evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

inABLE Computer Labs for the Blind — An Assistive-Technology Digital-Literacy Pipeline Across Kenya's Specialist Schools

Kenya · Thika · See the Kenya profile

Evidence: Quasi-experimental Top 23% 92/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Since 2009, NGO inABLE has installed assistive-technology computer labs in six specialist schools across four Kenyan counties, enrolling over 7,700 blind and low-vision students and training 195 teachers, with a Georgia Tech study and a Ministry of Education MOU backing it.

7,700+ students
Students enrolled since 2009 (2009–present)
195 teachers
Teachers trained (2009–present)
6 schools
Specialist schools covered (current)
4 counties
Counties covered (current)
~1,500 students/year
Students admitted per year (current)
100 students, 1 lab
Founding cohort (2009)

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
inABLE, with Kenya's Ministry of Education and Georgia Institute of Technology
Period
2009–present
Keywords
education, assistive technology, digital literacy, disability employment

Context

inABLE began in 2009 with a single assistive-technology computer lab and 100 students at a Kenyan school for the blind, starting from the observation that blind and low-vision students had almost no access to computers, screen readers or a structured digital-skills curriculum despite it being a precondition for further study or office-based employment.

Activities

The organisation supplies desktop computers, laptops, tablets and assistive software, trains teachers, and delivers an age-graded curriculum running from basic typing, email and web browsing through to HTML web design and introductory programming for students aged roughly 6 to 20. It formalised a memorandum of understanding with Kenya's Ministry of Education in 2017 to embed the model in specialist-school policy, and entered a multi-year partnership with the Georgia Institute of Technology to measure impact.

Results

By the time of its Zero Project evaluation, the programme covered six specialist schools across four Kenyan counties, had enrolled more than 7,700 students since 2009, trained 195 teachers, and was admitting roughly 1,500 students per year. A Georgia Tech survey found inABLE students reported greater self-confidence than peers at schools without an inABLE lab, and documented outcomes for individual graduates include alumni who moved into computer-programming and assistive-technology instruction careers.

Conclusions

The main evidence gaps are that inABLE's own site does not publish disaggregated employment-outcome statistics for its 7,700+ alumni, and the Georgia Tech study addresses psychosocial impact rather than measured digital-skill attainment or long-term earnings; as a 16-year, government-partnered scale-up from one lab to six, it nonetheless offers strong evidence for sustainability and reach.

Implementation

Indicative cost
Medium (€50k–€500k) — NGO-supplied desktop computers, laptops, tablets and assistive software, teacher training and curriculum delivery across six schools in four counties.
Time to results
Long (> 3 years) — Scaled from a single 100-student lab in 2009 to six schools over roughly 16 years, formalised by a 2017 Ministry of Education MOU.
Staffing & skills
inABLE programme staff supplying hardware, software and curriculum, 195 teachers trained across the six partner schools, Kenya's Ministry of Education as MOU policy partner, Georgia Institute of Technology as independent impact-measurement partner

Conditions for success

  • A formal 2017 memorandum of understanding embedding the model in specialist-school policy
  • An age-graded curriculum running from basic digital literacy to HTML web design and introductory programming
  • Multi-year, government-partnered expansion (1 school to 6) rather than a single donation-based intervention

Where it fits

Governance type
NGO-government partnership (MOU)
Scale
sub-national (4 counties, 6 schools)
Income level
low-income

Commonly funded by

Philanthropic / foundation funding

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful