can use the assistive
devices, it can be seen from in Figure 10 that some children with disabilities either they were not given
any information (27.3 percent) or they did not know/could not remember (30.3 percent) whether they
were given any information on the assistive devices they were using.

Figure 10: Were you given enough information or help/training on how to use your main assistive device (LCs, 2016/17)

40 36.4
35 30.3
30 27.3
25
20
15
10 6.1
5
0
Commplete/fulkl Some information No information Do not know/cannot
information remember

Just more than a third (36.4 percent) reported that the were given complete/full information on the
assistive device they were using while 6.1 percent were just given some information. Most respondents
who were using assistive devices were actually contended with the main assistive device they were using
as can be seen in Figure 11 below.

Figure 11: Level of content/satisfaction with main assistive device (N=35; LCs, 2016/17)

50 42.9
40 34.3 35.7 34.3
33.3
28.6
30
19 17.1
20 14.3 14.3
11.4
10 7.1 4.8 2.9
0
0
Not contented Less contented Contented Very contented Don’t know

Boys Girls Total

Annex 4a that 46.1 percent of children with disabilities in the LC study indicated that they were aware of
the assistive technology services available, 23.5 percent needed these services but only 3.3 percent of the
respondents received this service. Another study also found that access to assistive devices was a
problem: even if one has money, he or she may not find tricycles in the shops (Barlindhaug et. al., 2016).
38
Another study found that the critical shortage of human and financial resources for the production of
assistive devices within the government delivery structures: only Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital in
Blantyre produces assistive devices and 500 Miles will produce assistive devices at Kamuzu Central
Hospital in Lilongwe and Mzuzu Central Hospital (MoGCDSW, 2018). While many children require assistive
devices, these results generally demonstrate that very few of them access this service.

4.11 Work and employment

Persons with disabilities have the right to work. No person should be discriminated on the basis of
disability with regard to all matters concerning all forms of employment. Malawi’s Employment Act (2000)
forbids anyone below the age of 14 working and outlaws discrimination based on, among other factors,
disability. In the LCs study children with or without disabilities were asked whether they were working at
the time when data was being collected. This question was only asked to respondents who were aged 15-
17. Most respondents (76 percent) reported that they had never been employed as can be seen in Table
19 below.
Table 19: Working status of children with and without disabilities (LCs, 2016/17)

Are you currently working? Children with disabilities Children without disabilities
Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
Yes, currently working. 9.3 4.1 6.8 3.2 11.9 7.4
No, but have been employed before. 6.7 4.1 5.4 7.9 5.1 6.6
No, never been employed. 70.0 83.6 76.7 84.1 76.3 80.3
I am a housewife/homemaker 2.7 4.1 3.4 4.8 6.8 5.7
Not applicable 11.3 4.1 7.8 0.0 0.0 0.0
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 19 shows that there was no difference between proportion of children without disabilities (7.1
percent) children with disabilities (6.8 percent) who were working at the time of data collection. However,
a higher proportion of children without disabilities (80.3 percent) than those with disabilities (76.7
percent) reported that they have never worked. In terms of gender, the proportion of boys with
disabilities (9.3 percent) who were working was higher than girls (4.1 percent). Among children with
disabilities the proportion of girls (11.9 percent) who were working was higher than boys (3.2 percent). A
2013 study found that 28 percent of the children and young people with disabilities aged 15-29 were
employed (UNESCO, 2013). The Employment Act allows persons aged 15-18 to work but not in hazardous
employment. However, the LCs study did not look into whether these children with disabilities were
involved in hazardous employment or not.

4.12 Adequate standard of living and social protection

Persons with disabilities have the right to an adequate standard of living including social protection for
them to take care of themselves as well as their families. The 2018 MPHC asked heads of households their
main sources of income. The results are in Table 20 below.

39
 Table 20: Sources of income for households with children with and without children with disabilities (MPHC, 2018)

Sources of income Households with Households without

children with children with
disabilities disabilities
Entrepreneurship 13.3 14.5
Employment 9.1 11.7
Ganyu (Piece work) 38.7 37.9
Petty trading 1.3 1.3
Remittances 1.4 1.3
Pension 0.3 0.3
Insurance 0.0 0.0
Public works 0.4 0.4
Fishing 1.0 1.1
Food crop sales 13.7 12.7
Cash crop sales 12.5 11.1
Social cash transfer 0.5 0.4
Forest products 1.1 0.9
Begging 0.7 0.5
Other 6.1 6.0
Total 100.0 100.0

The main source of energy for both households with children with disabilities (38.7 percent) and those
without disabilities (37.9 percent) was ganyu (piece work). The proportion of households with children
without disabilities (14.5 percent) which mentioned entrepreneurship as a source of income was slightly
higher than households with children with disabilities (13.3 percent). Other important sources of income
for both households with and without children with disabilities were cash crop and food crop sales as can
be seen in Table 14. Only 0.5 percent and 0.4 percent of households with and without children with
disabilities mentioned social cash transfers as a source of income. Malawi introduced the SCTP in 2006 as
a pilot programme in Mchinji with support from the Global Fund. The programme targets 10 percent of
the ultra-poor and labor constrained households and is currently being implemented in 18 districts. It is
being funded by the GoM, KfW, Irish Aid, European Union and the World Bank. UNICEF provides technical
support to the SCTP. As of 2019 there were 706,086 beneficiary members. Figure 12 shows the
characteristics of the head of households of beneficiaries of the social cash transfer programme.

Figure 12: Characteristics of heads of households receiving cash transfers (MoGCDSW, 2019)

80 73
58
60 50
40 27 28
20 1
0
Child headed Male headed Disbled headed Elderly headed Chonically ill Female headed
headed

40
Most beneficiary households are headed by women (73 percent) and this is seconded by those who are
chronically ill at 58 percent and then elderly headed households at 50 percent. Nearly a third (28 percent)
of the households are headed by persons with disability. Figure 13 shows the characteristics of the
beneficiary members of the households for the SCTP.

Figure 13: Characteristics of beneficiary members of the households for the SCTP (MoGCDSW, 2019)

70 60
60 56
50 44
40 31
30
20 14 15
10
0
Disability Elderly Chronically ill Male Female Children aged
0-17

Data from the MoGCDSW does not disaggregate the beneficiaries of the SCTP by children with disabilities:
The Ministry looks at beneficiaries with disabilities as well as beneficiary children. Figure 17 shows that
60 percent of the beneficiaries of the SCTP are children aged 0-17. It also shows that 14 percent of the
beneficiaries are persons with disabilities (MoGCDSW, 2019).

Respondents in the LCs study were also asked whether they were receiving social security, disability grants
or any other form of pension or grant. Only 1.3 percent of the respondent aged less than 18 reported
receiving some form of social security. There were no differences between boys (1.4 percent) and girls
(1.2 percent) in the proportion of respondents who reported receiving social security or disability grants.
Among those who received social security, 65 percent (15) received social cash transfer and 13 percent
(3) reported receiving a disability grant. This money was mainly used for household necessities (65
percent) or education (9.5 percent). Among those who received social security or disability grants, most
of the decisions were made by others (77 percent) and only 15.4 percent said they made the decisions on
how to use the grant while 7.7 percent did not know how this was spent.

The 2018 MPHC asked households if they received any assistance of money, food or agricultural inputs.
Annex 8 shows that overall 9 percent of the households during the 2018 MPHC reported receiving some
assistance: the proportion of households with children with disabilities (10.7 percent) which reported
receiving some assistance was slightly higher than households without children with disabilities (9
percent). Balaka (21 percent) had the highest proportion of households with children with disabilities that
received assistance followed by Phalombe at 19 percent. NkhotaKota (5 percent) and Lilongwe rural (5
percent) had the lowest proportion of households with children with disabilities who received assistance.

4.13 Alternative care of children with disabilities

The policy on orphans and other vulnerable children recommends that the institutionalisation of children
should be the last resort. Efforts should be made to provide alternative care within the wider extended
41
family and within the community in a family setting where they can socialize with fellow children (Ministry
of Gender and Community Services, 2003). This is in line with the 1989 CRC, the 2006 CRPD and the 2010
UN Guidelines for Alternative Care of Children (United Nations, 2010). There are, however, situations
when children, including those with disabilities are placed under institutional care.

Children with disabilities in the LCs study were asked if they, themselves, have ever stayed in an institution
or special home. Most children with disabilities (97.8 percent) reported they have never stayed in an
institution. There was no difference between males (2 percent) and females (2.4 percent) in the
proportion of children who reported ever staying in an institution. While in the LCs study very few children
with disabilities reported they had ever lived in institution, a 2017 monitoring exercise on children in child
care institutions (CCI) found that there were 110 children with disabilities in institutions in Malawi. These
children had different types of disabilities including cerebral palsy, other physical disabilities, learning
difficulties and developmental challenges. While these CCIs made efforts to cater for the welfare of the
children with disabilities, (i) caregivers lacked technical knowledge on how to effectively handle children
with various types of disabilities, and (ii) some infrastructure (such as toilets and bathrooms) was
inaccessible to children with physical and other disabilities (Malawi Human Rights Commission, 2017).

As mentioned earlier, the MoE has established special needs schools for children with disabilities. In 2017,
there were 1,211 children with various types of disabilities registered in 21 special education institutions
in Malawi. Table 21 shows the number of children with disabilities who were resident in the 21 institutions
in 2017 (Malawi Human Rights Commission, 2017).

Table 21: Special needs schools in Malawi (Malawi Human Rights Commission, 2017)

No. Name of Institution No. of No. of teachers (qualified

learners in SNE)
1. Embangweni School for the Deaf 187 16
2. Ekwendeni Resource Centre 88 5
3. Karonga School for the Deaf 60 5
4. St. Maria Goleta Resource Centre 49 3
5. Nyungwe Resource Centre 38 9
6. Bandawe School for the Hearing Impaired 88 5
7. Nkhota Kota Resource Centre for the 23 2
Visually Impaired
8. Chisombezi school for Deaf-Blind 18 4
9. Mary View School for the Deaf 154 16
10. Mua School for the Blind 173 20
11. Mpatsa Resource Centre 5 0
12. Chilanga School for the Blind 52 7
13. Malingunde School for the Blind 31 2
14. Nkope School for the Blind 28 3
15. Matundu Resource Centre 9 0
16. Msiyaludzu Resource Centre 35 4
17. Montfort Demonstration 47 5
18. Migowi Resource Centre 45 2
42
 19. Gumbu Special Needs Resource Centre 9 4
20. Lurwe School for the Blind 21 1
21. John Paul XXXIII Centre for the 32 5
Handicapped

These 21 schools were established in order to provide Special Needs Education (SNE) for children with
various types of disabilities including those who are visually impaired, with hearing impairments and those
with learning difficulties. These special needs education institutions experience a wide range of challenges
including inadequate funding which among other things leads into lack of SNE materials such as Braille,
books and computers (Malawi Human Rights Commission, 2017). About half of these institutions are for
all types of special needs, a third are specifically for those with visual impairments and about a fifth are
for the deaf. Most of these institutions are in rural areas.

It is evident that the institutionalization of children, including those with disabilities, is quite common. The
GoM recommends that where institutionalization of children occurs, it should be temporary and that such
children should be reintegrated with their families including extended families. The MoGCDSW has since
developed guidelines for the reintegration of children including children with disabilities (Government of
Malawi & UNICEF, 2019).

4.14 Involvement in different aspects of family, social life and society among children aged 12-17

It is important that children including those with disabilities should be involved in different aspects of
family, social life and society. Table 22 below shows that proportion of children with disabilities who
reported being involved in different aspects of family, social life and society.
Table 22: Involvement in family, social life and society (N=495; LCs, 2016/17)

Aspects of family, social life Children with disabilities Children without disabilities
and society Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
Are you consulted about 51.8 48.2 52.8 61.0 72.8 66.8
making household decisions?
Do you go with the family to 76.8 73.5 75.3 78.0 79.8 78.9
events such as family
gatherings, social events etc.?
Do you feel involved and part 86.7 89.8 88.1 89.8 93.0 91.4
of the household or family?
Does your family involve you in 81.4 91.0 85.8 87.3 91.2 89.2
conversations?
Does the family help you with 92.3 95.5 93.8 - - -
daily activities/tasks?
Do/did you take part in your 46.3 49.0 47.5 - - -
own traditional practices (e.g.
initiation ceremonies?
Do you participate in local 27.0 27.3 27.2 40.7 43.9 42.2
community meetings?

43
It can be seen in Table 22 that most children with disabilities (93.8 percent) reported that the family in
general helps them with daily activities or tasks, 88.1 percent felt involved and part of the household or
family, 85.8 percent reported that their family involved them in conversations and that 75.3 percent
reported that they went with their families to events such as family gatherings and social events. On these
issues, there was a general agreement that children with disabilities are heavily involved in activities.
There were however gender differences: the proportion of boys who reported that they were consulted
in making family decisions or going with their families to events such as family gatherings was slightly
higher than girls. Table 22 further shows that the proportion of girls with disabilities who reported being
involved and part of the household or family, being involved in conversations, being helped by the family
in doing daily activities/tasks and taking part in traditional practices was higher than the boys with
disabilities. table 22 also shows that the proportion of children without disabilities who were involved in
different aspects of family, social life and society was higher than children with disabilities in general.

While this is the case only 51.5 percent of the respondents reported being consulted in making household
decisions and just less than half of the respondents (47 percent) reported taking part in their own
traditional practices such as initiation ceremonies. Lastly, only 26 percent of the respondents participated
in local community meetings.

4.15 Participation in political and public life

Persons with disabilities, just like all other persons, have the right to participate in political and public life
including forming and joining organizations of persons with disabilities to represent persons with
disabilities at international, national, regional and local levels. The Federation of Disability Organisation in
Malawi (FEDOMA) is an umbrella organization of Disabled People’s Organisation (DPOs) in Malawi which
provides a unified voice for persons with disabilities. There are currently 12 DPOs in Malawi and these are
as follows: Malawi Union of the Blind (MUB), Disabled Women in Development (DIWODE), Malawi
National Association of the Deaf (MANAD), Spinal Injuries Association of Malawi (SIAM), Parents of
Disabled Children Association in Malawi (PODCAM), Association of persons with Albinism of Malawi
(APAM), Association of the Physically Disabled in Malawi (APDM), Disabled Widows Orphans Organisation
in Malawi (DWOOM), National Epilepsy Association (NEA), Disability Rights Movement, Visual and Hearing
Impaired Association of Malawi(VIHEMA) and Mental Health Users and Cares Association (MEHUCA) 10.
The 2013/14 edition of the Malawi Disability Directory lists 10 DPOs including the Malawi Disability Sports
Association (MADISA). This directory ensures the coordination of service delivery and networking among
disability service organisations to facilitate referral of persons with disabilities to appropriate services
(Ministry of Gender, Children, Disability and Social Welfare, 2014).

Persons with disabilities are supposed to be aware of the various DPOs and be members of their respective
DPOs. The LCs study found that 24.7 percent of the children with disabilities aged 12 years and above
were aware of organisations for people with disabilities (Disabled People’s Organisation). The proportion
of boys (26.3 percent) who aware of DPOs was slightly higher than girls (22.9 percent). Of these people
who were aware of the DPOs, 12.1 percent of them were members of the DPOs. A higher proportion of
boys (15.7 percent) were members of the DPOs compared to girls (6.9 percent).

