Analysing disability support at South African public universities

Universal access and disability support in higher education remains a subject of concern for Universities South Africa’s (USAf’s) Transformation Strategy Group (TSG) – hence the imperative to implement the Strategic Policy Framework on Disability for the Post-School Education and Training (PSET) system, which the Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) published in 2018.

In 2023, the TSG mandated a Transformation Managers’ Forum (TMF) task team, in collaboration with the Higher and Further Education Disability Services Association (HEDSA), to conduct a comprehensive survey to obtain information on and audit the extent to which students and staff with disabilities are included and integrated in public higher education institutions.

The Situational Analysis of the South African Universities Disabilities Rights Units was undertaken by BFM & Associates, using the data from the HEDSA survey. At this year’s first sitting of the Transformation Managers’ Forum (TMF) in March, the research consultants, Dr Dominique Brand and Dr Karina Fischer Mogensen, presented the methodology used for the situational analysis.

Dr Brand explained that the HEDSA survey was distributed to the 26 universities and institutions of higher learning in August 2023, completing the data collection by April 2024. The 127-item questionnaire, along with supporting documents, provided the datasets for the analysis.

By the closing date, 23 of 26 public universities had returned filled in the questionnaires with a varying degree of responses and interpretations.

Level 1 analysis explored the broad descriptive data points of the datasets such as an overview of reported budgets as well as the positioning of Disability Units within university structures.

“Universities are in different spaces when it comes to disability inclusion. We had to consider that when we reviewed and analysed the data,” Brand clarified. “We used a data analysis tool to create an overview of each respondent. The data was organised under headlines as per the questionnaire and overlapping questions and information were collated to create a clean dataset. Specific data points were extracted regarding the disability units themselves and designated budgets.”

While the majority of universities have centralised their services within a Disability Unit, others have distributed these services across various departments or did not specify their arrangement, Brand revealed.

Budgetary information received from 13 universities shows a significant variance in operational budgets for disability services, ranging from R50 000 to R2 202 809, indicating differing levels of priority given to disability inclusion. However, from the data collected, no clear conclusion can be drawn as respondents may have various ways of interpreting and defining operational budgets.

Brand explained: “It was challenging to draw a lot of conclusions from this because there weren’t clear guidelines of what the budgeting response should include and there was a limited number of responses. A little more than half of the respondents shared some budgeting information, but it also wasn’t clear whether this budgeting information included the disability unit staff or whether  it was just the expenditure budget. When we ask these questions again, we can delve deeper,” she said.

Some key questions for any follow-up research would include how budgetary resources are allocated to Disability Units in the form of human resources, assistive devices and technology, and specific services.

Brand said that the questionnaires were completed by a wide range of respondents withad different designations. They ranged, for example, from an Executive Director in the Vice- Chancellor’s Office to heads of Disability Units, vice-chancellors themselves to a social worker and student counsellor doubling as a disability coordinator.

Notably, the role and understanding of disability held by each respondent affected both the way the questionnaire was completed and the extent to which disability-inclusive language was used.

“Some of the people who filled in the questionnaire potentially did not have a high level of disability knowledge and understanding. This affected the quality of information  received. In the future, a standardised enabling environment and language should be created,” she said.

The second level of analysis employed a conceptual framework developed by Professor Theresa Lorenzo (2015). It identifies six overall categories for developing a disability- inclusive environment for Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). These categories are:

1. Historical disadvantage
2. Transformation agenda for disability
3. Policy
4. Government alignment
5. Institutional support
6. Existing systems, facilities, services, non-existence

The situational analysis used the first five categories to examine the data from each of the participating institutions on an institutional level. The sixth category was used to evaluate data for the institutions’ Disability Units. This category was further broken down into seven sub-categories:

• Teaching and learning
• Human support
• Research
• Clinical psychology and psychometric testing
• Advocacy
• Physical infrastructure
• Transition planning and activities to ensure entry into the workplace.

Dr Fischer Mogensen explained how elements from both the Disability Inclusion Framework and the Disability Unit Level are integrated with the strategic objectives outlined by the DHET in the Strategic Policy Framework on Disability for the Post-School Education and Training (DHET, 2018) to foster an inclusive educational environment for students with disabilities in South Africa.

