1. Zero Project 2015 Indicator Results Silvia Balmas EFC, European Foundation Centre

2. 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

3. Where? