Zero Project 2015Indicator Results

Silvia BalmasEFC, European Foundation Centre

Zero Project Indicators - AN OVERVIEW

WHY? To complement the work of national monitoring bodies, federal bureau of statistics and international organizations

WHAT?Questionnaire: 30 questionsIndicators:• 1- UN CRPD• 2- Independent living• 3- Political participation

WHO? Respondents: 275 experts from 150 countries. + DPI members

WHERE? Worldwide

Where? Worldwide Coverage

  Countries Replies

European countries 36 79

Northern Africa 6 52

Sub-Saharan Africa 32 4

Asia & Pacific (including central Asia and Middle East) 37 44

Latin, Central America & Caribbean 26 34

North America 2 16

Oceania 11 13

Total 150 242

Higher response rates:USA (16)Ireland (13)Belgium (10)

Analysing Data

• Working with experts

• Traffic light system + commentsYesYes with Qualifications NoN/A

• Analysis of 242 questionnaires (>15 answers)

• Quantitative and qualitative analysis

• Based on perspective and experience of the respondents

Use of data - Resources

Website: • Visual world maps

(Zoomed in/out)• Comments• Summary of Results

Open source database:• Everyone can use it!

(Downloads section)

Indicators – 9 Themes

Themes YES% YwQ% NO% N/A%

UN CRPD general

1. Built environment (Q1, Q2) 32.4 26.9 37.1 3.5

2. Transportation (Q3) 2.9 45.4 48.7 2.9

3. Emergency (Q4) 5.7 22.3 63.6 8.2

4. Education (Q7, Q8) 32.8 42.5 18.3 6.2

5 Data (Q9, Q11, Q13, Q20) 14.6 29.1 46.2 9.9

6. Employment (Q10, Q12) 18.6 24.3 45.2 11.7

7. Implementation and Monitoring (Q14, Q15, Q16) 23 33.6 32.9 10.3

8. Independent living Focus 2015

9. Political participation Focus 2015

UN CRPD Indicators - KEY FINDINGS

Transportation

3% of respondents believe that the public transport in the main city is accessible for all

• Fully accessible: metro in Greece and buses in the Netherlands

• Lack of staff training• Lack of autonomous use of public

transport

Emergency alarm systems

6% of respondents stated systems are accessible for all people with disabilities

• Only in public buildings• Lack of training

UN CRPD Indicators - KEY FINDINGS

Built environment

Positive 32.4% • Accessibility of new buildings (45%) and legal time

frames up to 5 years for existing buildings to be accessible (19%).

• Conflict with historical heritage protection legislation

Data

Dramatic quantitative results, especially regarding the number of university graduates with disability 6% respondents state there is available data

UN CRPD Indicators - KEY FINDINGS

Employment

Reasonable accommodation and employment rate:45.2% red light

Economic crises, budget cuts, high unemployment rates have direct consequences: lack of adaptations and recruitment

Indicators: focus on INDEPENDENT LIVING

Expertise: ENIL

Personal Rights - Best results• 52% respondents: persons with disabilities are not discriminated in their right to

marry and have children

Assistance and Support - Worst result• 7% availability of personal assistance service

Yes YwQ No N/A

COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES AND ALTERNATIVES TO INSTITUTIONS (Q21 Q22) 15.2 31.2 25.2 28.3

LEGAL & SOCIAL PROTECTION (Q23 Q24) 13.2 53 23.5 10.1

ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT (Q25 Q26) 13.6 45.2 30.3 10.7

EQUAL RECOGNITION BEFORE THE LAW (Q17 Q18) 10.1 44.4 37.4 8

PERSONAL RIGHTS (Q19) 51.6 33.4 6.2 8.6

Indicators: focus on INDEPENDENT LIVING

Community based service and alternatives to residential care15.3% availability (lack of financial resources and governments austerity cuts) • Eastern Europe – high presence; poorest countries: no institutions or staying is

the best alternative• Budget cuts are limiting alternatives (basic services e.g. cleaning)

Legal and Social ProtectionPartially 53%• Monitoring – not reliable or effective or not carried out by independent

authorities. Most common in Europe and in countries with more financial capability

Personal Assistance and technological devices45.2% partially provided, only for certain types of disabilities and only basic assistive devices • PA depending on availability of public funding, complex bureaucracy; only for

those living in institutions (e.g. South Africa); role of civil society

Indicators: focus on POLITICAL PARTICIPATIONExpertise: FRA and IFES

Political Rights

Best result 49.5% Right to vote and to be elected

Access to Voting Procedures

Worst result18% Positive answers on accessibility of information in elections

Yes YwQ No N/A

ACCESS TO JUSTICE (Q5) 34.3 32.2 26.8 6.6

ACCESS TO INFORMATION (Q6) 14.4 29.7 50 5.7

POLITICAL RIGHTS (Q27 Q28) 49.5 36.3 3.5 10.5

ACCESS TO VOTING PROCEDURES (Q29 Q30) 25.8 37.6 23.9 12.6

Indicators:focus on POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

Political Rights• Right to vote by secret ballot – restrictions for blind people and people

with intellectual disabilities• Right to be elected – intellectual disability criteria that can affect

eligibility to vote

Access to voting procedures• Reasonable accommodation - barriers: Technology; limited to personal

assistant for blind people, inaccessible polling stations, lack of training of voting officers

• Electorate Information - civil society and NGO best practices (e.g. Indonesia)

Thank you!

Silvia Balmas

European Foundation Centre Disability Thematic Network Coordinator

sbalmas@efc.be

s.balmas@zeroproject.org