10
https://www.fedoma.org/about/
44
4.16 Decision making

Respondents aged 12+ in the LCs study were asked whether they made any important decisions about
their own life. As can be seen in Table 23 below a higher proportion of females (33.3 percent) than males
(28.4 percent) reported that they made important decisions about their life all the time. There were no
differences between males (51.9 percent) and females (52.2 percent) who reported that they sometimes
made their own decisions. A slightly higher proportion of male (18.2 percent) than female (13.7 percent)
respondents reported that they never made important decisions about their own life.
Table 23: Proportion of respondents aged 12+ who made their own decisions about their own life (LCs study, 2016/17)

Do you make important decisions about your Children with Children without
own life? disabilities disabilities
Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
All the time 28.4 33.3 30.7 45.5 42.6 44.1
Sometimes 51.9 52.2 52.0 48.2 49.1 48.6
Never 18.2 13.7 16.1 6.3 7.4 6.8
Do not know 1.4 0.8 1.1 0.0 0.9 0.5
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

As can be seen in Table 23 a higher proportion of children with disabilities (44.1 percent) reported they
made important decision on their own all the time compared to children with disabilities (30.7 percent).
4.17 Respect for home and the family

Persons with disabilities who are of marriageable age have the right to marry and found a family. The
Marriage, Divorce and Family Relations Act (2015) forbids any marriage below the age of 18. In the LCs
study, participants aged 12 years and above were asked whether they were married or in a relationship
at the time of the interview. Among respondents with disabilities aged 12-17, 6.3 percent reported that
they were either married or in a relationship. The proportion of females (7.1 percent) who reported being
married was slightly higher than males (5.6 percent). Among males who were married or in a relationship
2 reported that their spouses had a disability; among females’ 4 reported that their spouses had a
disability. Among those who were in a relation or married, 7.3 percent reported they had children; the
proportion of females who reported having children at 11.8 percent was higher than among males at 3.2
percent. In Malawi child marriage, i.e. getting married before the age of 18, is quite common. A 2018
traditional practices survey found that 42 percent of the women got married before age 18 years while 9
percent got married before age 15 (National Statistical Office, Centre for Social Research, UNICEF and
University of Zurich, 2019). Bearing in mind differences in survey designs between the LCs study and 2018
traditional practices survey, it seems however that the prevalence of child marriage among persons with
disabilities is lower than in the general population.

4.18 Freedom from exploitation, violence and abuse

Persons with disabilities are supposed to be protected against all forms of exploitation, violence and
abuse. While persons with disabilities including children have the right to freedom from exploitation,

45
violence and abuse, cases of violence are quite common. Table 18 shows that 23 percent of the children
with disabilities in the LCs study reported that they had ever been beaten or scolded because of their
disability. The proportion of boys with disabilities (25 percent) who reported ever being beaten or scolded
because of their disability was slightly higher that among female children (22 percent).
Table 24: Experience of violence against children with disabilities (LCs, 2016/17)

Experience of violence Children with disabilities (N=1536) Total

Males Females

Have you ever been beaten 24.5 21.7 23.2

or scolded because of your
disability? (N=1536)

Have you ever been beaten 45.7 41.3 43.7

or scolded by a family
member because of your
disability?*

*Among those who have ever been beaten or scolded because of their disability

Among those who had ever experienced been scolded or beaten because of their disability, 44 percent
reported this violence was perpetrated by a family member. Again, the proportion of respondents who
experienced this was slightly higher among boys (45.7 percent) than girls (41.3 percent) respondents.
Other studies have also found that the majority of children with disabilities reported experiencing some
form of violence (n=20/22) including experiencing physical and emotional abuse such as bullying, abusive
name calling, stigma and discrimination. Peers were common perpetrators of violence and caregivers.
These children with disabilities suggested that the violence and abuse they were experiencing was due to
their disability (Banks et. al., 2017& Chimwaza, 2015)).

4.19 Equality and non-discrimination

The Constitution of the Republic of Malawi prohibits all forms of discrimination on the basis of disability.
However, while persons with disabilities are guaranteed the right to equality and non-discrimination, they
still experience discrimination and stigma. In the LCs study children with various types of disabilities were
asked if they had ever experienced being discriminated in any public services: 9 percent of the
respondents reported that they had ever experienced this with slightly a higher proportion of males at
9.8 percent reporting this compared to females at 8.3 percent. Other studies have also found that children
with disabilities including those with albinism experience stigma and discrimination. For example, children
with albinism are called names such as Napweli or mzungu wadala namely pretending to be white while
not (Lynch & Lund, 2011). A 2015 study also found that some families with children with albinism have
the perception that these are not real people; hence, they are excluded from development programmes.
For example, girls with albinism are not even allowed to participate in cooking meals during funerals
(Lund, Massah, & Lynch, 2015). It is not only children with albinism who experience stigma and

46
discrimination but their mothers as well: husbands may accuse mothers of children with albinism of
infidelity and abandon even them (Under the Same Sun, 2015).

4.20 Main sources of energy for cooking

Table 19 below shows the sources of energy for cooking for households with and without children with
disabilities.
Table 25: Sources of energy for cooking (MPHC, 2018)

Source of energy Households with children with Households without

disabilities children with disabilities
Electricity 0.9 1.3
Solar 0.5 0.5
Paraffin 0.2 0.1
Charcoal 12.0 15.9
Firewood 84.4 80.5
Straw/shrubs/grass 1.3 1.0
Gas 0.0 0.0
Other 0.7 0.6
Total 100.0 100.0

The major sources of energy for cooking for households with children with disabilities was 84.4 percent
and this was slightly higher compared to households without children with disabilities at 80.5 percent. A
slightly higher proportion of households with children without disabilities used charcoal for cooking (15.9
percent) compared to households with children with disabilities (12 percent). Overall, only 0.9 percent of
the households with children with disabilities and 1.3 percent of households without ch ildren with
disabilities used electricity as a source of energy for cooking. Among households with children with
disabilities, the proportion of households using electricity was higher in urban areas namely Mzuzu (6
percent), Lilongwe (7 percent), Zomba (7.7 percent0 and Blantyre (7.7 percent). The corresponding
proportions for households without children with disabilities were as follows: 5.9 percent, 8.2 percent,
10.9 percent and 8.2 percent, respectively as can be seen in Annexes 11a and 11b. Charcoal, as can be
seen in Annexes 11a and 11b is an important source of energy for cooking in urban areas.

5. Conclusions and recommendations

5.1 Conclusions

This study was aimed at determining the prevalence of disability among children below 18 years, their
access to social services and analysing potential inequalities by demographic and socio-economic
characteristics of their families. The 2008 MPHC found that the prevalence of disability among persons
aged 0-17 increased from was 2.4 percent in 2008 to 6 percent in 2018. However, these rates are not
really comparable as the 2018 MPHC included forms of disability such as intellectual challenges that were
not included in 2008. In 2018 Amnesty International estimated that there are between 7,000 and 10,000
persons with albinism in Malawi. However, the 2018 MPHC found that there were 79,000 children with
albinism in Malawi. This implies that earlier estimates of the number of persons with albinisms in malawi
47
were incorrect. The LCs study found that a significant proportion of disabilities are due to disease; hence,
they are preventable.

This study has also found that in general children with disabilities experience a wide range of challenges
in accessing social services. While they may be aware of social services that are available (e.g. education,
health, vocational training) and they need such services, in most cases the proportion of children with
disabilities who receive the services they need is lower compared to those who required such services.
For example, as reported in this study only 2 percent of the children who require assistive devices had
these devices. As far as education is concerned, the shortage of specialist education teachers, the lack of
teaching and learning materials, lack of assistive devices, inaccessible school infrastructure, large classes
and poor attitudes of teachers and parents make it difficult for them to access education. Other
conclusions that can be made include the following:

• While the LCs study found that only 2 percent of the children with disabilities were in institutions, the
2017 MHRC monitoring of CCIs found that a significant number of children with disabilities were in
institutions.
• In terms of accessibility, this SITAN has found that there are some infrastructure (e.g. schools and
recreational facilities) that are not accessible to children with disabilities. Children with disabilities
also have difficulties in accessing information because it is in formats that they cannot use or
understand.
• Children including those with disabilities aged less than 14 years are not supposed to work. For those
aged 14-17 they can work but not in hazardous work.
• While some households with children with disabilities have access to social protection, data is not
comprehensively disaggregated in order to know the proportion of children with disabilities who are
beneficiaries of cash transfer programmes.
• A good proportion of children with disabilities do not take part in household decision making, family
gatherings, family conversations or community meetings compared to children without disabilities.
• Most children with disabilities are not aware of DPOs and among those who are aware very few are
members of DPOs.

5.2 Recommendations

Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations are therefore made:

• There are a number of national surveys that are conducted by the NSO, other government institutions
academic institutions and other agencies. The MoGCDSW should discuss with the NSO, other GoM
ministries and departments, academic institutions and other stakeholders to mainstream disability in
national surveys in order to ensure availability of data on disability. In all these surveys the screening
questions developed by the Washington Group on Disability Statistics should be used to screen for
persons with disabilities.

48
• The NSO in conjunction with academic institutions should build the capacity of researchers on the use
of Washington Group on Disability Statistics screening questions for disability.

• A significant proportion of children with disability are due to disease such as malaria. There is a need
to promote the prevention and early treatment of disease as this would contribute significantly
towards the prevention of disability.

• There is a need for various stakeholders to create awareness about the challenges being experienced
by children with disabilities and the need to effectively address such problems so that these children
should fully enjoy their rights just like any other child. The creation of awareness should also focus on
the need for households to effectively involve children with disabilities in making household decisions
and promoting their participation in community and household activities.

• Children fail to access social services because of, among other factors, the lack of assistive devices.
The MoGCDSW, the Ministry of Health and other stakeholders should work together and improve the
availability of assistive devices for persons with disabilities including children.

• Schools, health facilities and other places should be made accessible to children with various types of
disabilities.

• The MoGCDSW and DPOs should create awareness about the various DPOs that are in Malawi among
persons with disabilities and their families and the importance of joining these organisations.

• Children with disabilities experience challenges in communicating with teachers, health workers and
other service providers. This is especially the case with children who are visually impaired and those
who have hearing impairment. There is an urgent need for the MoGCDSW, FEDOMA and other
stakeholders to advocate for service providers to learn sign language in order to improve
communication with children who have hearing impairments. In addition to this, there is a need to
advocate for use of braille for children with visual impairment.

• There is a need for the MoGCDSW to fast track the development of the new national disability policy
which would guide the priority interventions that should be implemented to address the challenges
being experienced by persons with disabilities.

• The Ministry of Health should work very closely with the MoGCDSW to develop a national strategy
that will ensure that persons with disabilities including children have access to health services just like
all other persons.

• The MoE is in the process of mainstreaming inclusive education in Teachers’ Training Colleges (TTCs).
This will ensure that when teachers graduate from TTCs they have skills for delivering inclusive

49
education. It is recommended therefore that disability and health should be included in the curriculum
for training of all health workers.

50
Annex 1: Prevalence of disability among children aged 0-17 (MPHC, 2018)

District Boys Girls Total

Chitipa 8.4 7.1 7.7

Karonga 6.0 5.1 5.6
Nkhata Bay 7.3 6.2 6.7
Rumphi 10.9 9.3 10.1
Mzimba 8.1 6.9 7.5
Likoma 5.2 4.4 4.8
Mzuzu City 4.5 4.1 4.3
Kasungu 6.0 5.1 5.6
Nkhotakota 5.0 4.4 4.7
Ntchisi 7.4 6.3 6.8
Dowa 6.9 6.1 6.5
Salima 5.4 4.9 5.1
Lilongwe Rural 6.2 5.5 5.8
Mchinji 6.0 5.4 5.7
Dedza 8.5 7.0 7.7
Ntcheu 6.2 5.5 5.9
Lilongwe City 4.4 4.0 4.2
Mangochi 4.7 4.2 4.4
Machinga 5.6 4.8 5.2
Zomba 6.1 5.4 5.7
Chiradzulu 6.1 5.2 5.7
Blantyre Rural 7.2 6.1 6.6
Mwanza 7.3 6.2 6.7
Thyolo 6.6 5.6 6.1
Mulanje 5.6 4.7 5.1
Phalombe 5.5 4.7 5.1
Chikwawa 4.2 3.8 4.0
Nsanje 3.9 3.3 3.6
Balaka 5.7 4.8 5.2
Neno 5.6 4.9 5.3
Zomba City 5.5 5.3 5.4

51
Blantyre City 4.0 3.5 3.8
Total 6.0 5.2 5.6

52
Annex 2: Disability prevalence among children aged 0-17 (MPHC, 2008)
seeing hearing walking Speaking other disability

District Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female
Total 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.9 0.8 2.4 2.5 2.2
Chitipa 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.3 1.4 1.3 3.1 3.3 2.8
Karonga 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 3.3 3.4 3.2
Nkhata Bay 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.6 1.7 1.5 3.5 3.8 3.3
Rumphi 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.0 1.0 0.9 3.0 3.2 2.9
Mzimba 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.6 1.7 1.5 3.3 3.6 3.1
Likoma 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.3 2.3 2.5 2.2 4.8 5.2 4.3
Mzuzu City 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.9 1.0 0.8 2.8 3.1 2.5
Kasungu 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.9 0.9 0.8 2.3 2.4 2.1
Nkhotakota 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.8 0.7 2.5 2.7 2.2
Ntchisi 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2 1.4 1.5 1.3 3.3 3.6 3.0
Dowa 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 1.6 1.6 1.5 3.6 3.8 3.5
Salima 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.2 1.6 1.6 1.5 3.7 3.9 3.5
Lilongwe Rural 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.9 0.9 0.8 2.5 2.7 2.4
Mchinji 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.4 1.5 1.3 3.1 3.4 2.9
Dedza 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.5 1.9 2.0 1.7
Ntcheu 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.6 0.5 1.8 2.0 1.6
Lilongwe City 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 1.7 1.8 1.6
Mangochi 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.7 0.7 0.6 1.8 2.0 1.7
Machinga 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.6 2.2 2.4 2.1
Zomba 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.4 1.5 1.2
Chiradzulu 0.6 0.6 0.6 1.1 1.1 1.1 0.4 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 1.0 1.0 0.9 3.4 3.6 3.2
Blantyre Rural 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.5 2.3 2.4 2.1
Mwanza 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.7 0.6 2.5 2.7 2.4

53
Thyolo 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.8 0.7 2.5 2.7 2.4
Mulanje 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.3 1.4 1.5 1.3
Phalombe 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.4 0.5 0.4 1.9 2.0 1.8
Chikwawa 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.8 0.9 0.7 2.1 2.4 1.9
Nsanje 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.4 1.5 1.3
Balaka 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.5 2.1 2.3 1.8
Neno 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.5 0.2 0.9 0.9 0.9 2.6 2.8 2.4
Zomba City 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.4 1.6 1.6 1.6
Blantyre City 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.3 1.3 1.4 1.2

54
Annex 3a: Prevalence walking difficulties among children aged 0-17 (MPHC, 2018)

55
Annex 3b: Prevalence of hearing difficulties (MPHC, 2018)

56
Annex 3c: Prevalence of seeing difficulties (MPHC, 2018)

57
Annex 3d: Prevalence of speaking difficulties (MPHC, 2018)

58
Annex 4a: Access to services by persons with disabilities

Level of satisfaction with services received

Very Satisfied Neutral Somewhat Very Don’t Total
Type of services Aware of services Needed services Received services satisfied with satisfied dissatisfied Know
with services
services
Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total Boys Girls Total
Medical rehabilitation (e.g. sign 39.1 39.9 39.5 26.0 23.8 24.9 13.2 13.1 13.2 24.8 40.3 13.1 11.1 9.2 1.5 100.0
language, occupational
therapy, speech and hearing
therapy)
Assistive device service (sign 44.2 48.1 46.1 24.5 22.3 23.5 3.3 3.3 3.3 40.0 30.9 7.3 7.3 12.7 1.8 100.0
language interpreter, wheel
chair, hearing/visual aids,
braille)
Educational services (remedial 45.7 49.9 47.7 35.2 34.3 34.8 16.9 18.2 17.5 27.5 39.2 22.7 4.4 5.1 1.1 100.0
therapist, special school, early
childhood stimulation, regular
school)
Vocational training (e.g. 33.6 35.5 34.5 17.1 14.0 15.6 0.9 0.7 0.8 37.5 37.5 6.3 0.0 12.5 6.3 100.0
employment skills training)
Counselling for persons with 28.2 32.2 30.1 18.9 21.0 19.9 9.4 10.2 9.8 30.2 39.0 20.1 5.0 3.8 1.9 100.0
disabilities (e.g. psychologist,
psychiatrist, social worker,
school counsellor)
Counselling for parent/family 38.4 41.0 39.6 31.0 32.7 31.8 26.6 29.6 28.0 45.2 38.1 12.3 2.3 2.1 0.0 100.0
Welfare services (e.g. social 40.8 46.8 43.6 32.1 33.0 32.6 5.2 8.7 6.8 32.7 43.6 18.2 2.7 2.7 0.0 100.0
welfare, disability grant)
Health services e.g. at a 79.4 84.3 81.7 75.2 82.4 78.6 70.2 77.9 73.8 28.1 46.6 15.5 6.8 2.9 0.1 100.0
primary health care clinic,
hospital, home health care
services)
Health information (e.g. from 63.9 67.0 65.4 52.7 58.6 55.5 46.2 52.5 49.2 28.3 45.1 19.8 4.1 2.4 0.4 100.0
media, at schools, clinics,
hospitals)
Traditional healer 67.4 67.1 67.3 29.3 27.8 28.6 23.4 23.0 23.2 11.1 24.0 17.0 25.6 22.0 0.3 100.0
Faith healer 54.0 53.0 53.5 19.4 19.5 19.5 14.1 14.7 14.4 23.0 34.2 16.2 13.5 12.5 0.5 100.0
Legal advice 22.5 22.0 22.3 6.9 4.4 5.7 3.2 1.2 2.3 26.3 44.7 10.5 2.6 10.5 5.3 100.0

