Philippine Institute for Development Studies

Surian sa mga Pag-aaral Pangkaunlaran ng Pilipinas

Employment of Persons with Disabilities

(PWDs) in the Philippines: The Case of
Metro Manila and Rosario, Batangas
Christian D. Mina
DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES NO. 2013-13

The PIDS Discussion Paper Series

constitutes studies that are preliminary and
subject to further revisions. They are being circulated in a limited number of copies only for purposes of soliciting comments and suggestions for further refinements. The studies under the Series are
unedited and unreviewed.
The views and opinions expressed
are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute.
Not for quotation without permission
from the author(s) and the Institute.

January 2013
For comments, suggestions or further inquiries please contact:
The Research Information Staff, Philippine Institute for Development Studies
5th Floor, NEDA sa Makati Building, 106 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, Makati City, Philippines
Tel Nos: (63-2) 8942584 and 8935705; Fax No: (63-2) 8939589; E-mail: [email protected]
Or visit our website at http://www.pids.gov.ph

Employment of persons with disabilities (PWDs) in the Philippines:

The case of Metro Manila and Rosario, Batangas
Christian D. Mina

Abstract
Persons with disability (PWDs) are among the vulnerable groups in the country that need
utmost attention from the government. This is the perhaps the reason why the institutional
and legal environment has been made favorable to this particular group, especially in the
area of employment. However, earlier reports note that the quality of employment of
PWDs still needs improvement.
This paper examines the employment profile of PWDs in the Philippines, using the 2008
and 2010 disability surveys in selected cities of Metro Manila (urban) and Rosario,
Batangas (rural), respectively. Key findings of this paper are as follows: (1) Proportion of
employed among PWD respondents in the urban area is relatively higher than that in the
rural area; (2) Roughly half of working PWDs are underemployed; (3) Employed PWDs in
the urban area is dominated by the visually-impaired while the hearing-impaired has the
highest proportion of employed in the rural area; (4) The leading occupation among PWDs
in the urban area is masseur while farmer/farm worker/ livestock and poultry raiser in the
rural area, although many respondents in both areas are also engaged in entrepreneurial
activities (e.g., managing a sari-sari store, e-load business, among others) and are working
as helpers/utility workers or laborers; (5) The majority of employed respondents in both
areas are considered as vulnerable workersself-employed and unpaid family workers; (6)
Some PWDs who are wage/salary workers are considered as informally employed as they
are working as temporary workers without formal contract, seasonal workers, or hired on a
daily basis; (7) Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) suggests that being a member in
a Disabled Peoples Organization and being at least high school graduate strongly correlate
with being employed; and, (8) MCA also revealed that PWDs who are at least college
graduates are more closely related to being officers/managers/supervisors, professionals
and technicians/associate professionals while those who are at most elementary graduates
tend to be laborers/unskilled and agricultural workers.

Keywords: employment; labor force participation; source of personal income; occupation;

class of worker; urban; rural; Metro Manila; Rosario, Batangas; education; Multiple
Correspondence Analysis

Research Associate at the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS)

Employment of persons with disabilities (PWDs) in the Philippines:

The case of Metro Manila and Rosario, Batangas

Introduction
Laws concerning the rights of persons with disability (PWDs) in the area of employment
have long been implemented in a number of countries, including the United States, United
Kingdom and Japan. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (which was amended in
2008) is considered as one of the most important laws that have notable anti-discrimination
provisions in the area of employment in the United States. Other U.S. laws addressing
employment of disabled persons include the Small Business Act Amendments of 1972, the
Tax Reduction and Simplification Act 1977, and the Workforce Investment Act of 1998,
among others (IDRM 2004; Gottlieb et al. 2012). In the United Kingdom, there is the
Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995 and the recently-implemented Equality Act
2010 that oblige all employers to make the necessary adjustments to the employment
arrangements as well as workplace for the disabled, require the public sector to promote
disability equality, and prohibit discriminatory practices against PWDs and their
parents/carers (Home Office 2010; IDRM 2007; Thornton 2005). Meanwhile, Japan has
the Fundamental Law for Persons with Disabilities (which was enacted in 1970 and
amended in 2004) that has anti-discrimination provisions and the Law for Employment
Promotion of Persons with Disabilities that requires both private and public organizations
to employ a certain percentage of PWDs and provides vocational training and job
placement services to PWDs (IDRM 2005).
In the Philippines, the Republic Act No. 7277 or the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons
(specifically Section 32), which took effect in 1992, ensures equal opportunities for
suitable employment to PWDs as their able-bodied counterparts. A number of policies,
programs and services had already been implemented in relation to employment of PWDs
(IDRM: 96). There have also been employment-related programs and services provided by
the government to PWDs, which include the following: Tulong Alalay sa Taong May
Kapansanan (TULAY) program, or Support services to PWDs, of the Department of Labor
and Employment (DOLE); Assistance package for PWDs of the Department of Trade and
Industry (DTI); Philippine National Skills Competition for PWDs of the Technical,
Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA); Science and Technology
Intervention for the Poor, the Vulnerable and PWDs of the Department of Science and
Technology (DOST); among others (Mori et al. 2009; Purcil 2009).
Despite the efforts of the government in promoting anti-discriminatory practices in the area
of employment and providing various employment-related programs and services for
PWDs, it seems that employment for this segment of the population still need
improvement. Schelzig (2005) estimated that only less than 10 percent of more than
100,000 employable PWDs registered with the DOLE were wage employed. The
International Disability Rights Monitor (IDRM), however, reported that 57.1 percent of the
PWDs in the Philippines are employed, 30.9 percent of which are engaged in agriculture
such as farmers, forestry workers or fishermen while 10.8 percent are laborers or unskilled
workers.

