1. Disability Inequality Index
Washington Group Meeting on Disability Statistics
Pretoria, 08 December 2016
Presenter: Ms Xoliswa Ndamase

2. PRESENTATION OUTLINE 1. Introduction
2. Legislative and Policy Imperatives
3. Disability Inequality Index (DII)
4. Way Forward

3. Introduction
Outcome 14 on Nation Building and Social Cohesion and the WPRPD identifies the DII as key instrument that reflects the inequality between persons with disabilities and persons without disabilities

4. Legislative and Policy Imperatives

5. UN CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Ratification by South Africa
30 November 2007.
Reporting Obligations
Baseline Report approved in April 2013.
It is estimated that a combined Periodic Report will be due in 2022.

6. Outcome 14 – Nation building and Social Cohesion
In 2030, the nation will be more accepting of peoples’ multiple identities.
Improved access to quality public services will greatly reduce inequality of opportunity.
Disability Inequality Index (DII) is a new Impact Indicator under Fostering Constitutional values
The target is 5% improvement by 2019

7. White Paper on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Cabinet approved the White paper on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Implementation Matrix in December 2015.
Under the Monitoring and Evaluation Pillar, the WPRPD further embeds the DII as a key tool for tracking inequality between persons with disabilities and persons without disabilities

8. Disability Inequality Index (DII)

9. Purpose of DII
To realise the outcomes of the National Development Plan Vision and beyond, it is important that inequalities between persons with disabilities and persons without disabilities be reduced.
Policy improvement cannot bear fruit without systematic and consistent measurement of the inequality gap.
 The DII is a parity indicator that seeks to measures the inequality between persons with disabilities and persons without disabilities.
The index provides a high level quick scan of the level of inequality with the explicit purpose of managing government performance more inclusively.
It responds to the fundamental principle of SDGs “leaving no-one behind”

10. Process and Consultation
The development of the tool has been a collaborative process with a number of national and provincial government departments, and disability organisations.
The various drafts were consulted with, among others, the National Disability Rights Machinery and the Expert Panel which reviewed the draft White Paper on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The United Nations Development Programme and Unicef SA offices also participated.

11. Key Stakeholders Core Team consists of Data providers
Department of Social Development,
Statistics South Africa and
Department of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation
Data providers
Administrative data bases from the Departments of Social Development, Labour, Basic Education, and Higher Education & Training, as well as Parliament and provincial legislatures.
Census and census/large sample survey data from Statistics SA.

12. DII Methodology

13. Determination of disability
The WG short set of questions used in Stats SA:
1. Do you have difficulty seeing even if wearing glasses?
2. Do you have difficulty hearing even if using a hearing aid?
3. Do you have difficulty walking or climbing stairs?
4. Do you have difficulty remembering or concentrating?
5. Do you have difficulty with (self-care such as) washing all over or dressing?
6. Using your usual language, do you have difficulty communicating
(for example understanding or being understood by others)?
Response categories:
No difficulty; Yes, some difficulty; Yes, a lot of difficulty;
Cannot do at all

14. Determination of disability
The disability index cut-offs as used in the calculation of index
indicators that are based on the census/large sample surveys are as
follows: as per questions 1–6.
If an individual has 'Some difficulty' (2) to at least two of the six categories, then they are disabled.
If an individual has 'A lot of difficulty' (3) or is 'Unable to do' (4) so for one or more categories, they are classified as disabled.

15. Poverty and Deprivation World of Work & Employment
DII Domains
The index is constructed across three domains:
Education
Poverty and Deprivation
World of Work & Employment

16. World of Work & Employment Poverty and Deprivation
DII Indicators
Education
(8 indicators)
Access and participation (4)
Achievement (4)
World of Work & Employment
(6 indicators)
Access and participation (3)
Governance & Empowerment (3)
Poverty and Deprivation
(1 indicator)
Multiple Poverty Index (Parity ratio for the percentage of persons not living in deprived households)
MPI identifies overlapping deprivation at a household level

17. DII Model Each of the three domains carries equal weights
Each indicator within each domain carries equal weight
All indicators are based on parity indexes for the persons with disabilities and persons without disabilities
Indicators have been reduced to a total of 15 for piloting purposes sourced from administrative data and periodic surveys
Selected indicators have sufficient reliable gender disaggregated data, which will allow for publication of separate gender-disaggregated Disability Inequality Indices

18. Frequency of measurement and
reporting
The index is composed of 15 indicators, half of which are obtained from administrative sources and the other half from census and large sample surveys.
It will be published and updated annually. However, even though the indicators based on administrative sources can be updated annually, those sources from census and or large sample surveys can only be sourced once every 3 to 5 years.

19. Constraints and Limitations
This is a world-first so international benchmarking has been impossible
Survey samples tend to be small. Indicators sourcing data from survey samples will only be updated every 3-5 years (50% of indicators). The mix of indicators will ensure that we will be able to track some semblance of progress on an annual basis.
Various methods of measuring disability are being used (e.g. self declaration; medical/functional assessments; application for reasonable accommodation support) and this will require progressive standardisation
Administrative data sources are often not as rigorous and independent as survey data

20. Status of the DII
The use of available data in the prototype indicates a need to standardise the measure of disability across data sources.
Furthermore, to ensure the validity and soundness of the Model, it is necessary to invite critical/robust debate and discussion from national, regional and international statisticians / experts / disability activists.
The instrument requires further piloting to ensure stable and consistent use going forward

21. Way Forward

22. WAY FORWARD Standardise measure of disability among data sources
Convene International Expert Group Panel Discussion on DII
Engagement with Washington Group on Disability Statistics
Consolidate changes and pilot DII over the next 2 years

23. Thank You