59
Annex 4b: Access to services by children without disabilities

Type of services Aware of Needed Received Level of satisfaction with services received
services services services
Very Satisfied Neutral Somewhat Very Don’t Total
satisfied with satisfied dissatisfied Know
with services
services

Vocational training (e.g. 35.5 16.5 1.6 45.5 27.3 27.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
employment skills
training)

Counselling for 40.9 29.1 26.6 51.4 31.3 15.1 1.1 1.1 0.0 100.0
parent/family

Welfare services (e.g. 40.7 23.1 2.8 57.9 31.6 5.3 5.3 0.0 0.0 100.0
social welfare, disability
grant)

Health services e.g. at a 74.8 70.5 68.2 36.4 46.9 11.9 3.7 0.9 0.1 100.0
primary health care
clinic, hospital, home
health care services)

Health information (e.g. 60.7 51.5 47.2 35.8 46.2 16.4 1.3 0.3 0.0 100.0
from media, at schools,
clinics, hospitals)

Traditional healer 59.6 13.8 10.4 14.3 38.6 25.7 7.1 14.3 0.0 100.0

Faith healer 44.7 10.8 8.0 40.4 40.4 12.3 5.3 0.0 1.8 100.0

Legal advice 21.4 5.2 2.2 33.3 55.6 0.0 0.0 11.1 0.0 100.0

60
Annex 5a: Persons aged 5-17 years by district and educational level 2018 Census
Total Male Female

With Disability Without Disability With Disability Without Disability With Disability Without Disability
District
Education level Education level Education level

None Primary Secondary+ None Primary Secondary+ None Primary Secondary+ None Primary Secondary+ None Primary Secondary+ None Primary Secondary+

Total 4.8 89.9 5.3 3.2 90.6 6.2 5.0 90.8 4.2 8.3 86.5 5.2 4.6 88.9 6.5 8.3 85.3 6.4

Chitipa 7.9 87.6 4.5 4.9 88.9 6.2 8.2 87.7 4.1 12.1 83.0 4.9 7.7 87.4 4.9 12.1 81.4 6.5

Karonga 8 85.7 6.3 4.4 88.6 7 8.0 86.8 5.2 11.6 82.8 5.5 8.0 84.5 7.5 11.4 81.3 7.3

Nkhata Bay 6.2 88.5 5.2 3.8 89.3 6.9 6.8 88.5 4.7 9.2 84.9 5.9 5.6 88.6 5.9 9.2 83.7 7.1

Rumphi 6 88.3 5.8 3.2 88.5 8.4 6.1 89.4 4.5 8.9 84.2 6.9 5.9 87.0 7.2 9.0 82.3 8.7

Mzimba 4 91.1 4.9 2.5 91.4 6.2 3.8 92.6 3.6 6.0 89.2 4.8 4.3 89.5 6.2 6.0 87.1 6.9

Likoma 9.3 82.8 7.9 8.1 80.4 11.5 6.9 81.9 11.2 17.1 72.1 10.8 11.7 83.8 4.5 15.8 74.1 10.1

Mzuzu City 4.6 77.9 17.5 2.8 80.1 17.1 5.7 81.3 13.0 10.0 76.3 13.7 3.6 74.5 21.9 9.0 73.3 17.6

Kasungu 2.8 93.5 3.7 1.8 93.6 4.6 3.1 94.2 2.8 4.6 91.8 3.6 2.5 92.8 4.6 4.6 90.3 5.1

Nkhota Kota 3.4 92.2 4.3 3 92.3 4.7 3.3 92.9 3.8 6.5 89.3 4.2 3.6 91.5 4.9 6.7 88.5 4.9

Ntchisi 3.3 94.1 2.6 2.4 94.3 3.3 3.4 94.6 2.0 6.1 91.2 2.7 3.1 93.5 3.4 6.2 90.2 3.6

Dowa 4.2 92 3.7 2.8 92.8 4.5 4.4 92.4 3.1 6.8 89.6 3.6 4.1 91.6 4.3 6.8 88.4 4.8

Salima 4.2 92.5 3.2 2.9 92.9 4.2 4.2 93.6 2.2 7.0 89.5 3.5 4.3 91.4 4.4 7.2 88.4 4.4

Lilongwe Rural 4.5 91.9 3.7 3 92.9 4 4.6 92.4 3.0 7.4 89.2 3.4 4.3 91.3 4.4 7.4 88.3 4.2

Mchinji 4.8 90.9 4.3 3.5 92 4.6 5.1 91.6 3.3 8.8 87.3 3.8 4.4 90.2 5.4 8.7 86.7 4.7

61
Dedza 6 90.8 3.3 2.7 93.6 3.8 6.8 90.4 2.8 6.4 90.3 3.3 5.1 91.1 3.8 6.9 89.3 3.8

Ntcheu 3.1 92.1 4.9 2.3 91.6 6.1 3.1 93.3 3.5 5.6 89.2 5.2 3.0 90.7 6.3 5.7 87.9 6.4

Lilongwe City 4.5 80.3 15.2 3.5 82.3 14.2 5.0 83.7 11.3 12.2 76.2 11.6 4.0 76.9 19.1 11.4 74.7 13.9

Mangochi 6.1 90.1 3.9 4.3 92.3 3.5 6.3 90.7 3.0 10.3 86.9 2.9 5.8 89.4 4.8 10.4 86.1 3.5

Machinga 6 90.7 3.2 3.8 93 3.2 5.9 91.4 2.8 8.6 88.8 2.7 6.2 90.1 3.7 8.8 87.9 3.3

Zomba 7.4 88.5 4.1 4.9 90 5.1 7.6 89.1 3.3 12.1 83.7 4.2 7.1 87.9 5.0 12.1 82.8 5.1

Chiradzulu 5 90.4 4.6 3.2 90.9 5.9 5.2 90.9 3.9 8.5 86.5 5.0 4.9 89.8 5.3 8.8 85.2 6.0

Blantyre Rural 4.9 89 6.2 3.2 88.3 8.5 5.1 89.5 5.4 9.4 83.6 7.1 4.6 88.3 7.1 9.4 82.0 8.6

Mwanza 1.6 93.8 4.6 1.5 92.7 5.8 1.9 94.2 3.9 4.3 90.9 4.9 1.3 93.3 5.4 4.0 89.7 6.3

Thyolo 4.5 90.8 4.7 3 91.4 5.6 4.5 91.7 3.9 7.4 87.8 4.8 4.6 89.8 5.7 7.8 86.5 5.8

Mulanje 4.3 91.7 4.1 2.7 92.6 4.7 4.3 92.3 3.4 7.2 88.6 4.2 4.3 91.0 4.7 7.7 87.6 4.8

Phalombe 4.8 91.5 3.7 3.4 92.9 3.7 4.9 92.2 2.9 8.4 88.4 3.3 4.7 90.8 4.5 8.5 87.9 3.6

Chikwawa 4.9 90.7 4.4 3 91.9 5 4.8 91.4 3.8 6.7 88.8 4.4 5.1 90.0 4.9 7.0 87.9 5.1

Nsanje 5.7 90.8 3.5 3.6 92 4.4 5.7 91.4 2.9 8.4 87.5 4.0 5.7 90.1 4.1 8.8 87.0 4.3

Balaka 3.3 91.4 5.3 2.2 92.3 5.5 3.2 92.2 4.6 5.8 89.5 4.7 3.4 90.5 6.1 6.1 88.1 5.9

Neno 3 92 5 1.9 91.9 6.1 3.3 92.0 4.7 4.9 89.7 5.4 2.7 91.8 5.5 5.0 88.6 6.4

Zomba City 3.7 80.7 15.7 3.2 80 16.8 4.4 83.0 12.6 12.7 73.9 13.5 3.1 78.5 18.4 11.1 72.4 16.5

Blantyre City 4.9 78.6 16.5 3.8 79.3 16.9 5.3 82.3 12.4 12.3 73.9 13.8 4.5 74.7 20.8 11.5 71.9 16.6

62
Annex 5b: Persons aged 5-17 years by educational level and age 2018MPHC
Total Male Female

With Disability Without Disability With Disability Without Disability With Disability Without Disability

Age Education level Education level Education level Education level Education level Education level
grou Non Primar Secondary Non Primar Secondary Non Primar Secondary Non Primar Secondary Non Primar Secondary Non Primar Secondary
District p e y + e y + e y + e y + e y + e y +
Total Total 4.8 89.9 5.3 3.2 90.6 6.2 5.0 90.8 4.2 3.3 91.2 5.5 4.6 88.9 6.5 3.1 90.0 6.8
5-9 11.5 88.5 0.0 8.3 91.7 0.0 11.7 88.3 0.0 8.5 91.5 0.0 11.3 88.7 0.0 8.0 92.0 0.0
10-
.5 97.1 2.4 .2 96.9 2.9 .5 97.7 1.7 .2 97.4 2.4 .4 96.4 3.1 .2 96.4 3.5
14
15-
.3 77.7 22.0 .1 74.9 25.0 .3 81.6 18.1 .1 77.6 22.3 .3 73.7 26.0 .1 72.2 27.7
17
Chitipa Total 7.9 87.6 4.5 4.9 88.9 6.2 8.2 87.7 4.1 5.0 89.7 5.3 7.7 87.4 4.9 4.9 88.0 7.1
5-9 17.3 82.7 0.0 12.8 87.2 0.0 17.8 82.2 0.0 13.0 87.0 0.0 16.7 83.3 0.0 12.6 87.4 0.0
10-
.4 97.9 1.7 .2 97.5 2.4 .2 98.1 1.7 .2 97.9 1.9 .6 97.6 1.8 .1 97.1 2.8
14
15-
.2 77.2 22.6 .1 73.3 26.6 .4 78.9 20.7 .1 77.1 22.7 0.0 75.5 24.5 .1 69.4 30.5
17
Karonga Total 8.0 85.7 6.3 4.4 88.6 7.0 8.0 86.8 5.2 4.5 89.4 6.0 8.0 84.5 7.5 4.2 87.8 8.0
5-9 18.3 81.7 0.0 11.6 88.4 0.0 18.2 81.8 0.0 12.0 88.0 0.0 18.3 81.7 0.0 11.1 88.9 0.0
10-
.7 96.6 2.7 .2 96.8 3.0 1.0 97.0 2.1 .2 97.5 2.2 .5 96.2 3.4 .1 96.1 3.7
14
15-
.3 73.8 26.0 .1 71.1 28.9 .3 77.9 21.8 .1 75.0 24.9 .3 69.2 30.5 .1 67.2 32.8
17
Nkhata Total 6.2 88.5 5.2 3.8 89.3 6.9 6.8 88.5 4.7 3.8 89.9 6.3 5.6 88.6 5.9 3.7 88.7 7.5
Bay
5-9 14.2 85.8 0.0 10.7 89.3 0.0 15.2 84.8 0.0 11.0 89.0 0.0 12.9 87.1 0.0 10.4 89.6 0.0
10-
.6 97.5 1.9 .2 97.3 2.5 .6 97.9 1.5 .2 97.7 2.1 .6 97.0 2.4 .2 96.9 2.9
14
15-
.2 75.5 24.2 .1 72.7 27.2 .3 77.4 22.3 .1 75.3 24.6 .2 73.3 26.5 .1 70.1 29.9
17
Rumphi Total 6.0 88.3 5.8 3.2 88.5 8.4 6.1 89.4 4.5 3.2 89.4 7.4 5.9 87.0 7.2 3.2 87.5 9.3
5-9 12.8 87.2 0.0 8.7 91.3 0.0 13.1 86.9 0.0 8.9 91.1 0.0 12.5 87.5 0.0 8.6 91.4 0.0
10-
.2 97.0 2.8 .1 96.3 3.5 .2 97.8 2.0 .1 97.2 2.7 .1 96.2 3.7 .1 95.5 4.3
14
15-
.1 72.9 27.0 .0 66.8 33.2 0.0 78.3 21.7 .0 70.6 29.4 .3 67.0 32.7 .0 62.8 37.1
17
Mzimba Total 4.0 91.1 4.9 2.5 91.4 6.2 3.8 92.6 3.6 2.5 92.5 5.0 4.3 89.5 6.2 2.4 90.4 7.2
5-9 9.5 90.5 0.0 6.4 93.6 0.0 8.9 91.1 0.0 6.6 93.4 0.0 10.1 89.9 0.0 6.2 93.8 0.0
10-
.5 97.5 2.0 .2 97.4 2.5 .4 98.2 1.4 .2 98.0 1.8 .6 96.8 2.6 .2 96.7 3.1
14
63
 15-
.6 79.0 20.4 .3 74.5 25.2 .5 84.1 15.4 .2 79.0 20.8 .6 73.8 25.5 .3 70.1 29.6
17
Likoma Total 9.3 82.8 7.9 8.1 80.4 11.5 6.9 81.9 11.2 8.7 79.4 11.9 11.7 83.8 4.5 7.5 81.4 11.1
5-9 23.6 76.4 0.0 21.5 78.5 0.0 17.4 82.6 0.0 22.8 77.2 0.0 30.2 69.8 0.0 20.1 79.9 0.0
10-
0.0 98.7 1.3 .3 95.3 4.5 0.0 97.1 2.9 .1 95.5 4.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 .4 95.1 4.5
14
15-
0.0 72.6 27.4 0.0 54.9 45.1 0.0 65.7 34.3 0.0 55.6 44.4 0.0 81.5 18.5 0.0 54.1 45.9
17
Mzuzu Total 4.6 77.9 17.5 2.8 80.1 17.1 5.7 81.3 13.0 3.0 82.1 14.9 3.6 74.5 21.9 2.7 78.3 19.0
City
5-9 12.1 87.9 0.0 7.7 92.3 0.0 13.5 86.5 0.0 7.9 92.1 0.0 10.4 89.6 0.0 7.6 92.4 0.0
10-
.9 89.6 9.5 .1 90.0 9.9 1.4 91.7 6.9 .1 91.7 8.2 .4 87.8 11.8 .1 88.4 11.5
14
15-
.4 42.2 57.4 .0 41.6 58.3 0.0 53.0 47.0 0.0 47.2 52.8 .8 33.1 66.2 .0 36.7 63.2
17
Kasungu Total 2.8 93.5 3.7 1.8 93.6 4.6 3.1 94.2 2.8 1.9 94.3 3.8 2.5 92.8 4.6 1.8 92.9 5.3
5-9 6.4 93.6 0.0 4.8 95.2 0.0 7.0 93.0 0.0 5.0 95.0 0.0 5.7 94.3 0.0 4.6 95.4 0.0
10-
.3 98.4 1.4 .2 98.2 1.7 .2 98.8 1.1 .2 98.6 1.2 .4 97.9 1.7 .1 97.8 2.1
14
15-
.1 83.4 16.5 .1 80.4 19.4 .1 87.6 12.3 .1 83.8 16.1 .1 78.8 21.1 .1 77.2 22.7
17
Nkhotakot Total 3.4 92.2 4.3 3.0 92.3 4.7 3.3 92.9 3.8 2.9 92.7 4.4 3.6 91.5 4.9 3.0 91.9 5.1
a
5-9 8.7 91.3 0.0 7.8 92.2 0.0 8.2 91.8 0.0 7.7 92.3 0.0 9.4 90.6 0.0 7.8 92.2 0.0
10-
.2 98.1 1.6 .2 98.0 1.8 .2 98.8 1.0 .2 98.3 1.4 .2 97.4 2.3 .2 97.7 2.1
14
15-
.3 82.0 17.7 .1 80.0 19.8 .5 82.9 16.6 .1 81.5 18.4 .2 81.0 18.9 .1 78.6 21.3
17
Ntchisi Total 3.3 94.1 2.6 2.4 94.3 3.3 3.4 94.6 2.0 2.5 94.7 2.8 3.1 93.5 3.4 2.4 93.9 3.8
5-9 7.8 92.2 0.0 6.3 93.7 0.0 8.0 92.0 0.0 6.5 93.5 0.0 7.5 92.5 0.0 6.2 93.8 0.0
10-
.2 98.8 1.0 .2 98.6 1.2 .3 99.1 .6 .2 98.9 .9 .1 98.4 1.4 .1 98.4 1.5
14
15-
.1 88.0 11.8 .1 85.4 14.6 .3 90.6 9.1 .1 87.5 12.5 0.0 85.3 14.7 .0 83.4 16.6
17
Dowa Total 4.2 92.0 3.7 2.8 92.8 4.5 4.4 92.4 3.1 2.9 93.3 3.8 4.1 91.6 4.3 2.7 92.2 5.1
5-9 10.1 89.9 0.0 7.4 92.6 0.0 10.2 89.8 0.0 7.7 92.3 0.0 9.9 90.1 0.0 7.2 92.8 0.0
10-
.4 98.3 1.3 .2 98.2 1.6 .5 98.5 1.0 .2 98.6 1.2 .3 98.1 1.6 .1 97.8 2.0
14
15-
.3 83.2 16.5 .1 80.9 19.0 .3 85.4 14.3 .1 83.6 16.2 .3 80.9 18.7 .1 78.3 21.7
17
Salima Total 4.2 92.5 3.2 2.9 92.9 4.2 4.2 93.6 2.2 2.9 93.4 3.7 4.3 91.4 4.4 2.9 92.4 4.7
5-9
9.3 90.7 0.0 6.9 93.1 0.0 9.4 90.6 0.0 7.1 92.9 0.0 9.2 90.8 0.0 6.8 93.2 0.0

