Preliminary programme by wulinqing


                                 TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.    ABBREVATIONS _____________________________________________________ 3
2.    REMINDER __________________________________________________________ 4
2.1. Workshop on ‘Good practices for economic integration of persons with disabilities:
Financing tools’ ____________________________________________________________ 4
2.2. Purpose of the workshop: _________________________________________________ 4
2.3. Methodology: ___________________________________________________________ 4
3.    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ______________________________________________ 5
4.    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY _______________________________________________ 6
5.    INTRODUCTION _____________________________________________________ 8
6.    PRESENTATION BY ORGANISATIONS __________________________________ 9
6.1. Association for the Physically Disabled of Kenya (APDK) - Embu Branch __________ 9
6.2. LCI (Leonard Cheshire International) ______________________________________ 10
6.3. APDK – KISII _________________________________________________________ 11
6.4. APDK MOMBASA _____________________________________________________ 12
6.5. UPDK ________________________________________________________________ 12
6.6. K–REP Group _________________________________________________________ 13
6.7. Ethiopian Federation of Persons with Disabilities ____________________________ 13
6.8. CBM- Ethiopia (Christoffel Blindenmission) ________________________________ 14
6.9. NUDIPU-Uganda ______________________________________________________ 15
6.10. Handicap International _________________________________________________ 15
7.    GROUP DISCUSSIONS _______________________________________________ 17
7.1. Group 1 (EFPD, HI, and LCI) ____________________________________________ 17
7.2. Group 2 ______________________________________________________________ 20
8.    DISCUSSION ON CRITICAL ISSUES ___________________________________ 21
8.1. Group work ___________________________________________________________ 21
8.2. Group presentation _____________________________________________________ 21
9.1. Grants vs. Loans _______________________________________________________ 23
9.2. Repayment of loans _____________________________________________________ 23
9.3. Linkage to Mainstream MFIs and its complex nature _________________________ 24
9.4. Attitude _______________________________________________________________ 24
9.5. Group Dynamics _______________________________________________________ 24
9.6. Charity versus demand for repayments _____________________________________ 24
10.   Conclusion __________________________________________________________ 24
11.   ANNEXES __________________________________________________________ 25


APDK     Association for the Physically Disabled of Kenya

BDS      Business Development Services

CBM      Christofel Blindenmission – Ethiopia

CBOs     Community Based Organizations

CBR      Community Based Rehabilitation

DPOs     Disabled People Organizations

EFPD     Ethiopia Federation of Persons with Disabilities

HI       Handicap International

IGAs     Income Generating Activities

ILO      International Labour Organization

K-Rep    K-Rep Bank (A microfinance institution Kenya)

LCI      Leonard Cheshire International – Tanzania

MFIs     Micro Finance Institutions

NGOs     Non Governmental Organizations

NUDIPU   National Union of Disabled Persons of Uganda

PWDs     People with Disabilities

SHG      Self Help Groups

UPDK     Union of Persons with Disability in Kenya


2.1. Workshop on ‘Good practices for economic integration
of persons with disabilities: Financing tools’
    APDK (Association for the Physically Disabled of Kenya),
       3 participants from the Embu, Kisii and Mombassa - branches
    CBM – Ethiopia (Christoffel Blindenmission), 1 participant
    EFPD (Ethiopian Federation of Persons with Disabilities), 1 participant
    Handicap International (HI) – Nairobi, 2 participants, HI Lyon, 1 participant
    K-REP, micro finance institution from Kenya, 1 participant.
    LCI – Tanzania (Leonard Cheshire International), 1 participant.
    NUDIPU – Uganda, 1 participant.
    UPDK (Union for Persons with Disabilities Kenya), 1 participant
Facilitator: Ton de Klerk, consultant for Handicap International.

2.2. Purpose of the workshop:
During the workshop some major issues regarding programmes for economic
integration of persons with disabilities will be discussed, that require clarification.
Expected outcomes: To develop concrete ideas on: „Guidelines for good practices
on economic integration of persons with disabilities: the financing tools’, that can
be incorporated in a later publication on the subject.