Using the 2008 and 2010 disability surveys conducted in selected cities of Metro Manila
and Rosario, Batangas, respectively, this paper looks into the labor force participation,
income sources, and occupations of PWDs in both areas. It also examines some personal
and household characteristics across groups of PWDs with different employment profiles.
Meanwhile, this chapter also explores the association between educational attainment and
occupational classification of PWDs to see if there is a significant mismatch between
education and occupation.
Labor force participation 1
The proportion of employed PWDs in the urban area is slightly higher (58.3%) than that in
the rural area (41.9%). More than half of those with job/business were still looking for
additional work to be able to augment their income. This is particularly evident in the
urban area (Table 1). Others even tried to get secondary jobs or engaged themselves in
informal and/or small-scale businesses such as operating a sari-sari store, e-load retail
business, charcoal or ice vending, among others.
Unemployment rate among PWDs in the rural area is relatively higher than that in the
urban area. Many of these PWDs, however, were looking and available for work. Others,
although not actively looking for work, said they were available and willing to take up
work if opportunity would exist. On the other hand, majority (84%) of those with no
job/business in the rural area were not looking for work. Having permanent disability
appeared to be the most common reason for being economically inactive. Parents and/or
other family members of those PWDs do not allow their disabled members to seek
employment. Pessimism and lack of self-esteem also prevent other PWDs from exerting an
effort to get into the mainstream employment. Many of them believed that no work is
available for them while a few others mentioned that they are shy to go out and interact
with other people.
In the urban area, almost half of the employed PWDs are visually-impaired while in the
rural area, only 16 percent from this group are working. In fact, almost 60 percent of the
non-working visually-impaired in the rural area were not looking for work. On the
contrary, the hearing-impaired group got the highest employment rate in the rural area,
followed closely by mobility-impaired. In the urban area, however, the hearing-impaired
has the highest proportion of economically inactive members.
1

In order to provide comparative analysis between the urban and rural data sets, labor force concepts
adopted in the urban data set was used. The rural data set contains the complete set of variables
necessary to generate labor force variables that are in accordance with the International Labour
Organization (ILO) labor concepts. On the other hand, the urban data set lacks some screening variables
such as respondents availability for work, willingness to work, reasons for not looking for work, among
others. The mode of labor force participation is thus defined as follows: (1) fully employed a workingaged (15-70) person who worked for pay or profit for at least an hour during the reference period, and
who did not look for additional work; (2) underemployed a working-aged (15-70) person who worked
for pay or profit for at least an hour during the reference period, but was still looking for additional work;
(3) unemployed a working-aged (15-70) person who had no job/business but was looking for work
during the reference period; and, (4) not part of the labor force a working-aged (15-70) person who had
no job/business and not looking for work during the reference period.

Table 1. Respondent's profile and household (HH) characteristics by mode of labor force (LF) participation
and by area
Characteristic
Respondent's profile
Impairment
mobility
visual
hearing
multiple
Sex
female
male
Age (years)
15-21
22-59
60
Marital status
single
not single
Education
low educ
at least HS grad
HH head indicator
HH head
HH member
DPO membership
member
non-member
Household characteristics
Household size
5
>5 to 10
>10
OFW indicator a
yes
no

Urban
Employed Underemployed Unemployed Not in LF

Total

Rural
Employed Underemployed Unemployed Not in LF

Total

30 (27.5)
55 (50.5)
18 (16.5)
6 (5.5)

38 (30.2)
58 (46)
24 (19)
6 (4.8)

28 (37.3)
16 (21.3)
26 (34.7)
5 (6.7)

27 (29) 123 (30.5)

14 (15.1) 143 (35.5)
38 (40.9) 106 (26.3)
14 (15.1) 31 (7.7)

9 (28.1)
5 (15.6)
13 (40.6)
5 (15.6)

8 (66.7)
2 (16.7)
2 (16.7)
0 (0)

4 (40)
3 (30)
3 (30)
0 (0)

10 (19.6)
14 (27.5)
14 (27.5)
13 (25.5)

38 (34.9)
71 (65.1)

35 (27.8)
91 (72.2)

33 (44)
42 (56)

48 (51.6) 154 (38.2)

45 (48.4) 249 (61.8)

11 (34.4)
21 (65.6)

7 (58.3)
5 (41.7)

4 (40)
6 (60)

31 (60.8) 53 (50.5)
20 (39.2) 52 (49.5)

4 (3.7)
103 (94.5)
2 (1.8)

7 (5.6)
116 (92.1)
3 (2.4)

8 (10.7)
65 (86.7)
2 (2.7)

24 (25.8) 43 (10.7)
68 (73.1) 352 (87.3)
1 (1.1)
8 (2)

3 (9.4)
24 (75)
5 (15.6)

1 (8.3)
10 (83.3)
1 (8.3)

1 (10)
9 (90)
0 (0)

10 (19.6) 15 (14.3)
30 (58.8) 73 (69.5)
11 (21.6) 17 (16.2)

44 (40.4)
65 (59.6)

45 (35.7)
81 (64.3)

41 (54.7)
34 (45.3)

50 (53.8) 180 (44.7)

43 (46.2) 223 (55.3)

17 (53.1)
15 (46.9)

3 (25)
9 (75)

4 (40)
6 (60)

8 (15.7) 32 (30.5)
43 (84.3) 73 (69.5)

51 (46.8)
58 (53.2)

46 (36.5)
80 (63.5)

28 (37.3)
47 (62.7)

61 (65.6) 186 (46.2)

32 (34.4) 217 (53.8)

19 (59.4)
13 (40.6)

7 (58.3)
5 (41.7)

9 (90)
1 (10)

51 (46.8)
58 (53.2)

60 (47.6)
66 (52.4)

15 (20)
60 (80)

11 (11.8)
82 (88.2)

137 (34)
266 (66)

13 (40.6)
19 (59.4)

3 (25)
9 (75)

3 (30)
7 (70)

9 (17.6) 28 (26.7)
42 (82.4) 77 (73.3)

62 (56.9)
47 (43.1)

72 (57.1)
54 (42.9)

34 (45.3)
41 (54.7)

25 (26.9) 193 (47.9)

68 (73.1) 210 (52.1)

6 (18.8)
26 (81.3)

2 (16.7)
10 (83.3)

2 (20)
8 (80)

7 (13.7) 17 (16.2)
44 (86.3) 88 (83.8)

57 (52.3)
42 (38.5)
10 (9.2)

75 (59.5)
43 (34.1)
8 (6.3)

44 (58.7)
26 (34.7)
5 (6.7)

43 (46.2) 219 (54.3)

43 (46.2) 154 (38.2)
7 (7.5)
30 (7.4)

16 (50)
15 (46.9)
1 (3.1)

8 (66.7)
2 (16.7)
2 (16.7)

4 (40)
5 (50)
1 (10)

17 (33.3) 45 (42.9)
30 (58.8) 52 (49.5)
4 (7.8)
8 (7.6)

15 (13.8)
94 (86.2)

19 (15.1)
107 (84.9)

18 (24)
57 (76)

23 (24.7) 75 (18.6)
70 (75.3) 328 (81.4)

13 (40.6)
19 (59.4)

5 (41.7)
7 (58.3)

3 (30)
5 (50)

12 (23.5) 33 (31.4)
37 (72.5) 68 (64.8)

50 (98)
1 (2)

31 (29.5)
24 (22.9)
32 (30.5)
18 (17.1)

85 (81)
20 (19)

Poverty status b
poor
42 (38.5)
49 (38.9)
38 (50.7) 56 (60.2) 185 (45.9) 19 (59.4)
7 (58.3)
5 (50)
34 (66.7) 65 (61.9)
non-poor
67 (61.5)
77 (61.1)
37 (49.3) 37 (39.8) 218 (54.1) 13 (40.6)
5 (41.7)
5 (50)
17 (33.3) 40 (38.1)
Sources of basic data: PWD surveys, 2008 (Metro Manila) and 2010 (Rosario, Batangas)
Notes:
Figures in parentheses are column percentages.
a
whether the respondent's household receive money from family/relatives/friends abroad;
b
a household is considered poor if its total income is below the poverty line;
Please note that household income data are not comparable between the rural and urban surveys, i.e. components of income in
rural data set is more comprehensive.

