The first part of the Gap Analysis was published in July 2020, which presented the findings of an academic literature review and grey literature review.
Part 2 of the Gap Analysis presents the insights from individuals working in humanitarian response, disability inclusion and older age inclusion. This report begins by looking at how an agenda for the inclusion of people with disability and older people in humanitarian response has been established. The report then considers the ways in which standards and guidance inform humanitarian practice and the challenges associated with translating commitments into practice. Finally, the report identifies seven areas where there are key gaps and opportunities presenting the potential for innovation in research and practice
To build the evidence base on inclusion, and inform our priorities for innovation, the Elrha Humanitarian Innovation Fund (HIF) commissioned a Gap Analysis on the Inclusion of People with Disability and Older People in Humanitarian Response. This is the first of two reports from the Gap Analysis and summarises findings from the literature review components of this work. The Gap Analysis has been led by the Nossal Institute for Global Health at the University of Melbourne. The Nossal Institute team was supported by Arbeiter-Samariter-Bund’s Office for Indonesia and the Philippines (ASB) in the review of grey literature. This report begins by outlining the approach taken to the academic and grey literature reviews. This is followed by an overview of findings, which maps evidence from different sectors against thematic areas based on the Humanitarian Inclusion Standards for Older People and People with Disabilities (HIS).
Supplementary information is available as a separate accompanying annex. The annex includes a summary of each article identified in the review arranged by HIS and sector; graphs showing the distribution of articles, including by year, humanitarian context, and geographical region; and a list of guidelines on the inclusion of people with disability and older people in humanitarian response
VOICE has partnered with Elrha to conduct a rapid review to:
1. Improve understanding of how people with disabilities and older people are included in GBV interventions;
2. Assess how strategies for DOAI are aligned with the recently published Humanitarian Inclusion Standards (HIS) for Older People and People with Disabilities;
3. Identify and document positive practice examples of inclusion of people with disabilities and older people in GBV interventions.
The VOICE review team collected qualitative and quantitative data through a range of methodologies, including a desk review of formal and grey literature such as programme documentation, and key informant interviews with key stakeholders.
A knowledge gap in good practices and innovation for how people with disabilities and older people are included in water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions in humanitarian contexts prompted this review. To promote inclusive humanitarian action, the Age and Disability Capacity Programme (ADCAP) consortium developed the Humanitarian Inclusion Standards (HIS). The HIS consists of nine key inclusion standards and sets sector specific standards, including for the WASH sector. The WASH inclusion standards are structured around three key dimensions of inclusion: 1) Collection of Information, 2) Addressing Barriers and 3) Participation and Resilience. This report provides key actions, trends and gaps for each of these dimensions. The report is based on a literature review and a small number of key informant iterviews.
This catalogue is a collection of some of the most promising new solutions in WASH, offering the WASH practitioner community a unique opportunity to access over 30 innovations that could help to solve their most pressing problems. Innovations in hygiene, safe water, sanitation, surface water dressing and cross-cutting issues are reported. A small number (3) specifically mention people with disabilities.
The 24 case studies highlight the important relationship that communication plays in the effectiveness of a community’s understanding and willingness to work together for the most effective response to disasters possible. It provides a clear understanding of the connection between the science behind national disasters and the relationship between effective communication and response efforts
Case Study #1: Early Warning - Early Action;
Case Study #2: Knowledge Timeline;
Case Study #3: Participatory Downscaling;
Case Study #4: Scenario-based risk communication;
Case Study #5: Competency Groups;
Case Study #6: Nanodialogues;
Case Study #7: Tools for participative climate risk communication;
Case Study #8: Café Scientifique;
Case: Study #9: Decision Support System for flood risk management;
Case Study #10: Blending sources of climate information;