    Through discussion of the experience that participants have:
1.     With linking of income generation programmes for disabled persons with
mainstream micro finance programmes/institutions. Partnership requires a proper
understanding and definition of the roles and respective tasks of both partners.
What precise arrangements have been made to facilitate their co-operation? What
lessons have been learnt? How is the partnership assessed? Is there a need for
adaptations of micro finance programmes to assure accessibility for persons with
disabilities, and if so: what adaptations are needed? Etc.
2.     With loan programmes for disabled persons, but through own
implementation i.e. using revolving funds. Many of these loan programmes have
passed through a prior phase where grants were given to the beneficiaries to start-
up or expand their income generation activities. How do the participants assess this
change? Is there a place for grant programmes depending on the situational
context, characteristics of the beneficiary group or of the implementing agency
and other factors, or should organisations always be advised to use loans as a tool
for financing the beneficiaries‟ income generation activities
3.     Disabled persons are not a homogeneous group. Among them there are
also less vulnerable and more vulnerable groups. Do the new approaches, loans
instead of grants and inclusion of disabled persons in mainstream micro finance
programmes, not carry the risk that the more vulnerable among them will be
excluded from the programmes?

2.3. Methodology:

    Some of the organisations that participate in the workshop have experience
     with programmes linking micro finance institutions with income generation
     programmes for disabled persons. (EFPD, HI-Lyon, LCI). Other organisations
     implement loan programmes using revolving funds (APDK, CBM-Ethiopia).
     Further we have participants (HI – Nairobi, UPDK), and an MFI (K-Rep) that
     have no experience with the implementation of income generation
     programmes for disabled persons, but can bring in their expertise in other

    We hope to capitalise on the respective experience of each of the
     participants. Mutual exchange of experience and opinions will be the main
     tool to gain more profound insights. We will use a workshop-methodology
     requiring an active participation.

    Participants will be asked to provide input for the discussions through short
     presentations about specific features of their programmes, that can inform
     us about the opportunities but also the constraints of the different
     programme approaches, and to draw ‘lessons learnt’.


The success of this workshop, which was focusing on “good practices for economic
Integration of person with disabilities” was as a result of concerted efforts made by
various organizations.

The presence and active participation from the representatives of APDK Embu, Kisii
and Mombasa, Christofel Blindenmission (CBM) – Ethiopia, Ethiopia Federation of
Persons with Disabilities (EFPD) Ethiopia, HI, K-Rep Bank ( A Micro-finance
Institution in Kenya)(KREP), Leonard Cheshire International (LCI), National Union of
Disabled Persons of Uganda (NUDIPU), and Tecilien Institute for Empowerment
(TTE) (a consultancy Organization) was actually the driving force behind the
generation of great ideas and sharing of experiences. All of you deserve special
thanks for your generosity in finding time and other resources to contribution
towards the success of the workshop.

Special thanks goes to Mr. Ton de klerk a consultant for Handicap International,
who steadily steered the entire process by way of facilitation. In the same vein, we
acknowledge the efforts and contributions made by Ann Leymat, the lead adviser in
livelihood and socio – economic integration

Last but not least, we acknowledge the Handicap International (HI) Team in Kenya,
which played a major role in preparatory activities especially in the aspect of
addressing various needs in regard to Logistics and their hospitality, extend to the

To all of you, thank you.

Handicap International


The complex nature of addressing the felt needs by people living with disabilities
(PWDs) has been a great puzzle to many development agencies.

One of the most critical issues all over the world has been a clear understanding of
disability in the context of development. For example, are PWDs perceived as
equal participants in development or are they just passive recipients of benefits? Is
disability synonymous to inability?

With these questions and others that cannot be presented here, HI took an
initiative to try to share views with other stakeholders with aim of generation of
ideas and facts on setting guidelines in regard to “good practices for economic
integration for disabled persons”. It is for this reason that there was need to gather
ideas from various organizations, with diverse experiences and approaches.

Having in mind that PWDs are not just a single homogeneous group, attention has
been paid on understanding the various approaches that could be applied under
various circumstances. For example, the support to IGAs; Do we need to introduce
loans or grants? Do the Main stream MFI‟s regard PWDs as potential clients? How is
the linkage between MFIs and SHGs?

The presentation at different sessions tried to answer these questions ands others
that are relevant to the critical issue of socio – economic empowerment of PWDs.

The methodology applied in the workshop embraced participatory technique and
group discussions, as opposed to the tradition of turning workshops into training

It was indeed, a healthy forum, which produced realistic and sound facts that will
go a long way in making a solid contribution towards the setting up of practical
guidelines on the good practices for economic integration of PWDs.
It was indeed a healthy forum, which produced realistic and sound facts that will
go along way in making a solid contribution towards the setting up of practical
guidelines on the good practices for economic integration of PWDs.

Day 1
Wednesday 15th March

Presentations from participants highlighting their experience in economic
integration and livelihoods projects for disabled people. Open discussion, exchange
and group work.