Employment gender gap is also apparent in both areas. Two out of five working PWDs in
the rural area are female while the employment gender ratio 1 in the urban area is around 44
percent. Majority of employed male PWDs in the urban area were not satisfied with their
current work and expressed desire of getting additional work.
Youth employment rate and the proportion of working PWDs aged 60 and above are
relatively higher in the rural area than in the urban area. In fact, roughly 14 percent of the
employed PWDs in the rural area are already considered senior citizens while about 10
percent are considered youth (aged 15-21).
Employment rate among PWDs who have never been married is slightly lower than those
who have/had a partner and/or a family, and this is true for both areas. In the rural area,
however, PWDs whose marital status is not single comprised 84 percent of economically
inactive group.
In terms of educational attainment, different patterns can be observed in rural and urban
areas. Forty percent of the employed PWDs in the rural area are at least high school
graduate. About 60 percent, however, of the employed PWDs in the urban area were able
to finish at least secondary education. Majority of the PWDs who did not finish high school
and had no job/business were neither looking nor available for work during the reference
period.
In the urban area, employment rate among PWDs who are household heads is almost equal
to employment rate among those who are household members. In the rural area,
employment rate among heads is slightly higher than the rate among members. Household
members, meanwhile, comprised the majority of the unemployed and economically
inactive groups.
Interestingly, the proportion of employed PWDs in the urban area is relatively higher
among those who are members of at least one Disabled Peoples Organization (DPO)
compared to those who are not. Most of these respondents belong to the visually-impaired
group and are working as masseurs. On the other hand, very few of the respondents in the
rural area are members of the only PWD group in the area, which is the Municipal
Federation of PWDs. Among those who are members, more than half have no job/business.
One of the reasons behind this is that the organization does not have regular activities for
its members, particularly on employment or livelihood assistance.
Majority of those with job/business in the urban area belong to small households (at most 5
members), followed by those who belong to households with more than 5 up to 10
members. In the rural area, employed PWDs are mostly members of smaller households.
Around 15 percent of the employed PWDs in the urban area are members of the
households that receive remittances from family members/relatives/friends abroad. On the
other hand, around 2 out of 5 employed PWDs in the rural area belong to remittancereceiving households.

Female unemployment rate as a percentage of the male unemployment rate

In terms of income poverty status of households, PWDs who are part of the non-poor
households in the urban area comprised 60 percent of the employed. However, the opposite
is true in the rural area. Three out of five employed PWDs in the rural area belong to
households that are considered income poor.
The figure below exhibits the interrelationships among the different modes of labor force
participation and selected individual as well as household characteristics of PWDs in a
Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) 2 two-dimensional map.
Figure 1. MCA results on mode of LF participation vis--vis respondents profile and HH
characteristics, by area
Rural area
Urban area
MCA coordinate plot
4

MCA coordinate plot

multiple

aged 60 & over

non-member
not single
poor mobility
HH head
male
>5-10
aged 22-59
with OFW
<5 employed
>10
no OFW
underemployed
HH member
nonpoor
female
visual
single
at least HS grad
unemployed
hearing

-2

low educ

dimension 2 (15.6%)
0

aged 60 & over

not in the labor force

multiple

single
<5
unemployed male
employed

poor
non-member
not in the labor force
low educ
no OFW
>5-10
female
not single
HH member

aged 22-59
mobility with OFW
at least HS grad
nonpoor

-2

dimension 2 ( 4.7%)
0
2

visual
HH head

hearing
aged 15-21

underemployed

member
member

aged 15-21

-4

-4

>10

-4

-3

-2
-1
0
dimension 1 (64.2%)

Age

-3

-2

-1
0
1
dimension 1 (49.1%)

Sex

Age

Sex
HH head indicator

Marital status

HH head indicator

Marital status

HH size

Poverty status

HH size

Poverty status

OFW indicator

Impairment type

OFW indicator

Impairment type

DPO membership

Education

DPO membership

Education
Labor force participation

Labor force participation

Sources of basic data: PWD surveys, 2008 (Metro Manila) and 2010 (Rosario, Batangas)

The figure reveals that in the urban area, being employed (either fully-employed or
underemployed) is more likely associated with being visually-impaired, at least high school
graduate, DPO member, and member of a non-poor household. Being unemployed,
however, is more correlated with being hearing-impaired, female, single, household
2

Multiple Correspondence Analysis (MCA) is a descriptive statistical technique used in handling highdimensional categorical data. It allows one to analyze the pattern of relationships of several nominal
variables (including continuous variables that are transformed into categorical variables) with several
levels or categories (which are coded as binary variable). One of its outputs is an n-dimensional map (i.e.,
n is usually 2) which displays the multi-way association among the levels of the variables, i.e., proximity
among levels of different nominal variables means that these levels tend to appear together in the
observations. (Greenacre and Blasius 2006)

member, youth, member of a remittance-receiving household, and member of large

household (i.e., more than 10 members). Meanwhile, being economically inactive tend to
be more associated with having multiple impairments, having lower educational
attainment, not a member of any DPO, and member of an income poor household.
In the rural area, on the other hand, being a DPO member, at least high school graduate,
between 22 and 59 years of age, member of a non-poor household, member of a
remittance-receiving household, and mobility-impaired are some of the characteristics of a
PWD that are usually underemployed. Being single and a head of a household tend to be
associated with either being fully employed or being unemployed, while being male and
belonging to a smaller household appear to be more likely associated with being
unemployed. Similar to the finding in the urban area, having multiple impairments, having
lower educational attainment, not a member of any DPO, and member of an income poor
household are more correlated with being economically inactive.
Sources of personal income 3
Filipinos are well-known for closer family ties. Therefore, providing support in the form of
either cash or kind is not unusual within a family. This is particularly crucial if one of the
members of the family has disability. More often than not, family members who are betteroff financially provide support (of any form) to a disabled member. But this is not only true
among family members. Other members of the household, who are not related by blood, or
even friends and neighbors, may provide support to a disabled person.
Table 2 shows that a significant proportion of PWDs in both rural and urban areas are
either dependent on income transfers from family members, relatives and/or friends, or
fully dependent on the income of their household. In the rural area, half of the PWDs have
no personal income and merely depend on their family and other household members while
10 percent mostly depend on income transfers. In the urban area, 21 percent have no
personal income while 28 percent mostly depend on transfer income.

