Disability Data - Introduction
Introduction
The purpose of this report is to inform advocacy and investment efforts to improve the collection, analysis and use of disability data, and through this, more effective, accountable and inclusive policy, programming and investments. It is based primarily on a mapping done through the UNFPA Country Offices in Asia and Pacific region of the capacities of countries to produce key population-based indicators disaggregated by disability. It is not a comprehensive or definitive view of what is happening across the 36 countries in the region. Rather, it reflects the overall trends and findings from 20 respondent countries. The survey builds on other initiatives, including the UN SDG Data Platform, the Disability Data Initiative and the ESCAP Midpoint Review of the Asian Decade of Disability. It is complemented by targeted interviews with persons with disabilities on their related experiences.
The report is set against a policy background recognising that data is essential to fulfilling the rights of persons with disabilities – who are all too frequently left behind in development processes and outcomes. The main drivers of policy on disability and data stem from international and regional norms and agreements; recognising the importance of data collection in putting the rights of persons with disabilities at the heart of countries’ development efforts and for monitoring progress towards development goals. These include:
- The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Its purpose is to promote and protect the full inclusion of persons with disabilities into society and to ensure the full enjoyment of their human rights. Article 31 of the CRPD explicitly calls for the collection of data to enable the formulation and implementation of policies.
- The Incheon Strategy to “Make the Right Real” for Persons with Disabilities in Asia and the Pacific (2013-2022). The strategy includes an extensive set of targets and indicators for monitoring its implementation and impact. As this strategy reaches its end point, it will be critical to understand what countries are able to report in order to track progress and inform next steps in advocacy and investment.
- The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and linked global indicator framework measuring progress of the Sustainable Development Goals.
These instruments recognise the importance of data collection, analysis and application as a means to enable government and other stakeholders to identify, understand and overcome the disparities faced by many persons with disabilities in important areas such as income, employment, education, living conditions and health. It can also identify human rights violations such as abuse and violence, which disproportionately affect persons with disabilities. The absence of accurate, timely and disaggregated data on disability means governments are unable to track progress or identify gaps in the wellbeing of persons with disabilities or evaluate the impact of development efforts.
Methodology
A survey was piloted and then sent to each UNFPA country office representing the 36 countries in the UNFPA Asia and Pacific region. The UNFPA county offices were requested to gather information from relevant sources such as NSOs and other government focal points responsible for monitoring the Incheon Strategy indicators and corresponding Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) indicators. It was apparent from the survey that the level of knowledge and ease of collecting this data varied widely across respondents.
The survey had three parts:
- The first part focused on a specific set of common national data systems operated by the NSO and other ministries, such as population censuses and various household surveys and the Incheon Strategy indicators that are collected in each.
- The second part focused on a set of six key Incheon Strategy indicators that tracked development outcomes for persons with disabilities relating to poverty, employment, education, and health care.
- The third part focused on the availability of other disability data, for example, through the publication of a national disability report or other data sources.
Twenty of the 36 countries responded to the survey and provided information to inform the following overarching questions:
- Which indicators can they produce and disaggregate (or plan to in the future)?
- What questions do they use to determine disability status?
- What challenges do they face in collecting and disaggregating data?
- What efforts are they taking to collect data on barriers and enablers for persons with disabilities to access education and employment?
Countries that responded to the survey: Afghanistan, Fiji, Lao PDR, Philippines, Bangladesh, India, Mongolia, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Indonesia, Nepal, Thailand, Cambodia, Iran, Pakistan, Timor-Leste, China, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, Vietnam
Respondents reported gathering information from a number of sources, including national statistics offices representatives, government disability focal points, UNFPA country office staff and national OPDs. Given that no individual respondent had complete knowledge of all the data collected in their country it was necessary to cross-reference responses with published reports and external sources, such as the Disability Data Initiative, in order to resolve any inconsistencies.
The mapping represented 55 per cent of possible countries surveyed through the UNFPA country offices. The limited sample size and representativeness of the sample is unclear, as reasons for not responding are unknown. The virtual survey was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic with many countries in lockdown and experiencing a high number of COVID-19 cases, which may have impacted the response rate. This may lead to under-reporting of disability data activity. For example, the ability to disaggregate census data by disability is wider than is reported here, as a number of non-responding countries, especially in the Pacific region, have had dedicated donor and technical support to include disability indicators in national censuses and related analysis and public reports. Despite these limitations, useful trends are apparent across the data suggesting recommendations for further comprehensive research and investment around disability data.
The mapping was complemented by targeted interviews with persons with disabilities and their allies involved in disability and data efforts. This helped to verify, explore and extend the emerging themes. A short survey was distributed by OPDs to their members and interviews were held with a targeted sample of individuals known to be involved in disability data and advocacy in the region. Individuals were invited to share stories and reflections on disability data processes and outcomes, and about related advocacy efforts and data needs.
SUMMARY - METHODOLOGY - FINDINGS