In her opening remarks the lead adviser in livelihood and social – economic
integration in Handicap international, Ann Leymat thanked all the present members
for finding time to attend the workshop.

In a broad view, she expressed that HI was in the process of carrying out a study
aimed at yielding factual guidelines for social – economic integration of PWDs to
formulate policies on linking them (PWDs) with other stakeholders with different
approaches. In addition, she puts emphasis on the fact that there is need to
sensitize MFI‟s on how to meet the financial needs of PWDs and other vulnerable

In view of this the workshop was expected to provide a healthy forum for exchange
of ideas and experiences but not training.

The HI consultant MR. Ton de klerk echoed similar sentiments and gave a brief
background of the study in which he reflected on various areas where the first
phase of the study had been carried. He mentioned areas such as India,
Bangladesh, and Uganda and emphasized that the workshop in Kenya was mainly
going to focus on exchange of experiences.

Objectives of the workshop

Sharing of experiences in relation to linking of income generation programmes for
disabled persons with the mainstream micro finance programmes institutions:

   1. Exchange of experiences in regard to loan programmes for disabled persons
      through their own implementation using revolving funds (commonly referred
      to as self help Group).
   2. Have Discussions in view of the inclusion of the most vulnerable groups,
      having in mind that the PWDs are not a homogeneous group. Among others to
      discuss the approach of loans vs. grants.

Before addressing the key issues stated above, the representatives of various
organisations had an opportunity to give their presentations, and this formed the
basis of the discussion after knowing who does what and how?

6.1. Association for the Physically Disabled of Kenya (APDK)
- Embu Branch
      Location: This is operated on the northern side of the eastern province of
   Kenya and is based at Embu town in Provincial General Hospital. It serves
   Kirinyaga, Mbeere and Meru south Districts.

      Main focus: One of its major services is the micro – finance programmes.
   Besides serving the PWDs with their others needs (mainly medical) they also
   focus on their social – economic welfare.

     Approach: Formation of self help groups. An umbrella body evolved, leading
   to the birth of a CBO, knows as „Twaweza‟ which means ‘we are able’
   members save to before accessing loans.
   Members guarantee each other.

       Objectives: Social – economic empowerment of PWDs.

     Activities of ‘Twaweza’
    Training group members on how to initiate and manage group IGA‟s, e.g.

          Bee keeping
          Poultry keeping
          Cereal stores

    Loans disbursements to individuals in groups

     Capacity: 16 primary groups registered under „Twaweza‟ with a total of
   331 persons.

       Target group: PWDs Guardians and parents.
      Loan repayment period: 3, 6 and 12 months
      Main stakeholders. PWDs, government of Kenya, Polio Hilfe Kenya – in

    Dependency attitude some PWDs and their guardians feel they are entitled
     to grants and loans without necessary repaying
    High illiteracy levels, leading to poor business management
    The prevailing general poor economic situation has an adverse affect on the
     savings and loan repayments.

6.2. LCI (Leonard Cheshire International)
    Location: Sub regional office in          Tanzania,   with    two   independent
  microfinance Organisations in Tanzania.

   Formation of groups and centres
   Working in collaboration with PWDs and their families DPOs Government
    departments and targeted mainstream microfinance
   Group guarantee for loans to individuals.

      Objective: Social – economic employment of PWDs and other families.

     Main Activities: Organising workshops and PWDs, DPOs government and
   mainstream MFI‟s
   Formation of technical committees
   Training MF providers to capacity build them.
   Training PWDs, guardians and parents an entrepreneurship skills,
   Credit and business management.
   Saving and credit.

      Capacity: Total clientele 312 in two years, 40% are PWDs.

      Target Group: PWDs, and families with PWDs

     Loan Repayment: Variable between 12 others 2.5 weeks; Interest rate 24%
  others 2.5 – 4%

      Common businesses:
     Selling used and new clothes.
     Fish mongering
     Food venting
     Selling cell phone cards
     Grains business
     Retail shops
     Local brew
     Animal husbandry among others.

     At least 15 PWDs have joined mainstream MFI‟s.
     Replication e.g. from Dodima to Kibaha Project.
     Creation of real links with Heifer International project (Wood saving stoves)
      Project who are supporting LCI clients.
     A client (PWDs) who is also a project steering committee member has been
      elected councillor of Dodoma municipal council. This is an indicator of
      positive public opinion and confidence towards PWDs which is gradually
     Improved social – economic status of the PWDs

    Lessons learned:
   The involvement of DPOs is crucial for mobilization and assurance of
    individual disabled persons to benefit from the mainstream MFI‟s.
   Disabled persons have a high potential that can be tapped.
   Through group formation, MFI can be an entry point for participation of
    Disabled persons in wider development activities in their communities.