Objective 1 is to create a standardised enabling environment aligned with legislation and professionalising support services. Objective 2 addresses direct access to teaching and learning environments, physical infrastructure, support services and career development while Objective 3 addresses coordination and cooperation across the Post-School Education and Training (PSET) system and aims to improve leadership, management commitment, and retention strategies.

The third and final level of analysis involved developing an assessment framework based on the Department of Women, Youth and Persons with Disabilities’ Framework on Gender-Responsive Planning. For the Disability Unit Situational Analysis, the researchers developed a Disability Results Effectiveness Scale (DRES). This framework assesses each university’s progress on disability inclusion using a scale measuring the impact of interventions on transforming disability power relations. Institutions were assessed using the level 2 analysis data, where the researchers then allocated between 0-3 points in each of the five institutional level categories and each of the seven Disability Unit/Services sub-categories (see Level 2 analysis above). This was based on the scale explained below:

• 0 equals the university not mentioning activities, progress or plans.
• 1 equals the university mentioning activities, progress or plans but excluding some services.
• 2 equals the university is mentioning comprehensive activities, plans and progress.
• 3 equals the university mentioning activities, monitoring with targets, progress and plans to deliver services.

The final score (with a maximum of 39 points) identifies the institution’s progress on disability inclusion and positions the institution’s current position within the DRES.

Based on the points scoring shared above, the universities were categorised as follows:  

• Disability Negative: Result had a negative outcome that aggravated or reinforced existing inequalities and norms affecting persons with disabilities negatively.
• Disability Blind: Result had no attention to disability, failed to acknowledge the different needs of persons with and without disabilities.
• Disability Targeted: Result focused on the number of persons with and without disabilities that were targeted.
• Disability Responsive: Results addressed differential needs of persons with disabilities and address equitable distribution of benefits, resources, status, rights but did not address root causes of inequality in their lives.
• Disability Transformative: Result contributes to changes in norms, cultural values, power structures and the roots of disability inequalities and discrimination. 

From the analysis, it is evident that most participating universities predominantly fall within the ‘Disability Targeted’ and ‘Disability Responsive’ categories. This suggests that while these institutions are taking steps to address the needs of persons with disabilities – focusing on equitable distribution of resources and addressing differential needs – they may not be effectively tackling the root causes of disability inequality.

Three universities are categorised as ‘Disability Blind’, indicating a lack of targeted disability inclusion efforts, whereas two  have reached ‘Disability Transformative’ status, exemplifying good practices that contribute to significant changes in norms, cultural values, and power structures concerning disability. Though these two universities fall in the ‘Disability Transformative’ category, it should be noted that they did not reach a 100% score, indicating that there is still room for improvement for a fully transformative university.

Reiterated Brand: “We can only draw on the information that was shared within the questionnaire, which is why it is important to note who filled in the question.”

“It is subjective, as we were the interpretors of  this data. We had a lot of discussions because we sometimes interpreted the data differently. That was why a rigorous methodology was so important and that two researchers moderated the findings independently” said Brand. “In future, we want to improve the tool and make it even more rigorous. But it all depends on us receiving good-quality information from the universities themselves.”

The researchers reiterated that the final report was not punitive. It rather aims to help each of the 26 universities learn from the exercise by reflecting on their own performance and  identifying the areas they can improve upon. While each university will receive a report which shows where they fit in, the report will not identify the other participating universities by name.

The methodology also acknowledges limitations such as the reliance on questionnaire data without further triangulation, varying details and understanding of disability across respondents, and a focus on questionnaire data which may not fully represent the broader scope of university policies or actions.

The final report has been sent to Vice-Chancellors’ offices with an emphasis on the need for institutional and leadership buy-in.

The review underscores the necessity of developing a common language and standardised practices across all universities, aligning with the DHET Strategic Framework. This standardisation should address the naming of Disability Services and ensure that these are easily identifiable and accessible. Moreover, there should be a clear definition of the minimum level of services expected, which must be consistently implemented and monitored across all institutions. This approach will not only streamline services but also ensure that all students with disabilities receive equitable support.

Janine Greenleaf Walker is a contract writer for Universities South Africa.