A PWD respondent may have more than one source of income. In order to determine his/her major
source of income, all incomes from various sources were aggregated and then the share of each source to
total was estimated. The source with the highest percentage share was then selected as the major source
of personal income of the respondent. These sources of income were then grouped into major categories,
namely: wage income, entrepreneurial income and transfer income. Paid employment income such as
wages and salaries, including cash gifts and bonuses received, is defined as wage income. Entrepreneurial
income is the total net income or profit from any entrepreneurial activities, whether agricultural or nonagricultural enterprises, engaged in by the respondent as an operator or self-employed. A number of
respondents who are renting their rooms/houses to others consider this as business and income from
such activity as profits. Transfer income includes cash receipts or gifts from family members, relatives or
friends, either domestic or abroad. It also includes pension income and benefits/allowances from the
government. Any receipts (either cash or in-kind) from institutions such as church or federations, and
even from begging, are also included under this category.

Table 2. Respondent's profile and HH characteristics by source of personal income and by area
None

Wage

Urban
Entrepreneurial

Transfer

Total

None

Wage

Rural
Entrepreneurial

Transfer

Total

30 (34.9)
21 (24.4)
27 (31.4)
8 (9.3)

13 (13.3)
60 (61.2)
21 (21.4)
4 (4.1)

39 (36.4)
45 (42.1)
17 (15.9)
6 (5.6)

41 (36.6)
17 (15.2)
41 (36.6)
13 (11.6)

123 (30.5)
143 (35.5)
106 (26.3)
31 (7.7)

16 (29.1)
13 (23.6)
13 (23.6)
13 (23.6)

5 (26.3)
4 (21.1)
9 (47.4)
1 (5.3)

7 (53.8)
1 (7.7)
4 (30.8)
1 (7.7)

3 (15.8)
7 (36.8)
6 (31.6)
3 (15.8)

31 (29.2)
25 (23.6)
32 (30.2)
18 (17)

43 (50)
43 (50)

27 (27.6)
71 (72.4)

40 (37.4)
67 (62.6)

44 (39.3)
68 (60.7)

154 (38.2)
249 (61.8)

34 (61.8)
21 (38.2)

7 (36.8)
12 (63.2)

5 (38.5)
8 (61.5)

7 (36.8)
12 (63.2)

53 (50)
53 (50)

14 (16.3)
71 (82.6)
1 (1.2)

5 (5.1)
89 (90.8)
4 (4.1)

5 (4.7)
101 (94.4)
1 (0.9)

19 (17)
91 (81.3)
2 (1.8)

43 (10.7)
352 (87.3)
8 (2)

10 (18.2)
36 (65.5)
9 (16.4)

0 (0)
18 (94.7)
1 (5.3)

1 (7.7)
11 (84.6)
1 (7.7)

4 (21.1)
8 (42.1)
7 (36.8)

15 (14.2)
73 (68.9)
18 (17)

50 (58.1)
36 (41.9)

41 (41.8)
57 (58.2)

39 (36.4)
68 (63.6)

50 (44.6)
62 (55.4)

180 (44.7)
223 (55.3)

12 (21.8)
43 (78.2)

9 (47.4)
10 (52.6)

5 (38.5)
8 (61.5)

7 (36.8)
12 (63.2)

33 (31.1)
73 (68.9)

48 (55.8)
38 (44.2)

39 (39.8)
59 (60.2)

50 (46.7)
57 (53.3)

49 (43.8)
63 (56.3)

186 (46.2)
217 (53.8)

48 (87.3)
7 (12.7)

16 (84.2)
3 (15.8)

5 (38.5)
8 (61.5)

17 (89.5)
2 (10.5)

86 (81.1)
20 (18.9)

10 (11.6)
76 (88.4)

50 (51)
48 (49)

45 (42.1)
62 (57.9)

32 (28.6)
80 (71.4)

137 (34)
266 (66)

8 (14.5)
47 (85.5)

7 (36.8)
12 (63.2)

5 (38.5)
8 (61.5)

9 (47.4)
10 (52.6)

29 (27.4)
77 (72.6)

36 (41.9)
50 (58.1)

62 (63.3)
36 (36.7)

55 (51.4)
52 (48.6)

40 (35.7)
72 (64.3)

193 (47.9)
210 (52.1)

7 (12.7)
48 (87.3)

4 (21.1)
15 (78.9)

4 (30.8)
9 (69.2)

2 (10.5)
17 (89.5)

17 (16)
89 (84)

Household characteristics
Household size
5
43 (50)
>5 to 10
36 (41.9)
>10
7 (8.1)

66 (67.3)
24 (24.5)
8 (8.2)

55 (51.4)
44 (41.1)
8 (7.5)

55 (49.1)
50 (44.6)
7 (6.3)

219 (54.3)
154 (38.2)
30 (7.4)

16 (29.1)
34 (61.8)
5 (9.1)

11 (57.9)
6 (31.6)
2 (10.5)

8 (61.5)
5 (38.5)
0 (0)

11 (57.9)
7 (36.8)
1 (5.3)

46 (43.4)
52 (49.1)
8 (7.5)

11 (11.2)
87 (88.8)

16 (15)
91 (85)

35 (31.3)
77 (68.8)

75 (18.6)
328 (81.4)

13 (23.6)
40 (72.7)

7 (36.8)
11 (57.9)

6 (46.2)
7 (53.8)

7 (36.8)
10 (52.6)

33 (31.1)
68 (64.2)

Characteristic
Respondent's profile
Impairment
mobility
visual
hearing
multiple
Sex
female
male
Age
15-21
22-59
60
Marital status
single
not single
Education
low educ
at least HS grad
Head indicator
HH head
HH member
DPO membership
member
non-member

OFW indicator a
yes
no

13 (15.1)
73 (84.9)

Poverty status b
9 (69.2)
13 (68.4)
65 (61.3)
poor
46 (53.5) 39 (39.8)
46 (43)
54 (48.2) 185 (45.9)
36 (65.5) 7 (36.8)
4 (30.8)
6 (31.6)
41 (38.7)
61 (57)
58 (51.8) 218 (54.1)
19 (34.5) 12 (63.2)
non-poor
40 (46.5) 59 (60.2)
Sources of basic data: PWD surveys, 2008 (Metro Manila) and 2010 (Rosario, Batangas)
Notes:
Figures in parentheses are column percentages.
a
whether the respondent's household receive money from family/relatives/friends abroad;
b
a household is considered poor if its total income is below the poverty line;
Please note that household income data are not comparable between the rural and urban surveys, i.e. components of income in
rural data set is more comprehensive.

