A Preliminary Investigation of Disability in Farm Households in Ireland
J. McNamara, Teagasc
D. J. Ruane , Faculty of Agriculture, UCD
A. Good , National Disability Authority
K. Reidy, Waterford Institute of Technology
Abstract
While there is available information on occupational accidents in agriculture and the farm sector generally, less is available on disability in this group. This preliminary research of reported disability is from a representative sample of farm households (1,048) participating in the National Farm Survey (NFS) of 119.5k farm households in autumn2001. The data were obtained when information was being sought for farm business performance purposes by Teagasc farm recorders in an interview setting. Causation and the impact of disability on the farm business, time commitment of family members to support the disabled person(s) together with an assessment of available services was obtained. The results showed that 19.5% of farm households reported one or more persons with a disability. Of these households 89.2% and 10.8% reported the presence of 1 and more than 1 person with a disability respectively. Persons with disability in the household were: the farm operator (39.4%); spouse (10.1%); child (ren) (21.0%); parent(s) (23.1%) and others (6.4%).
The types of disability identified were categorised as: physical (from injury) 14.3%, physical (from birth) 6.8%, physical (health-related) 43.8%, sensory impairment 6.8%, learning/intellectual disability 12.9%, mental health 7.0%, other 8.5%. Injury-related disability among respondents was identified as farm work-related in 70% of cases and 30% were non-farm related. In 40.9% of households reporting disability a family member attends to the needs of the disabled person, accounting for 25% or more of their time in 11.9% of the cases reported. Just 26.2% of affected households avail of voluntary or state services. The services and supports needed were specified by 45%, suggesting an important "gap" in service provision. Disability in affected households had a "major" or "some" impact on the farm business in 22.4% and 52.9% of cases respectively. The findings suggest a requirement for further study of the impact of disability in this occupational group.
Introduction
The issue of disability is now receiving considerable attention at a policy and legislative level in Ireland. A National Disability Authority (NDA) was established in 1999 under the National Disability Authority Act of that year. The NDA's statutory role is to assist government in the co-ordination and development of policy relating to persons with disabilities. The objective of current and proposed legislation in the disability area is to define the right of persons with disability and develop policy so that they can enjoy equality and full participation in society.
Limited research has been conducted in Ireland on the extent of disability among various occupational groups, including the agricultural sector. While the results of the Census of Agriculture for 2000 are still awaited, estimates from the CSO's Agricultural Labour Input data for 1999 (CSO, 2001) indicate that there were about 270,000 people working full-time or part-time on 143,000 farm holdings of more than one hectare in size in the Republic of Ireland. Estimates for the early 1990s indicated that over 600,000 persons lived on farms in this country. While current numbers of farm holdings, workers on farms and people living on active farms would be lower than the above estimates, the scale of agricultural sector in occupational and household number terms continues to be substantial. Given the size of the sector, it is not unreasonable to expect there would be a significant number of people working or living on farms who suffer from some kind of disability. Farming as an occupation was found to have higher levels of disability (Leigh and Fries, 1992) than some other occupations. Health and safety issues among farm households have been studied recently (McNamara and Reidy, 1997; Finnegan and Phelan, 2002), but there has been no corresponding research on the incidence and impact of farm household disability in Irish agriculture. The definition of disability used in this research was derived from the Report of the Commission on the status of People with Disabilities (1996). This was:
People with disabilities were to include children and adults who experience any restriction in their capacity to participate in economic, social or cultural life on account of physical, sensory, learning, mental health, or emotional impairment.
Therefore all categories of disability, in the broadest sense, are included. The presence of disability was determined by respondents’ self-reporting of disability in respect of themselves and members of the farm household. The research objectives were: (1) to identify the extent and nature of disability among farm household members (2) to identify the services and supports required by persons with disability in farm households and (3) to assess the impact of disability on the farm business. The paper commences with the introduction followed by the research methodology, the results of the research, discussion of the findings and conclusions.