64
 10-
.6 98.3 1.1 .6 97.5 1.8 .4 99.0 .6 .6 97.9 1.4 .7 97.6 1.7 .6 97.2 2.2
14
15-
.6 84.0 15.4 .4 81.8 17.7 .6 87.8 11.6 .4 84.1 15.5 .7 80.4 18.9 .4 79.6 20.0
17
Lilongwe Total 4.5 91.9 3.7 3.0 92.9 4.0 4.6 92.4 3.0 3.1 93.3 3.6 4.3 91.3 4.4 3.0 92.6 4.5
Rural
5-9 11.1 88.9 0.0 7.8 92.2 0.0 11.4 88.6 0.0 8.1 91.9 0.0 10.8 89.2 0.0 7.6 92.4 0.0
10-
.4 98.5 1.1 .3 98.2 1.6 .4 98.9 .7 .3 98.5 1.2 .4 98.1 1.5 .2 97.9 1.9
14
15-
.2 83.7 16.1 .1 82.4 17.5 .2 86.1 13.7 .1 84.3 15.6 .3 81.3 18.5 .1 80.5 19.4
17
Mchinji Total 4.8 90.9 4.3 3.5 92.0 4.6 5.1 91.6 3.3 3.6 92.3 4.1 4.4 90.2 5.4 3.4 91.6 5.0
5-9 11.2 88.8 0.0 8.5 91.5 0.0 11.6 88.4 0.0 8.9 91.1 0.0 10.8 89.2 0.0 8.2 91.8 0.0
10-
.7 97.8 1.6 .4 97.8 1.8 1.0 97.9 1.1 .4 98.2 1.4 .3 97.6 2.0 .4 97.3 2.2
14
15-
.5 81.3 18.2 .2 79.6 20.2 .5 85.5 14.0 .2 81.6 18.1 .4 77.2 22.4 .1 77.6 22.3
17
Dedza Total 6.0 90.8 3.3 2.7 93.6 3.8 6.8 90.4 2.8 2.6 93.9 3.5 5.1 91.1 3.8 2.7 93.3 4.0
5-9 13.7 86.3 0.0 6.9 93.1 0.0 15.5 84.5 0.0 6.9 93.1 0.0 11.7 88.3 0.0 6.9 93.1 0.0
10-
.8 98.1 1.1 .3 98.3 1.4 .9 98.3 .7 .3 98.5 1.2 .7 97.9 1.4 .3 98.2 1.6
14
15-
.7 84.4 14.8 .3 83.6 16.1 .8 86.0 13.2 .3 85.0 14.7 .7 82.8 16.5 .3 82.2 17.4
17
Ntcheu Total 3.1 92.1 4.9 2.3 91.6 6.1 3.1 93.3 3.5 2.3 92.2 5.5 3.0 90.7 6.3 2.2 91.1 6.7
5-9
7.6 92.4 0.0 6.1 93.9 0.0 7.6 92.4 0.0 6.3 93.7 0.0 7.7 92.3 0.0 6.0 94.0 0.0
10-
.4 97.6 2.0 .2 97.2 2.6 .4 98.3 1.2 .2 97.6 2.2 .4 96.9 2.7 .1 96.8 3.1
14
15-
.2 79.8 20.1 .1 76.0 23.9 .1 84.5 15.4 .1 78.5 21.3 .2 74.9 24.8 .1 73.5 26.5
17
Lilongwe Total 4.5 80.3 15.2 3.5 82.3 14.2 5.0 83.7 11.3 3.7 83.4 12.9 4.0 76.9 19.1 3.2 81.4 15.4
City
5-9 12.2 87.8 0.0 8.8 91.2 0.0 12.4 87.6 0.0 9.4 90.6 0.0 12.0 88.0 0.0 8.3 91.7 0.0
10-
.3 90.5 9.2 .1 90.3 9.6 .5 93.1 6.3 .2 91.7 8.2 .1 88.1 11.8 .1 89.1 10.8
14
15-
.1 51.5 48.4 .1 50.2 49.7 .1 60.0 39.9 .1 54.2 45.8 .1 44.1 55.8 .0 46.5 53.4
17
Mangochi Total
6.1 90.1 3.9 4.3 92.3 3.5 6.3 90.7 3.0 4.3 92.6 3.1 5.8 89.4 4.8 4.2 92.0 3.8
5-9 13.9 86.1 0.0 10.4 89.6 0.0 14.1 85.9 0.0 10.6 89.4 0.0 13.8 86.2 0.0 10.2 89.8 0.0
10-
.5 98.1 1.4 .3 98.2 1.5 .7 98.1 1.2 .3 98.5 1.2 .4 98.1 1.6 .3 98.0 1.8
14
15-
.3 82.0 17.8 .1 84.3 15.5 .3 86.0 13.8 .1 86.1 13.8 .3 78.0 21.8 .1 82.5 17.4
17
Machinga Total 6.0 90.7 3.2 3.8 93.0 3.2 5.9 91.4 2.8 3.8 93.3 2.9 6.2 90.1 3.7 3.8 92.7 3.5

65
 5-9 13.6 86.4 0.0 9.4 90.6 0.0 13.1 86.9 0.0 9.5 90.5 0.0 14.1 85.9 0.0 9.2 90.8 0.0
10-
.6 98.1 1.3 .4 98.4 1.2 .5 98.6 .9 .4 98.7 .9 .8 97.6 1.7 .3 98.2 1.4
14
15-
.3 83.8 15.8 .2 85.0 14.8 .4 85.5 14.2 .2 86.7 13.1 .3 82.1 17.6 .2 83.3 16.5
17
Zomba Total 7.4 88.5 4.1 4.9 90.0 5.1 7.6 89.1 3.3 5.1 90.4 4.5 7.1 87.9 5.0 4.8 89.6 5.6
5-9 16.5 83.5 0.0 12.6 87.4 0.0 17.1 82.9 0.0 13.0 87.0 0.0 15.9 84.1 0.0 12.3 87.7 0.0
10-
.5 97.9 1.5 .2 97.8 2.0 .6 98.4 1.0 .2 98.1 1.7 .5 97.4 2.1 .1 97.5 2.3
14
15-
.3 80.6 19.2 .1 77.8 22.2 .2 83.9 15.9 .1 80.3 19.7 .3 77.1 22.6 .1 75.3 24.6
17
Chiradzulu Total 5.0 90.4 4.6 3.2 90.9 5.9 5.2 90.9 3.9 3.2 91.5 5.3 4.9 89.8 5.3 3.3 90.3 6.4
5-9 12.3 87.7 0.0 8.7 91.3 0.0 12.6 87.4 0.0 8.7 91.3 0.0 12.0 88.0 0.0 8.8 91.2 0.0
10-
.5 97.5 1.9 .1 97.6 2.3 .4 97.8 1.8 .1 98.1 1.8 .6 97.2 2.1 .1 97.1 2.8
14
15-
.2 81.1 18.7 .0 75.9 24.1 .3 83.8 15.9 .0 78.0 22.0 0.0 78.3 21.7 .1 73.8 26.2
17
Blantyre Total 4.9 89.0 6.2 3.2 88.3 8.5 5.1 89.5 5.4 3.3 89.0 7.6 4.6 88.3 7.1 3.1 87.6 9.3
Rural
5-9 11.5 88.5 0.0 8.6 91.4 0.0 12.1 87.9 0.0 9.0 91.0 0.0 10.9 89.1 0.0 8.2 91.8 0.0
10-
.4 96.4 3.2 .2 95.5 4.4 .5 97.2 2.3 .2 96.3 3.5 .3 95.4 4.3 .2 94.6 5.2
14
15-
.1 73.8 26.1 .1 68.1 31.8 .1 76.9 23.0 .0 70.9 29.1 .1 70.0 29.9 .1 65.4 34.5
17
Mwanza Total
1.6 93.8 4.6 1.5 92.7 5.8 1.9 94.2 3.9 1.6 93.3 5.0 1.3 93.3 5.4 1.4 92.1 6.5
5-9 4.2 95.8 0.0 4.1 95.9 0.0 5.1 94.9 0.0 4.4 95.6 0.0 3.2 96.8 0.0 3.8 96.2 0.0
10-
.2 97.9 1.9 .1 97.0 2.9 .1 97.9 1.9 .2 97.5 2.3 .2 97.9 1.9 .1 96.5 3.4
14
15-
0.0 81.3 18.8 .1 77.7 22.3 0.0 85.2 14.8 .1 80.8 19.1 0.0 76.4 23.6 .1 74.5 25.5
17
Thyolo Total 4.5 90.8 4.7 3.0 91.4 5.6 4.5 91.7 3.9 3.0 91.9 5.1 4.6 89.8 5.7 3.0 90.9 6.1
5-9 11.3 88.7 0.0 8.1 91.9 0.0 11.0 89.0 0.0 8.1 91.9 0.0 11.7 88.3 0.0 8.0 92.0 0.0
10-
.4 97.6 2.0 .2 97.6 2.2 .4 98.1 1.5 .2 98.0 1.9 .4 97.0 2.6 .2 97.2 2.6
14
15-
.3 79.4 20.3 .1 76.9 23.1 .5 82.3 17.2 .1 78.9 21.0 .2 76.2 23.6 .1 74.8 25.1
17
Mulanje Total 4.3 91.7 4.1 2.7 92.6 4.7 4.3 92.3 3.4 2.7 92.9 4.4 4.3 91.0 4.7 2.6 92.3 5.1
5-9
10.7 89.3 0.0 7.3 92.7 0.0 10.5 89.5 0.0 7.5 92.5 0.0 10.9 89.1 0.0 7.1 92.9 0.0
10-
.3 97.9 1.7 .1 98.1 1.8 .3 98.3 1.4 .1 98.3 1.6 .3 97.6 2.2 .1 98.0 1.9
14
15-
.1 82.7 17.2 .0 79.9 20.0 .2 85.1 14.6 .0 81.6 18.4 0.0 80.0 20.0 .0 78.3 21.7
17

66
Phalombe Total 4.8 91.5 3.7 3.4 92.9 3.7 4.9 92.2 2.9 3.5 93.0 3.5 4.7 90.8 4.5 3.3 92.8 3.8
5-9 11.4 88.6 0.0 8.6 91.4 0.0 11.3 88.7 0.0 8.9 91.1 0.0 11.6 88.4 0.0 8.3 91.7 0.0
10-
.5 98.1 1.4 .2 98.4 1.4 .6 98.4 1.0 .2 98.6 1.2 .4 97.8 1.8 .2 98.2 1.6
14
15-
.2 83.8 16.0 .1 83.1 16.8 0.0 87.2 12.8 .1 84.1 15.8 .4 79.9 19.7 .1 82.0 17.9
17
Chikwawa Total 4.9 90.7 4.4 3.0 91.9 5.0 4.8 91.4 3.8 3.0 92.4 4.7 5.1 90.0 4.9 3.1 91.5 5.4
5-9 11.5 88.5 0.0 8.0 92.0 0.0 11.2 88.8 0.0 8.0 92.0 0.0 11.7 88.3 0.0 7.9 92.1 0.0
10-
.5 97.6 1.8 .3 97.8 1.9 .5 97.8 1.6 .3 98.2 1.5 .6 97.4 2.0 .3 97.5 2.3
14
15-
.7 79.8 19.5 .1 78.9 21.0 1.0 82.4 16.6 .1 80.7 19.2 .4 77.0 22.7 .1 77.0 22.9
17
Nsanje Total 5.7 90.8 3.5 3.6 92.0 4.4 5.7 91.4 2.9 3.6 92.1 4.3 5.7 90.1 4.1 3.6 91.9 4.6
5-9 12.8 87.2 0.0 8.9 91.1 0.0 12.8 87.2 0.0 9.1 90.9 0.0 12.8 87.2 0.0 8.8 91.2 0.0
10-
.5 98.3 1.2 .3 98.1 1.7 .6 98.3 1.1 .3 98.3 1.5 .3 98.3 1.3 .3 97.9 1.9
14
15-
.5 83.5 16.0 .1 80.4 19.5 .6 85.5 13.8 .1 81.6 18.3 .3 81.5 18.2 .1 79.2 20.7
17
Balaka Total 3.3 91.4 5.3 2.2 92.3 5.5 3.2 92.2 4.6 2.3 92.9 4.9 3.4 90.5 6.1 2.2 91.7 6.2
5-9 8.0 92.0 0.0 5.8 94.2 0.0 7.7 92.3 0.0 5.9 94.1 0.0 8.4 91.6 0.0 5.7 94.3 0.0
10-
.3 97.5 2.2 .1 97.6 2.3 .3 98.3 1.4 .2 98.1 1.8 .4 96.6 3.0 .1 97.1 2.7
14
15-
.2 77.6 22.1 .1 76.9 23.0 .4 79.1 20.5 .1 79.5 20.4 .1 76.0 23.9 .1 74.3 25.6
17
Neno Total 3.0 92.0 5.0 1.9 91.9 6.1 3.3 92.0 4.7 1.9 92.5 5.6 2.7 91.8 5.5 1.9 91.4 6.7
5-9 7.2 92.8 0.0 5.1 94.9 0.0 7.8 92.2 0.0 5.2 94.8 0.0 6.5 93.5 0.0 5.0 95.0 0.0
10-
.2 97.2 2.6 .2 97.2 2.6 .2 98.0 1.8 .2 97.8 2.0 .2 96.5 3.3 .2 96.7 3.1
14
15-
.2 80.0 19.8 .1 75.1 24.8 0.0 80.1 19.9 .1 77.1 22.7 .4 80.0 19.6 .0 73.1 26.9
17
Zomba Total 3.7 80.7 15.7 3.2 80.0 16.8 4.4 83.0 12.6 3.7 81.3 15.0 3.1 78.5 18.4 2.8 78.8 18.3
City
5-9 10.8 89.2 0.0 8.6 91.4 0.0 11.9 88.1 0.0 9.6 90.4 0.0 9.6 90.4 0.0 7.7 92.3 0.0
10-
.2 89.9 9.8 .1 88.2 11.7 .3 90.8 9.0 .1 90.1 9.8 .2 89.2 10.6 .1 86.5 13.4
14
15-
.2 52.1 47.7 .0 46.0 53.9 0.0 60.6 39.4 .1 50.1 49.9 .4 45.0 54.6 0.0 42.3 57.7
17
Blantyre Total
4.9 78.6 16.5 3.8 79.3 16.9 5.3 82.3 12.4 4.0 80.7 15.3 4.5 74.7 20.8 3.5 78.1 18.4
City
5-9 12.6 87.4 0.0 9.8 90.2 0.0 12.7 87.3 0.0 10.4 89.6 0.0 12.4 87.6 0.0 9.3 90.7 0.0
10-
.9 87.6 11.5 .1 88.0 11.8 1.1 90.3 8.6 .2 89.8 10.1 .6 84.7 14.6 .1 86.4 13.5
14