Among wage earners in the rural area, almost half are hearing-impaired while most of the
entrepreneurial income-earners are mobility-impaired. On the other hand, the visuallyimpaired group has the most number of members relying on transfer income, followed
closely by the hearing-impaired. In the urban area, the PWDs are distributed across the four
sources of income, although 53 percent of them either depend on transfer or entrepreneurial
income. Both the mobility- and hearing-impaired got the highest proportion of members
who rely a lot on transfer income. On the contrary, the visually-impaired group depends
heavily on wage as well as entrepreneurial income.
Majority of PWDs with personal income are male in both areas while female PWDs,
particularly in the rural area, are fully dependent on their household income. On the other
hand, majority of PWDs who are aged 60 and above in the urban area depend mostly on
wage income while almost all of the older PWDs in the rural area are dependent on either
transfer income or income of their household.
Among PWDs with no personal income, those who have never been married outnumber
those who have/had partner in the rural area. The reverse, however, is true in the urban
area.
In the urban area, majority of PWDs who have personal income are at least high school
graduate. Except for the entrepreneurial income-earners, the opposite is true in the rural
area. Looking across sources of income, it can be observed that 56 percent of the PWDs
with lower educational attainment merely rely on the income of the household in the rural
area but three-fourths of PWDs from this group in the urban area have personal income.
Two out of five of PWDs who are at least high school graduate source most of their
income from entrepreneurial activities but a third of them do not have income. In the urban
area, majority of PWDs with higher educational attainment have personal income.
Around 28 percent of PWDs who are household heads in the rural area do not have
personal income but only 7 percent of PWDs from this group in the urban area are fully
dependent on their household income.
Higher proportions of wage and entrepreneurial income-earners in the urban area are
affiliated with at least one DPO. In the rural area, almost half of those who are member of
the Municipal Federation of PWDs have no personal income.
Majority of the PWDs who are income-earners in the rural area belong to smaller
households while 60 percent of those with no personal income belong to middle-sized
households (i.e., >5 to 10). In the urban area, however, those who belong to smaller
households outnumber those from the other groups, and this is particularly true among the
wage income-earners.
Across income sources, it can be observed that almost half of PWDs belonging to
remittance-receiving households mostly depend on transfer income in the urban area. On
the other hand, in the rural area, only 1 out of 5 PWDs belonging to remittance-receiving
households depend on transfer income. Most of them, instead, have no personal income.

Moreover, wage income-earners in both areas mostly belong to non-poor households.

Among those who depend heavily on entrepreneurial activities, PWDs belonging to
income-poor households outnumber those who belong to non-poor households in the rural
area, but the opposite is true in the urban area. Many of those who mainly depend on
transfer income in the rural area belong to poor households. In the urban area, however,
those who depend on income transfers are almost equally divided into poor and non-poor
household members.
Exploring the multi-way association of the levels of the variables, the MCA 2-dimensional
plot (Figure 2) reveals that in the rural area, wage income-earners are more closely related
to being mobility-impaired, aged 22-59, member of a remittance-receiving household, and
a non-poor household member. In the urban area, however, being visually-impaired, DPO
member, aged 60 and above, member of a non-poor or smaller or non-remittance-receiving
household are more correlated with being wage income-earner.
Figure 2. MCA results on source of personal income vis--vis respondents profile and HH
characteristics, by area
Urban area
Rural area
MCA coordinate plot
4

MCA coordinate plot

aged 60 & over

aged 15-21

wage

visual

visual
member
aged 60 & over
low educfemale nonpoor
<5
no OFW
>10
HH head
male
none
HH member
at least HS grad
poor
entrepreneurial
>5-10 aged 22-59
not single
with OFW
non-member
single

mobility

single
<5
male

-4

poor multiple
non-member
low educ
no OFW
none
>5-10
female
not single

with OFW
wage
mobility
aged 22-59
nonpoor
entrepreneurial

HH member
aged 15-21
hearing

at least HS grad

-2

transfer

transfer

HH head

dimension 2 (17.3%)
0

dimension 2 ( 7.0%)
-2
0

hearing

multiple

>10

-4

-6

member

-4

-2

0
2
dimension 1 (58.3%)

-3

-2

-1
0
1
dimension 1 (46.0%)

Age

Sex

Age

Sex

Marital status

HH head indicator

Marital status

HH head indicator

HH size

Poverty status

HH size

Poverty status

OFW indicator

Impairment type

OFW indicator

Impairment type

Education

DPO membership

Education

DPO membership

Income source

Income source

Sources of basic data: PWD surveys, 2008 (Metro Manila) and 2010 (Rosario, Batangas)

PWDs who are largely dependent on entrepreneurial income in the rural area are more
closely related with being DPO member and at least high school graduate. In the urban
area, there is stronger correlation between being dependent on entrepreneurial income and
the following characteristics: having higher level of education, not being single, being a
household head, aged between 22 and 29, being male, and having mobility impairment.

Meanwhile, having multiple impairments, being a non-DPO member and being a member
of a poor household tend to be more associated with being dependent on transfer income.
On the other hand, being a household member, being single, being youth, having a hearing
impairment, and being a member of bigger household are more closely related to having no
personal income. These findings are true for both rural and urban areas.
Occupational classification 4
Aside from the mode of labor force participation and source of personal income, it is also
interesting to look at the primary occupations assumed by the employed respondents. Table
3 shows that in the rural area, almost half of the employed are laborers/unskilled workers,
about 1 out of 5 are farmers/forestry workers/fishermen, and another 20 percent is
composed of either service workers/shop/market sales workers or trades, production and
related workers.
Laborers and unskilled workers appeared to be the biggest occupational group across
impairments; half from the hearing-impaired group, 38 percent from the mobility-impaired
group, and one-third each from the visual and multiple groups. The specific occupations
under this category include: helpers, construction workers, hand launderers, ice vendors,
among others.
Some other occupations of PWDs, especially the hearing-impaired, in the rural area are
related to agriculture such as rice farmers, livestock and poultry farm workers/helpers; and
services-related, which include baby sitter, haircutter, and pedicurist. Other occupations in
the rural area include the following: teacher, musician, assistant surveyor, stick maker,
upholstery maker, barangay health worker, sari-sari store owner, tricycle operator, bet
collector, rice cake vendor, factory worker, business manager/owner of three small-scale
businesses, and an unpaid family worker.
In the urban area, one-third of the employed PWDs are classified under technicians and
associate professionals. Those occupations include masseur, real estate broker, sales agent,
artist/musician, sales consultant, barangay affairs worker, and computer technician.
Twenty-two percent are laborers and unskilled workers, which include: street vendor, ice
vendor, e-load distributor, helper, janitor/sweeper, messenger, warehouse aide,
construction worker, hand launderer/presser, barker, parking attendant, pedicab driver, and
garbage collector. Interestingly, 15.3 percent of the respondents belong to the highest level
of occupation, i.e., officials of government and special-interest organizations, corporate
executives, managers, managing proprietors and supervisors. Specifically, this group
4

