drac report on pilot · 2019-02-14 · Plot 142, DRAC Lane off Victor Ndoma Egba Street Durumi...

FEBRUARY, 2018

A REPORT A PILOT ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT ON HEALTH,

SOCIAL AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES IN THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

OF

ISBN: 978 - 978 - 964 - 117 - 8

This report was made possible with support from CBM-UK

FEBRUARY, 2018

A REPORT OF A REPORT OF A PILOT ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT ON HEALTH, SOCIAL AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES

IN THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

© Disability Rights Advocacy Center 2018

First Published 2018

ISBN: 978 - 978 - 964 - 117 - 8

Plot 142, DRAC Lane off Victor Ndoma Egba Street Durumi District, Area 1, Abuja. Tel: 08115326607 Email: [email protected]; [email protected] Website: www.drac-ng.org Facebook: @DRACNigeria Twitter: @DRACNigeria

The project under which this report is published is proudly supported by Christoffel-BlindenMission (CBM) United Kingdom. The content of this report is the responsibility of DRAC.Although this material has been funded by CBM, the views expressed do not necessarilyreflect CBM’s official policies.

Suggested Citation: A REPORT OF A PILOT ACCESSIBILTY AUDIT ON HEALTH, SOCIAL AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES IN THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

A REPORT OF A PILOT ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT ON HEALTH, SOCIAL AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES IN THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

ivpage

vpage

Entrances to Health Facilities.


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgment................................................... ............................... vi Acronyms ………………………………………………………………......... viiExecutive Summary................................................................................ viii

CHAPTER ONEGeneral Background ………………………………………………………. 2Aim and Objectives ……………………………………………………....... 5Methodology ……………………………………………………………....... 5The Accessibility Audit Instrument ……………………………………..... 5Scope of the Study ………………………………………………………..... 5Sampling Technique ……………………………………………………...... 6

CHAPTER TWOPresentation of Data on Environmental/Physical Barriers ………….. 9Table I: Health Services…………………………………………………….. 9Table II: Social Services…………………………………………………….. 10Table III: Criminal Justice Service………………………………………… 11Presentation / Discussion of findings on Institutional & Attitudinal Barriers……………………………………………………………………........ 13Health Services …………………………………………………………….... 15Criminal Justice Service …………………………………………………… 15Social Service ………………………………………………………………... 15

CHAPTER THREEHighlights of Key Findings ………………………………………………..... 17Recommendations …………………………………………………………. 19References……………………………………………………………………. 20Annexes……………………………………………………………………….. 21

vipage

viipage

As can be expected, the teams encountered challenges in accessing some facilities due to the nature of the exercise which involved taking pictures and measurements, therefore special mention must be made of the Commissioner of Police, FCT Command who made it possible for our research teams to access the police stations (and indeed other resistant facilities) by issuing us a clearance letter. We are indeed extremely grateful.

We hope that the content of this report will draw the attention of policy makers, stakeholders and CSOs to take deliberate actions in ensuring inclusion of persons with disabilities, especially women and girls during service delivery.

Irene Patrick-OgboguExecutive DirectorDisability Rights Advocacy Center (DRAC)February 2018

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Disability Rights Advocacy Center is grateful to the numerous partners and stakeholders who contributed in one way or the other to the success of this Pilot Accessibility Audit on Health, Social and Criminal Justice services available to survivors of violence.

We are most grateful to the Christoffel-Blinden Mission for funding this research. In an environment where disability related research is not considered a priority, it is gratifying when an organization provides resources for important studies such as this. We are indeed extremely appreciative.

We also wish to acknowledge the Consultants and Data Collectors for their dedication during field work which translated into successful completion of the audit despite the challenges they encountered.

We thank all the Directors and Supervisors of Health, Social and Criminal Justice Services in the 6 Area Councils of the FCT and Mararaba, Nasarawa State for the roles they played and their compliance during the audit.

ACRONYMS

ADA American with Disability Act

ACPHR African Commission on Human and People's Rights

AWWDI Advocacy for Women with Disability Initiative

CCD Centre for Citizens with Disabilities

CEDAW Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women

CRC Convention on the Rights of the Child

UNCRPD United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

DPHQ Divisional Police Headquarters

DRAC Disability Rights Advocacy Centre

FGM Female Genital Mutilation

ICPD International Conference on Population and Development

LEDAP Legal Defence and Assistance Project

MTCT Mother to Child Transmission

NFPDN National Federation of People with Disabilities in Namibia

PWDs Persons with Disabilities

SDGs Sustainable Development Goals

SGBV Sexual and Gender Based Violence

STIs Sexually Transmitted Infections

UHC Universal Health Coverage

UN United Nations

WACOL Women's Aide Collective

WGWDs Women and Girls with Disabilities

WEI Women Enabled International

A REPORT OF A PILOT ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT ON HEALTH, SOCIAL AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES IN THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY A REPORT OF A PILOT ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT ON HEALTH, SOCIAL AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES IN THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

viiipage

ixpage

hinder WGWDs from effectively accessing services. A purposive sampling method was used to select the facilities that were audited based on the role they play in addressing violence against persons.

A total of 49 facilities were audited, cutting across hospitals, police stations, courts, non-governmental organizations and shelters / rehabilitation centers.

A summary of the findings from the research showed that 93% of the healthcare facilities audited had no disability friendly policies.

Further results revealed that in the event of any violence against WGWDs, they are unable to access justice. For instance, 0% of the courts had a disability policy, access team or considered the communication needs of PWDs.

More importantly, it was observed that there is a correlation between staff training and positive attitude, as most of the staff not trained on disability related matters exhibit negative attitude towards disability issues compared to trained staff. The report showed that personnel in 83% of police stations audited were not trained and have negative attitude towards disability related cases.

In terms of physical accessibility, out of the 14 health facilities audited, only 2 were accessible to PWDs. The implication of this finding is that the sexual and reproductive health needs of WGWDs are unmet leaving them susceptible to poorer health conditions.

The specific recommendations in this report proffer actions that can improve access of WGWDs to health, social and criminal justice services. The barriers discussed in this report can be eliminated through policy review, capacity building for service providers, prioritization of disability issues, and provision of disability inclusive services.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

According to the World Bank, Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) experience higher levels of socio-economic disadvantage than non-disabled persons, such as lack of access to health, education, information, justice, and job opportunities. The prevalence of these challenges is higher in developing countries, thereby creating barriers to meaningful societal participation of PWDs.