67
15-
.5 48.2 51.4 .0 43.7 56.3 .5 56.8 42.7 .0 47.9 52.1 .5 40.6 58.9 .0 39.8 60.2
17

68
Annex 6a: Persons aged 5-17 years by educational level attended 2008 Census

Total Male Female

With Disability Without Disability With Disability Without Disability With Disability Without Disability
District Education level Education level Education level

Non Prima Secondar Non Prima Secondar Non Prima Secondar Non Prima Secondar Non Prima Secondar Non Prima Secondar
e ry y+ e ry y+ e ry y+ e ry y+ e ry y+ e ry y+

Total 4.4 92.6 3.0 4.4 91.7 3.9 4.4 92.9 2.6 4.3 92.0 3.6 4.3 92.2 3.5 4.4 91.4 4.2
Chitipa 5.5 91.4 3.1 4.8 91.5 3.7 5.2 92.5 2.3 4.6 92.1 3.3 5.8 90.2 4.0 5.0 90.9 4.1
Karonga 5.5 90.8 3.7 6.2 90.2 3.6 4.9 92.9 2.2 6.2 90.7 3.1 6.1 88.6 5.2 6.2 89.7 4.1
Nkhata
5.9 91.2 2.9 5.0 90.7 4.3 6.6 90.6 2.8 4.8 91.0 4.2 5.3 91.8 2.9 5.2 90.4 4.4
Bay
Rumphi 2.5 92.9 4.6 3.3 91.5 5.2 2.2 94.8 3.0 3.4 92.1 4.5 2.7 90.9 6.4 3.3 90.8 5.9
Mzimba 4.5 92.4 3.2 4.0 92.2 3.8 4.5 93.0 2.5 3.9 92.9 3.2 4.4 91.7 3.9 4.0 91.7 4.3
Likoma 7.3 84.3 8.4 6.9 87.5 5.5 6.7 83.7 9.6 6.5 88.3 5.2 8.0 85.1 6.9 7.3 86.8 5.9
Mzuzu
4.4 82.0 13.6 4.6 82.5 12.9 5.0 82.4 12.5 4.5 84.0 11.4 3.7 81.5 14.8 4.7 81.1 14.3
City
Kasungu 3.9 94.2 1.9 3.6 93.6 2.8 4.3 93.9 1.8 3.6 93.9 2.6 3.5 94.5 2.0 3.7 93.3 3.0
Nkhota
4.7 93.1 2.2 4.4 92.3 3.3 4.1 93.9 2.0 4.3 92.6 3.1 5.3 92.2 2.5 4.6 92.0 3.4
Kota
Ntchisi 5.4 91.9 2.7 5.9 92.0 2.1 5.9 92.0 2.1 5.9 92.2 1.9 4.7 91.8 3.5 5.9 91.8 2.3
Dowa 2.8 95.2 2.1 3.4 94.0 2.5 2.9 94.9 2.2 3.4 94.3 2.3 2.6 95.5 1.9 3.4 93.8 2.8
Salima 4.1 94.4 1.5 4.7 92.7 2.6 4.2 94.3 1.6 4.6 92.7 2.6 4.1 94.6 1.3 4.8 92.6 2.7
Lilongw
3.8 94.6 1.6 3.7 94.2 2.1 3.8 95.0 1.2 3.7 94.3 2.0 3.8 94.3 1.9 3.8 94.0 2.2
e Rural
Mchinji 4.5 93.8 1.7 3.9 93.4 2.6 4.3 94.0 1.8 3.8 93.7 2.5 4.8 93.6 1.7 4.0 93.2 2.8
Dedza 4.1 94.4 1.6 4.2 93.8 2.0 3.7 94.7 1.6 4.2 93.9 1.9 4.4 93.9 1.6 4.2 93.6 2.2
Ntcheu 2.8 94.3 2.8 2.9 94.0 3.1 2.4 94.7 2.9 2.8 94.3 2.9 3.3 93.9 2.8 3.0 93.7 3.3
Lilongw
5.2 85.8 9.0 5.3 84.5 10.2 5.3 87.3 7.4 5.3 85.0 9.7 5.1 84.3 10.5 5.3 84.1 10.6
e City
Mangoc
5.4 92.6 2.1 5.3 92.4 2.2 5.4 92.3 2.2 5.2 92.7 2.2 5.3 92.8 1.9 5.5 92.2 2.3
hi
Maching
4.5 94.2 1.3 4.7 92.8 2.5 4.9 94.0 1.1 4.6 92.9 2.5 4.1 94.5 1.5 4.8 92.7 2.5
a

69
Zomba 4.1 94.0 1.9 4.5 92.8 2.7 3.4 94.7 1.9 4.4 93.1 2.6 4.9 93.1 2.0 4.6 92.6 2.8
Chiradzu
6.2 90.3 3.4 5.6 90.9 3.5 7.0 90.0 3.0 5.6 91.3 3.1 5.4 90.7 3.9 5.6 90.4 3.9
lu
Blantyre
5.8 91.0 3.2 5.8 89.8 4.5 6.0 90.9 3.1 5.8 90.1 4.1 5.6 91.1 3.3 5.8 89.4 4.8
Rural
Mwanza 4.0 93.7 2.3 3.5 92.8 3.6 4.0 94.4 1.6 3.6 92.9 3.5 4.0 92.9 3.1 3.5 92.7 3.8
Thyolo 4.1 93.2 2.7 4.0 93.0 3.0 4.5 92.8 2.6 3.9 93.3 2.8 3.7 93.5 2.8 4.1 92.7 3.2
Mulanje 4.6 93.6 1.8 4.3 92.9 2.8 4.5 93.4 2.1 4.3 93.1 2.6 4.8 93.8 1.4 4.3 92.7 2.9
Phalomb
3.9 93.8 2.2 4.0 94.0 2.0 4.0 94.0 2.0 4.1 94.0 1.9 3.8 93.7 2.5 4.0 93.9 2.1
e
Chikwa
3.7 94.0 2.4 4.1 93.2 2.8 3.7 94.7 1.7 4.0 93.3 2.7 3.7 93.0 3.3 4.2 93.0 2.8
wa
Nsanje 3.8 93.8 2.4 3.2 94.0 2.8 3.1 94.1 2.9 3.2 93.9 2.9 4.6 93.5 1.9 3.3 94.0 2.7
Balaka 3.5 94.1 2.5 3.3 93.0 3.7 2.9 95.1 2.0 3.2 93.4 3.3 4.2 92.8 3.0 3.4 92.5 4.0
Neno 6.2 91.4 2.4 4.7 91.7 3.7 7.5 90.5 2.0 4.8 91.6 3.7 4.8 92.4 2.8 4.5 91.8 3.7
Zomba
3.2 87.2 9.6 5.5 81.8 12.8 3.9 88.7 7.4 5.7 82.1 12.3 2.6 85.8 11.6 5.3 81.5 13.2
City
Blantyre
5.2 84.2 10.6 5.2 82.7 12.1 5.7 85.8 8.5 5.2 83.6 11.2 4.7 82.5 12.9 5.2 82.0 12.9
City

70
Annex 6b: Educational level by age group and district 2008 MPHC

Total Male Female

With Disability Without Disability With Disability Without Disability With Disability Without Disability

Age Education level Education level Education level Education level Education level Education level
grou Non Prima Secondar Non Prima Secondar Non Prima Secondar Non Prima Secondar Non Prima Secondar Non Prima Secondar
District p e ry y+ e ry y+ e ry y+ e ry y+ e ry y+ e ry y+
Total Tota
4.4 92.6 3.0 4.4 91.7 3.9 4.4 92.9 2.6 4.3 92.0 3.6 4.3 92.2 3.5 4.4 91.4 4.2
l
5-9 10.4 89.6 0.0 10.3 89.7 0.0 10.4 89.6 0.0 10.3 89.7 0.0 10.2 89.8 0.0 10.4 89.6 0.0
10-
0.8 98.3 0.9 0.5 98.2 1.3 0.9 98.5 0.7 0.5 98.4 1.1 .8 98.1 1.0 .5 98.1 1.5
14
15-
0.5 85.7 13.7 0.3 81.7 18.0 0.5 87.5 11.9 0.3 83.3 16.4 .5 83.7 15.8 .3 80.2 19.5
17
Chitipa Tota
5.5 91.4 3.1 4.8 91.5 3.7 5.2 92.5 2.3 4.6 92.1 3.3 5.8 90.2 4.0 5.0 90.9 4.1
l
5-9 13.4 86.6 0.0 11.4 88.6 0.0 12.4 87.6 0.0 11.1 88.9 0.0 14.5 85.5 0.0 11.7 88.3 0.0
10-
0.6 98.8 0.6 0.3 98.6 1.0 0.9 98.5 0.6 0.3 99.0 0.7 .3 99.2 .5 .4 98.3 1.3
14
15-
0.5 85.7 13.8 0.2 82.5 17.4 0.5 89.2 10.4 0.2 84.1 15.7 .5 82.1 17.4 .1 80.9 19.0
17
Karonga Tota
5.5 90.8 3.7 6.2 90.2 3.6 4.9 92.9 2.2 6.2 90.7 3.1 6.1 88.6 5.2 6.2 89.7 4.1
l
5-9 13.0 87.0 0.0 13.8 86.2 0.0 11.3 88.7 0.0 13.7 86.3 0.0 14.7 85.3 0.0 13.8 86.2 0.0
10-
0.7 98.0 1.3 0.6 98.3 1.1 0.6 98.7 0.6 0.6 98.6 0.8 .8 97.1 2.0 .6 98.1 1.3
14
15-
0.5 83.6 15.9 0.4 81.9 17.7 1.0 89.0 10.0 0.5 84.1 15.4 0.0 78.2 21.8 .3 79.7 19.9
17
Nkhata Tota
6.0 91.2 2.9 5.0 90.7 4.3 6.6 90.6 2.8 4.8 90.9 4.2 5.3 91.8 2.9 5.2 90.4 4.4
Bay l
5-9 14.7 85.3 0.0 12.3 87.7 0.0 16.5 83.5 0.0 11.7 88.3 0.0 12.6 87.4 0.0 12.8 87.2 0.0
10-
0.5 99.0 0.6 0.3 98.4 1.3 0.2 99.3 0.5 0.3 98.4 1.3 .8 98.6 .6 .4 98.3 1.4
14
15-
0.4 86.8 12.8 0.3 80.5 19.1 0.0 87.2 12.8 0.4 80.9 18.7 .8 86.3 12.9 .3 80.1 19.6
17
Rumphi Tota
2.5 92.9 4.6 3.4 91.4 5.2 2.2 94.8 3.0 3.4 92.1 4.5 2.7 90.9 6.4 3.3 90.8 5.9
l
5-9 6.7 93.3 0.0 7.8 92.2 0.0 6.1 93.9 0.0 7.8 92.2 0.0 7.5 92.5 0.0 7.7 92.3 0.0
10-
0.1 99.3 0.5 0.3 98.0 1.8 0.0 99.2 0.8 0.3 98.5 1.3 .3 99.4 .3 .3 97.5 2.2
14
15-
0.0 80.0 20.0 0.2 75.9 23.9 0.0 87.0 13.0 0.1 78.8 21.1 0.0 73.6 26.4 .2 73.1 26.6
17
Mzimba Tota
4.5 92.4 3.2 4.0 92.2 3.8 4.5 93.0 2.5 3.9 92.9 3.2 4.4 91.7 3.9 4.0 91.7 4.3
l

71
 5-9 9.4 90.6 0.0 9.2 90.8 0.0 9.6 90.4 0.0 9.2 90.8 0.0 9.1 90.9 0.0 9.2 90.8 0.0
10-
1.9 97.5 0.6 0.5 98.5 1.0 2.0 97.5 0.5 0.5 98.7 0.7 1.8 97.5 .6 .5 98.2 1.3
14
15-
0.7 84.7 14.6 0.4 82.2 17.4 0.6 88.5 10.9 0.3 84.7 14.9 .8 79.9 19.2 .4 79.7 19.9
17
Likoma Tota
7.3 84.3 8.4 6.9 87.5 5.5 6.7 83.7 9.6 6.5 88.3 5.2 8.0 85.1 6.9 7.3 86.8 5.9
l
5-9 23.3 76.7 0.0 17.4 82.6 0.0 18.9 81.1 0.0 16.5 83.5 0.0 30.4 69.6 0.0 18.2 81.8 0.0
10-
0.0 98.8 1.2 0.2 98.3 1.5 0.0 97.5 2.5 0.2 98.4 1.4 0.0 100.0 0.0 .3 98.1 1.6
14
15-
0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 76.4 23.6 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 77.9 22.1 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 74.9 25.1
17
Mzuzu Tota
4.4 82.0 13.6 4.6 82.5 12.9 5.0 82.4 12.5 4.5 84.0 11.4 3.7 81.5 14.8 4.7 81.1 14.3
City l
5-9 10.1 89.9 0.0 11.0 89.0 0.0 11.2 88.8 0.0 10.7 89.3 0.0 8.7 91.3 0.0 11.3 88.7 0.0
10-
0.8 93.7 5.6 0.2 94.0 5.8 1.1 92.7 6.1 0.2 95.1 4.7 .4 94.6 5.0 .2 93.1 6.8
14
15-
2.0 50.0 48.0 0.1 47.2 52.7 1.8 56.6 41.6 0.1 51.0 48.9 2.2 41.9 55.9 .1 43.9 56.0
17
Kasungu Tota
3.9 94.2 1.9 3.6 93.6 2.8 4.3 93.9 1.8 3.6 93.9 2.6 3.5 94.5 2.0 3.7 93.3 3.0
l
5-9 9.3 90.7 0.0 8.3 91.7 0.0 10.3 89.7 0.0 8.3 91.7 0.0 8.2 91.8 0.0 8.4 91.6 0.0
10-
0.4 98.7 0.9 0.5 98.6 0.9 0.4 99.0 0.6 0.5 98.7 0.8 .4 98.4 1.2 .5 98.6 1.0
14
15-
0.5 91.5 7.9 0.4 86.6 13.0 0.6 91.4 8.0 0.4 88.0 11.6 .5 91.6 7.9 .4 85.1 14.5
17
Nkhotak Tota
4.7 93.1 2.2 4.4 92.3 3.3 4.1 93.9 2.0 4.3 92.6 3.1 5.3 92.2 2.5 4.6 92.0 3.4
ota l
5-9 10.3 89.7 0.0 10.4 89.6 0.0 8.9 91.1 0.0 10.4 89.6 0.0 11.8 88.2 0.0 10.5 89.5 0.0
10-
1.2 97.7 1.1 0.5 98.6 0.9 1.4 97.9 0.8 0.5 98.8 0.7 1.0 97.5 1.5 .5 98.5 1.0
14
15-
0.5 90.3 9.3 0.3 84.2 15.5 0.8 90.8 8.3 0.2 85.1 14.7 0.0 89.5 10.5 .4 83.2 16.4
17
Ntchisi Tota
5.4 91.9 2.7 5.9 92.0 2.1 5.9 92.0 2.1 5.9 92.2 1.9 4.7 91.8 3.5 5.9 91.8 2.3
l
5-9 13.6 86.4 0.0 14.4 85.6 0.0 14.8 85.2 0.0 14.6 85.4 0.0 12.1 87.9 0.0 14.1 85.9 0.0
10-
0.3 99.2 0.5 0.4 98.9 0.6 0.2 99.8 0.0 0.5 99.0 0.5 .4 98.5 1.0 .4 98.9 .7
14
15-
0.4 87.0 12.6 0.3 90.2 9.6 0.8 89.0 10.2 0.2 91.3 8.5 0.0 84.8 15.2 .4 89.0 10.6
17
Dowa Tota
2.8 95.2 2.1 3.4 94.0 2.5 2.9 94.9 2.2 3.4 94.3 2.3 2.6 95.5 1.9 3.4 93.8 2.8
l
5-9 6.7 93.3 0.0 8.1 91.9 0.0 6.9 93.1 0.0 8.1 91.9 0.0 6.4 93.6 0.0 8.0 92.0 0.0
10-
0.4 99.2 0.5 0.6 98.8 0.6 0.5 99.0 0.5 0.5 98.9 0.6 .3 99.3 .4 .6 98.7 .7
14
15-
0.6 90.1 9.3 0.5 88.3 11.2 0.7 89.3 10.0 0.6 89.4 10.0 .5 90.9 8.7 .4 87.2 12.4
17
Salima Tota
4.1 94.4 1.5 4.7 92.7 2.6 4.2 94.3 1.6 4.6 92.7 2.6 4.1 94.6 1.3 4.8 92.6 2.7
l

72
 5-9 9.7 90.3 0.0 11.0 89.0 0.0 9.7 90.3 0.0 11.2 88.8 0.0 9.6 90.4 0.0 10.8 89.2 0.0
10-
1.0 98.7 0.3 0.6 98.4 0.9 0.9 98.9 0.1 0.5 98.6 0.9 1.0 98.5 .5 .7 98.3 1.0
14
15-
0.0 92.6 7.4 0.5 87.3 12.2 0.0 91.6 8.4 0.5 87.7 11.8 0.0 93.7 6.3 .4 86.9 12.6
17
Lilongwe Tota
3.8 94.6 1.6 3.7 94.2 2.1 3.8 95.0 1.2 3.7 94.3 2.0 3.8 94.2 1.9 3.8 94.0 2.2
Rural l
5-9 8.6 91.4 0.0 8.8 91.2 0.0 8.9 91.1 0.0 8.8 91.2 0.0 8.3 91.7 0.0 8.9 91.1 0.0
10-
1.0 98.7 0.3 0.6 98.8 0.5 1.0 98.8 0.2 0.7 98.8 0.5 1.0 98.6 .4 .6 98.8 .6
14
15-
0.7 91.8 7.5 0.4 90.0 9.6 0.3 93.7 5.9 0.3 90.7 8.9 1.2 89.7 9.2 .4 89.2 10.4
17
Mchinji Tota
4.5 93.8 1.7 3.9 93.4 2.6 4.3 94.0 1.8 3.8 93.7 2.5 4.8 93.6 1.7 4.0 93.2 2.8
l
5-9 10.9 89.1 0.0 9.3 90.7 0.0 10.3 89.7 0.0 9.3 90.7 0.0 11.6 88.4 0.0 9.2 90.8 0.0
10-
0.7 99.0 0.3 0.6 98.8 0.6 0.7 99.1 0.2 0.6 98.9 0.5 .8 98.8 .4 .6 98.8 .7
14
15-
0.6 91.3 8.1 0.4 87.6 12.0 0.6 91.0 8.4 0.4 88.7 10.9 .5 91.7 7.8 .4 86.4 13.2
17
Dedza Tota
4.1 94.4 1.6 4.2 93.8 2.0 3.7 94.7 1.6 4.2 93.9 1.9 4.4 93.9 1.6 4.2 93.6 2.2
l
5-9 9.7 90.3 0.0 10.7 89.3 0.0 9.0 91.0 0.0 10.8 89.2 0.0 10.6 89.4 0.0 10.5 89.5 0.0
10-
0.9 98.8 0.3 0.5 99.0 0.5 0.8 98.8 0.4 0.5 99.1 0.4 1.1 98.8 .2 .5 98.8 .7
14
15-
0.7 91.9 7.5 0.2 90.5 9.2 0.7 92.1 7.3 0.2 91.1 8.7 .7 91.7 7.7 .3 89.9 9.8
17
Ntcheu Tota
2.8 94.3 2.8 2.9 94.0 3.1 2.4 94.7 2.9 2.8 94.3 2.9 3.3 93.9 2.8 3.0 93.7 3.3
l
5-9 7.2 92.8 0.0 7.0 93.0 0.0 6.1 93.9 0.0 6.8 93.2 0.0 8.6 91.4 0.0 7.2 92.8 0.0
10-
0.7 98.7 0.6 0.3 98.8 0.9 0.7 99.0 0.3 0.3 99.0 0.7 .8 98.3 1.0 .3 98.6 1.0
14
15-
0.0 87.6 12.4 0.2 85.4 14.4 0.0 87.2 12.8 0.2 86.4 13.5 0.0 88.1 11.9 .2 84.5 15.3
17
Lilongwe Tota
5.2 85.8 9.0 5.3 84.5 10.2 5.3 87.3 7.4 5.3 84.9 9.7 5.1 84.3 10.5 5.3 84.1 10.6
City l
5-9 12.6 87.4 0.0 12.4 87.6 0.0 11.8 88.2 0.0 12.3 87.7 0.0 13.5 86.5 0.0 12.4 87.6 0.0
10-
0.8 95.4 3.8 0.4 94.9 4.7 1.1 96.1 2.9 0.4 95.2 4.4 .5 94.7 4.7 .5 94.6 4.9
14
15-
0.9 64.9 34.2 0.3 57.8 41.9 1.6 68.1 30.3 0.2 59.7 40.0 .3 61.8 38.0 .3 56.1 43.6
17
Mangoch Tota
5.4 92.6 2.1 5.3 92.4 2.2 5.4 92.3 2.2 5.2 92.7 2.2 5.3 92.8 1.9 5.5 92.2 2.3
i l
5-9 12.9 87.1 0.0 12.6 87.4 0.0 13.4 86.6 0.0 12.3 87.7 0.0 12.4 87.6 0.0 12.8 87.2 0.0
10-
0.6 99.0 0.5 0.5 98.8 0.7 0.6 99.1 0.3 0.6 98.8 0.6 .6 98.8 .6 .5 98.8 .7
14
15-
0.1 89.5 10.4 0.3 88.6 11.1 0.0 89.1 10.9 0.3 89.3 10.3 .3 89.9 9.7 .3 87.8 11.9
17
Maching Tota
4.5 94.2 1.3 4.7 92.8 2.5 4.9 94.0 1.1 4.6 92.9 2.5 4.1 94.5 1.5 4.8 92.7 2.5
a l

73
 5-9 11.2 88.8 0.0 11.0 89.0 0.0 12.9 87.1 0.0 11.0 89.0 0.0 9.4 90.6 0.0 11.0 89.0 0.0
10-
0.5 99.3 0.2 0.5 98.8 0.7 0.3 99.6 0.1 0.5 98.9 0.7 .7 99.0 .3 .5 98.7 .8
14
15-
0.3 92.8 6.9 0.3 87.1 12.6 0.0 94.1 5.9 0.3 87.6 12.1 .8 91.3 8.0 .3 86.6 13.0
17
Zomba Tota
4.1 94.0 1.9 4.5 92.8 2.7 3.4 94.7 1.9 4.4 93.1 2.6 4.9 93.1 2.0 4.6 92.6 2.8
l
5-9 10.5 89.5 0.0 10.7 89.3 0.0 8.8 91.3 0.0 10.6 89.4 0.0 12.3 87.7 0.0 10.8 89.2 0.0
10-
0.5 98.8 0.7 0.3 99.0 0.7 0.5 98.8 0.7 0.3 99.0 0.7 .4 98.8 .8 .3 99.0 .7
14
15-
0.0 91.6 8.4 0.2 86.2 13.6 0.0 92.1 7.9 0.2 87.5 12.4 0.0 90.9 9.1 .2 84.9 14.9
17
Chiradzu Tota
6.2 90.3 3.4 5.6 90.9 3.5 7.0 90.0 3.0 5.6 91.3 3.1 5.4 90.7 3.9 5.6 90.4 3.9
lu l
5-9 14.0 86.0 0.0 12.9 87.1 0.0 15.2 84.8 0.0 12.9 87.1 0.0 12.6 87.4 0.0 12.9 87.1 0.0
10-
0.4 98.7 0.9 0.5 98.4 1.1 0.6 98.8 0.6 0.6 98.6 0.8 .3 98.6 1.2 .4 98.2 1.4
14
15-
0.7 81.8 17.5 0.2 82.8 17.0 0.3 83.5 16.2 0.2 84.7 15.0 1.0 80.0 19.0 .1 80.9 19.0
17
Blantyre Tota
5.8 91.0 3.2 5.8 89.8 4.5 6.0 90.9 3.1 5.8 90.1 4.1 5.6 91.1 3.3 5.8 89.4 4.8
Rural l
5-9 12.7 87.3 0.0 14.0 86.0 0.0 13.9 86.1 0.0 14.0 86.0 0.0 11.5 88.5 0.0 13.9 86.1 0.0
10-
1.5 97.3 1.2 0.4 98.1 1.5 1.2 97.7 1.0 0.4 98.3 1.3 1.8 96.9 1.4 .3 98.0 1.7
14
15-
0.4 84.9 14.7 0.2 79.2 20.6 0.0 85.7 14.3 0.2 81.1 18.7 .9 84.1 15.0 .2 77.2 22.6
17
Mwanza Tota
4.0 93.7 2.3 3.5 92.8 3.6 4.0 94.4 1.6 3.6 92.9 3.5 4.0 92.9 3.1 3.5 92.7 3.8
l
5-9 8.8 91.2 0.0 9.0 91.0 0.0 9.4 90.6 0.0 9.0 91.0 0.0 8.1 91.9 0.0 8.9 91.1 0.0
10-
1.0 98.7 0.3 0.2 98.7 1.1 0.7 98.7 0.7 0.2 98.9 1.0 1.4 98.6 0.0 .2 98.5 1.3
14
15-
0.7 88.2 11.1 0.1 83.4 16.5 0.0 93.3 6.7 0.1 83.9 16.0 1.4 82.6 15.9 .0 83.0 17.0
17
Thyolo Tota
4.1 93.2 2.7 4.0 93.0 3.0 4.5 92.8 2.6 3.9 93.3 2.8 3.7 93.5 2.8 4.1 92.7 3.2
l
5-9 9.5 90.5 0.0 9.2 90.8 0.0 10.3 89.7 0.0 9.1 90.9 0.0 8.7 91.3 0.0 9.3 90.7 0.0
10-
0.9 98.4 0.8 0.6 98.6 0.8 1.0 98.5 0.6 0.5 98.8 0.7 .8 98.3 1.0 .6 98.4 1.0
14
15-
0.5 86.9 12.6 0.4 84.7 15.0 1.0 86.9 12.0 0.4 85.9 13.8 0.0 86.9 13.1 .4 83.5 16.2
17
Mulanje Tota
4.6 93.6 1.8 4.3 92.9 2.8 4.5 93.4 2.1 4.3 93.1 2.6 4.8 93.7 1.4 4.3 92.7 2.9
l
5-9 10.6 89.4 0.0 10.2 89.8 0.0 10.6 89.4 0.0 10.3 89.7 0.0 10.6 89.4 0.0 10.2 89.8 0.0
10-
0.6 98.4 1.0 0.2 99.0 0.8 0.4 98.4 1.2 0.3 99.0 0.7 .9 98.4 .7 .2 98.9 .9
14
15-
0.5 91.1 8.4 0.1 85.9 14.0 0.5 89.9 9.5 0.1 87.1 12.8 .6 92.4 7.1 .1 84.7 15.2
17
Phalomb Tota
3.9 93.8 2.2 4.1 94.0 2.0 4.0 94.0 2.0 4.1 94.0 1.9 3.8 93.7 2.5 4.0 93.9 2.1
e l

74
 5-9 8.8 91.2 0.0 8.8 91.2 0.0 8.6 91.4 0.0 9.0 91.0 0.0 9.0 91.0 0.0 8.6 91.4 0.0
10-
0.7 98.8 0.5 0.5 98.9 0.6 1.1 98.7 0.3 0.6 98.9 0.5 .3 98.9 .8 .5 98.9 .6
14
15-
0.3 87.8 11.8 0.3 88.8 10.9 0.6 88.5 10.9 0.3 89.8 10.0 0.0 87.2 12.8 .3 87.8 11.9
17
Chikwaw Tota
3.7 94.0 2.4 4.1 93.2 2.8 3.7 94.7 1.7 4.0 93.3 2.7 3.7 93.0 3.3 4.2 93.0 2.8
a l
5-9 8.2 91.8 0.0 9.4 90.6 0.0 7.5 92.5 0.0 9.3 90.7 0.0 9.0 91.0 0.0 9.5 90.5 0.0
10-
1.1 98.6 0.3 0.7 98.7 0.6 1.5 98.1 0.4 0.7 98.7 0.6 .6 99.2 .2 .6 98.7 .7
14
15-
0.6 87.2 12.2 0.5 86.2 13.3 1.1 91.0 7.9 0.4 87.0 12.6 0.0 82.2 17.8 .6 85.3 14.2
17
Nsanje Tota
3.8 93.8 2.4 3.2 94.0 2.8 3.1 94.1 2.9 3.2 93.9 2.9 4.6 93.5 1.9 3.3 94.0 2.7
l
5-9 9.0 91.0 0.0 7.9 92.1 0.0 7.1 92.9 0.0 8.0 92.0 0.0 11.3 88.7 0.0 7.8 92.2 0.0
10-
1.4 98.1 0.5 0.5 98.8 0.7 1.4 98.6 0.0 0.4 98.9 0.6 1.4 97.6 1.0 .5 98.7 .8
14
15-
0.0 89.0 11.0 0.2 86.9 12.8 0.0 87.6 12.4 0.3 86.9 12.7 0.0 91.4 8.6 .1 86.9 13.0
17
Balaka Tota
3.5 94.1 2.5 3.3 93.0 3.7 2.9 95.1 2.0 3.2 93.4 3.3 4.2 92.8 3.0 3.4 92.5 4.0
l
5-9 8.4 91.6 0.0 8.1 91.9 0.0 7.0 93.0 0.0 7.9 92.1 0.0 9.9 90.1 0.0 8.3 91.7 0.0
10-
0.9 98.5 0.6 0.3 98.7 1.0 0.7 98.7 0.6 0.3 99.0 0.8 1.1 98.2 .7 .3 98.5 1.2
14
15-
0.0 87.9 12.1 0.2 82.3 17.5 0.0 90.3 9.7 0.2 83.9 15.9 0.0 85.1 14.9 .1 80.7 19.2
17
Neno Tota
6.2 91.4 2.4 4.7 91.7 3.7 7.5 90.4 2.0 4.8 91.6 3.7 4.8 92.4 2.8 4.5 91.8 3.7
l
5-9 14.8 85.2 0.0 11.2 88.8 0.0 15.5 84.5 0.0 11.6 88.4 0.0 13.8 86.2 0.0 10.8 89.2 0.0
10-
0.9 98.3 0.7 0.5 98.7 0.8 2.0 97.1 1.0 0.5 98.7 0.7 0.0 99.5 .5 .5 98.6 .9
14
15-
1.7 86.9 11.4 0.5 81.5 18.0 3.2 88.4 8.4 0.5 81.8 17.7 0.0 85.2 14.8 .6 81.2 18.3
17
Zomba Tota
3.2 87.2 9.6 5.5 81.7 12.8 3.9 88.7 7.4 5.7 82.0 12.3 2.6 85.8 11.6 5.3 81.5 13.2
City l
5-9 9.3 90.7 0.0 13.7 86.3 0.0 11.3 88.7 0.0 14.0 86.0 0.0 7.5 92.5 0.0 13.5 86.5 0.0
10-
0.0 95.1 4.9 0.2 94.0 5.8 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.2 94.7 5.1 0.0 90.9 9.1 .2 93.4 6.4
14
15-
0.0 67.6 32.4 0.2 51.2 48.6 0.0 69.4 30.6 0.3 52.4 47.3 0.0 66.0 34.0 .2 50.1 49.7
17
Blantyre Tota
5.2 84.1 10.6 5.2 82.7 12.1 5.7 85.7 8.5 5.2 83.6 11.2 4.7 82.4 12.9 5.2 81.9 12.9
City l
5-9 12.4 87.6 0.0 12.5 87.5 0.0 12.4 87.6 0.0 12.4 87.6 0.0 12.4 87.6 0.0 12.6 87.4 0.0
10-
1.1 95.4 3.5 0.2 94.3 5.5 1.5 95.5 3.0 0.2 94.8 5.0 .8 95.2 3.9 .2 93.8 6.0
14
15-
1.1 58.8 40.1 0.1 52.5 47.3 0.9 66.6 32.5 0.1 55.1 44.8 1.3 50.8 48.0 .2 50.2 49.7
17