Methodology
The research instrument was a survey within the National Farm Survey (NFS), which is organised by Teagasc (The Agriculture and Food Development Authority). The respondents were a nationally representative sample that participated in the NFS of 2001. The NFS was set up in 1966 and has been carried out annually. The NFS is designed to a) determine the financial situation on Irish farms by measuring the level of gross output, costs, income, investment and indebtedness across the spectrum or farming systems and sizes, b) measure the current levels of, and variation in, farm performance, for use as standards for farm management purposes, and c) provide a database for agricultural economic and rural development research projects. The NFS, the principal results of which are published annually, is part of the Farm Accounts Data Network (FADN) that operates throughout the Member States of the European Union. The national population of farms for NFS purposes comprises all farms of at least two Economic Size Units (1 ESU = €1200 of Standard Gross Margin) but excludes specialist pig or poultry units. In 2001 the relevant NFS population was approximately 119,500 farms. Data collected by the NFS on a routine basis relates primarily to farming activities. From time to time additional survey instruments are appended to the NFS to meet specific farming-related research objectives. This procedure followed in this disability research survey in which 1,048 NFS farms participated. The sample is highly representative of the national population of farms with each participating farm in the survey representing on average 114 farms in the population.
The survey data were collected by skilled NFS farm recorders in a confidential setting in which a strong professional relationship exists between the participating farm operator and the farm recorder arising from regular data recording visits. Farms supplying data for the NFS and related surveys, such as this disability survey, are assured of complete confidence. As seeking information on disability issues within a farm household through the farm operator were perceived to be potentially sensitive, respondents were asked if they were agreeable to answer further questions on the issue of disability in the farm household. If the answer was in the affirmative, the recorder was then in a position to continue the survey and seek responses to the additional disability questions on the questionnaire.
The questions on disability issues referring to the farm operator and members of the farm household were designed, considered and prepared by the authors of this paper and submitted to the NFS personnel for evaluation and reflection. When the questions were finalised and acceptable for inclusion in the disability survey instrument, the NFS professional staff prepared a briefing and guidelines for the farm recorders on the subject of disability. The farms were visited during the autumn of 2001. Responses to the questions were, therefore, obtained at the same time as farm recorders were obtaining farm management data. A classification of disabilities was provided to farm recorders using seven codes. The codes were based upon an adaptation of ICIDH-2 (W.H.O., 1997). These codes were for type of disability and were identified to respondents, namely: Physical disability from injury (Code 1), Physical disability from birth (Code 2), Physical disability (health related - Code 3), Sensory impairment (Code 4), Learning or Intellectual Disability e.g. mental handicap (Code 5), Mental health disability e.g. depression, schizophrenia (Code 6) and a final Code 7 which was used to cover any disclosure that did not fall within the classification described. Code 7 also included age-related conditions not attributable to any particular cause, whereby the person’s capacity to engage in work or social/cultural activity is limited or on-going care is required. In the case of disability incidence, the determination of the type of disability was made on a self-reporting basis by the farm operator, as the survey respondent, in respect of all members of the household with reported disability. Recorders also made additional notes that assisted in the re-classification of some of the reported disabilities when the data were being assessed following completion of the survey.
A general list of illnesses and disabilities was provided to the farm recorders to assist them in identifying the appropriate classification for completion of questionnaires. Additional information was sought from respondents subsequent to completion of field survey work on the causes of reported health-related disability as an additional source of information. Upon completion of all of the survey the data were cleaned and validated for any errors of inconsistency. The survey data were analysed using SASŪ.
Survey Results
The total number respondents who participated in the survey were 1080 of which 1048 were usable responses. Of the non-respondents, about one third declined to respond while the others were not asked for operational reasons. The non-responses were from persons who indicated their unwillingness to answer the questions on disability. Analysis of the results, unless otherwise indicated, refers to those farms where the respondent stated that there was incidence of disability (as defined in the introduction) involving the respondent (him/herself) through self-reporting and for all members of the farm household. The results are reported in five subsections, namely: the incidence of disability, categories of disability, disability services, off-farm employment and impact of disability on the farm business.
Incidence of Disability in Farm Households
Disability was reported for 19.5% of farm households nationally corresponding to an estimated 23,332 farms in 2001 (Table 1). While the vast majority of farms reported only one person with disability, cases of two or more persons with reported disability were found on 2.1% of all farms nationally.
