Mapping the development of disabled people’s organizations in China: main types and current status

Abstract

Little is known about China’s disabled people’s organizations (DPOs) in the current research literature. This article, partly in response to the prior journal article by Zhang (Disability & Society 32 (7): 1096–1101, 2017), attempts to map the four main types of DPOs in China and analyze their current status using the case of Shanghai. In addition to the Disabled Persons’ Federation, the other types include five specialized associations, nonprofit organizations, and voluntary groups. This study preliminarily presents the number of DPOs, their government funding and changing registration management system. It is hoped that researchers will pay more attention to DPOs in non-Western settings and perform more comparative studies between China and other developed countries in the future.

Keywords:

• Disabled people’s organization
• five specialized associations
• NPO
• voluntary group
• registration management
• contracting out
• China

Introduction: China’s changing social service system for people with disabilities

The China Disabled Persons’ Federation (CDPF) was founded in 1988; subsequently, local-level DPFs were gradually founded. DPFs, along with governments, constitute the main actors of the traditional social service system for people with disabilities in China. Nonprofit organizations and various voluntary groups are emerging and becoming new actors in this system (Zhao and Grotz 2019), covering issues such as rehabilitation, education, sports, and accessible facilities.

This change has had a great impact on people with disabilities as users. They can obtain increasingly better services and have more channels for participation in the service design and service delivery process. However, little is known about China’s disabled people’s organizations (DPOs) in the current literature, with the exception of the well-known DPFs. In a previous article in the journal Disability & Society, Zhang (2017) noted that there are two types of DPOs in China: DPFs and self-help organizations. We argue that there are other more important types and that the institutional environment for DPOs in general is changing. This article attempts to answer the following questions: how many types of DPOs exist in China, and what are their features and current status? Exploring these issues will better understand China’s social service system for people with disabilities.

Mapping the picture in China: four types of DPOs

DPOs can be categorized based on different criteria. According to their government registration situation, Chinese DPOs can be categorized into the following four types.

Disabled persons’ federations (type I)

The CDPF and its local branches at different government levels are the main type of DPO in China. According to the official data in 2018, there were 42,000 DPFs nationally. The role of DPFs is to serve as a bridge between the government and disabled people. DPFs have stable government funding. The staff, similar to government officials, have job security.

The existence of DPFs is regulated by the Law for the Protection of Disabled People in China (Article 8), and DPFs do not need to be registered with a government agency. Corporatism is a concept used frequently to explain their function in the social service system (Smith and Zhao 2016). However, most DPFs have a bureaucratic operation orientation. Additionally, they are unable to provide services for different types of disabilities in a personalized and tailored way.

Five specialized associations (type II)

Specialized associations are established to specifically represent the interests of people with visual impairments, people with hearing impairments, people with physical impairments, people with learning disabilities and their families, and people with mental health conditions and their families. The existence of these five associations is regulated by CDPF articles. Some of them have legal status, and some do not. According to the official data in 2018, there were 15,561 specialized associations, with each type constituting approximately the same percentage.

Each of the specialized associations has a full-service network and can easily mobilize and find people with disabilities. Taking the China Associations of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing as an example, all related local associations are its members. However, most of the specialized associations are affiliated with DPFs as internal departments and lack autonomy in action.

Registered nonprofit organizations (type III)

Nonprofit organizations are emerging as new actors to service people with disabilities. According to the official data in 2018, there were 2,562 government-registered NPOs in the area of disability issues. There are two subtypes of these organizations with different sponsors. The first subtype is NPOs that are self-founded by people with disabilities and/or their families. One Plus One Group for Disability was the first true DPO established by people with disabilities (Zhang 2017). The second subtype is NPOs founded by nondisabled people; most of these are run by social workers.

The differences between these two subtypes must be examined empirically. If we adopt the nonprofit association/nonprofit agency approach (Smith, Stebbins, and Grotz 2017, Chap. 3) to analyze the two subtypes, we can see basic differences. The former usually recruits volunteers as the most important human resources, while the latter only hires professional, paid staff. The former runs in a more horizontal way and mainly provides member-benefit services, while the latter operates with a hierarchical/vertical organizational structure.

Voluntary groups for disabled people (type IV)

This type mainly includes voluntary groups for disabled people in the community. According to our observations, these groups are organized voluntarily and are active in rural and urban communities and even as online virtual communities for specific types of disabilities during the current pandemic. We do not have an exact number of this type of group. Smith and Zhao (2016) suggested that the number of Chinese voluntary groups was likely to be ten times larger than that of nonprofit organizations that are legally registered with the government. Therefore, there are approximately 25,000 voluntary groups in the area of disability issues.