Studies have shown that Women with Disabilities (WWDs) are doubly disadvantaged due to the cultural stereotypes associated with being a woman in Nigeria as well as the disability-related challenges mentioned above. They are often times invisible, thus intensifying their vulnerability to all forms of violence and abuse due to dependence on family members, spouses, relatives or caregivers. The situation is further exacerbated because of the barriers they face in accessing sexual and reproductive health, social and criminal justice services.

Currently, there exists little or no data of multi-spectral services available and accessible to women and girls with disabilities, thereby excluding them during deciciosn making for service provision.

Based on this, DRAC with support from CBM UK conducted an Accessibility Audit of services available to victims of violence in Health, Social and Criminal Justice Services to ascertain how disability-friendly they are. The audit was conducted in the 6 Area Councils in the FCT and Mararaba, Nasarawa State.

A mix of quantitative and qualitative research method and approaches such as observation, interviews, and on-the-spot assessment were used in data collection. The interview questions asked were related to physical/environmental, attitudinal and institutional factors that pose as barriers that

Picture showing inaccessible Counter in one of the Police Stations auditedEntrance to one of the Police Stations


2page

In order to improve this situation therefore, it is imperative that concerted efforts are made to ensure that WGWDs who are victims of violence, have unfettered access to the required services on one hand and negative societal attitudes towards WGWDs are addressed on the other.

Currently, there exists very little data and information on the accessibility level of these multi-spectral services to PWDs, especially WGWDs. Where barriers exist in service delivery, WGWDs are unable to access these services. Consequently, they continue to remain invisible when programs and policies are being planned / implemented, thus trapping them in a vicious cycle of abuse, discrimination and exclusion.

This is what prompted DRAC to carry out this Accessibility Audit of services available to victims of violence i.e. Health, Social and Criminal Justice Services with a view to ascertaining how disability-friendly they are.

The rationale behind this audit is anchored on the Social Model of Disability, which maintains that PWDs are disabled by the environmental, attitudinal, and institutional barriers they face, and not by their specific impairment; a position that is also highlighted in many International Instruments such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (UNCRPD) and The Draft African Protocol on Protection of Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Africa, as well as their respective Optional Protocols, both of which Nigeria is a signatory to. The two documents majorly underscore the need to address all physical/environmental, institutional, and attitudinal barriers that hinder PWDs from greater and meaningful participation.

In the UNCRPD, Article 9 stipulates that in order 'to enable persons with disabilities live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, State Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that persons with disabilities access on an

CHAPTER ONE

-INTRODUCTION-

General Background.

Global statistics reveal that 15% of the world's population live with one form of disability or the other. In Nigeria, approximately 28 million of the population have a disability, of this figure, an estimated 11 million are women and girls. This accounts for about 19.2% of the total female population in the country. Whereas Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) are generally considered to be amongst the world's poorest, Women and Girls with Disabilities (WGWDs) are the poorest of the poor because they have to contend with the twofold challenges posed by gender and disability.

In Nigeria, women with disabilities experience a wide range of discrimination and stereotypes about their capabilities and roles in the society, these distinctions are often divergent from how non-disabled women and men with disabilities are viewed. WGWDs are more likely to live in poverty than men with disabilities and the general population because they face higher rates of unemployment with little or no income. They also experience lower rates of education and less access to proper hygiene and care services. This treatment is often based on social and cultural stereotypes in Nigeria about women and about persons with disabilities. For instance, due to gender-based discrimination, women in Nigeria are valued less than men with disabilities, because men with disabilities can still inherit property and land, carry on the family name, and make family decisions.

Furthermore, women and girls with disabilities are often times more vulnerable to all forms of violence and abuse because they rely on family members, spouses, relatives or other related caregivers. Most often their experiences of violence remain hidden and unaddressed due to their fear of blame, increased stigma and verbal abuse when such cases are reported, as well as multiple barriers they face in accessing sexual and reproductive health, psychosocial and criminal justice services.

1page


3page

4page

equal basis with others, the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas”. Similar provisions are made in the Draft African Protocol on Protection of Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Africa.

The provisions of both treaties are expected to find expression in local policies and legislations of member States. It is only then that accessibility by PWDs to all necessary services and infrastructure can be enhanced, thereby improving their overall standard of living.

It is interesting to note that Western countries such as Australia, United States of America, United Kingdom among others, have recorded significant milestones in disability inclusion through the provision of Disability Laws and Legislations. They have further gone ahead to ensure access to key social infrastructure and services by PWDs in these countries.

Conversely, in Africa, there is still much to be done, especially in the area of domesticating the core provisions of both the UNCRPD and The Draft African Protocol on Protection of Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Local legislations and policies. This does not mean that there are no countries that have also made progress in Africa. Countries like Namibia, Ghana and Kenya among others, have made indelible footprints in the promotion of disability inclusion, and are considered as reference points for best practices in Africa.

In Nigeria, it is important to note that at the moment, there is no specific National Legislation for the protection of rights of PWDs. Although the constitution explicitly guarantees all citizens equal

treatment, it has been observed by experts in disability rights advocacy that not much has been done in the area of legislation to address the obligations of Government in ensuring substantive equality for PWDs. Similarly, little has been done to address the issue of marginalization of PWDs and their prevention from accessing public infrastructure. However, there is still a glimmer of hope that this situation will change

because a bill (Discrimination against Persons with Disabilities Prohibition Bill 2011) creating such legal framework has recently passed through both chambers of the National Assembly, and is currently awaiting Presidential assent. In addition to the Bill passed by the National Assembly, some State legislature have enacted elements of International Treaties which Nigeria is a signatory to on access of PWDs to public infrastructure. These States include Lagos, Plateau, Bauchi and Ekiti.

Besides these State legislations, another important document worth making reference to in this discourse is the Nigeria Building Code. Developed in 2006, the Nigeria Building Code is a body of laws, regulations, signals, symbols and statutes, for professionals in the Construction

industry in Nigeria, which seeks to put an end to inaccessible trends in the Building Industry. PWDs are

represented in the Code, where they are defined as “people with physical impairments which limit their ability to use a building effectively”. The Code also defines a public building as “that which applies to buildings for physically challenged persons to which the public is admitted, with facilities such as assembly halls, theatres and places of worship, taking into consideration the persons”.

Further reference to PWDs is made with regards to access to toilet and other facilities. Both Code 7.1.1.9.3 on Access to

Toilets and other facilities and Code 7.1.1.9.3.1 on Access to Water Closets are instructive. They maintain that: “Each water closet stool shall be located in a clear space not less than 762mm in width and have a clear space in front of the water closet stool of not less than 600mm. Where toilet facilities are provided on any floor where access is required by the physically challenged, at least one such facility for each sex or a separate facility usable by either sex shall comply with the requirements of this section. Except in dwelling units and guest rooms, such facilities must be available to all occupants and both sexes”.