75
Annex 7: Highest education level attained for persons aged 5-17 years (2016 MDHS)

Total Male Female

With Disability Without Disability With Disability Without Disability With Disability Without Disability
District Education level Education level Education level
Non Prima Secondar Non Prima Secondar Non Prima Secondar Non Prima Secondar Non Prima Secondar Non Prima Secondar
e ry y+ e ry y+ e ry y+ e ry y+ e ry y+ e ry y+

Total 10.8 86.2 3.1 8.9 87.2 4.0 11.8 86.0 2.3 9.0 86.8 4.2 9.7 86.4 3.9 8.7 87.5 3.8
Chitipa 10.6 87.9 1.5 4.4 90.8 4.8 12.7 87.0 .3 2.5 92.8 4.7 8.2 88.9 2.9 6.3 88.9 4.9
Karonga 9.0 86.1 4.9 6.6 89.6 3.8 6.2 89.3 4.5 6.2 90.0 3.8 11.7 82.9 5.3 7.0 89.2 3.8
Nkhata
8.9 87.4 3.7 8.2 88.0 3.8 7.8 87.6 4.6 8.0 88.3 3.7 10.3 87.3 2.5 8.3 87.7 4.0
Bay
Rumphi 9.2 82.1 8.8 4.5 89.1 6.4 7.7 86.5 5.9 4.5 89.0 6.5 10.8 77.3 11.9 4.4 89.3 6.3
Mzimba 12.8 83.8 3.4 11.0 86.1 2.9 13.5 84.4 2.2 11.3 85.6 3.1 12.2 83.2 4.6 10.7 86.5 2.8
Likoma 6.9 90.3 2.7 6.3 88.3 5.4 8.2 89.6 2.2 5.8 89.1 5.1 5.9 90.9 3.2 6.8 87.5 5.7
Mzuzu
7.7 86.6 5.7 9.1 81.1 9.8 16.7 83.3 0.0 11.8 76.9 11.3 2.8 88.4 8.8 6.4 85.2 8.4
City
Kasungu 8.9 87.1 4.0 8.1 88.9 3.0 10.4 88.4 1.2 7.3 90.0 2.7 7.2 85.6 7.2 8.9 87.9 3.2
Nkhota
13.9 83.3 2.8 10.3 85.7 4.0 13.1 82.5 4.3 10.5 85.7 3.8 14.9 84.3 .8 10.1 85.8 4.1
Kota
Ntchisi 11.7 86.3 2.0 11.9 86.3 1.9 12.2 86.4 1.4 13.3 85.0 1.7 11.2 86.3 2.5 10.4 87.5 2.1
Dowa 11.6 86.5 2.0 8.7 88.8 2.5 16.3 80.7 3.0 8.0 88.8 3.2 7.1 91.9 1.0 9.4 88.8 1.8
Salima 15.9 81.8 2.3 15.8 82.8 1.3 12.3 85.1 2.6 15.3 83.1 1.6 20.2 77.8 2.0 16.4 82.5 1.1
Lilongwe
9.4 90.2 .5 6.5 91.1 2.4 13.7 86.3 0.0 6.3 92.1 1.7 5.4 93.8 .9 6.8 90.1 3.1
Rural
Mchinji 9.8 87.8 2.4 6.3 91.8 1.9 10.2 86.3 3.5 7.3 90.5 2.2 9.4 89.3 1.4 5.3 93.1 1.6
Dedza 11.4 87.3 1.3 10.1 88.8 1.1 12.7 85.6 1.7 11.1 87.6 1.3 10.1 89.0 1.0 9.1 90.0 .9
Ntcheu 9.2 86.1 4.7 6.5 88.2 5.3 9.0 84.5 6.5 6.9 87.8 5.2 9.4 88.1 2.5 6.0 88.6 5.4
Lilongwe
2.7 84.9 12.4 6.3 79.3 14.4 3.8 91.6 4.6 5.3 78.1 16.6 2.1 81.2 16.7 7.4 80.4 12.2
City
Mangoc
11.0 87.7 1.3 13.2 84.8 2.0 11.3 87.7 1.0 12.2 85.7 2.2 10.7 87.7 1.6 14.3 83.8 1.9
hi
Maching
13.2 86.1 .7 12.6 85.9 1.5 15.1 84.7 .2 13.0 85.5 1.5 11.0 87.7 1.3 12.3 86.3 1.4
a

76
Zomba 11.7 87.4 .8 8.4 88.1 3.5 8.9 90.6 .6 9.5 86.9 3.6 14.7 84.1 1.1 7.1 89.4 3.5
Chiradzu
11.5 87.7 .8 6.2 87.7 6.1 8.4 91.5 .1 6.1 87.7 6.2 14.9 83.6 1.5 6.4 87.6 6.0
lu
Blantyre
14.2 82.0 3.8 8.5 84.9 6.6 15.0 79.3 5.7 9.2 85.7 5.0 13.4 84.5 2.1 7.7 84.0 8.3
Rural
Mwanza 14.6 81.7 3.7 9.7 85.1 5.1 18.1 80.3 1.6 9.4 85.0 5.6 11.1 83.1 5.8 10.0 85.3 4.6
Thyolo 8.8 87.2 3.9 8.4 87.2 4.5 10.6 88.2 1.2 8.4 86.2 5.3 7.3 86.3 6.4 8.3 88.1 3.5
Mulanje 5.6 91.2 3.2 5.4 91.6 3.0 7.2 90.1 2.7 6.0 90.0 4.0 4.4 92.0 3.6 4.7 93.3 2.0
Phalomb
8.9 89.6 1.5 6.1 90.7 3.2 10.9 85.9 3.1 6.5 90.4 3.1 7.2 92.5 .2 5.7 91.0 3.3
e
Chikwaw
22.9 75.2 1.9 16.2 81.2 2.7 21.7 76.5 1.9 15.5 81.5 3.0 23.9 74.2 1.9 16.9 80.8 2.3
a
Nsanje 10.9 85.7 3.4 9.6 87.7 2.6 8.6 88.9 2.5 10.2 88.0 1.9 13.0 82.8 4.2 9.1 87.5 3.4
Balaka 10.1 87.0 2.9 9.0 87.8 3.2 13.3 84.0 2.7 10.6 85.4 4.0 6.8 90.1 3.1 7.4 90.3 2.3
Neno 14.1 83.4 2.5 9.7 86.8 3.4 14.5 82.3 3.2 10.7 85.4 3.9 13.5 84.7 1.8 8.8 88.3 3.0
Zomba
10.8 82.3 6.9 4.7 83.5 11.7 13.6 83.2 3.2 6.2 81.2 12.6 8.1 81.5 10.4 3.5 85.5 11.0
City
Blantyre
9.9 76.1 14.0 5.3 83.8 10.9 10.7 83.2 6.1 6.7 82.0 11.3 8.8 67.9 23.3 3.7 85.8 10.5
City

77
Annex 8: Household members received any assistance, 2018 MPHC

District Disability status

Children with disabilities Children without Total
disability
Did the household receive Did the household Did the household receive
assistance? receive assistance? assistance?
Yes No Total Yes No Total Yes No Total
Chitipa 9 91.5 100.0 7 93.2 100.0 7 93.1 100.0
Karonga 8 92.4 100.0 5 94.6 100.0 5 94.5 100.0
Nkhata 16 83.6 100.0 14 86.3 100.0 14 86.1 100.0
Bay
Rumphi 14 86.1 100.0 12 88.2 100.0 12 88.1 100.0
Mzimba 12 87.7 100.0 10 90.0 100.0 10 89.9 100.0
Likoma 10 90.2 100.0 9 90.6 100.0 9 90.6 100.0
Mzuzu 11 89.3 9 91.5 100.0 9 91.4 100.0
City 100.0
Kasungu 8 92.4 100.0 7 93.0 100.0 7 92.9 100.0
Nkhota 5 94.8 100.0 4 95.8 100.0 4 95.7 100.0
Kota
Ntchisi 7 92.7 100.0 5 94.7 100.0 5 94.5 100.0
Dowa 7 93.2 100.0 6 93.5 100.0 6 93.5 100.0
Salima 11 89.3 100.0 8 91.7 100.0 8 91.6 100.0
Lilongwe 5 94.6 100.0 4 95.5 100.0 5 95.5 100.0
Rural
Mchinji 7 93.0 100.0 6 94.3 100.0 6 94.2 100.0
Dedza 6 93.6 100.0 6 94.3 100.0 6 94.2 100.0
Ntcheu 8 92.0 100.0 7 93.2 100.0 7 93.2 100.0
Lilongwe 7 93.3 100.0 5 95.1 100.0 5 95.0 100.0
City
Mangochi 10 89.8 100.0 9 91.1 100.0 9 91.1 100.0
Machinga 15 84.5 100.0 12 88.1 100.0 12 87.9 100.0
Zomba 17 83.3 100.0 14 85.9 100.0 14 85.8 100.0
Chiradzul 15 85.3 100.0 11 88.9 100.0 11 88.7 100.0
u
Blantyre 13 86.8 100.0 11 88.8 100.0 11 88.7 100.0
Rural
Mwanza 12 87.5 100.0 10 90.5 100.0 10 90.3 100.0
Thyolo 17 83.4 100.0 13 86.9 100.0 13 86.8 100.0
Mulanje 16 83.7 100.0 13 86.7 100.0 13 86.6 100.0
Phalombe 19 80.9 100.0 16 83.7 100.0 16 83.6 100.0
Chikwawa 14 86.0 100.0 12 88.1 100.0 12 88.1 100.0
Nsanje 13 86.8 100.0 12 88.1 100.0 12 88.1 100.0
Balaka 21 78.7 100.0 19 81.1 100.0 19 81.0 100.0
Neno 8 91.5 100.0 7 93.4 100.0 7 93.3 100.0

78
Zomba 10 90.1 100.0 7 93.1 100.0 7 92.9 100.0
City
Blantyre 7 92.6 100.0 5 94.7 100.0 5 94.7 100.0
City
Total 10.7 89.3 100.0 9 91.1 100.0 9.0 91.0 100.0

79
Annex 9: Challenges experienced by children with disabilities

In the past 12 months, how often … Children with disabilities

Daily Weekly Monthly < Never NA

Monthly

Has availability or accessibility of transport been a problem for you? 8.7 3.3 5.5 8.9 71.4 2.3

Has information you wanted or needed not been available in a format you can use or 7.4 1.6 4.3 4.7 77.0 5.0
understand?

The availability of health services and medical care been a problem for you? 3.8 4.0 10.0 14.8 66.9 0.5

Did you need someone else’s (family member only or other person also) help in your 5.1 3.7 5.9 10.6 73.6 1.1
home and could not get it easily?

Did you need someone else’s help at school or work and could not get t easily? 3.6 2.3 4.9 8.6 64.1 16.4

Have other people’s attitudes towards you been a problem at home? 5.5 4.6 5.5 8.1 75.1 1.1

Have other people’s attitudes towards you been a problem at school or work? 4.3 4.8 4.2 7.0 63.8 15.9

Did you experience prejudice or discrimination? 5.9 5.7 6.1 10.3 70.8 1.4

80
Annex 10a: Ownership of toilets by district and type of facility among households with children with
disabilities (MPHC, 2018)

District

Type of toilet facilities

Pit
latrine
Ventilate Pit withou
d latrine Pit latrine t slab
improved with with or No
Flush pit (VIP) concret earth/san open Compos facility/Bush/Fiel
toilet latrine e slab d slab pit t toilet d Other Total
Chitipa 0.6 1.7 4.2 54.3 33.9 3.0 0.9 1.5 100.0
Karonga 1.6 2.1 9.3 51.3 22.1 4.7 6.4 2.4 100.0
Nkhata
0.8 1.5 5.3 50.6 30.5 1.6 6.6 2.9 100.0
Bay
Rumphi 0.6 1.1 4.1 65.6 22.8 1.2 3.4 1.2 100.0
Mzimba 0.3 1.2 3.8 46.0 29.9 4.6 10.3 3.8 100.0
Likoma 1.6 0.0 5.5 53.7 34.1 0.4 3.1 1.6 100.0
Mzuzu
14.9 2.0 28.5 37.2 14.1 0.9 1.0 1.4 100.0
City
Kasungu 0.4 1.9 4.0 50.7 29.3 5.7 5.6 2.5 100.0
Nkhota
2.6 1.6 4.1 44.8 32.7 2.3 10.0 2.0 100.0
Kota
Ntchisi 0.3 0.7 2.7 55.2 30.7 3.9 4.5 2.0 100.0
Dowa 0.4 0.6 4.7 52.1 29.3 4.2 5.8 2.8 100.0
Salima 0.9 0.6 6.0 56.4 24.7 4.5 5.1 1.8 100.0
Lilongwe
0.2 1.0 5.2 47.3 32.1 3.2 8.7 2.3 100.0
Rural
Mchinji 0.4 0.9 5.6 44.4 28.9 4.6 12.8 2.4 100.0
Dedza 0.4 0.8 3.1 39.1 38.7 6.3 7.3 4.4 100.0
Ntcheu 0.3 1.7 4.2 51.5 28.4 4.9 6.2 2.7 100.0
Lilongwe
11.8 1.9 40.9 31.1 10.9 1.4 1.3 0.9 100.0
City
Mangochi 1.0 1.5 6.2 51.5 30.4 3.9 3.6 2.0 100.0
Machinga 0.6 0.6 3.6 50.6 30.1 5.1 6.7 2.6 100.0
Zomba 0.5 0.8 6.5 51.3 29.8 3.8 5.5 1.9 100.0
Chiradzul
0.5 1.1 2.6 48.9 32.6 5.2 7.0 2.1 100.0
u
Blantyre
1.3 0.3 6.2 53.9 26.4 3.5 6.6 1.9 100.0
Rural
Mwanza 0.6 0.4 5.2 59.7 25.0 2.4 5.0 1.6 100.0
Thyolo 0.7 1.2 4.1 46.0 31.9 5.6 8.0 2.4 100.0
Mulanje 0.6 0.4 3.9 58.3 23.2 3.6 8.1 1.9 100.0
Phalombe 0.2 0.7 3.9 51.1 33.1 4.9 5.1 1.0 100.0
Chikwawa 1.1 0.9 2.8 50.5 27.0 4.1 10.5 3.1 100.0

81
 Nsanje 0.3 1.0 3.9 42.1 32.6 3.9 14.3 1.8 100.0
Balaka 1.0 0.4 6.1 55.0 28.1 4.2 4.0 1.3 100.0
Neno 0.5 1.2 4.6 54.4 24.4 4.9 7.4 2.6 100.0
Zomba
21.4 2.2 32.1 32.3 9.5 0.7 0.8 1.0 100.0
City
Blantyre
12.6 2.1 37.9 32.1 12.8 0.9 0.6 0.8 100.0
City
Total 1.6 1.1 7.3 48.6 28.5 4.0 6.6 2.3 100.0

82
Annex 10b: Ownership of toilets by district and type of facility among households with children
without disabilities (MPHC, 2018)

District

Type of toilet facilities

Pit
Ventilate Pit latrine
d latrine Pit latrine without
improved with with slab or No
Flush pit (VIP) concret earth/san open Compos facility/Bush/Fiel Tota
toilet latrine e slab d slab pit t toilet d Other l
Chitipa 0.6 1.0 4.8 54.6 32.7 2.4 0.8 3.1 100
Karonga 2.1 3.1 11.0 45.9 25.3 4.4 6.2 1.9 100
Nkhata
1.2 1.4 6.2 48.1 32.0 2.1 6.2 2.7
Bay 100
Rumphi 1.2 1.4 5.4 60.8 25.5 1.3 2.9 1.7 100
Mzimba 0.6 1.5 4.6 45.8 32.0 4.2 8.2 3.1 100
Likoma 2.5 0.2 8.4 44.9 35.7 0.0 6.7 1.6 100
Mzuzu
15.0 2.1 27.3 38.7 13.5 0.9 0.8 1.7
City 100
Kasungu 0.9 1.7 5.1 52.6 28.0 4.3 4.9 2.7 100
Nkhota
3.6 1.5 4.5 43.6 33.1 1.8 9.8 2.0
Kota 100
Ntchisi 0.4 0.8 3.5 52.1 34.1 3.5 4.1 1.5 100
Dowa 0.6 0.7 4.6 51.7 30.7 4.5 5.0 2.1 100
Salima 1.5 0.6 6.5 51.2 27.3 5.6 5.3 1.9 100
Lilongwe
0.4 1.3 5.6 46.7 32.5 3.2 8.5 1.9
Rural 100
Mchinji 0.6 0.8 5.8 46.8 28.0 4.3 11.7 1.9 100
Dedza 0.6 1.2 3.7 42.4 37.3 4.9 6.8 3.1 100
Ntcheu 0.5 2.0 4.3 49.0 30.5 4.9 6.5 2.4 100
Lilongwe
12.9 1.8 41.6 29.4 11.5 1.3 0.8 0.7
City 100
Mangochi 1.0 1.7 5.2 51.4 31.4 4.0 3.2 2.0 100
Machinga 0.6 0.7 3.0 48.8 32.7 5.4 6.6 2.3 100
Zomba 0.8 0.5 6.4 50.3 31.6 3.4 5.4 1.5 100
Chiradzul
0.5 0.8 2.6 50.1 32.7 4.6 6.4 2.3
u 100
Blantyre
2.0 0.3 8.3 49.8 28.2 3.3 6.3 1.8
Rural 100
Mwanza 1.4 0.9 7.5 53.5 26.4 3.2 4.9 2.2 100
Thyolo 0.8 1.4 4.4 47.0 30.8 4.9 8.0 2.7 100
Mulanje 0.7 0.6 4.7 54.7 25.4 4.6 7.2 2.1 100
Phalombe 0.2 1.0 3.6 47.5 35.8 5.4 5.3 1.2 100
Chikwaw
1.4 0.8 3.2 48.8 28.8 5.0 9.3 2.6
a 100