    Challenges / problems:
   The pace of change is slow among key stakeholders in economic
    empowerment of PWDs, despite the gained attitudinal change regarding
    credit worthiness of PWDs.
   Limited business opportunities in the project area eg Dodoma is one of the
    driest part of Tanzania.
   Most of the MFI‟s approach for this initiative is profit oriented and reduction
    of operation cost but not taking PWDs needs as a human right issue.


      Location: Operates in Kisii in southern Nyanza in Kenya. It started in 2003

      Main aim: Empowering the disabled people economically

     Approach: Formation of groups of PWDs and loans given to individuals in the
     Members guarantee each other
     Mobilisation of PWDs
     Community entry through community leaders
     Understanding their people and their community of origin
     Initially, we gave grants but later changed to loans

      Target group: Disabled people (PWDs) and parents with PWDs

      Criteria for Loan Issue:
     Training before loan issue
     Member must have a saving
     Must be from a group
     Members must guarantee the applicant.
     The applicant must have an IGA
     The applicant must be well known by the group.
     Field visits by the branch officers to the applicant.

    Lending interest rates:
   The programme charges 1% interest on reducing balance method. The
    interest is minimal as it will not meet the running costs.
   Insurance of 2% is charged on the loan.

The    training covers the following:
        The component of savings and its importance
        Sustainability of the programme
        Self reliance to PWD
        Business management
        Loan management

        Impact of the Programme/Benefits:
       Improved the standard of living of PWD
       There is self reliance among clients
       The programme is now community owned.
       Better ways of programme sustainability of IGAs is being learnt.

       Lack of income to most pwd
       Low level of education
       Lack of access to information
       Poor methods of record keeping
       Poor attendance to group meetings
       Stigmatisation among the disabled.
       Quasi organizations.
       Most MFI do not accept pwd.
       Low level of self esteem.

       Encourage them to save
       Train them simple book keeping
       Awareness creation to policy makers
       Advocacy on human rights
       Through groups of disabled people.


The programme has a potential of growing to be a larger


Not yet started. A project in loans to PWDs.

6.5. UPDK

Not yet started. A project in loans to PWDs.

6.6. K–REP Group

K-REP is currently a microfinance commercial bank. It began in 1994 as an NGO.
It has one of the three arms of the K-rep group of companies, namely:
                               1.K-Rep Development Agency (an NGO)
                               2.K-Rep Bank
                               3.K-Rep Advisory services

Who does what? (Approach)

     The NGO (K–Rep Development Agency)
    It is much more involved in testing micro financing. It advances loans to
     HIV/AIDS affected and infected people
    It also partners with other strategic institutions to serve the HIV/AIDS
     infected and affected people
    It carries out market research for HIV/AID infected and affected people.

       The K–Rep Bank
Responsible in advancing loans through group membership and they guarantee each
The bank has the commercial approaches that it undertakes loaning while the NGO
on the other hand serve as the testing ground for the products of the bank.
The K – Rep bank is of AMFI.
It serves PWDs, so long as they fit in their lending criteria.

6.7. Ethiopian Federation of Persons with Disabilities

       It is 3 years old.

      Target Group: women only (PWDs). Have a total of 200 women, 100 are in

       Stakeholders: The Ethiopian Government. Women using contact persons.

       Main activities:
                        Basic business skills training. The training materials are
       translated into local language
      Different disability groups receive different training
      Vocational training e.g. sweater making, and embroidery to prepare them
       for business related to their training.

After training, they are linked to MFIs. Some money is deposited to the banks which
give the clients loans. (1000 birr- Ethiopian currency per year).

       Problems/ challenges:
      PWDs are perceived as a risky group and most MFIs find it difficult to give
       them loans.
      Saving is not easy for most PWDs especially business starters.
      The level of loans, 1000 Ethiopian birr is very little. This is the average loan.
      The repayment period (1 year) is a short period.
      Some people do not like the group approach.

    Complaints arise, as there is no service to men.
    The interest rates are not favourable to most PWDs.

    Already 61 clients have received loans.
    Through group approach, members can share goal practices.
    Group members can change their business for more favourable choices.

       Funding: By ILO

    Sensitization is not done before linking them to MFIs. It is done later.
    Satellite offices are set up to reach the people (decentralization from Addis
    The AMFI office links them to the MFIs.