The primary occupation of the respondents was categorized into ten major occupational groups based
on the Philippine Standard Occupational Classification (PSOC), which are as follows: (1) officials of
government and special-interest organizations, corporate executives, managers, managing proprietors
and supervisors; (2) professionals; (3) technicians and associate professionals; (4) clerks; (5) service
workers and shop and market sales workers; (6) farmers, forestry workers and fishermen; (7) trades,
production and related workers (Note: production and related workers was included under this category);
(8) plant and machine operators and assemblers; (9) laborers and unskilled workers; and, (10) special
occupations.

10

includes barangay councilor, supplier of raw materials, lessor, sari-sari store owner, junk
shop owner, owner of a shirt printing business, owner of water delivery business, among
others.
There are also trades, production and related workers (comprising 8.9%) such as
electricians, repairman, painter, carpenter, plumber, mason, and butcher; service workers
and shop and market sales workers (6%) which include barangay health worker, computer
shop assistant, service crew in a fast food chain, direct selling agent, buy and sell agent,
personal assistant in a catering business, manicurist, barber, and baby sitter; clerks (5.5%),
which include data encoder, barangay secretary, and storekeeper; plant and machine
operators and assemblers (4.7%), which is composed of tricycle operator and bus driver;
professionals (2.6%) such as teacher, professional musician, community development
worker, PWD social worker, and sign language interpreter; and, farmers, forestry workers
and fishermen (1.3%).
The visually-impaired group is composed mainly (62.8%) of masseurs, which are classified
under technicians and associate professionals. The mobility-impaired are dominated by
laborers and unskilled workers (27.9%) and officials of government and special-interest
organizations, corporate executives, managers, managing proprietors and supervisors
(23.5%). The hearing-impaired are largely composed of laborers and unskilled workers
(31%), officials of government and special-interest organizations, corporate executives,
managers, managing proprietors and supervisors (23.8%), and trades, production and
related workers (21.4%). Meanwhile, majority of those with multiple impairments are
either laborers and unskilled workers (33.3%) or officials of government and specialinterest organizations, corporate executives, managers, managing proprietors and
supervisors (33.3%).
It is also good to look at the interrelationships among different levels of education and
major occupational classifications of PWDs and see if there is a mismatch between their
education level and type of work. Figure 3 reveals that in the rural area, graduates of
vocational courses are more closely related to being officers/managers/supervisors and
service workers and shop/market sales workers. PWDs who reached college but did not
finish tend to work as clerks. Those whose educational attainment is either college graduate
or high school undergraduate usually work as trades, production and related workers.
Elementary undergraduates seem to end up with occupations classified under plant and
machine operators and assemblers as well as farmers, forestry workers and fishermen. High
school graduates tend to assume jobs classified under professionals and
technicians/associate professionals. Meanwhile, laborers and unskilled workers are more
closely associated with those who have finished elementary as well as those who did not go
to formal schooling.
In the urban area, a few PWDs who got post-graduate degrees or units end up having jobs
classified under professionals. Those who finished college level education are more closely
associated with being officers/managers/supervisors and service workers and shop/market
sales workers. Clerks, however, tend to have either college or post-secondary degrees.
Farmers/forestry workers/fishermen are more closely related to those who did not even
reach elementary level.

11

Table 3. Respondent's primary occupation by impairment and by area

Major occupation

Mobility
16 (23.5)

Visual
6 (5.3)

Urban
Hearing Multiple Total
10 (23.8) 4 (33.3) 36 (15.3)

Mobility
0 (0)

Visual
0 (0)

Rural
Hearing Multiple
1 (5.6) 1 (16.7)

Total
2 (4.3)

0 (0)
1 (8.3)
0 (0)
0 (0)

6 (2.6)
79 (33.6)
13 (5.5)
14 (6)

2 (15.4)
1 (7.7)
1 (7.7)
1 (7.7)

0 (0)
1 (11.1)
0 (0)
0 (0)

0 (0)
0 (0)
0 (0)
4 (22.2)

0 (0)
0 (0)
1 (16.7)
0 (0)

2 (4.3)
2 (4.3)
2 (4.3)
5 (10.9)

1 (8.3) 3 (1.3)
0 (0)
21 (8.9)
2 (16.7) 11 (4.7)
4 (33.3) 52 (22.1)

1 (7.7)
2 (15.4)
0 (0)
5 (38.5)

2 (22.2)
2 (22.2)
1 (11.1)
3 (33.3)

4 (22.2)
0 (0)
0 (0)
9 (50)

1 (16.7) 8 (17.4)
1 (16.7) 5 (10.9)
1 (2.2)
0 (0)
2 (33.3) 19 (41.3)

Officials of government and special-interest

organizations, corporate executives,
managers, managing proprietors and
supervisors
1 (1.5) 4 (3.5) 1 (2.4)
Professionals
Technicians and associate professionals
6 (8.8) 71 (62.8) 1 (2.4)
5 (7.4) 4 (3.5) 4 (9.5)
Clerks
Service workers and shop and market sales
9 (13.2) 2 (1.8) 3 (7.1)
workers
0 (0)
1 (1.5) 1 (0.9)
Farmers, forestry workers and fishermen
Trades, production and related workers
5 (7.4) 7 (6.2) 9 (21.4)
Plant and machine operators and assemblers 6 (8.8) 2 (1.8) 1 (2.4)
Laborers and unskilled workers
19 (27.9) 16 (14.2) 13 (31)

Sources of basic data: PWD surveys, 2008 (Metro Manila) and 2010 (Rosario, Batangas)
Note: Figures in parentheses are column percentages.