It also adds that: “All doorways leading to such toilet rooms shall have a clear and unobstructed width of not less than 813mm each. Such toilet rooms shall have the following: a clear space of not less than 120mm on each side of doors providing access to toilet rooms. These distances shall be measured at right angles to the face of the door when in the closed position. Not more than one door may encroach into the 1200mm space”.

Interestingly, the collection of all these special provisions that combine to make a building more accessible to PWDs, have been factored into what is today known as “Universal Design” in the construction parlance, which is a professional building template developed in line with International best standards and practices on building design. In the broadest term, Universal Design entails “design for all peoples”, and it is aimed at creating an environment that addresses the needs of all age groups and people of different abilities, including temporary disability.

The UNCRPD defines “Universal Design” as the design of products, environments, programmes and services usable by all people without the need for adaptation or specialized design. “Universal Design” according to the UNCRPD shall not exclude assistive devices for particular groups of persons with disabilities where this is needed. The key principles of Universal Design

Theprovisionsof both treaties aree x p e c t e d t o f i n d expression in local policies and legislationsof member States. It iso n l y t h e n t h a t accessibilitybyPWDstoall necessary servicesand infrastructure canbe enhanced, therebyimproving their overallstandardofliving.

include the following:

Equitable Use: The design is useful and marketable to people with diverse abilities.

Flexibility in Use: The design accommodates a wide range of individual preferences and abilities.

Simple and Intuitive: Use of the design is easy to understand, regardless of the user's experience, knowledge, language skills, or current concentration level.

Tolerance for Error: The design minimizes hazards and adverse consequences of accidental or unintended actions.

Low Physical Effort: The design can be used effectively and comfortably and with minimum fatigue.

Size and Space for Approach and Use: Appropriate size and space is provided for approach, reach, manipulation, and use regardless of user's body size, posture, or mobility.

From the above, it is clear that Nigeria has put in place the basic foundations that will ensure substantive equality for PWDs with respect to access to public infrastructure. The Bill prohibiting discrimination against PWDs, various States' legislative measures and the Building Code of Nigeria 2006 have the combined potential to address serious issues of lack of access by PWDs to public infrastructure. The question that still lingers however is: to what extent has this potential been harnessed in designing public infrastructure so as to make them disability-friendly?

This study therefore focuses on assessing three key services that are crucial in addressing issues of violence and abuse against WGWDs: Social services, Health services and Criminal Justice services.


5page

6page

Table 1

Area Councils Health Services Social

Services

Criminal Justice Services:

Police Stations Courts

Abaji New Township

Comprehensive

Health Centre

Ayaura

Comprehensive

Health Centre.

Women

Empowerment

Centre.

Social Welfare

Department

Abaji.

Abaji Police

Station.

Grade 1 Area

Court.

Magistrate Court

Abaji.

AMAC

(Abuja

Municipal

Area Council)

Garki General

Hospital.

Wuse District

Hospital.

Centre for the

Right to

Health (CRH).

Goza/Bama

IDPs Camp,

Durumi.

Divisional

Police

Headquarters

Garki FCT

Command.

Divisional

Police

Headquarters

Wuse Zone 3

FCT Judiciary

Customary Court

Garki.

Bwari

Kubwa General

Hospital.

Bwari General

Hospital.

Bwari Area

Council Social

Welfare.

Legal Aid

Council Bwari.

Divisional

Police

Headquarters

Kubwa.

FCT Chief

Magistrate Court

Bwari.

High Court of the

FCT Bwari.

Gwagwalada

Gwagwalada

Township Clinic.

University of

Abuja Teaching

Hospital.

Anawim

Orphanage/

Rehabilitation

Centre.

Gwagwalada

Area Council

Police Area

Command

Gwagwalada.

Divisional

Police

Headquarters

Federal High Court

Gwagwalada.

services, the AA instrument was divided into three main areas of focus: (A) Accessible Approach/ Entrance (Accessible Route of Travel, Ramps, Parking and Drop-Off Areas and Entrance) ; (B) Access to Goods and Services (Horizontal Circulation; Accessible Doors; Rooms and Spaces; Signage for Goods and Services; Directional and Informational Signage; Controls, Seats, Tables and Counters; Stairs; Elevators; Lifts); (C) Usability of Rest Rooms (Accessible Routes to Restrooms; Doorways and Passages; Stalls; Lavatories). These 18 variables outlined in the AA Instrument are largely drawn from the Nigeria Building Code 2006, and are anchored on the principles of Universal Design. Therefore, they were used to gauge the accessibility level of all the facilities that were audited in the field.

As for the assessment of the institutional and attitudinal factors that impact the level of WGWDs' access to the three focus services, an interview and observation guide was developed as another component of the AA instrument. This guide focused on questions that border on the availability of disability-friendly policies, access teams, information needs of PWDs and whether or not the members of staff are empowered with requisite skills for effective engagement with PWDs, especially WGWDs.

Scope of the Study

The study was restricted to the Six Area Councils in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Abuja, and Mararaba. The decision to include Mararaba even though it is geographically located in Nasarawa State is because of its proximity to the FCT, and the fact that events there have implications on the FCT, and vice versa.

Three services were assessed. They are Social, Health, and Criminal Justice Services.

court in each Area Council and Mararaba were audited. For social service, two facilities were audited in each Area Council and Mararaba.

Below is a table showing the facilities audited in the six Area Councils of FCT and Mararaba.

STUDY AIM AND OBJECTIVES

Aim and Objectives

The Accessibility Audit is aimed at assessing the level of access by WGWDs to health, social, and criminal justice services within the six Area Councils of the FCT and Mararaba, Nasarawa State. The objectives include the following:

· To identify environmental, institutional and attitudinal barriers that militate against easy access to health, social and criminal justices services by WGWDs.

· To recommend ways through which these barriers can be addressed for improved and sustained access to health, social, and criminal justice services by WGWDs especially those who have been victims of violence.

Methodology

This study utilized a mix of quantitative and qualitative research methods. Specific approaches used in the collection of data include observation, interviews, and on-the-spot assessment (measurements). All interview questions, measurement specifications and observation guides were clearly stated in the Accessibility Audit Instrument.