In contrast to the third type, these groups normally are not registered with a government agency for various reasons and thus have nonlegal status. Some of them are not qualified to be registered under the current high threshold management system. Some choose not to be registered with the government since registration means more government restriction and control.

Current status of DPOs: the Shanghai case

Shanghai is one of the most developed cities in China both economically and socially. The current status of DPOs in Shanghai has the following three features.

First, there are approximately 4 DPOs per thousand people with disabilities in Shanghai, which is higher than the national average. According to recent data, there are 237 DPFs, 85 special associations, and 171 registered nonprofit organizations. If we count the number of type IV DPOs, the total number is 2,203. The average number of DPOs per thousand people with disabilities is 3.8, while the national number is 2.3 (see Table 1).

Table 1. Number of each type of DPO in Shanghai and China.

Number	Type I	Type II	Type III	Type IV	Total	Disabled persons	Percentage per thousand
China	42,000	15,561	2562	25,620	85,743	36,817,000	2.3
Shanghai	237	85	171	1710	2203	578,104	3.8

Source: If not otherwise specified, all the data in the article are from the official websites of the CDPF http://www.cdpf.org.cn/sjzx/tjgb/ (10/5/2020) and Shanghai DPF http://www.shdisabled.gov.cn/clwz/clwz/ztwz/tjgb/index.html (10/5/2020).

Second, the government manages DPOs differently. Compared with type I and type II DPOs, the other two types are more affected by the government’s dual management registration system. In China, since 1989, an NPO or voluntary group seeking official registration has had to find a government agency to be a managing ‘sponsor’ in addition to having the Ministry of Civil Affairs and its local branches as the administrative agency for registration, although this is changing.

Most type III DPOs are influenced by the restrictive registration system before they are registered. For example, an association for children with autism in Shanghai was sponsored by a mother of a child with autism. It began as a voluntary group in the 1990s and finally registered in 2016 because of its good reputation. Most voluntary groups (type IV) have positive effects on people with disabilities. However, there are some cases in which they are punished by the government because they are not registered with the government agency and are technically illegal.

Most specialized associations still run as internal parts of the DPF. Interestingly, five national specialized associations (type II) were registered with the Ministry of Civil Affairs in 2012. The central government encourages local specialized associations to register with a government agency and become independent legal persons. However, local special associations in most cities, including Shanghai, continue to act the same way. More studies are needed to explain why they choose not to register even if they are encouraged by the central government.

Third, a large portion of funding for DPOs is from the government. It is apparent that almost all the funding for type I and type II DPOs is from the government in Shanghai or in other parts of China. For type IV DPOs, we have no information on funding sources, but there is probably very little government funding for these voluntary groups. For type III DPOs in Shanghai, a large portion of their funding is from the government, which is related to the current prevailing system of government contracting with NPOs. However, the exact percentages of government funding sources and other funding sources remain unclear.

According to a recent report by the Shanghai Municipal Disabled Persons’ Federation in 2019, 151 NPOs (171, 88.3%) and 101 companies contract with the local governments and DPFs to deliver various services to people with disabilities for the large amount of 180 million RMB. There are 297 publicly-funded programs, including basic and social support services for people with disabilities and their families (e.g. community rehabilitation, social inclusion), development services for people with disabilities (e.g. employment training, education) and various other services.

Discussion and research suggestions

The case of Shanghai shows that the institutional environment of DPOs is generally improving. Previously, some DPOs had to charge service fees to disabled people due to limited organizational funding, which is definitely a large burden for them. This was also indicated by a study in Beijing in 2006 (Karen, Li & Fan 2012). Currently, a large portion of funding for DPOs is from the government, which means that the government in Shanghai shoulders more welfare responsibility. The higher proportion of DPOs in Shanghai may also be related to the improving institutional environment. Moreover, many urban governments in China are contracting with DPOs to deliver services, which means more stable funding for DPOs in other cities.

However, there is still much space for the government to reform and improve its restrictive registration management system. Four types of NPOs, including trade associations, charities and foundations serving the public good, NPOs serving urban and rural communities, and NPOs dedicated to promoting science and technology, are allowed to register directly with the Ministry of Civil Affairs. Hopefully, more DPOs will register. Even if some DPOs choose not to do so, the government should allow them to exist, since most of them enjoy some social legitimacy.

More studies are needed to better understand China’s DPOs. Are they fulfilling their mission or mission drift in the current contracting-out system? What is the impact of this policy change of direct registration on DPOs? What is the difference between DPOs in China and their counterparts in other developed countries in terms of service and advocacy ability?

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China [Grant 20AZZ003].