Table 2 shows the distribution of the estimated 26,400 persons with reported disability across the various categories of farm household member. Farm operators were the biggest category accounting for 39.4% of farm household members with disability. The survey findings indicate that approximately 10,400 farm operators have reported disability representing about 8.5% of the national population of 119,500 farm operators in 2001 in the NFS. Based on an estimated population of 450,000 people living on farms represented by the NFS, six per cent of farm household members report disability. Parents of farm operators accounted for 23.1% of farm household members with disability while the corresponding proportion for children was 21%. Spouses represented about 10.1% of farm household members with disability (Table 2).
| Household members | Per cent |
|---|---|
| Farm operators | 39.4 |
| Spouses | 10.1 |
| Children | 21.0 |
| Parents | 23.1 |
| Other members | 6.4 |
| Total | 100.0 |
Characteristics of farms with reported disability
The age distributions of farm operators with reported disability and farm operators nationally are shown in Table 3. The proportions of farm operators with reported disability and nationally in the combined 35 to 44 and 45 to 64 age brackets were similar at 51.9% and 52.1% respectively. Marked differences occur at either end of the age spectrum however. The proportion of farm operators with disability under 45 is 20.2 percentage points below the corresponding proportion for all farms i.e. 6.6% compared to 26.8%. In the 65+-age bracket the proportion of farm operators with disability (41.5%) is 20.4 percentage points higher than that for all farm operators nationally (21.1%). The average age of farm operators with reported disability in 2001 was about 60 years compared to 53 years for all farm operators nationally. The NFS identifies six systems of farming for categorisation purposes. These systems refer to the expected contribution, based on standard criteria, of particular farm enterprises to overall gross profit from the farm business. The classifications are largely self-explanatory. The basic difference between the cattle rearing and other cattle systems is that farms in the former category are more reliant on their suckler cowherds for farm revenue than farms in the latter category.
Age distribution of farm operators with disability and all farms nationally (%)
| Age of farm operator | Farm operators with reported disability[1] | All farms nationally[2] |
|---|---|---|
| < 35 | 3.0 | 7.5 |
| 35 – 44 | 3.6 | 19.3 |
| 45 – 54 | 24.0 | 28.3 |
| 55 – 64 | 27.9 | 23.8 |
| ≥ 65 | 41.5 | 21.1 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 |
- Estimated number of farms with reported disability - 23,332
- Estimated number of farms nationally - 119,500
Disability was reported across the main system of farming categories (Table 4). Just 59.8% of farm operators with reported disability (Col. 1) belong to either of the cattle rearing and other cattle systems. This is higher than the equivalent proportion (52.1%) for all farms nationally (Col. 3). There are proportionately fewer specialist dairy (10.3%) and sheep (8.2%) farm operators with disability than for all farms nationally and proportionately more in tillage farming (10.4%). On examining the presence of disability in the farm household by system of farming (Col 2) a similar distribution pattern of farming systems was observed as for all farms nationally (Col. 3). This suggests that disability of the farm operator may have a greater impact on the type of farming systems undertaken than disability of other persons within the farm household. Column 4 shows the number of farms expressed as a percentage of all farms in each system of farming in which disability was reported (Table 4). The incidence of disability was recorded highest on cattle rearing farms (22.3%) and lowest on other cattle farms (15.9%). The incidence of disability in the other farming systems was within this range.