The Accessibility Audit (AA) Instrument

The Accessibility Audit instrument was developed with a view to effectively assess the accessibility level of selected facilities that provide the services in question. The instrument asked pertinent questions that are related to physical/environmental, attitudinal and institutional factors that pose as barriers that hinder WGWDs from effectively accessing services. For the physical / environmental assessment of the facilities in the three

Sampling Technique

Purposive sampling technique was used in this study whereby health, social and criminal justice services were purposely selected to be audited because of the role they should play in the event of the occurrence of violence against a person, as well as for the responsibility they have in preventing the occurrence of violence. For instance, the Police are saddled with the responsibility of receiving and handling reported cases of violence as well as apprehending perpetrators of violence against persons. This means that, Police stations are sanctuaries where people can easily run for help in situations of violence and abuse. The courts are there to compliment the efforts of the Police by prosecuting the perpetrators and ensuring that they are punished in accordance with the laws of the land. Social services are in place to provide supportive and rehabilitative services to survivors of violence, while the provision of adequate and reliable healthcare intervention, including psychosocial support to victims of violence is the responsibility of the health services.

Facilities audited under health services were hospitals, clinics and primary healthcare centres, while those in the criminal justice services included police stations and courts. For the social services, shelters, Social Welfare Departments and other related Non-Governmental Organizations whose scope of work relates to WGWDs were audited.

Initial study design planned to audit a total of seventy facilities i.e. three healthcare facilities, three police stations, two courts and two shelters / rehabilitation facilities in each Area Council and Mararaba. However, during field work, only a total of forty-nine facilities were audited. For healthcare service, two healthcare facilities in each Area Council and Mararaba were audited. For criminal justice service, two police stations and one


7page

Social Welfare

Department.

Gwagwalada.

Kuje

Kuje General

Hospital.

Primary Health

Care Centre

Kuchiyako.

Women

Friendly

Initiative.

Advocacy for

Women with

Disability.

Abuja@30

Police Station

Pegi.

Divisional

Police

Headquarters

Kuje.

Magistrate Court

Kuje.

Kwali

General

Hospital Kwali.

Primary Health

Care Centre

Kwali.

Department

of Social

Welfare Kwali

(General

Hospital).

Foundation for

Community

Health, Rights

and

Development

(FORCHIRD)

Kwali.

Divisional

Police

Headquarters

Kwali.

Police

Outstation

Yangoji, Kwali.

FCT High Court

Kwali.

Mararaba Karu Primary

Health Care

Centre.

Uclanco Clinic

Abacha Road

Social welfare

Office in Karu

LGA.

Facado NGO

New Karu.

Divisional

Police Station

Abacha

Road.

Divisional

Police

Headquarters

Karu.

Upper & Grade 1

Area Court Karu.

CHAPTER TWO

DATA PRESENTATION& ANALYSIS

Measuring the entrance to a Primary Healthcare CenterA REPORT OF A PILOT ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT ON HEALTH, SOCIAL AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES IN THE FEDERAL CAPITAL TERRITORY

8page

9page

10page

PRESENTATION OF DATA ON ENVIRONMENTAL/PHYSICAL BARRIERSData generated from the assessment of the physical environment of the facilities are presented below to show the level of accessibility of those facilities to PWDS / WGWDs.

From the table above, the most accessible health facility in terms of physical access to PWDs / WGWDs is the University of Abuja Teaching Hospital (UATH) with 72% physical accessibility rate. Bwari General Hospital, Garki Specialist Clinic, Wuse District Hospital and Gwagwalada Township Clinic follow suit with 50% physical accessibility rate each, while the remaining facilities fall below 50% physical accessibility rate with Amaco Clinic Mararaba and Kuje Health Care 3, both of which have 12.5% physical accessibility rate each, returning as the least accessible health facilities audited in this study. This means that,

Table I: Health Services

Fa

cil

itie

s

Am

ac

o

Cli

nic

Ma

rara

ba

A

ya

ura

Co

mp

.Hea

lth

Ca

re C

en

t, A

ba

ji.

Bw

ariG

en

. H

os

p.

Ga

rki

Sp

ec

ialis

t C

lin

ic.

GH

Kw

ali

GH

Ku

bw

a.

Ku

je G

H

Ku

je G

.H

Ku

jHC

3.

NT

CH

C A

ba

ji.

PH

C K

wa

li.

Gw

g.T

ow

ns

hip

Cli

nic

.

UA

TH

.

Wu

se D

istr

ict

Ho

sp

.

(A)

Accessible Approach/ Entrance

Accessibl

e Route of

Travel

0

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1 1 1 1 1 1

Ramps

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 1 1 1

Parking

and Drop-

Off Areas

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 1 0 0 1 0

Entrance 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 1

(B) Access to Goods & Services

Horizontal

Circulatio

n

0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1

Accessibl

e Doors

0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Rooms & 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1

Spaces

Signage

for Goods

& Services

0

0

1

0

0

1

0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Directiona

l &

Informatio

nal

Signage

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table II: Social Services

Facilit

ies

Gw

ag

wala

da

So

cia

l W

elf

are

Dep

t.

Bw

ari

S

ocia

l

Welf

are

D

ep

t.

Cen

tre

for

the

Rig

ht

to

Hea

lth

,

AM

AC

Facad

o

NG

O

Karu

FO

RC

HIR

D K

wa

li

Co

un

selin

g

Cen

tre I

DP

Cam

p

Du

rum

i

Karu

S

ocia

l

Welf

are

Dep

t.

Leg

al

Aid

Co

un

cil

Bw

ari

Ad

vo

cacy

for

WW

Ds

Init

iati

ve

Karu

So

cia

l W

elf

are

Ab

aji

So

cia

l W

elf

are

Dep

t. K

wali

Wo

men

Em

po

werm

en

t

Cen

tre

Ab

aji

Wo

men

F

rien

dly

Init

iati

ve K

uje

(A) Accessible Approach/ Entrance

Accessibl

e Route

of Travel

1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1

Ramps 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Parking

and

Drop-Off

Areas.

0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Entrance 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0


Horizonta

l

Circulatio

n

0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1

Accessibl

e Doors.

1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1

Controls

0

0

1

0

1

0

0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0

Seats,

Tables &

Counters

1

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1

Stairs

0

0

0

1

0

0

0 0 0 0 _ 1 1 1

Elevators

_

0

_

0

_

_

_ _ 0 _ _ 0 0 0

Lifts

_

0

_

0

_

_

_ _ 0 _ _ 0 0 0

(C) Usability of Rest Rooms

Accessible

Routes to

Restrooms

0

0

0

1

0

0

0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Doorways

and

Passages

0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

Stalls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lavatories 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Number of

Accessible

Facilities

2 3 8 9 6 5 5 2 5 7 4 9 13 9

Accessibilit

y Level

12.5% 16.6

%

50% 50% 37% 31% 31

%

12.

