Zero Project 2015 Indicator Results Silvia Balmas EFC

Zero Project 2015 Indicator Results Silvia Balmas EFC, 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 questions Indicators: • 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 + comments Yes with Qualifications No N/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 YES% Yw. Q% NO% N/A% 1. Built environment (Q 1, Q 2) 32. 4 26. 9 37. 1 3. 5 2. Transportation (Q 3) 2. 9 45. 4 48. 7 2. 9 3. Emergency (Q 4) 5. 7 22. 3 63. 6 8. 2 4. Education (Q 7, Q 8) 32. 8 42. 5 18. 3 6. 2 5 Data (Q 9, Q 11, Q 13, Q 20) 14. 6 29. 1 46. 2 9. 9 6. Employment (Q 10, Q 12) 18. 6 24. 3 45. 2 11. 7 7. Implementation and Monitoring (Q 14, Q 15, Q 16) 23 33. 6 32. 9 10. 3 8. Independent living Focus 2015 9. Political participation Focus 2015 UN CRPD general

UN CRPD Indicators - KEY FINDINGS Transportation Emergency alarm systems 3% of respondents believe that the public transport in the main city is accessible for all 6% of respondents stated systems are accessible for all people with disabilities • • • Fully accessible: metro in Greece and buses in the Netherlands Lack of staff training Lack of autonomous use of public transport • • 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 Yes Yw. Q No N/A COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES AND ALTERNATIVES TO INSTITUTIONS (Q 21 Q 22) 15. 2 31. 2 25. 2 28. 3 LEGAL & SOCIAL PROTECTION (Q 23 Q 24) 13. 2 53 23. 5 10. 1 ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT (Q 25 Q 26) 13. 6 45. 2 30. 3 10. 7 EQUAL RECOGNITION BEFORE THE LAW (Q 17 Q 18) 10. 1 44. 4 37. 4 8 PERSONAL RIGHTS (Q 19) 51. 6 33. 4 6. 2 8. 6 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

Indicators: focus on INDEPENDENT LIVING Community based service and alternatives to residential care 15. 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 Protection Partially 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 devices 45. 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 PARTICIPATION Expertise: FRA and IFES Political Rights Yes Yw. Q No N/A ACCESS TO JUSTICE (Q 5) 34. 3 32. 2 26. 8 6. 6 ACCESS TO INFORMATION (Q 6) 14. 4 29. 7 50 5. 7 POLITICAL RIGHTS (Q 27 Q 28) 49. 5 36. 3 3. 5 10. 5 ACCESS TO VOTING PROCEDURES (Q 29 Q 30) 25. 8 37. 6 23. 9 12. 6 Best result 49. 5% Right to vote and to be elected Access to Voting Procedures Worst result 18% Positive answers on accessibility of information in elections

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