| System of farming | Farm operators with disability[1] | Farms with a disabled person[2] | All farms nationally[3] | Farms with presence of disability by system of farming (%)[4] |
| Dairying | 10.3 | 15.8 | 16.3 | 18.9 |
| Dairying & cattle | 11.3 | 11.9 | 10.9 | 21.3 |
| Cattle rearing | 37.7 | 32.0 | 28.1 | 22.3 |
| Other cattle systems | 22.1 | 19.6 | 24.0 | 15.9 |
| Mainly sheep | 8.2 | 13.8 | 14.3 | 18.8 |
| Mainly tillage | 10.4 | 6.9 | 6.4 | 20.9 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
- Estimated number of farm operators with reported disability - 10,400
- Estimated number of farms with reported disability - 23,332
- Estimated number of farms nationally - 119,500
- Proportion of farms with presence of disability = 19.5%
| Size of Farm (ha) | Farm operators with disability [1] | Farms with a disabled person [2] | All farms nationally [3] | Farms with presence of disability by size of farm (%) [4] | |
| Uneconomic | 2 < 10 | 3.6 | 10.9 | 10.9 | 19.6 |
| Small | 10 < 20 | 38.7 | 27.4 | 25.2 | 21.2 |
| Medium | 20 < 30 | 18.8 | 18.4 | 19.9 | 18.0 |
| 30 < 50 | 25.7 | 27.4 | 24.1 | 22.2 | |
| Larger | 50 < 100 | 9.2 | 12.7 | 16.2 | 15.5 |
| 100 + | 4.0 | 3.1 | 3.8 | 16.1 | |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | ||
- Estimated number of farm operators with reported disability - 10,400
- Estimated number of farms with reported disability - 23,332
- Estimated number of farms nationally - 119,500
- Proportion of farms with presence of disability = 19.5%
Table 5 shows the distribution of farms with reported disability broken down by farm size categories compared to all farms nationally and the presence of reported disability in each farm size category. The distribution of farm operators with reported disability (Col. 1) by size of farm is markedly different from that for all farms nationally (Col. 3). Just 3.6% of farm operators with a disability are found within the smallest category of farm size and many of these farms may be uneconomic (less than 10 hectare (ha)). The corresponding proportion for all farms nationally is 10.9%. Only 13.2% of farm operators with disability have farms in the larger, 50+ ha size group compared to 20% of farmers in respect of all farms nationally. Farm operators with disability are working on predominantly small to medium sized farms. In 83.2% of cases, farm operators reporting a disability were operating farms between 10 and 50 ha in size (Col. 1). The corresponding proportion for farm operators in the nationally is 69.2% (Col. 3). The difference between the two distributions is most noticeable for small (10-20 ha) farms on which 38.7% of farm operators with disability are found compared to 25.2% of all farms nationally.
The distribution by size of farm for all farms reporting a disability among farm household members (Col. 2) is much closer to the pattern for all farms nationally than for farm operators with disability. Marginal differences may be seen in the somewhat higher proportion of disability farms in the 30-50 ha size group and a correspondingly lower proportion in the 50-100 ha size group. A lower incidence of reported disability in the larger sized farms compared to the small and medium-farm-size groups, was observed (Col. 4). The highest incidence was in the 30< 50ha category (22.2%) and the lowest was in the 50< 100 ha category (15.5%). The incidence of disability for other farm sizes was within these ranges.
Categories of disability in farm households
Tables 6 and 7 show the types of disability as reported by respondents in respect of disabled persons in the farm household. The data in both tables should be examined together. Table 6 shows that a wide range of disability occurs among the various household categories. The two principal categories of disability used in the classification are physical and non physical. Within physical disability five sub-groups were identified namely: physical disability arising from injury and from birth, health related disability, sensory impairment and other (to cover a range of other disability conditions found in the research). The non-physical disability occurrences were categorised into two groups namely learning/intellectual and mental health.
Physical disability arising from health-related causes was the most frequently occurring type of disability accounting for nearly 43.8% of disabilities reported for all household members. Disabilities arising from injury (14.3%), followed by learning/intellectual disabilities (12.9%) were the next largest occurrences. In the category of disability arising from injury, further analysis showed that 70% of the incidences arose from farm work while 30% arose from non-farm causes (most notably motor and industrial accidents). Other forms of physical (from birth, sensory and other physical) and mental health disability accounted for 22% and 7% respectively among all household members. Table 7 shows the percentage incidence of the various categories of disability for each type of household member. For instance, out of the estimated 3,800 cases of disability reportedly attributed to physical injury, 71.4% of these related to farm operators (Table 7).