5%

28

%

44

%

27

%

50% 72

%

50

%

Key

Accessible Inaccessible Not Required

1 0 _

of 14 health facilities audited in the course of this study, only 5 have physical accessibility rate of 50% and above, while the other 9 do not have up to 50% physical accessibility rate. Bearing in mind that at least 90% of the above physical accessibility variables need to be in place in other to affirm accessibility levels of facilities. One can then say that majority of healthcare facilities are not accessible to PWDs / WGWDs.

It is instructive to note that of all the healthcare facilities audited, 0% of their lavatories are accessible. This has implications on access to health for PWDs as access to toilet facilities is a major determinant for PWDs in making the decision to visit a building or not.

Rooms &

Spaces

0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1

Signage

for

Goods &

Services

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Direction

al &

Informati

onal

Signage

0

0

0

1

0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Controls

1

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1

Seats,

Tables &

Counters.

0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Stairs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Elevators 0 _ 0 _ _ _ 0 _ 0 _ 0 0 _

Lifts 0 _ 0 _ _ _ 0 _ 0 _ 0 0 _


Accessible

Routes to

Restrooms

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

Doorways

and

Passages

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 1 0 0 0

Stalls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lavatories 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Number of

Accessible

Facilities

3 3 1 8 3 4 1 2 3 6 6 7 5

Accessibilit

y Level

16.6

%

19%

5.5%

50

%

19%

25%

5.

5%

12.5

%

16.6

%

37.

5%

33% 39% 37.5

%

Key


1 0 _


11page

12page

It is important to note that at the inception of this study, Social services were defined as shelters or rehabilitation homes for abused women. However, during the field work, it was discovered that there were no such facilities, whether Government or private owned. The decision was therefore made to audit facilities that through their mandates should be providing such services, such as Non-Governmental Organizations and relevant MDAs.

From the table above, the facility with the highest physical accessibility rate is Facado NGO, New Karu (50%), followed by Women Empowerment Centre Abaji (39%), both of which are

Non-Governmental Organizations.

Social Welfare Department, Abaji and Women Friendly Initiative Kuje each have 37.5% physical accessibility rate, while the others fall below 35% physical accessibility rate.

When juxtaposed with the physical accessibility rates of Health facilities, a clear picture of the bleak prospects of WGWDs in accessing quality care when abused emerges.

The table above shows that none of the police stations audited meet the basic requirements for physical accessibility of PWDs. The Divisional Police Station Abacha Road, Mararaba though with the highest score of 31% still falls below par in terms of disability access. Despite this, it is still better than Abaji Police Station and Police Headquarters Garki FCT Command which returned as the most inaccessible police stations to PWDs (they both have 0% accessibility level).

Table III:

Criminal Justice Services:

(a)

Police Stations

Ab

aji

Po

lice

Sta

tio

n.

Div

. P

olice

Sta

tio

n

Ab

ach

a

Ro

ad

Ma

rab

a.

DP

HQ

Karu

DP

HQ

W

use

Zo

ne 3

DP

HQ

Gw

ag

wa

lad

a

Ab

uja

@

30

Po

lice

Sta

tio

n

Peg

i

Ku

je

Po

lice

Sta

tio

n 4

DP

HQ

Kw

ali

PH

Q

Ga

rki

FC

T

Co

mm

an

d

DP

HQ

Ku

bw

a

Po

lice O

uts

tati

on

Yan

go

ji K

wali

Po

lice

Are

a

Co

mm

an

d

Gw

ag

wala

da

(A)Accessible Approach/ Ent rance

Accessibl

e Route

of Travel

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0 1 0 0

Ramps 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Parking

and

Drop-Off

Areas.

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

1

0 0 1 0

Entrance 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

(B)

Access to Goods & Services

Horizonta

l

Circulatio

n

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0

Accessibl

e Doors.

0

1

0

0

1

1

1

0

0 0 0 0

Rooms &

Spaces

0

0

0

1

0

1

1

0

0 0 0 0

Signage

for

Goods &

Services

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0

Direction

al &

Informati

onal

Signage

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0 0 0 0

Controls

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0 0 1 0

Seats,

Tables &

Counters

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 1 0 0

Stairs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Elevators _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Lifts - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

(C) Usability of Rest Rooms Accessible

Routes to

Restrooms

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0

Doorways

and

Passages

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Stalls 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lavatories

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0

Number of

Accessible

Facilities

0

5

2

1

2

4

3

1

0 2 2 1

Accessibilit

y Level

0

31%

12.5

%

6%

12.5

%

25%

19

%

6%

0 12.5% 12.5% 6%

Key


1 0 _

Facilit

ies

FC

T

Ch

ief

Mag

istr

ate

Co

urt

Cu

sto

mary

C

ou

rt

Gark

i

FC

T H

igh

Co

urt

, K

wali

Gra

de

1

Are

a

Co

urt

Ab

aji

Gw

ag

wala

da

Fed

era

l

Hig

h C

ou

rt

Hig

h

Co

urt

of

FC

T,

Bw

ari

Ku

je

Mag

istr

ate

C

ou

rt

2 Mag

istr

ate

Co

urt

Ab

aji

Up

per

Gra

de

1

Are

a

Co

urt

Karu

Accessible Approach/ Entrance

Accessible Route

of Travel

1

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0

Ramps

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0 0

Parking and

Drop-Off Areas.

1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1

Entrance 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

(b) Courts


Horizontal

Circulation

0

0

1

0

0

1

1 1 1

Accessible

Doors.

1

0

1

0

0

1

1 1 1

Rooms & Spaces

1

0

1

0

0

1

0 0 1

Signage for

Goods & Services

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0

Directional &

Informational

Signage

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Controls 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Seats, Tables &

Counters

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1

Stairs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Elevators 0 0 _ 0 0 _ _ _ _

Lifts 0 0 0 _ 0 0 _ _ _


Accessible

Routes to

Restrooms

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 1 0

Doorways and

Passages

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 1 0

Stalls

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0

Lavatories

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 0 0

Number of

Accessible

Facilities

4

0

4

0

0

4

4 7 5

Accessibility

Level

22% 0 22% 0 0 22% 25 % 44% 31%

Key

Accessible

Inaccessible

Not Required

1

0

_


From the above table, the court that is most physically accessible to PWDs / WGWDs is Mag i s t ra te Cour t A b a j i w i t h 4 4 % accessibility level. It is followed by Upper Grade 1 Area Court K a r u w i t h 3 1 % accessibility level. The rest of the courts have less than 30% physical accessibil ity rates. G o i n g b y t h i s information, it can be said that the courts are generally not accessible to WGWDs because none of them could garner up to 50% accessibility level. This is a serious impediment in the process of reducing v i o l e n c e a g a i n s t WGWDs.

