Gathering of reliable information about persons with disabilities is a key component of preparedness before a crisis. Annex 3 discusses potential sources of secondary data. Sources of secondary data include:
Additional actions to compile information at the preparedness stage might include:
While sound quantitative data are more often available, not least due to more widespread use of the Washington Group QuestionSets, significant data gaps remain and data on persons with disabilities are not consistently robust or comparable. Availablesecondary data may also be unreliable for a variety of reasons, including different understandings of disability, underreportingdue to stigma, different standards for classifying or measuring disability, sampling limitations, inconsistencies in the questionsasked, or simply because the sources are out of date. (See Annex 4 for a more detailed overview.)
When Multi-Sector Needs Assessments (MSNA) analyse the severity of a population's needs, they should examine the impact ofa situation on persons with disabilities and their families. When household surveys are used as a source of data in the MSNA,disability data should be collected that will enable disaggregation of all data by disability.
When robust quantitative data do not exist, it is recommended to assume that 15 per cent of an affected population has a disability.57 The 15 per cent estimate informs planning as well as efforts to monitor access to assistance. (For example, it is assumedthat 15 per cent of all facilities must be accessible.)
For a needs assessment to be inclusive, persons with disabilities must be key informants and must participate in focus groupdiscussions.
Objectives of an inclusive needs assessment focus group. |
|
Select the focus group. |
|
Make the arrangements. |
|
In addition to disaggregating results by disability, needs assessments should integrate qualitative information that is relevantto persons with disabilities. Questions might include:
The above questions (adapted where necessary) can also be asked of humanitarian actors, including first responders.
The answers can help the response not only to understand local knowledge, attitudes and practices but to design protectionprogrammes, advocacy, and appropriate capacity-building activities.
To plan an inclusive response, it is essential to have information on persons with disabilities. For example:
Data on persons with disabilities can also help to mobilize resources, by highlighting the impact of the crisis on personswith disabilities, specifying the particular risks faced by individual persons with disabilities and their households, andrevealing the overall cost of meeting the requirements of all persons with disabilities affected by the crisis.
This said, budgeting for accessibility should not rely on data collection. Estimates suggest that, to meet physical accessibilityrequirements for persons with disabilities (to construct buildings and WASH facilities), between 0.5 per cent and 1 per centshould be budgeted. To include specialized non-food items and mobility equipment, up to an additional 3–7 per cent budgetis recommended.60
Donors could further strengthen the inclusion of persons with disabilities by requiring humanitarian actors to disaggregateby disability, deliver results frameworks that include specific outputs or outcome indicators for persons with disabilities,and use resource tracking markers to identify projects that are disability-inclusive.
Outcomes on equal access and inclusion may be identified most clearly by analysing disaggregated data in the course of monitoring.To illustrate, one option is to include a specific indicator on disability, such as ‘Number of children with disabilitiesaccessing education’. However, better results may be achieved if general questions (‘Number of children accessing education’)are disaggregated by disability. Generally, it will be most meaningful to reflect specific disability-related considerationsat the output indicator level. These indicators can reflect actions taken to improve accessibility to assistance, measureparticipation, or provide targeted support to persons with disabilities.
Annex 5 discusses how output indicators can be formulated to identify the extent to which persons with disabilities are included.Indicators are also being developed to monitor the CRPD, including Article 11 on disabilities in humanitarian action. SeeBridging the Gap.
Implementation monitoring should identify both how humanitarian assistance reaches persons with disabilities and how theirneeds change as a crisis evolves.
Disaggregated data collected via monitoring tools and processes help to identify gaps in accessibility for persons with disabilities.When monitoring identifies such gaps, targeted data collection exercises (including focus group discussions, and interviewswith persons with disabilities from the affected population, local OPDs, and humanitarian stakeholders) may be necessary tounderstand the nature of the barriers that persons with disabilities face and design measures to remove them.
To promote systematic monitoring of access to assistance, a humanitarian response should ensure that contracts and monitoringtemplates for implementing partners require them to report on the number or proportion of persons with disabilities theirprogrammes have reached. Situation reports, humanitarian dashboards and other reporting mechanisms should record progressin reaching persons with disabilities, including by use of disaggregated data.
Protection monitoring is an important tool for identifying the specific and heightened risks that persons with disabilitiesface. The information it generates can inform responses that reduce risk and can enhance resilience. Where possible,61 protection monitoring data should be disaggregated by disability. Protection monitoring processes should also aim to identifyprotection risks specific to persons with disabilities. These include targeted violence, harmful practices, use of restraint,and institutionalization.
To promote disability inclusion in evaluations of humanitarian action, standard evaluation terms of reference should requiredata to be disaggregated by disability whenever data are collected on individuals (whether they benefit from or contributeto the response). Further, evaluations should include persons with disabilities among the informants, and ask questions thatelicit specific information on persons with disabilities.
Depending on its purpose, an evaluation should consider how persons with disabilities have accessed assistance; how personswith disabilities participated across the humanitarian programme cycle; and how the response reduced the risks that personswith disabilities face and enhanced their resilience. In doing so, it should also capture good practices that promote inclusion.Evaluators might want to develop specific indicators to measure progress in reaching and including persons with disabilities;these might, for example, measure the proportion of persons with disabilities that specific interventions reached.
Annex 6 sets out evaluation criteria in humanitarian action using OECD-DAC criteria definitions. It applies these criteria from adisability-related perspective and, as an example, proposes an issue that could be examined in a humanitarian context.