6.8. CBM- Ethiopia (Christoffel Blindenmission)

      This is a funding organization.
      It works with partners, focusing on individual economic empowerment.
      Approach:
           - Initially, it was used to initiate sheltered workshops, targeting families
             and individuals.
           - Since 2002, they adopted the individual approach. In this case, the
             individual may organize themselves into a self- help group.
           - After funding, 25 to 30% remain with the group (community).
           - They usually refer the clients to government institutions.
           - The partners make follow ups and monitor the beneficiaries.


They have attained economic empowerment of individuals.
    They support clients on start up capital.

6.9. NUDIPU-Uganda

      There are three programmes
      Main activities: Capacity building for PWDs to link them to MFIs.

     What kind of training?
    Business skills training

     Types of service:
    AMFI links PWDs to MFIs to get loans and grants.
    AMFI gives them a chance to make choices of their business.
    They key issue is that AMFI links them to available opportunities.

6.10. Handicap International

HI had an experience in the Central Africa Republic.
    1. Financial support to PWDs and facilitation to access credit.
    2. Non financial support.
This involved technical training, coaching, monitoring and training.
In financial support, the following were the key components.

                            1. Sensitizing and Awareness

                   2. Counselling (feasibility study, business plan)

                                     3. Selection

                          4. Committee (approved or not)

                             5. Financial Partner (MFIs)
                                 loan disbursement

                            6. Training (on use of loans)

                                     7. Follow up

                         8. Social and economic integration

      Different expectations from different stakeholders.
      Socio- economic context, civil war, a very poor business environment that lead to
       serious effects in the success of the project

    Economic benefit by the beneficiaries.
    Increase self esteem
    Self-reliance was increased.

       A notable experience:

Not all had capacity, experience and drive to undertake business.

Day 2
Thursday 16th March
Day 2 will follow on from Day 1, with a more practical focus. Practitioners will have
the opportunity to exchange experience, and identify strategies, lessons learned
and collaborative approaches to improve financial access and inclusion for disabled


Group presentations were done based on the following:
What are the similarities and differences in program design? What have been the
problems? What have been the results, what lessons have been learned? Can the
programmes easily be replicated?

7.1. Group 1 (EFPD, HI, and LCI)

These groups had the following presentations:

      Comparative analysis between LCI, HI and E:

    Project                 Similarities                       Differences

                  The preparation and negotiations
  1. Project             takes 1 to 2 years                        None
conception and
   life span.    The actual project implementation
                   takes between 2 years 4 years

                                                           E: Targets women only
  2. Target          Target all types of disability       LCI and E: Both targets
    group                                                      family members
                                                       LCI: Targets guardians as well

3. Objectives      To empower PWDS socially and                    None
  and aims                economically

 4. Context          All have urban base project        LCI – Also has rural projects

                      Financial products – loan
                   Business management training          LCI & E: compulsory savings
 5. Products &      Vocational training (HI, LCI)         for a certain % of the loan
    services      Advice and follow up (Technical)            HI- grants in kind
                   Business development services            E- Vocational training
                            (marketing)                 carried in formal institutions.
                    Social participation LCI & HI
                 Capacity building of the partners in

                     Beneficiaries: DPOs & MFIs           E. Evaluation of business
                                                         carried by MFI‟s and other
                        Government partners              stakeholders i.e. they play
                      (Social affairs & labour)             the role facilitation.
                  MFI: They train in BDS (Business
                       development services)              E: Evaluation of business
  6. Stake             Assessment do decision              done by MFI‟s and stake
 holders and                and approval                  holders (facilitation role)
    roles                Loan disbursement
                 Management and financial recovery        LCI: Monitoring is done by
                               DPOS.                    local NGOs/ partners i.e. the
                     Do promotion of projects             mainstream development.
                    Do mobilisation (to identify
                            beneficiaries)               E: DPOS carries follow up
                  NGOs implement other services              and BDS (business
                  e.g. BDS and vocational training        Development Services)

 7.Resources     HI, LCI – co funding done by MFI‟s      E: 100% funded by donors
                            and partners

                 Awareness: Teaching stakeholders
 8.Approach      to demonstrate that is possible to                 None
  Factor for                 main PWDS.
mainstreaming     Empower PWDS to fight for their
                 rights (an important prerequisite)

  9. Project       HH, LCI, done by local partners            E. Done by DPOS

 10. Project      Done by committees (drawn from                    None
 management                stakeholders)

11. Monitoring    LCI, HI, E. They do monitoring &        E.External monitoring and
and evaluation                evaluations               evaluation. is also carried out

        Problems experienced:

       Partners
Conflicts of interest/ difference of expectations: Usually different partners have
different perceptions of the same project. For example, some interpret partnership
in terms of the benefits they can get.
Poor interests: Some partners have poor interests, hence the efforts towards the
success of the projects is limited.

       Beneficiaries
     Poor family support – some Families do not support PWDS.
     Dependency attitude. Most PWDs still believe in being supported by others
     Diversion of funds to other needs. This leads to poor performance in
     Over expectation by beneficiaries: some of the beneficiaries expect too
much and their business plans may not be realistic.

        Economic context
       Most developing countries have limited business opportunities due to
       economic & political reasons

        Community
       Negative attitude by community members towards PWDs, hence limited
       Lack of marketable skills and appropriate curriculum

       PWDs are loanable and credit worth.
       Increased confidence / self esteem of PWDs.
       Economic improvement of PWDS.
       Once common understanding is reached, they can interact well with other
        community memberships.
       Positive attitude change of partners MFIS.
       Social acceptance and participation of PWDs
       Having role models of PWDs- who really inspire others to know that they can
        succeed life.
       Access to long term loans from MFI‟s.

        Lessons learned:
       The social economic environment can be accessible if there is the will
       PWDs are potential productive agents of development
       Flexibility is important in the projects
       The products in MFI‟s should be demand driven for effective service to PWDs

By borrowing good practices, the successful projects can be replicated without
necessarily “inventing the wheel”

7.2. Group 2

      Similarities of self help groups:
     The saving components cuts a cross
     Existence of group work but individual benefits
     All groups have constitutions and by laws and are registered
     All groups give loans
     All group members identify their own business project
     Loan size depends savings and ability to manage the loan
     Ownership of group system is a common feature
     Group members guarantee all loans
     The training components cuts a cross
     All have low or no interest
     All loans are approved by a committee or any other form of management
      structure approves all loans

     Subdivision of groups does not occur in all organisations
     Some projects started on self initiatives while others were mobilised
      externally, i.e. some groups were already engaged in other IGAS or other
      group projects, but joined savings and credit later
     Some loans in –kind while others in cash return hence there is freedom
     Some have flexible repayment period

      Problems of self help groups:
     Dishonest behaviour of leadership e.g. fraud can be committed
     Low self esteem among the PWDs
     Limited or lack of information about the market situation
     Low participation of PWDs in self- help groups due to lack of resources/
     Lack of vision or clear cut objectives of the self groups
     Lack of sustainability mechanism
     Lack/limited of saving capacity by PWDs
     Lack of saving culture
     Physical distances limit the PWDs from participating in group activities
     Lack of government policy to support the PWDs in microfinance programs

      Lessons learned:
     To pay much attention for start up phase
     Formation of group is vital
     PWDs have a potential of managing their own affairs
     Organisations image on work is important
     Experience from CBR groups expecting free things (dependency attitudes)
     Group pressure mechanisms can work for the common good of all members
     Frequent small savings can build into bigger savings
     PWDs have willingness to change

      Consultation should be done first with the MFI‟s and the beneficiaries
      BDS should be carried out to beneficiaries
      There should be a careful selection of MFI‟s who are committed to serve
      There should be sensitization of beneficiaries
      Capacity building should be undertaken to beneficiaries through DPOs
      The MFI‟s should have commitment/ attaching value to PWDs in the program
      Proper follow up mechanism of the loans and BDS should be enhanced


8.1. Group work
Q1.What do you think of:
          a.         MFI – linkage strategy?
          b.         Self help group approaches?

Q2. What do you think in your organization about?
          a. MFI strategy
          b. Self help approach
       Should they be introduced?

8.2. Group presentation
       Group 1

      MFI have more funds therefore there is a good reason to link PWDs to MFIs.
      MFI have good established structures.
      MFI‟s should change there attitudes to accommodate a wide range of
       clientele e.g. PWDs.
      MFI‟s are permanent and sustainable so they can assure future access for
      MFI‟s have to be sure that PWDs have sufficient Competence, otherwise they
       will drop out.
      MFI‟s should develop a policy to encourage inclusion of PWDs (most MFIs
       leave PWD‟ out).
      Inclusive education. Schools are not always well equipped. They should be
       equipped to serve the needs of PWDs so that we can be sure that PWDs can
      Governments should assure incentives to support or motivate PWDs.
      We need a strategy for rural outreach of MFIs.

