Claire F. O’rEilly

People with disabilities make up approximately 16% of the world’s population and disproportionately experience the risks and negative impacts of humanitarian emergencies. In humanitarian contexts, understanding who has a disability, where they are located, and what their needs are is crucial to delivering the right assistance at the right place and time. In recent years, global attention to disability inclusion in the humanitarian sector has focused on the generation of disaggregated data, most commonly using one of the Washington Group Sets of Questions. The implicit assumption behind the collection of more and more data disaggregated by disability, that it will lead to more inclusive action and outcomes, is incorrect. Our findings nuance the current push for disability disaggregated data in all settings and advocate a shift away from the blanket application of disaggregation to a more bespoke approach. Humanitarian and development contexts present multiple challenges to disaggregating data sets by demographic factors such as disability, including the use of households rather than individuals as the unit of analysis, small and non-representative samples, and minority languages with limited translation capacity. Through evaluation of the use of the Washington Group set across the world’s largest humanitarian organization, and its cooperating partners, we present five decision-making criteria that can be flexibly but consistently applied across operating contexts. This enables contextualized decision-making that uses consistent logic to predict the likelihood of data disaggregation by disability leading to more inclusive action and outcomes.

Purpose: This paper presents an analysis of interpersonal identity-based violence experienced by persons with communication disabilities in Iraq and the barriers reported to accessing supports. The use of communication accessible data collection tools is discussed as a means of enabling an inclusive response for multiple marginalised groups in relation to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 16 and 5. Result: People with communication disabilities reported similar levels of interpersonal violence to those with disabilities of other types, characterised by high rates of deprivation and physical violence. Many participants did not seek support, but those that did were most likely to speak to a family member or friend, followed by consulting legal services. Barriers to accessing support were varied, with lack of transport being the most commonly reported. Satisfaction with research communication supports was high for all participants, including those with no communication difficulties, suggesting that the resources invested in communication access have benefits beyond those with communication disabilities. Conclusion: Iraqi persons with communication disabilities, like those with other disabilities, face high levels of interpersonal violence. The use of communication supports in research addressing disability is likely to increase the representation of persons with communication disability in study samples and can benefit participants with other disabilities. This commentary paper, available in Arabic as a supplemental file, focusses on SDG 16 and also addresses SDG 5.

Purpose: This paper describes a collaborative project between Trinity College Dublin in Ireland and the United Nations’ World Food Programme (WFP) Mozambique country office. The Sphere standards require that information on humanitarian assistance should be in languages and formats accessible to people who cannot read or who have communication difficulties. Nevertheless, there remains a gap in both implementing this guidance consistently and in understanding the impact of doing so when engaging with affected populations. Method: This commentary describes the process of developing key messages regarding targeting of humanitarian food assistance in communication-accessible formats, and field testing of these materials with community committees and partners Result: The communication-accessible materials were well received by communities, and humanitarian staff and partners found them to be useful in community engagement. Conclusion: Materials designed to be maximally accessible to people with communication differences and disabilities may also address inclusion for affected populations with different education, literacy, and language backgrounds. This commentary focuses on Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 2 as an exemplar of the use of communication accessible messaging in humanitarian response.