13page

14page

T h i s s e c t i o n d i s c u s s e s information garnered from the field through interviews and observation. The tools were deployed basically to assess the attitudes of service providers towards WGWDs in all the facilities audited. The tool sought to find out whether the information needs of PWDs are addressed in the facilities, whether there are in existence disability-friendly policies as well as to inquire if there are access teams in place that are saddled with the responsibility of overseeing all disability access related matters.

The aggregate of findings here combined to paint a vivid picture of important attitudinal and institutional factors that exert influence on the level of access to the three focus services by WGWDs.

PRESENTATION & DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS ON ASSESSMENT

OF INSTITUTIONAL AND ATTITUDINAL BARRIERS

Toilets in some of the Health FacilitiesEntrance to a Court.


PERCENTAGE

HEALTH SERVICE PROVIDERS

POLICE STATIONS PERCENTAGE

Disability-friendly

Policies

0%

Positive Staff Attitude

Communication needs of PWDs

17%

8%Access Team

The Police showed the least concern over disability-related cases. Only 17% of audited Police stations showed positive attitude towards PWDs.

In assessing the Institutional Accessibility of service providers audited in this study, the following indices were measured

1. Availability of disability-friendly policies2. Presence of access teams3. Knowledge and attitude of staff on disability inclusive service delivery

GENERAL FINDINGS

Results show that only 1 of the 49 audited facilities operates with either a disability-related policy or has communication needs of PWDs

22%

20.80%

25%

37.50%

15.50%

25%

50%

73.50%

40.50%

14%

18.75%

26%

6.25%

6.25%

New Township (ABAJI)

Ayaura Comprehensive (ABAJI)

Garki General (AMAC)

Wuse District (AMAC)

Kubwa Gen. Hosp. (BWARI)

Bwari Gen. Hosp. (BWARI)

Township Hosp. (GWAGWALADA)

UATH (GWAGWALADA)

General Hosp. (KUJE)

PHC Kuchiyato (KUJE)

Gen. Hospital (KWALI)

PHC (KWALI)

Karu PHC (MARARABA)

Uclano Clinic (MARARABA)

TOTAL ACCESSIBILITY

TOTAL ACCESSIBILITY FOR HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS

TOTAL ACCESSIBILITY RATES

12.50%

3%

0%

6.25%

28%

6.25%

9.50%

12.50%

3%

6.25%

15.50%

6.25%

Police Station, Abaji

DPHQ Wuse Zone 3 (AMAC)

DPHQ Garki FCT Comm. (AMAC)

DPHQ Kubwa (BWARI)

Police Area Comm. (GWAGWALADA)

DPHQ (GWAGWALADA)

DPHQ (KUJE)

Abuja @30, Pegi (KUJE)

DPHQ (KWALI)

Police Outstation, Yangoji (KWALI)

DP Station, Abacha RD. (MARARABA)

DPHQ, Karu (MARARABA)

TOTAL ACCESSIBILITYPOLICE STATIONS

TOTAL ACCESSIBILITY

32%

31.25%

15.25%

25%

6.25%

9.50%

33.30%

31.25%

20.80%

29%

9.50%

2.75%

25%

Women Empowerment Centre (ABAJI)

Social Welfare Dept. (ABAJI)

Centre for Right to Health (AMAC)

Goza/Bama IDP Camp (AMAC)

Legal Aid Council (BWARI)

Social Welfare Dept. (BWARI)

Social Welfare Dept. (GWAG.)

Women Friendly Initiative (KUJE)

Advocacy for Women with Disabilities (KUJE)

Social Welfare Dept. (KWALI)

FORCHRD (KWALI)

Social Welfare Dept., Karu (MARARABA)

Facado NGO (MARARABA)

TOTAL ACCESSIBILITYFOR SOCIAL SERVICE PROVIDERS

TOTAL ACCESSIBILITY

12.50%

22%

0%

11%

11%

0%

12.50%

11%

15.50%

Grade 1 Area Court (ABAJI)

Magistrate Court (ABAJI)

FCT Customary Court (AMAC)

FCT Chief Magistrate Court (BWARI)

High Court of the FCT (BWARI)

Federal High Court (GWAGWALADA)

Magistrate Court (KUJE)

FCT High Court (KWALI)

Upper Grade 1 Area Court, Karu (MARARABA)

TOTAL ACCESSIBILITY FOR COURTS

12%Physical

Accessibility Rate

21%Access Team7%

Disability-friendlyPolicies

Communication needs of PWDs

23%Positive Staff

Attitude

43%

35%Physical

Accessibility Rate

0%

COURTS

Series1


Access Team Communicationneeds of PWDs

0% 0% 0%

Positive StaffAttitude

Physical Accessibility

Rate

11%19%SOCIAL SERVICE PROVIDERS

PERCENTAGE

0%Access Team14%

64%24%Positive Staff

AttitudePhysical Accessibility

Rate


0%Communication

needs of PWDs

16page

15page

18page

CHAPTER THREE

FINDINGS ANDRECOMMEMDATIONS

HIGHLIGHTS OF KEY FINDINGS:

Having successfully assessed the level of accessibility of the three focused services by WGWDs, some key findings have emerged and are discussed below.

First, the study found out that there is a marked relationship between staff training and their attitudes towards WGWDs In other words, the amount of training on disability related issues received by the staff of a particular organization or institution, has a significant influence on their attitude to PWDs and disability related issues in general. This assertion played out during the accessibility audit where most of the members of staff in the three focus services that are not trained on disability related matters exhibit negative attitudes towards PWDs and disability related matters, while their counterparts who have received some training on the subject in question demonstrate positive attitude towards PWDs and disability related matters. This goes to mean that as long as members of staff remain unskilled on how best to treat issues that concern women and girls with disabilities who are the most vulnerable group, accessing social, health and criminal justice services by them (WGWDs), especially in situation of violence will continue to be jeopardized.

Also, it was discovered that the environment of most health facilities in the six Area Councils of the FCT and Mararaba are not accessible to WGWDs. The implication of this finding is that WGWDs cannot access majority of health facilities in the FCT. Hence, there is an urgent need to modify other health facilities

within the FCT and Mararaba in order to cater for the health needs of WGWDs close to them.

