Resources search

This rapid labour market assessment was undertaken in the intervention areas of Dhaka, Gazipur, Tangail, Chattogram and Khulna. The objectives were to analyse current scenario of the labour market, identify job opportunities for persons with disabilities, skills requirement for those jobs, risks and barriers of getting those jobs, etc. This report explains the facts and findings of the assessment and provides recommendations to make Inclusion Works more effective in their interventions. The assessment consists of two parts – secondary literature review and qualitative study.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the UK government or members of the Inclusion Works consortium.

This report describes the findings of a rapid assessment of avoidable blindness (RAAB) conducted in Muchinga Province, Zambia in 2017.

The prevalence of blindness was just over 4% and the major cause was cataract, followed by glaucoma. Only 37% of people who require cataract surgery have received it, meaning there is an urgent need to scale up access to cataract surgical services in the province.

In addition to the standard RAAB questionnaire, an additional two sets of questions were administered to the participants to understand their disability and socioeconomic status: the Washington Group Short Set of Questions on Disability (WGSS) and the Equity Tool (ET)

This is a rapid assessment of the Kenyan labour market which was commissioned to understand how the labour market functions in Kenya within the context of disability. This assessment provided opportunity to validate existing data on employment of persons with disabilities thus generating a solid baseline on which to anchor the programme’s targets and assumptions.

The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the UK government or members of the Inclusion Works consortium.

This study explores participation of people with disabilities in social protection programmes, with Tanahun District of Nepal as the study setting. This research uses mixed methods to assess coverage (through direct survey), how coverage varies amongst people with disabilities (e.g. by gender, impairment type), as well as challenges and facilitators to enrolling in or using relevant social protection programmes. This research benefits from a population-based study design and from the use of the Washington Group question sets

The European Journal of Development Research (2019) 31:929–956

https://doi.org/10.1057/s41287-019-0194-3

Humanity & Inclusion has created a learning toolkit to improve the collection of quality data on persons with disabilities and improve its use by humanitarian organisations.

Until now, existing guidance on the Washington Group Questions (WGQs) has been specific to national data collection efforts on persons with disabilities. To address the lack of guidance for humanitarian actors, Humanity & Inclusion (HI) is launching a learning toolkit on collecting data in humanitarian action, which includes an e-learning, a training pack for enumerators and various supporting resources that can all be found on the HI website.

Gathering evidence on the use of the WGQs in humanitarian action:

To respond to the need to collect, analyse and use data on persons with disabilities in humanitarian action, HI has been implementing a project, funded by the UK Department for International Development, to test and assess the use of the WGQs in humanitarian action. An action-research was carried out with over 30 humanitarian partners in Jordan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Philippines, with the evidence used to develop learning materials.

Development of a learning toolkit for humanitarian actors:

In addition to the findings of the action-research, HI gathered inputs from over 30 humanitarian organisations working in 22 countries to inform the design of the learning toolkit. Specific focus was given to the development of open source materials that would be accessible with screen readers, on mobile phones, and in hard to reach locations. The content was then informed by selected subject matter experts in inclusive humanitarian action and data collection.

What is included in the toolkit?

An e-learning on Collecting Data for the Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action – The Application of the WGQs providing an entry point for humanitarian actors who would like to understand how to plan for and use the WGQs.

A Training Pack for enumerators giving guidance, session plans and activities to deliver training on using the WGQs (developed in collaboration with RedR UK).

Supporting resources providing practical guidance on the application of the WGQs in humanitarian contexts.

Who is this for?

The toolkit is tailored to a full range of humanitarian actors who would like to understand how to use the WGQs in their own work and organisations. The content has also been designed to provide technical guidance for programme and technical staff: with a practical focus on different topics relevant for the use of the WGQs –from the human rights based approach that underpins them, to their planning, use and the analysis of the data produced.

Where is the Toolkit available?

The e-learning is available now on disasterready.com and on Kayaconnect.org (accessible for mobile phones and tablets). Organisations interested in hosting the e-learning are welcome to contact the project team members. Toolkit resources and more information about the project are available for download in the project webpage.

This report evaluates existing policies and practices on how older people have been excluded from data in disaster preparedness and humanitarian responses in Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Cambodia, Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam.

In order to evaluate existing policies and practices in the collection of inclusion data, the research employed two main methods: a review of documents and a survey. The review of documents was conducted in three stages: a global literature review, followed by a policy review and a practice review. The survey analysed the responses of 72 respondents from 10 countries .

Background identification of children at risk of developmental delay and/or impairment requires valid measurement of early child development (ECD). ECD measurement tools were systematically assessed for accuracy and feasibility for use in routine services in low income and middle-income countries (LMIC).

Building on World Bank and peer-reviewed literature reviews, available ECD measurement tools for children aged 0–3 years used in ≥1 LMIC were identified and matrixed according to when (child age) and what (ECD domains) they measure at population or individual level. Tools measuring <2 years and covering ≥3 developmental domains, including cognition, were rated for accuracy and feasibility criteria using a rating approach derived from Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations

Purpose: Stigmatisation can negatively affect opportunities for people with intellectual disabilities to participate in society. Stereotyping, a first step in the process of stigmatisation, has been insufficiently explored for people with intellectual disabilities. This study examined the general public’s set of stereotypes that is saliently attributed to people with intellectual disabilities as well as the relationship of these stereotypes with discriminatory intentions and familiarity.

Materials and methods: A mixed-method cross-sectional survey within a representative sample of the Dutch population (n = 892) was used. Stereotypes were analysed with factor analysis of a trait-rating scale, and qualitative analysis of an open-ended question. The relationship between stereotypes and discrimination as well as familiarity with people with intellectual disabilities was explored through multivariate analyses.

Results and conclusions: Four stereotype-factors appeared: “friendly”, “in need of help”, “unintelligent”, and “nuisance”. Stereotypes in the “nuisance” factor seemed unimportant due to their infrequent report in the open-ended question. “Friendly”, “in need of help”, “unintelligent” were found to be salient stereotypes of people with intellectual disabilities due to their frequent report. The stereotypes did not relate to high levels of explicit discrimination. Yet due to the both positive and negative valence of the stereotypes, subtle forms of discrimination may be expected such as limited opportunities for choice and self-determination. This may affect opportunities for rehabilitation and might be challenged by protest-components within anti-stigma efforts.

The Washington Group Questions on Disability are rapidly emerging as the preferred data collection methodology by the global community for national data collection efforts on disability. However, more and more development and humanitarian actors are now using the methodology in their own data collection efforts. This is beyond the original purpose of the questions, which was to generate usable data for governments. Leonard Cheshire and Humanity & Inclusion, two international charities focussed on disability and inclusion, have worked together to share learnings of recent research studies. These studies aim to understand how the Washington Group Questions (WGQ) have been used by development and humanitarian actors and the impact of using the methodology. This summary report outlines the key findings, analysis and conclusions about the application of the Washington Group Questions in a range of contexts. The report concludes with a number of recommendations for different stakeholders.