    The two approaches (MFIs and SHG) are important but have to undertaken
      professionally and strategically. This should be based on:
      Context skills, background, size of target group, level of awareness and
       understanding of economic conditions, business planning and types of
      Size and demand of capital may require MFI‟s where the SHG cannot meet
       the demand.
      SHG needs more opportunities, information and resources to scale up the
      Threat: stigmatization of PWDs may continue with the SHG.
      Start up business need grants from SHG and then move to a second level to
       join MFIs.
      There is need for campaigns for promotion of understanding between SHG
       and MFIs.
      Threat where DPOS are weak, they may fail to support SHGs effectively and
       may shy a way to approach MFIs for linkage.
      The scattered nature of SHGs may hinder the existence, formation and
       management of strong networks of SHG.
      Encouraging formation of gross disability SHG.
      Threat: MFIs have been targeting less vulnerable groups. SHG may be
       favourable because of their flexible approach.

       Group 2

    Microfinance Strategy

          MFI‟s should not replace SHG approach.
          Dual approach is more favourable
          SHGs to nurture groups / individuals to MFI‟s
          Components of fear.(we should play an active role) is it attitudinal or
          Self management of funds by CBOs or umbrella organization should be
          There is need for programmed training on need as it arises
          There should be only one loan for one individual and the other
           subsequent loans.

    Other views

Village banks should benefit all members of the society. (None disabled persons
should be charged different interest rate)
Groups could be open to non disabled especially parents and care givers. Three
kinds of members should be addressed.
                 1.       Disabled
                 2.       Parents
                 3.       Trainer (on behalf of disabled person)

Monitoring and evaluation should be done at all level e.g.
                   1.Group level
                   2.Program level

In NUDIPU (Uganda), the groups are self managed and run their programmes
independently. Most groups are rural based.
How do they deal with proximity challenges? Due to vast distances; groups formed
within villages, small areas. Also because of use of bicycles to take them to
meetings is practised.
The start of small groups which consist of five to six members who live together for
purpose of regular savings and or meetings. Group attendance enhanced by the
spirit of merry -go-round and constitution/ by laws.


9.1. Grants vs. Loans

After an exchange of ideas on this matter, members expressed the fact that SHGs
exclude most vulnerable PWDS because of the saving requirement.
              In regard to this, it was unanimously agreed that most vulnerable
     categories require start up capital (grants) and the PWDs should participate
     fully to identify the beneficiaries.
              For complimentary purposes, it was also agreed that merry- go –
     rounds can be a viable means for inclusion of the most vulnerable.

9.2. Repayment of loans

It was observed that reasonable repayment period for loans should be critically
analysed depending on the nature of business. One of the greatest fears was that
when loans are to be repaid immediately after the start of the business (e.g. in less
than a month). Then, the business may never sustain itself since there is a
possibility of ploughing back all the profits to service the loan. The most affected
in this area are those in the category of business starters.

9.3. Linkage to Mainstream MFIs and its complex nature

Bearing in that the PWDs are not homogenous, their socio- economic empowerment
demands a realistic integration of different stakeholders and different products.
This is a crucial element in meeting their diverse needs, which needs to be
addressed under different socio- economic and political circumstances.

9.4. Attitude

It emerged that the socio- economic empowerment of PWDs centres on attitude. In
this context, it came out clearly that development begins with the “self”. The
PWDs are themselves the “driving force” for their own development. For any
positive change, they must stand firm and face the challenges in life like other
people. Coupled with this, the societal values must change so that they stop
discriminatory practices against PWDs.
Consequently, stigmatization against PWDs would be minimal (if any) and all people
would be included in the mainstream development.

9.5. Group Dynamics

Cutting across in various discussions, it was clear that groups serve pivotal role in
individual success, especially PWDs. They are actually the “power houses” for
individual PWDs to air their views and lobby against any form of abuse. More
important, it is a strong avenue towards the linkage and inclusions of PWDs to the
mainstream MFIs. In conformity with this, the discussions converged on the fact
that effective service to groups should be decentralized to where the people are.

9.6. Charity versus demand for repayments

Despite the various need for grants at different levels and circumstances, it
became evident that sustainability of the projects is mostly attained when the
beneficiaries make a contribution towards the benefit they receive from SHG or
even the MFIs. The critical question was “Where do they get the first money to
save?” Hence the need to explore the approach on grants vs. loans.