Figure 3. MCA results on major occupation vis--vis respondents profile and HH characteristics,
by area
Urban area
Rural area
MCA coordinate plot
3

MCA coordinate plot

postgrad

voc'l/tech'l
off'ls/mgrs/

prep
profs

service/mkt_
plant/machin
trades/rel'd

trades/rel'd
prep
HS undergrad

off'ls/mgrs/
voc'l/tech'l

elem grad
laborers/uns

service/mkt_

no grade
coll_undergr

elem undergrad
plant/machin

clerks

-1

-4

college grad

coll_grad

dimension 2 (19.9%)
0

dimension 2 (22.6%)
-2

farm/fish/fo
no grade
elem
777 grad
HS gradlaborers/uns
elem
undergrad
HS undergrad
coll_undergr
tech'ns/asso

clerks

-2

-6

farm/fish/fo

-15

-10

-5
dimension 1 (47.2%)

Education

HS grad

tech'ns/asso

-3

-8

post-sec

profs

Major occupation

-4

-3

-2
-1
dimension 1 (47.3%)

Education

Major occupation

Sources of basic data: PWD surveys, 2008 (Metro Manila) and 2010 (Rosario, Batangas)

12

Based on the patterns revealed in Figure 3, it appears that the mismatch between the
educational attainment and occupational classification of PWDs can be considered not
large, particularly in the urban area. PWDs with post-graduate degrees tend to get
professional jobs while those who have college diploma are more closely related to being
officers/managers/supervisors, service workers and shop/market sales workers, and clerks.
Also, those who did not complete any grade end up being farmers/forestry
workers/fishermen, the type of occupation that might not necessarily require a degree. In
the rural area, laborers and unskilled workers, which also do not require higher educational
degree, tend to be more closely related with either having elementary diploma or having no
diploma at all. However, those who finished tertiary level education usually end up being
just trades, production and related workers while those who only got high school diploma
assumed professional- and associate professional-level jobs.
Class of worker 1
Given the types of work assumed by PWDs, it can be argued that majority of the employed
PWDs in rural and urban areas are considered as vulnerable workers. Table 4 shows that a
significant proportion of PWDs both in the rural and urban areas are own-account workers,
which are mostly self-employed, plus a few unpaid family workers. The International
Labour Organization (ILO) (2009) noted that self-employed workers (without paid
employees) and contributing family workers are considered to have relatively higher risk of
getting zero or negative income in the face of economic, natural and other types of shocks.
These workers are also said to have informal work arrangements and less likely to have
access to employment benefits or social protection programs.
In addition, some wage/salary workers, who are either temporary workers without a written
contract, seasonal workers, or hired on a daily basis, can be considered as informally
employed 2. On top of this, the businesses of the two employers in the rural area are
operating on a small-scale and the total number of their paid employees is less than 10.
One of the employers has 3 paid employees while the other one hired 9 employees for his
two small-scale businesses.
1

Employed persons are classified according to the following categories: (1) Wage/salary workers those
who are working for private households for pay, in cash or in kind; working for private establishment for
pay, in cash or in kind; working for government/government corporation; working with pay on own
family-operated farm or business; (2) Own-account workers those who are working as self-employed, or
persons who operate their own businesses or trades and do not employ paid workers in the conduct of
their economic activities; or, employers, or persons who employ one or more paid employees in the
operation of their businesses or trades; and, (3) Unpaid family workers or those who are working without
pay on own family-operated farm or business (NSO 2012).
2
Cuevas et al. (2009) noted that informal employment can either be informal self employment or
informal wage employment. Informal self employment includes employers in informal enterprises (i.e.,
household enterprises engaged in the production of goods or services with the primary objective of
generating employment and incomes to the persons concerned; and that typically operate at a low level
of organization, with little or no division between labor and capital as factors of production, and on a
small scale), own-account workers in informal enterprises, unpaid family workers, and members of
informal producers cooperatives. Informal wage employment, on the other hand, includes employees
without formal contracts, worker benefits, or social protection who are employed either in formal or
informal enterprises.

13

Table 4. Respondent's class of worker by impairment and by area

Class of
worker

Wage/
salary

Own-account
Selfemployed

Employer

Total

Unpaid
family

Urban
Mobility
23 (33.8)
45 (66.2)
45 (66.2)
66 (58.4)
47 (41.6)
47 (41.6)
Visual
Hearing
27 (64.3)
15 (35.7)
15 (35.7)
8 (66.7)
8 (66.7)
Multiple
4 (33.3)
120 (51.1)
115 (48.9)
115 (48.9)
Total
Rural
9 (69.2)
1 (7.7)
10 (76.9)
0 (0)
Mobility
3 (23.1)
Visual
4 (44.4)
4 (44.4)
0 (0)
4 (44.4)
1 (11.1)
Hearing
12 (66.7)
3 (16.7)
1 (5.6)
4 (22.2)
2 (11.1)
3 (50)
1 (16.7)
Multiple
2 (33.3)
3 (50)
0 (0)
19 (41.3)
2 (4.4)
21 (45.7)
4 (8.7)
Total
21 (45.7)
Sources of basic data: PWD surveys, 2008 (Metro Manila) and 2010 (Rosario, Batangas)
Note: Figures in parentheses are column percentages.

Concluding remarks
Notwithstanding the limited number of respondents, some meaningful insights can be
drawn from the descriptive analysis of the survey data. One of the most interesting findings
from the surveys is that being a member of a DPO, particularly in the urban area, has
relatively higher likelihood of being engaged in an income-generating activity. One clear
example of this is that majority of the visually-impaired respondents in selected cities in
Metro Manila, who are DPO members, are working as masseurs. It is thus interesting to
note that DPO plays an important role not only in providing employment to PWDs but also
in empowering them and improving their perspective in life. It is thus a good idea for the
local government to work in partnership with DPOs in conducting regular activities catered
for PWDs which include job/income-generating trainings, socialization, rehabilitation,
among others. In addition, it is also important that there are job placement and/or
livelihood assistance programs available in the area (either barangay or municipality) so
that PWDs will not face difficulty in finding a decent and productive work.
Education is considered as a critical factor in gaining employment. The MCA between
educational attainment and occupation suggests that having a good educational background
is one of the most important requirements in getting a satisfactory job. The government
might offer scholarships to school-aged PWDs who cannot attend school because of
financial constraints. Alternative learning sessions might also be conducted (on a regular
basis and free of charge) to PWDs who are already beyond the school-age but do not have
at least high school diploma (which is usually the minimum qualification set by
employers). Special sessions might also be catered to the hearing-impaired who do not
know sign language (especially those in far-flung areas where deaf schools are
inaccessible) and are not knowledgeable with Filipino (since English is the medium of
instruction in deaf schools). The government can also allocate additional funds for
programs and activities related to skills development and employment assistance for older
PWDs with lower educational attainment (Mina 2010).

