Resources search

This toolkit was created in response to increasing interest and requests from persons with disabilities and their representative organizations from all over the world. The aim of this toolkit is to contribute to the growing global dialogue on the importance of data on persons with disabilities, specifically to provide some basic knowledge on data collection, analysis, and use of data for evidenced based advocacy to influence policy and decision makers. The toolkit discusses the use of the WG questions as best practices to be employed in data collections and disaggregating data by disability.

CBM’s Disability and Gender Analysis Toolkit has been developed to support staff, partners and allies in strengthening capacity to address systemic and deeply entrenched discriminatory practices and specifically to meet their Programme Quality Standards. It provides practical tools for stronger disability and gender analysis to inform planning, practice and systems. The toolkit provides practical assessment templates and guidance for individuals, organisations and programmes to identify strengths and gaps and to develop focussed action plans to improve practice.

It is commonly assumed that there is a lack of disability data, and development actors tend to attribute lack of data as the reason for failing to proactively plan for the inclusion of people with disabilities within their programming. However, it is an incorrect assumption that there is a lack of disability data. There is now a growing amount of disability data available. Disability, however, is a notoriously complex phenomenon, with definitions of disability varying across contexts, as well as variations in methodologies that are employed to measure it. Therefore, the body of disability data that does exist is not comprehensive, is often of low quality, and is lacking in comparability. The need for comprehensive, high quality disability data is an urgent priority bringing together a number of disability actors, with a concerted response underway. We argue here that enough data does exist and can be easily disaggregated as demonstrated by Leonard Cheshire’s Disability Data Portal and other studies using the Washington Group Question Sets developed by the Washington Group on Disability Statistics. Disaggregated data can improve planning and budgeting for reasonable accommodation to realise the human rights of people with disabilities

Sustainability 2019, 11(11), 3091

https://doi.org/10.3390/su11113091

Representing between 0.2% to 2% of the population, persons with deafblindness are a very diverse yet hidden group and are, overall, more likely to be poor and unemployed, and with lower educational outcomes. Because deafblindness is less well-known and often misunderstood, people struggle to obtain the right support, and are often excluded from both development and disability programmes. This initial global report on the situation of persons with deafblindness seeks to start a dialogue between international disability rights and development stakeholders, and is based on research undertaken by the World Federation of the Deafblind (WFDB) combining the largest population-based analysis of persons with deafblindness conducted to date (disaggregation of 22 population-based surveys from low, middle and high-income countries), an academic literature review, two surveys conducted among members and partners of WFDB and Sense International. Women and men with deafblindness from across the world took part in the Helen Keller World Conference in June 2018, and were consulted to confirm the findings and elaborate on the recommendations for this report.

Data and discussion are presented on people with deafblindess and: inequality; poverty; work; education; health; participation on political and public life; and social life. Datasets are included. 

Purpose: In low- and middle-income countries, reliable and disaggregated disability data on prevalence, participation and barriers is often not available. This study aimed to estimate disability prevalence, determine associated socio-demographic factors and compare access in the community between people with and without disability in Dehradun district of Uttarakhand, India, using the Rapid Assessment of Disability Survey.

Methods: A cross-sectional population-based survey was conducted on a sample of 2431 adults, selected using a two-stage cluster randomised sampling technique. The survey comprised an interviewer-administered household survey and an individual survey measuring disability, wellbeing and participation.  For each person with disability, an age and sex-matched control (without disability) was selected. In addition to prevalence, the difference in participation and barriers faced by people with and without disability were analysed.

Results and Conclusions: The prevalence of disability was 6.8% (95% CI 5.8-7.8) with significant associations with age, sex, economic status, education and employment. Psychosocial distress (4.8%) and mobility impairment (2.7%) were the most common disabilities identified. The study showed that people with disabilities had significantly less access to services than those without disability, and the barriers reported most often were lack of information, transport and physical inaccessibility.

This note concerns monitoring and evaluation of disability and inclusion in light of the sustainable development goals. The note identifies steps which can be taken by individual countries and the international community as a whole to address the gaps in data disaggregation and collection concerning people with disabilities. The note concludes with a discussion of possible ways forward for better monitoring and evaluation for disability inclusion in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development

"This Background Note focuses on inequalities associated with old age, disability and mental health. It argues that these should be considered salient sources of group-based difference, given the numbers of people affected, their marginalisation and vulnerability, and their relative neglect in international agreements to date. This note identifies a lack of data as a particular concern, but one that can be addressed through revisions to standard household surveys. To this end, the paper discusses the available data and their limitations, constraints to better data collection and efforts needed to adjust key international survey instruments -the World Bank’s Core Welfare Indicator Questionnaire (CWIQ) and Living Standards and Measurement Survey (LSMS), Macro International’s Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) and the UNICEF Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS)- to collect reliable data on these issues. It sets out technical adjustments that would enable these surveys to broaden their coverage, collect richer information and improve their identification of these three groups. It concludes by commenting on how measures to address the inequalities that affect these groups could be incorporated within a new post-2015 framework agreement"
ODI Background note

Based upon a survey, this report provides an overview of European perspectives towards development. The report analyses the European public opinion on development policy and the role that the EU plays as aid donor in the context of the current economic crisis and the forthcoming UN Summit on the Millennium Development Goals. This report is useful for anyone interested in European development aid and the millennium development goals
Special Eurobarometer 352