| Household members with disability | Physical disability | Non-physical disability[1] | |||
| Injury | Health/Birth | Sensory | Other | ||
| Farm operators | 71.4 | 42.8 | 30.9 | 22.6 | 20.9 |
| Spouses | 9.3 | 13.7 | 3.5 | -- | 7.0 |
| Children | 6.9 | 14.8 | 17.6 | -- | 47.2 |
| Parents | 10.7 | 23.3 | 48.0 | 70.6 | 14.3 |
| Other members | 1.7 | 5.4 | -- | 6.8 | 10.6 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
| (Estimated number of persons '000) |
(3.8) | (13.3) | (1.8) | (2.3) | (5.2) |
Farm operators with reported disability
Physical disabilities account for 91.1% of disabilities among farm operators (Table 6). Almost one half of disabilities (49.4%) are health-related while a 25.9% were injury-related. Farm operators accounted for over 71.4 per cent of all incidences of reported physical disability due to injury among farm household members and 42.8% of health/birth-related forms of physical disability (Table 7).
Spouses for whom disability was reported
Spousal disability accounted for a relatively small proportion of disability among farm household members (Table 2). Where disability was reported, the majority of cases were due to health-related factors (61.5%, while 13.2% of disability cases, in respect of spouses, were attributed by the respondents to a physical injury (Table 6). Table 7 shows that spouses were not associated to any major extent with any particular type of disability.
Children for whom disability was reported
Children accounted for 21% of disability cases in farm households. Non-physical types of disability were particularly important among farm children with learning/intellectual disability and mental health problems reported for 42.6% and 11.6% respectively of an estimated 5500 cases. However, children accounted for 47.2% of all household cases of non-physical disability. There were also noticeable incidences of disability among children attributed to health problems (18.7%) and birth-related factors (16.8%).
Parents and other household members for whom disability was reported
Disability among parents (49.3%) was attributed to health-related causes. Cases of reported disability in this group were classified as “other physical" (25.9%). This classification related predominantly to disabilities that are mainly age-related. Table 7 shows that parents accounted for over 70% of these predominantly age-related sources of disability and 23.3% of reported health and birth-related disabilities. Other household members were the smallest number of farm household members with reported disability. Within this group the incidence of health-related problems and mental health disability were 42.9% and 25.2% respectively. Subsequent to the survey fieldwork, additional information was obtained by NFS recorders on the causes of reported health-related disabilities among farm operators. This information indicated that the farm operator respondents attributed their disability to arthritis or cardiovascular problems (18.6% and 17.7%) respectively in approximately equal proportions with a smaller number reporting cancer and diabetes.
Personal and Economic Impact of Disability
Table 9 shows that on 40.9% of farms with reported disability a household member working on the farm attended to the needs of a farm household member with a disability. This attendance to needs of the disabled was highest for other household members (65.2%) followed by the spouse (33.1%) and finally the farm operator (17%). However, in78.2% of cases involving farm operators with disability, there was no attendance to their needs from farm household members who work on the farm.Table 10 shows respondents' estimates of the amount of farm-working time, expressed as a percentage of estimated total farm-working time, used up by a household member attending to the needs of a disabled person in the household. As these were verbal estimates provided by respondents, and not the result of a referral to farm records, these estimates must be treated cautiously. Best estimates provided on this basis by respondents were that 29.3% of farm household members spend a maximum of 25% of their working time attending to the disabled and a further 11.6% spent 25 to 50% of their working time (Table 10).
| Attending to disabled person | Household members with disability | All farms with disabled person | ||
| Farm operators | Spouses | All other members[2] | ||
| Attending | 17.0 | 33.1 | 65.2 | 40.9 |
| Not attending | 78.2 | 66.9 | 34.8 | 56.5 |
| No information | 4.8 | -- | -- | 2.6 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Table 10.
| Attending to disabled person | Household members with disability | All farms with disabled person | ||
| Farm operators | Spouses | All other members | ||
| No information provided | 4.8 | -- | -- | 2.6 |
| Zero | 78.2 | 66.9 | 34.8 | 56.5 |
| 1% < 25% | 12.7 | 25.0 | 45.9 | 29.3 |
| 25% < 50% | 4.3 | 8.1 | 19.3 | 11.6 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Based on respondents' assessments for the entire household, 73.8% of households with reported disability did not avail of State or voluntary agency services for the disabled members of the farm household (Table 11). The proportion of disabled farm operators not availing of services was extremely high (92.5%). There were higher proportions availing of services where spouses (29.9%) and other household members (43%) were reportedly disabled.
| Household member disabled | All farms with a disabled person | |||
| Farm operators | Spouses | All other members[2] | ||
| Availing of services | 7.5 | 29.9 | 43.0 | 26.2 |
| Not availing of services | 92.5 | 70.1 | 57.0 | 73.8 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
- Estimated number of farms with reported disability - 23,332
- Includes children, parents and other household members
When respondents were asked to outline those services that they felt were required to meet the needs of disabled persons in the farm household, a majority (55.0%) offered no suggestion (Table 12). Of the 45% who stated their first or principal requirements, day-care services was the most frequent requirement (10.4%). Hospital access (9.5%), home help (4.8%) and support groups (4.7%) were the next most frequent services demanded. Other service requirements for transport, educational facilities and physiotherapy were quite low. In households where disability was reported for persons other than the farm operator or spouse, 61.8% of respondents stated specific requirements, the majority of which related to day care, hospital access and home help services. Farm operators and spouses with reported disability had requirements for services in 23.6% and 51.7% of cases respectively. When this data are taken with the results in Table 11, it may be inferred that there is an under- provision of services for disabled people in farms compared to their requisite needs as articulated by the farm operator. For farm operators, spouses and other family members the proportions currently availing of services is less than the corresponding proportions of suggested requirements. For example, while services requirements were identified for 23.6% of farm operators with reported disability, only 7.5% of farm operators were currently availing of services. The corresponding proportions were 51.7% and 29.9% for spouses while for other household members the proportions were 61.8% and 43%.
| Stated Requirement | Household Member Disabled | All farms with a disabled person | ||
| Farm Operator | Spouse | Other Member | ||
| Day care | 1.5 | 12.0 | 18.4 | 10.4 |
| Hospital access | 3.5 | 5.5 | 15.6 | 9.5 |
| Home help | -- | 2.3 | 9.7 | 4.8 |
| Support groups | 4.0 | 5.5 | 3.2 | 4.7 |
| Educational facilities | 0.9 | -- | 3.9 | 2.3 |
| Transport | -- | 12.0 | 1.7 | 1.7 |
| Physiotherapy | 1.2 | -- | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Other | 12.5 | 14.4 | 8.3 | 10.6 |
| No suggestion | 76.4 | 48.3 | 38.2 | 55.0 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Off-farm employment on farms with reported disability
Farm incomes have been squeezed during the 1990s. Data from the CSO Household Budget Survey for 1999-2000 show that farm households have become increasingly reliant on off-farm employment to maintain a viable household income. Table 13 shows the proportions of farm operators and spouses with off-farm jobs on disability and non-disability farms. At the time of writing, NFS data on the incidence of off-farm employment related to the year 2000. When farms on the survey reporting disability were matched with available NFS data for 2000 the usable sample came to 879 farms. Population estimates for 2000 of off-farm employment were grossed up from this sample and the relevant results are presented in Table 13.
| Person with off-farm job | Farms with a disabled person[2] | Non-disability farms[3] | |
| Farm operator disabled | All other members disabled[5] | ||
| Farm operator | 18.6 | 27.8 | 34.5 |
| Spouse[4] | 26.9 | 47.9 | 34.1 |
- Based on a reduced sample of 879 farms weighted to represent 122,000 farms in NFS 2000
- Estimated number of farms with reported disability - 23,332
- Estimated number of farms with no reported disability – 96,213
- Farms with a spouse in the household
- Includes all household members other than the farm operator.
On disability farms the proportion of farm operators with disability and other disabled farm household members with an off-farm job was 18.6% and 27.8% respectively while the corresponding proportion of farm operators on non-disability farms was 34.5%. The low incidence of off-farm employment among farms where the farm operator is disabled may give rise to a lower overall household income compared to farms having another member of the household with disability as well as non-disability farms.
The proportion of spouses with an off-job where the farm operator reports disability (26.9%) is lower than non-disability farms (34.1%) while the corresponding proportion in respect of farms where a person other than the farm operator is disabled is higher (47.9%).