14

Examination of the sources of personal income of PWDs suggests that a large proportion of
PWDs are either dependent on transfer income or completely dependent on the income of
their household to be able to survive. The MCA 2-dimensional map exhibits strong
association between transfer income-earners and being non-DPO members and having
lower educational attainment (in the rural area). On the other hand, those without personal
income were found to be more closely related to having lower educational attainment (in
the urban area). These findings also highlight the importance of DPO membership and
good educational background on accessing a productive employment and not being
dependent on the support from other people.
Majority of PWDs in both rural and urban areas are considered to be engaged in vulnerable
employment. A significant percentage of employed PWDs are classified as own-account
workers (which are basically self-employed) and a few others are unpaid family workers.
Some PWDs who are in paid employment are considered to be informally employed
because they are working as temporary workers without formal contract, seasonal workers,
and hired on a daily basis. These types of occupation lack security of tenure. The
government can thus offer skills development trainings to these groups of PWDs, and then
provide employment or livelihood assistance programs to them afterwards. Supported
employment programs might also be explored for the benefit of those who wanted job
security.
A number of economically inactive PWDs have low self-esteem to interact with other
people, are discouraged or are not allowed by their family members to work. For PWDs
who are willing to work but are not confident enough to apply for a job, the intervention
may be in the form of either a transitional (sheltered) employment program or a supported
employment program. On the other hand, those who believe that no work is available for
them should be regularly informed of the employment, and even trainings, opportunities by
the PWD affairs officer within their LGUs. Moreover, employment assistance can be
provided to at least one unemployed members of the household of PWDs who are not
permitted by their parents or other family members to work, particularly if they are or have
higher probability of being income poor.
Ultimately, there should be a stricter implementation of the laws and policies pertaining to
employment of PWDs. One is Section 5 of Republic Act (RA) No. 7277 that requires
government organizations engaged in social development such as DSWD, DOH, DepEd,
among others, to reserve 5 percent of all their casual, emergency and contractual positions
for PWDs. Possible amendment to this is the allotment of a certain percentage of
permanent positions for PWDs. This is essential for PWDs who want job security and for
the employed ones to be entitled to medical, leave and other benefits. Another is the
provision of incentives to private employers to ensure gainful employment for PWDs, as
stipulated in Section 8 of RA No. 7277. It is important to ensure that incentives are
properly provided to employers that comply with this policy. Implementation of other
sections of RA No. 7277 should also be observed such as ensuring the safety of PWDs
within their working environment as well as ensuring that public infrastructure are more
PWD-friendly. It is thus essential for the government to allocate sufficient amount of
funds, or explore alternatives such as public-private partnership (PPP), on the improvement
of not only rural infrastructure but also infrastructure in urban areas, especially the public
transport system. Moreover, RA No. 10070 (amended Section 40 of RA 7277) should also

15

be enforced. This requires the national agencies and LGUs to collaborate with DPOs in
exploring livelihood opportunities to PWDs and disseminating information, which includes
training and employment opportunities, to PWDs. It is thus important for the National
Council on Disability Affairs (NCDA) to maintain a complete registry of PWDs and share
this to LGUs to be able to improve information channels on employment and training
opportunities for PWDs.

References
Cuevas, S., Mina, C., Barcenas, M., and Rosario, A. (2009) Informal employment in
Indonesia, ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 156. Mandaluyong City,
Philippines: Asian Development Bank.
Gottlieb, A, Myhill W.N. and Blanck, P. (2012) Employment of people with disabilities,
in J.H. Stone, M. Blouin (ed.) International Encyclopedia of Rehabilitation. Online.
Available HTTP: <http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/123/>. (accessed
24 February 2012).
Greenacre, M. and Blasius, J. (ed.) (2006) Multiple correspondence analysis and related
methods. Boca Raton, Florida, U.S.A.: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
Home

Office.
(2012)
Equality
Act
2010.
Online.
Available
HTTP:
<http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/part/5/chapter/1>. (accessed 12
March 2012).

International Disability Rights Monitor (2005) International Disability Rights Monitor

(IDRM) Regional Report of the Asia 2005. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.idrmnet.org/content.cfm?id=5E5A75&m=3>. (accessed 9 March
2012).
International Disability Rights Monitor (2004) United States, International Disability
Rights Monitor (IDRM) Regional Report of the Americas 2004. Online. Available
HTTP: <http://www.idrmnet.org/content.cfm?id=5E5A75&m=3>. (accessed 12
March 2012).
International Disability Rights Monitor (2007) United Kingdom, International Disability
Rights Monitor (IDRM) Regional Report of Europe 2007. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.idrmnet.org/content.cfm?id=5E5A75&m=3>. (accessed 9 March
2012).
International Labour Organization (ILO) (2009) Guide to the new Millennium Development
Goals Employment Indicators: including the full set of Decent Work Indicators.
Geneva, Switzerland: ILO.

16

Kregel, J. and Dean, D.H. (2002) Sheltered vs. supported employment: a direct
comparisons of long-term earnings outcomes for individuals with cognitive
disabilities, in J. Kregel, D.H. Dean and P. Wehman (ed.) Achievements and
challenges in employment services for people with disabilities: the longitudinal
impact of workplace supports monograph. Online. Available HTTP:
<http://www.worksupport.com/Main/downloads/dean/shelteredchap3.pdf>.
(accessed 14 March 2012).
Mina, C. (2010) Employment choices of persons with disability (PWDs) in Metro
Manila, PIDS Discussion Paper, 2010-29: 1-38. Makati City, Philippines:
Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
Mori, S., Reyes, C. and Yamagata, T. (2009) Poverty reduction for the disabled in the
Philippines: Livelihood analysis from the data of PWDs in Metro Manila. Joint
Research Program Series No. 151. Chiba, Japan: Institute of Developing
Economies.
National Statistics Office (NSO) (2012) Technical Notes on the Labor Force Survey (LFS).
Online. Available HTTP: <http://census.gov.ph/data/technotes/notelfs.html>.
(accessed 14 March 2012).
Purcil, L. (2009) Monitoring the human rights of persons with disabilities: laws, policies
and programs in the Philippines. Ontario, Canada: Disability Rights Promotion
International.
Schelzig, K. (2005) Poverty in the Philippines: income, assets, and access. Mandaluyong
City, Philippines: Asian Development Bank.
Thornton, P. (2005) Disabled people, employment and social justice, Social Policy &
Society, 4(1): 6573. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

17