10. Conclusion

The workshop created a realistic approach to sharing of ideas and a real exchange
of experiences. The diversity of approaches from diverse backgrounds was a
healthy forum to generate practical guidelines, in the effort of addressing the
noble task of improving access and inclusion of the PWDs to the mainstream MFIs. It
is our sincere hope that this will not only link the PWDs to MFIs but also lead to
attaining a lasting socio- economic integration of PWDs to the mainstream


Programme schedule

Day 1: 15th March 2006

9.30 hrs.            Welcome. Short introduction of the aim of the workshop, the
                     programme and the methodology. Short introduction of the

10.00 hrs.           Short presentations (10 – 15 minutes) by the participants that
                     implement economic integration programmes for disabled
                     persons, with a short discussion after each presentation (10 –
                     15 minutes).
                     First round: APDK (2 branches) and CBM-Ethiopia.

11.15– 11.30 hrs.    Short break

11.30 hrs.           Second round: EFPD, HI-Lyon, LCI

13.00 – 14.00 hrs.   Lunch break

14.00 – 14.30 hrs.   General discussion    of   issues   raised   in   the   morning

14.30– 14.45hrs.
                     Explanation of assignments for the afternoon workshops

14.45 – 17.30hrs.
                     Group work

                     The participants will be divided in two groups.
                     Group 1 (core group: EFPD, HI-Lyon, LCI) will discuss their
                     experience with linking income generation for disabled
                     persons with micro-finance institutions.
                     What are the similarities and what differences in the
                     programme designs? What have been the problems? What
                     have been the results? What lessons have been learned? Can
                     the programmes easily be replicated? If so, what conditions
                     should be fulfilled?

                     Group 2 (core group: APDK and CBM) will discuss their

                  experience with the loan programmes and the transition from
                  a grant to a loan programme.
                  What are the similarities and what differences in the
                  programme designs? What have been the problems? What
                  have been the results? What lessons have been learned?
                  And: Should organisations always be advised to use loans as a
                  tool for financing the beneficiaries‟ income generation
                  activities, or does it depend on the situational context,
                  characteristics of the beneficiary group or of the
                  implementing agency and other factors?

17.30 hrs         Closure

Day 2: 16th March 2006

9.00 – 9.30 hrs.     Presentation by Group 1 of the results of their discussions of
                     the previous day.

9.30 – 10.15 hrs.    Discussion

10.15 – 10.30 hrs.   Short break

10.30 – 11.00 hrs.   Presentation by Group 2 of the results of their discussions of
                     the previous day.

11.00 – 12.00 hrs.   Discussion

12.00 – 13.00 hrs.   Lunch

13.00 – 15.45 hrs.   Programme to      be   defined    (after   consultation   with

15.45 – 16.00 hrs.   Closure


The issues noted and expounded on, on page 21 that is, grants vs. loans
,repayment of loans, the complex nature of linkage to main stream MFIs, attitude
,group dynamics ,charity vs. repayments would have been otherwise been part of
the annex. They are crucial issues that emerged during various stages of the
discussions during the workshop. It was not an assignment given to any group but
some of my key observations.

The table below summarizes the contacts of various representatives from
Different organizations

                       BRANCH              E-MAIL:
                                           TEL. 0722353035

 2.   ALICE MUNALKA     UDPK               P.O. BOX13488 -00800 NAIROBI
                                           TEL: 4443830

 3.   CONSILETA         APDK- MOMBASA      0733273544
      MAUMBINJI                            474078471840 470271

 4.   SHITAYE           EFPD - ETHIOPIA    250 – 11- 1232553
      ASTAWES                              E-MAIL:

 5.   NICODEMUS      APDK - KISII          TEL: 0721 583 543
 6.   GINASON JANDWA LCI- TAMANIA          MOBILE: +255744644602

 7.   JOICE W. KIMANIDAGORETTI             MOBILE: 0726747104
 8.   BONFACE KABURU TECILIEN              CELLPHONE 0734 – 557935
                     INSTITUTE  FOR        BOX 74828 – 00200 NAIROBI
                     EMPOWERMENT           E- MAIL: t- empowerment

 9.   TITUS CHEYA       K REP BANK         BOX           25363-006,TELL

 10. ACHAYO ROSE        NUDIPU             P.O BOX 8567KAMPALA,TEL:
                                           E mail:

 11. TIGABU             CBM      
     GEBREMEDHIN                           Tel: +251 911235169

 12. ANNE LEYMAT        HI                 EMAIL.aleymat@handicap-

 13. JORAM KISUNA       HI       



To top