Furthermore, it was also discovered that absence of disability friendly policies, procedures, equity policy, and access teams

characterized many organizations, departments, police stations and hospitals in the FCT and Mararaba. This is yet

another glaring manifestation of institutional exclusion of PWDs in the provision of key services. The

implication is that, WGWDs cannot easily access these services in situations of violence or

abuse.

Compared to other services, the criminal justice service returned as the most

inaccessible service to WGWDs. For instance, the most accessible police station

has only 28% accessibility rate, while the court with highest accessibility level with only

22% accessibility rate. This portends serious danger to WGWDs who might fall victim of

violence or abuse because their rights of access to criminal justice services are already

being compromised by both environmental and institutional barriers that characterize police

stations and the courts in the FCT and Mararaba.

More so, communication needs of PWDs are not addressed in the three focus services assessed in this study. This is yet another setback in the process of reducing violence against WGWDs given the crucial role communication plays in human relationships.


17page

19page

20page

Stair case in a Social Service Facility.Entrance to a Social Service Facility

I

iii

iv


RECOMMENDATIONS:

In the l ight of the above findings, the following recommendations are made:

i. Disability actors and other relevant stakeholders must prioritize actions that will ensure the passage and subsequent assent of the disability rights bill as it prescribes actions that uphold the rights of persons to disabilities to access all services.

Concerted advocacy must be directed towards building authorities to ensure strict compliance with building codes in order to ensure that the principles of universal design are adopted.

In order to reduce the prevalence of negative attitudes amongst service providers towards WGWDs, there is a need for staff in the three focus services to undergo intense training on Disability Inclusive Service Delivery (DISD).This will go a long way in promoting access of WGWDs to services.

It is also necessary that the communication needs of PWDs be taken seriously and be addressed in all relevant facilities, especially those that fall under the key services because of their relevance to WGWDs who are most vulnerable to various forms of violence and abuse.

There is also a need for sensitization campaign to be carried out in all relevant institutions, organizations, healthcare facilities, courts and police stations among others, to highlight key issues relating to violence against WGWDs and the institutional measures to be taken in order to ameliorate the situation.

ii

iv

REFERENCES

DFID (2000). Disability, Poverty and Development, DFID, London.www.dfid.gov.uk

Disability Rights Advocacy Centre (DRAC) (2017). Baseline Survey Report on Violence against Women and Girls with Disabilities (WAGWDs): Abuja, Nigeria.

Draft African Protocol on Protection of Rights of Persons with Disabilities in Africa (2014). Retrieved from http://www.achprr.org/news/2014/04/di21

Centre for Citizens with Disabilities (CCD) (2015). A Research Report on Access to Public Infrastructure for PWDs in Nigeria.

Federal Ministry of Health (2012). A Pilot Accessibility Audit on Health Services by PWDs in FCT, Abuja Nigeria.

Ghana Persons with Disability Act 2006 retrieved from www.gfdgh.org/GHANA%20DISABILITY%20ACT.pdf

MDG Office/ NBS (2011). Report of the National Baseline Survey on Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) in Nigeria Funded by Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) Office, with Statistical Support from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS).

National Building Code 9NBC, 2006) retrieved from http://sdngnet.com/Files/Lectures/FUTA-ARC-807 Professional practice and Procedure/CD%202013/2014/National%20Building%20Code%20%of%20Nigeria%202006.pdf

The Kenyan “Persons with Disability Act 2003” Retrieved from http://www.labour.go.ke/downloads/PERSONS%20WITH%20DISABILITIES%ACT,%2020003.pdf

United Nations (2011). Best Practices for Including Persons with Disabilities in All Aspects of Development Efforts

U.N Human Rights (2014). The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Training Guide. Professional Training Series, No 19.

WHO & World Bank (2011). World Report on Disability 2011 (PDF) Retrieved from http://www.who.int/disabilities/worldreport /2011/report.pdf

12page

CHAPTER THREE

FINDINGS ANDRECOMMEMDATIONS

21page

22page

ANNEX IACCESSIBILTY AUDIT INSTRUMENT.

1. Accessible Approach/Entrance

Route of Travel (ADAAG 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.7)

Is there a route of travel that does not require the use of stairs?

Is the route of travel stable, firm and slip-resistant?

Is the route at least 36

inches wide?

Can all objects protruding into the circulation paths be detected by a person with a visual disability using a cane?

Yes

No

Photo Comment

Ramps (ADAAG 4.8) Yes No Photo Comment

Are the slopes of ramps no greater than 1:12?

Do all ramps longer than 6 feet have railings on both sides?

Are railings sturdy, and between 34 and 38 inches high?

Is the width between railings or curbs at least 36 inches?

Are ramps non-slip?

Is there a 5-foot-long level landing at every 30-foot horizontal length of ramp, at the top and bottom of ramps and at switchbacks?

Does the ramp rise no more than 30 inches between landings?

Parking and Drop-Off Areas (ADAAG 4.6) Yes No Photo Comment

Are an adequate number of accessible parking spaces available (8 feet wide for car plus 5-foot access aisle)?

Are the access aisles part of the accessible route to the accessible entrance?

Are the accessible spaces closest to the accessible

entrance?

Are accessible spaces marked with the International Symbol of Accessibility? Are there signs reading “Van Accessible” at van spaces?

Is there an enforcement procedure to ensure that accessible parking is used only by those who need it?

Entrance (ADAAG 4.13, 4.14, 4.5)

Yes No Photo Comment

If there are stairs at the main entrance, is there also a ramp or lift, or is there an alternative accessible entrance?

Do all inaccessible entrances have signs indicating the location of the nearest accessible entrance?

Can the alternate accessible entrance be used independently?

Does the entrance door have at least 32 inches clear opening?

Is there at least 18 inches of clear wall space on the pull side of the door, next to the handle?

If provided, are carpeting or mats a maximum of 1/2-inch high?

Are edges securely installed to minimize tripping hazards?

Is the door handle no higher than 48 inches and operable with a closed fist?

Can doors be opened without too much force? 2. Access to Goods and Services

Horizontal Circulation (ADAAG 4.3)

Yes

No Photo Comment

Does the accessible entrance provide direct access to the main floor, lobby, or elevator?

Are all public spaces on an accessible route of travel?

Is the accessible route to all public spaces at least

36 inches wide?

Is there a 5-foot circle or a T-shaped space for a person using a wheelchair to reverse direction?

Doors (ADAAG 4.13) Yes No Photo Comment

Do doors into public spaces have at least a 32-inch clear opening?

On the pull side of doors, next to the handle, is there at least 18 inches of clear wall space so that a person using a wheelchair or crutches can get near to open the door?

Can doors be opened without too much force?

Are door handles 48 inches high or less and operable with a closed fist?