Impact of disability on the farm business
When respondents were asked to assess the impact of disability in the household on the farm business, disability was reported to have a major impact on the farm business on 22.4% of disability farms (Table 14). Some impact was recorded on the farm business on 52.9% of farms while on 24.7% of disability farms; little or no impact was reported. On farms with a disabled farm operator, only 6.1% of respondents considered the impact on the farm business due to disability to be “little or none”. While 66.1% of respondents felt that the farm operator’s disability has some impact on the farm business, 27.8% considered the impact of farm operator disability to have a “major” impact on the farm business. On the farms where the spouse is disabled, the proportion of respondents who stated there was a “major” impact on the farm business (30.8%) was slightly higher that those reporting “little or none” in terms of impact (27.2%). The incidence of “major impact” on the farm business was 16.2% where the disabled person is someone other than the farm operator or spouse; however disability was considered by respondents to have impacted negatively upon the farm business in 58.5% of these farms.
| Stated Impact | Household Member with Reported Disability | All farms with a disabled person | ||
| Farm operator | Spouse | All other members | ||
| Major | 27.8 | 30.8 | 16.2 | 22.4 |
| Some | 66.1 | 42.0 | 42.3 | 52.9 |
| Little or none | 6.1 | 27.2 | 41.5 | 24.7 |
| Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 |
The impact of disability on the farm business can be ascertained from an examination of farm income data on disability and non-disability farms. Population farm income estimates for 2000 are presented in Table 15. The key farm household income measure produced by the NFS is Family Farm Income. This is the farm income earned by the household before income tax from farming activity and includes income derived from market sales and EU direct payments under the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Farm incomes can vary considerably from year to year depending on market conditions, weather, disease and other factors. Therefore caution must be exercised in the use of one year’s data as in this study.
| Farms with a disabled person | Non-disability farms | |||
| Farm operator disabled | Other members disabled | All | ||
| Family farm income (€) | 12,057 | 15,025 | 13,644 | 14,743 |
| Size of farm (ha)[2] | 30.1 | 31.7 | 30.9 | 33.6 |
| FFI per ha (€) | 400 | 474 | 441 | 439 |
- Based on a sample of 879 farms weighted to represent 122,000 farms in NFS 2000
- Area in hectares (ha) adjusted for land quality
In 2000, there was no difference between farm income per hectare on farms with reported disability as a whole and non-disability farms. Nevertheless when farms with reported disability are examined where another family member was disabled and compared to farms where the farm operator was disabled, the FFI per ha was €474 and €400 respectively in 2000. A further examination of the data related to farming systems suggests that the higher FFI/ha on farms where persons other than the farm operator were disabled may be attributable to a larger number of these respondents being engaged in the more profitable enterprises such as dairying (Table 4). The FFI on farms where the farm operator was disabled and where a “major and some impact” on the farm business was found to be €372/ha and €386/ha respectively.
Discussion
A discussion of disability incidence in agriculture or other areas is related to the definition used to describe disability. In a preliminary study, such as this, using a self-reporting mechanism, the broad definition of disability used in this study was the most appropriate for the sector as represented by an NFS sample. As this was the first time that disability issues were raised within this occupational group using the NFS, the farm recorders who were prepared for this survey were raising a new issue with their respondents and the principal farm respondent provided all of the information sought on disability in addition to the farm management information for which the survey was used to seek routinely. The study findings indicated that self-reported disability was recorded in 19.5% of farm households and within the farm household, physical health related (43.9%) followed by injury (14.3%) and then intellectual disability (12.9%) were the highest incidence levels found. The farm operator was the person most frequently affected, accounting for 39.4% of all reported cases. Younger farm operators (i.e. under 45 years) reported lower disability levels than older farmers (over 65 years). Among farm operators’ physical health related disability, arthritis and cardiovascular conditions were the most frequent causes identified. In a major Polish study the most frequent reasons for disability found among disabled rural inhabitants were cardiovascular diseases, diseases of the musculo-skeletal system and connective tissue (Karwat, 1998). Farm operators had the highest level of accident-related disability while spouses and children had the highest proportion of health and learning/ intellectual disability-related conditions respectively. Other farm household members such as parents had a predominance of physical health and mostly age-related conditions.