83
Nsanje 0.5 1.4 3.3 44.5 27.4 5.8 14.5 2.6 100
Balaka 1.2 0.4 6.2 51.2 30.7 4.7 4.1 1.5 100
Neno 0.6 2.0 4.2 49.6 26.8 6.0 7.9 2.9 100
Zomba
25.2 1.8 34.4 28.1 9.0 0.8 0.3 0.4
City 100
Blantyre
12.8 2.4 39.9 30.7 11.9 1.1 0.3 0.8
City 100
Total 2.2 1.3 8.6 47.1 28.8 3.9 6.0 2.1 100

84
Annex 11a: Sources of energy for cooking for households with children with disabilities (MPHC, 2018)

District Straw/
Shrubs/
Electricity Solar Paraffin Charcoal Firewood Grass Gas Other Total
Chitipa 0.3 1.0 0.0 4.8 93.2 0.2 0.0 0.6 100.0
Karonga 0.5 0.8 0.1 10.5 87.2 0.5 0.0 0.5 100.0
Nkhata Bay 0.3 0.5 0.0 4.1 93.9 0.1 0.0 1.0 100.0
Rumphi 0.3 0.4 0.1 5.8 92.9 0.2 0.0 0.5 100.0
Mzimba 0.2 1.1 0.1 3.5 94.1 0.2 0.0 0.9 100.0
Likoma 2.4 0.0 0.0 16.9 80.4 0.4 0.0 0.0 100.0
Mzuzu City 6.0 0.1 0.1 63.2 30.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 100.0
Kasungu 0.2 0.5 0.1 5.5 92.7 0.4 0.0 0.7 100.0
Nkhota Kota 0.8 0.4 0.1 9.8 86.0 0.9 0.0 2.0 100.0
Ntchisi 0.2 1.0 0.1 2.7 95.3 0.5 0.0 0.3 100.0
Dowa 0.5 0.8 0.1 4.8 91.9 0.9 0.1 0.9 100.0
Salima 0.4 0.4 0.2 10.2 87.9 0.3 0.0 0.6 100.0
Lilongwe Rural 0.3 0.4 0.2 5.5 90.1 2.6 0.0 0.8 100.0
Mchinji 0.3 1.3 0.5 6.1 90.9 0.3 0.1 0.7 100.0
Dedza 0.2 0.4 0.1 3.7 89.9 4.5 0.0 1.0 100.0
Ntcheu 0.2 0.5 0.1 5.9 92.2 0.3 0.0 0.7 100.0
Lilongwe City 7.0 0.2 0.1 71.3 19.2 1.3 0.3 0.7 100.0
Mangochi 0.3 0.5 0.2 14.4 83.7 0.2 0.0 0.7 100.0
Machinga 0.2 0.4 0.1 8.8 89.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 100.0
Zomba 0.3 0.4 0.2 5.3 91.7 1.5 0.0 0.5 100.0
Chiradzulu 0.2 1.8 0.5 4.5 87.3 4.6 0.0 0.9 100.0
Blantyre Rural 0.9 0.4 0.2 13.0 84.5 0.7 0.0 0.4 100.0
Mwanza 0.1 0.2 0.1 14.4 84.7 0.1 0.0 0.3 100.0
Thyolo 0.5 0.2 0.3 4.2 93.3 1.1 0.0 0.4 100.0
Mulanje 0.3 0.2 0.2 4.6 89.8 4.4 0.0 0.5 100.0
Phalombe 0.4 0.1 0.2 4.8 90.5 3.7 0.0 0.3 100.0
Chikwawa 0.6 0.5 0.2 10.9 85.8 0.7 0.0 1.2 100.0
Nsanje 0.4 1.0 0.1 14.7 83.2 0.3 0.0 0.3 100.0
Balaka 0.3 0.3 0.2 12.8 85.8 0.2 0.0 0.2 100.0
Neno 0.5 0.9 0.1 8.7 89.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 100.0
Zomba City 7.7 0.0 0.1 65.7 26.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 100.0
Blantyre City 7.7 0.1 0.1 80.0 11.4 0.3 0.2 0.3 100.0
Total 0.9 0.5 0.2 12.0 84.4 1.3 0.0 0.7 100.0

85
Annex 11b: Sources of energy for cooking for households without children with disabilities (MPHC,
2018)

District Straw/ Shrubs/

Electricity Solar Paraffin Charcoal Firewood Grass Gas Other Total
Chitipa 0.3 1.2 0.1 7.3 90.4 0.1 0.0 0.6 100.0
Karonga 0.9 0.7 0.1 14.1 83.4 0.2 0.0 0.6 100.0
Nkhata Bay 0.5 0.5 0.0 5.6 92.2 0.1 0.0 1.0 100.0
Rumphi 0.5 0.5 0.1 10.0 88.4 0.1 0.0 0.5 100.0
Mzimba 0.4 1.6 0.1 5.5 91.4 0.2 0.0 0.8 100.0
Likoma 3.0 0.1 0.0 19.9 76.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0
Mzuzu City 5.9 0.1 0.0 65.9 27.6 0.0 0.0 0.3 100.0
Kasungu 0.5 0.5 0.1 7.2 90.7 0.4 0.0 0.7 100.0
Nkhota Kota 0.8 0.3 0.1 11.7 85.2 0.9 0.0 1.0 100.0
Ntchisi 0.3 0.8 0.1 4.2 93.7 0.5 0.0 0.4 100.0
Dowa 0.6 0.4 0.1 6.8 90.5 0.8 0.0 0.8 100.0
Salima 0.8 0.5 0.1 12.7 85.0 0.3 0.0 0.6 100.0
Lilongwe
0.4 0.4 0.1 7.6 88.9 1.8 0.0 0.7 100.0
Rural
Mchinji 0.3 0.5 0.2 8.0 90.2 0.2 0.0 0.6 100.0
Dedza 0.3 0.4 0.1 5.1 89.6 3.3 0.0 1.1 100.0
Ntcheu 0.3 0.5 0.2 7.5 90.1 0.3 0.0 1.0 100.0
Lilongwe City 8.2 0.2 0.1 75.2 14.7 0.9 0.2 0.5 100.0
Mangochi 0.3 0.4 0.2 14.3 83.9 0.2 0.0 0.7 100.0
Machinga 0.2 0.3 0.1 8.2 90.3 0.4 0.0 0.5 100.0
Zomba 0.4 0.3 0.1 6.8 90.6 1.3 0.0 0.6 100.0
Chiradzulu 0.4 0.8 0.3 5.1 88.3 4.4 0.0 0.7 100.0
Blantyre
1.5 0.2 0.2 18.2 79.1 0.5 0.0 0.3 100.0
Rural
Mwanza 0.4 0.3 0.1 19.5 79.1 0.1 0.0 0.5 100.0
Thyolo 0.6 0.3 0.4 5.3 92.1 0.8 0.0 0.5 100.0
Mulanje 0.5 0.3 0.2 5.9 88.9 3.6 0.0 0.6 100.0
Phalombe 0.4 0.3 0.1 5.3 90.0 3.6 0.0 0.3 100.0
Chikwawa 0.9 0.4 0.1 11.6 85.4 0.5 0.0 1.1 100.0
Nsanje 0.2 0.8 0.1 10.2 87.0 1.2 0.0 0.5 100.0
Balaka 0.4 0.3 0.1 14.4 84.4 0.1 0.0 0.3 100.0
Neno 0.6 1.0 0.1 8.9 88.9 0.1 0.0 0.4 100.0
Zomba City 10.9 0.1 0.1 67.8 20.7 0.0 0.1 0.4 100.0
Blantyre City 8.2 0.1 0.1 83.4 7.7 0.1 0.1 0.2 100.0
Total 1.3 0.5 0.1 15.9 80.5 1.0 0.0 0.6 100.0

86
References

Amnesty International. (2018). Towards effective criminal justice foir people with albinism in Malawi.
Johannesburg: Amnesty International.

Amos, A., & Wapling, L. (2010). Epilepsy in Malawi. Blantyre: FEDOMA.

Banks, L M; Zuurmond, M. (2015). Barriers and enablers toinclusion in education for children with
disabilities in Malawi. Oslo: Norwegian Association of the Disabled.

Banks, L. M., Kelly, S. A., Kyegombe, N., Kuper, H., & Davries, K. (2017). 'If he could speak, h ewould point
out who does those things to him": experiences of violence and access to child protection among
children with disabilities in Malawi. PLoS ONE ,
12(9):e0183736.https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183736.

Barlindhaug, G., Umar, E., Wazakili, M., & Emaus, N. (2016). Living with disabled children in malawi:
challenges and rewards. African Journal of Disability, 5(1),
a254.http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v5i1.254.

Braathen, S. H., & Munthali, A. (2015). Disability and education: qualitative case studies from Malawi.
Oslo: SINTEf.

Chataika, L. E., Kamchedzera, E. T., & Semphere, N. K. (2017). An exploration of the challenges faced by
regular primary school teachers in planning instructional strategies for inclusive classsrooms.
African Journal of Special and Inclusive Education, 2(1):12-21.

Chataika, T., Munthali, A., Marufu, S., & Matchalanga, N. (2019). Endline evaluation of th einclusive
education in Malawi project. Lilongwe: Save the Children.

Chimwaza, E. (2015). Challenges in the implementation of inclusive education in malawi: a case study of
Montfort Special Needs Education College and selected primary schools in Blantyre. Oslo:
Diakonhjemmet University College.

Government of Malawi & UNICEF. (2019). Reintegrating Children from institutional care: a feasibility study
on a model for Malawi. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi & UNICEF.

Government of Malawi (National Malaria Control Programme). (2020). Revised malaria strategic plan
2017-2022. Lilongwe: Ministry of Health.

Government of Malawi. (1994). The constitution of the Republic of Malawi. Lilongwe: Government of
Malawi.

Government of Malawi. (2000). The Employment Act 2000. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi.

Government of Malawi. (2010). Child Care, Protection and Justice Act 2010. Lilongwe: Government of
Malawi.

Government of Malawi. (2012). Disability Act. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi.

87
Government of Malawi. (2013). Education Act . Lilongwe: Government of Malawi.

Government of Malawi. (2016). Convention on the rights of the persons with disabilities: initial and second
state party reports. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi .

Government of Malawi. (2017). Malawi growth and development strategy 2017-2022. Lilongwe:
Government of Malawi.

Ingstad, B., Munthali, A., Braathem, S. H., & Grut, L. (2012). The evil circle of poverty: a qualitative study
of malaria and disability. Malaria Journal, 11:15 DOI:10.1186/1475-2875-11-15.

International Labour Organisation. (2007). Strategies for skills acquisition and work for persons with
disabilities in Southern Africa (Malawi). Geneva: International Labour Organisation.

Ishida, Y., Maluwa-Banda, D., Moyo, A. C., & Mgogo, C. (2017). A case study of SNE resoiurce centre
practices in Zomba District, Malawi. Journal of International Cooperation in Education, 19(2):19-
33.

Itimu, A. N., & Kopetz, P. B. (2008). Malawi's special needs education (SNE): perspectives and comparisons
of practice and progress. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs , 8:153-160
doi:10.1111/j.1471-3802.2008.001113.x.

Leonardi, M., & Ustum, T. B. (2002). The global burden of epilepsy. Epilepsia, 43(6):21-25.

Lund, P., Massah, B., & Lynch, P. (2015). Barriers to access: factors lin=miting full participation of children
with albinism at school in northern Malawi - Part 2. Coventry: Conventry University.

Lynch, P. (2011). Education of children and young people with albinism in Malawi. London and Lilongwe:
Commonwealth Secretariat and MoEST & Sightsavers.

Lynch, P., & Lund, P. (2011). Education of children and young people with albinism in Malawi. . London
and Lilongwe: Commonwealth Secretariat and MoEST and Sight savers.

Malawi Human Rights Commission. (2017). Child car einstitutions monitoring report . Lilongwe: Malawi
Human Rights Commission.

McLinden, M., Lynch, P., Soni, A., Artiles, A., Kholowa, F., Kamchedzera, E., . . . Mankhwazi, M. (2018).
Supporting children with disabilities in low- and middle-income countries: promoting inclusive
practice within comunity based child care centres in malawi through a bioecological system
perspective. International journal of Early Childhood, 50:159-174.

Ministry of Education and Vocational Training. (2007). National policy on special needs education.
Lilongwe: Ministry of Education and Vocational Training.

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2008). National Education Sector Plan 2008-2017.
Lilongwe: Ministry of Education, Science and Technology.

Ministry of Education, Science and Technology. (2017). National Strategy on Inclusive Education 2017-
2021. Lilongwe: Ministry of education, Science and technology.

88
Ministry of Gender and Community Services. (2003). National policy on orphans and other vulnerable
children. Lilongwe: Government of Malawi & UNICEF.

Ministry of Gender, Children, Disability and Social Welfare. (2014). Malawi disability directory 2013/14.
Lilongwe: Ministry of gender, Children, Disability and Social Welfare.

Ministry of Gender, Children, Disability and Social Welfare. (2018). National disability mainstreaming
strategy and implementation plan 2018-2023. Lilongwe: Ministry of gender, Children, Disability
and Social Welfare.

Mji, G., Gcasa, S., Wazakili, M., & Skinner, D. (2008). A report on HIV/AIDS and reproductive health care
amongst people with disabilities. Capetown: Stellenbosch.

MoGCDSW. (2018). National disability mainstreaming strategy and implementation plan 2018-2023.
Lilongwe: MoGCDSW.

MoGCDSW. (2019). Overview of the Malawi social cash transfer programme. Lilongwe: MoGCDSW.

Munthali, A., Braathen, S. H., Grut, L., Kamaleri, Y., & Ingstad, B. (2013). Seeking care for epilepsy and its
impacts on households in a rural district in southern Malawi . African Journal of Disability, 2(1),
Art. #54, 8 pages. h p://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ajo.

Munthali, A., Mvula, P., & Ali, S. (2004). Effective HIV/AIDS and reproductive health information for people
with disabilities. Blantyre: Federation of Disability organisations in Malawi.

National Statistical Office, Centre for Social Research, UNICEF and University of Zurich. (2019). Survey
report on traditional practices in Malawi. Zomba; Lilongwe: Zurich: National Statisical Office &
Centre for Social Research; UNICEF, & University of Zurich.

Tataryn, M., Chokotho, L., Mulwafu, W., Kayange, P., Polack, S., Lavy, C., & Kuper, H. (2015). Malawi key
informant child disability project . London: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine.

Under the Same Sun. (2014). Classifying albinism: transforming perceptions and ushering in protection.
Vancouver, Canada: Under the Same Sun.

Under the Same Sun. (2015). Discrimination against womenand girls with albinism in malawi. Surrey, BC:
Under the Same Sun.

UNESCO. (2013). Education for all-global monitoring report: disabilities and education. Paris: UNESCO.

United Nations. (2010). UN guidelines for alternative care of children. New York: United Nations.

WHO. (2001). World health report 2001. Geneva: WHO.

89