23page

24page

•Mounted on wall adjacent to latch side of door, or as close as possible.

• Raised characters, sized between 5/8 and 2 inches high, with high contrast (for room numbers, rest rooms, exits).

• Brailled text of the same information.

• If pictogram is used, it must be accompanied by raised characters and braille.

Directional and Informational Signage Yes No Photo Comment

If mounted above 80 inches, do they have letters at least 3 inches high, with high contrast, and non-glare finish?

Controls (ADAAG 4.27) Yes No Photo Comment

Are all controls that are available for use by the public (including electrical, mechanical, cabinet, game, and self-service controls) located at an accessible height?

Are they operable with a closed fist?

Rooms and Spaces (ADAAG 4.2, 4.4, 4.5) Yes No Photo Comment

Are all aisles and pathways to materials and services at least 36 inches wide?

Is there a 5-foot circle

or T-shaped space for turning a wheelchair completely?

Is carpeting low-pile, tightly woven, and securely attached along edges?

In circulation paths through public areas, are all obstacles cane-detectable?

Signage for Goods and Services (ADAAG 4.30) Yes No Photo Comment

If provided, do signs and room numbers designating permanent rooms and spaces where goods and services are provided comply with the appropriate requirements for such signage?

• Signs mounted with centerline 60 inches from floor.

Seats, Tables, and Counters (ADAAG 4.2, 4.32, 7.2)

Yes

No

Photo

Comment

Are the aisles between fixed seating (other than assembly area seating) at least 36 inches wide?

Are the spaces for wheelchair seating distributed throughout?

Are the tops of tables or counters between 28 and 34 inches high?

Are knee spaces at accessible tables at least 27 inches high, 30 inches wide, and 19 inches deep?

At each type of cashier counter, is there a portion of the main counter that is no more than 36 inches high?

Is there a portion of food-ordering counters that is no more than 36 inches high, or is there space at the side for passing items to customers who have difficulty reaching over a high counter?

Are there ramps, lifts, or elevators to all public levels?

On each level, if there are stairs between the entrance and/or elevator and essential public areas, is there an accessible alternate route?

Stairs (ADAAG 4.9) Yes No Photo Comment

Do treads have a non-slip surface?

Do stairs have continuous rails on both sides, with extensions beyond the top and bottom stairs?

Elevators (ADAAG 4.10)

Yes

No

Photo Comment

Are the call buttons in the hallway no higher than 42 inches?

Do the controls inside the cab have raised and braille lettering?

Is there a sign on both door jambs at every floor identifying the floor in raised and braille letters?

If an emergency intercom is provided, is it usable without voice communication?

Is the emergency intercom identified by braille and raised letters?

Lifts (ADAAG 4.2, 4.11)

Yes

No

Photo Comment

Can the lift be used without assistance? If not, is a call button provided?

Is there at least 30 by 48 inches of clear space for a person in a wheelchair to approach to reach the controls and use the lift?

Are controls between 15 and 48 inches high (up to 54 inches if a side approach is possible)?

3. Usability of Rest Rooms

Ge tting to the Rest Rooms (ADAAG 4.1) Yes No Photo Comment

If rest rooms are available to the public, is at least one rest room (either one for each sex, or unisex) fully accessible?

Are there signs at inaccessible rest rooms that give directions to accessible ones?

Doorways and Passages (ADAAG 4.2, 4.13, 4.30)


Is there tactile signage identifying rest rooms?

Are pictograms or symbols used to identify rest rooms, and, if used, are raised characters and braille included below them?

Is the doorway at least 32 inches clear?

Are doors equipped with accessible handles (operable with a closed fist), 48 inches high or less?

Can doors be opened easily?

Does the entry configuration provide adequate maneuvering space for a person using a wheelchair?

Is there a 36-inch-wide path to all fixtures?

Stalls (ADAAG 4.17)


Is there a wheelchair-accessible stall that has an area of at least 5 feet by 5 feet, clear of the door swing, OR is there a stall that is less accessible but that provides greater access than a typical stall (either 36 by 69 inches or 48 by 69 inches)?

In the accessible stall, are there grab bars behind and on the side wall nearest to the toilet?

Is the toilet seat 17 to 19 inches high?

Lavatories (ADAAG 4.19, 4.24) Yes No Photo Comment

Does one lavatory have a 30-inch-wide by 48-inch-deep clear space in front?

Is the lavatory rim no higher than 34 inches?

Is there at least 29 inches from the floor to the bottom of the lavatory apron (excluding pipes)?

Can the faucet be operated with one closed fist?

Are soap and other dispensers and hand dryers within reach ranges and usable with one closed fist?

Is the mirror mounted with the bottom edge of the reflecting surface 40 inches high or lower?


25page

ACCESS IBIL ITY AUDIT GUIDE (PART 2) : EXAM INING

ACCESS IBLE SERVICES

MAY*YEAR+

[Youcanaddanabstractorotherkeystatementhere.Anabstractistypicallyashort

summaryofthedocumentcontent.]

Hello, my name is ………, I am from Disability Rights Advocacy Centre (DRAC). DRAC is a non-governmental and non-profit organization that works to promote the human rights of Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) especially Women and Girls with Disabilities (WWDs). DRAC is worried about the rate of violence against women and girls with disabilities and their access to a multispectral range of services and is therefore conducting an Accessibility audit to assess the nature of disability accessibility inyour facility. This refers to the extent to which a blind, deaf person and wheelchair user can easily access and utilize your facilities. It would involve observing, taking measurements and taking pictures.

Any information you provide will be kept strictly confidentialand will not be shown to other persons. Should you have any queries, feel free to contact: Irene Patrick-Ogbogu (08037864826)

ANNEX II

INTERVIEW/ OBERVATION GUIDE

Table 1: Matrix for collecting information on access to services in the different Abuja

area councils

Access Team

Ma nagement of the built environment

Information and publicity

Policies, Practices and Procedures

How staff and management deliver service

Guide

Does this facility have an access team? If it does ask members of the team about accessibility issues/challenges and successes

Investigate if management has in place policies and procedures. Did management consider access during emergency situation?

Are communication needs of PWDs addressed? Brails, sign language, website 508 compliant etc.

Auditors can check for equity policy, access statement/declaration, complaints procedure etc.

Investigate if facility staff are trained on disability/equity matters. Check if staff have a positive attitude towards PWDs and accessibility

Site


26page

Walkway in one of the Health Facility

27page

Date post:	02-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

drac report on pilot · 2019-02-14 · Plot 142, DRAC Lane off Victor Ndoma Egba Street Durumi...

Documents