In 26.2% of households, the available services and supports were used by farm household and 45% of respondents identified the service requirements. Access to day care and hospital services along with availability of home help and support groups were the principal requirements identified by the farm operator for other household members. This suggests a deficit in service provision and a requirement for further study within this occupational group. Respondents indicated that disability impacted upon the farm business. In tending to the needs of disabled household members, working time is spent attending to the needs of disabled persons in 40.9% of farm households. In households having a disabled person 22.4% and 52.9% respectively reported that the disability had a ‘major’ or ‘some’ impact on the farm business. The highest frequency of such an impact was reported where the farm operator reported having a disability. Both farm operators and spouses have lower participation rates in off farm employment where the farm operator reports disability. These data suggest that disability may be associated with economic disadvantage. However, further research is needed to definitively examine the link between disability and farm business issues.
Conclusions
A disability level of 19.5% was self-reported in farm households and the farm operator was the household member with the highest occurrence of disability at 39.4%. The largest incidences of farm operators with disability occurred over 45 years of age. The incidence of disability of spouses (10.1%) and all other family members accounted for 50.5% of the reported disability in farm households. Farms reporting disability as a percentage of all farms in a particular system varied from 15.9 to 22.3%. Less disabled operators were found on dairy and sheep farms and more in cattle rearing and tillage when compared to all farms in these systems. The largest reported disability was physical (80.1%) being mainly health related followed by disability from physical injury. In the case of the farm operators, arthritis and cardio-vascular disability were the biggest source of health related disability. Disability among children in the farm household was principally non-physical in type.
Attending to the needs of a disabled person by a person working on the farm occurred in 40.9% of cases and estimates of that working time varied between very little and almost half-time. A large majority of respondents (73.8%) with farm household disability did not avail of available services from the State or other organizations. In 45% of cases respondents only did respondents identify the requisite services and the most important of these were day-care, hospital access, home help and support groups.
Farm household disability was identified as having “some or a major impact” on the farm business 75.3% of cases. The farm management data showed that on farms where the farm operator was disabled family farm income (FFI) was €39 per ha less than on farms without disability. The uptake of off-farm employment by disabled farm operators was lower than that for farm operators on farms where other members of the farm household are disabled, which in turn was lower than the uptake by farm operators from non-disability farms. Spouses’ uptake of off-farm employment was lower on farms where the farm operator is disabled and higher on farms where other members of the household are disabled compared to non-disability farms than that for farm operators on farms where the farm operator was disabled.
The outcomes of this research show that disability is an important issue for farm households which impacts upon the farm business. As the incidence of disability was high, impact on the farm operator and other household members employed on the farm with disability suggests new avenues for research within agriculture in the context of the nature of the work and the design of a wide range of farm facilities. Further study of the causes of the health-related factors is indicated as well as issues relating to support for farm households who have persons with disability in a multi-disciplinary context.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge the assistance of the participating farm operators and the NFS farm recorders in obtaining the data for the study. We also acknowledge the assistance of Michael Cushion, Brian Moran and Eleanor Quinlan and other NFS staff for analysis of the data. We further thank Ms M. Murray and Ms H. Johnston, both of NDA, for their input in the early stages of this research project.
References
CSO – Irish Central Statistics Office (2001). Statistical yearbook of Ireland. Stationery Office: Dublin: 373
Finnegan, A. and J. Phelan (2002). A National Study of Health and Safety on Irish Farms – Preliminary results.Teagasc, Health and Safety, UCD Department of Agribusiness and Extension and Rural Development and Health and Safety Authority, Research project presentation (November), Teagasc, Athenry, Co Galway.
Karwat, I. D. (1998). ‘Major medical and social needs of disabled rural inhabitants’. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 5, 117-126.
Leigh, J. P. and J. F. Fries (1992). ‘Disability in Occupations in a National Sample’. American Journal of Public Health 82 (11) 1517-1524.
McNamara, J. and K. Reidy (1997). Survey for Farm Safety and Health on Irish Farms.Teagasc, Health and Safety Authority Publication: 61.
WHO- World Health Authority, (1997). The International Classification of Impairments, Activities and Participation. ICIDH-2, WHO, Geneva.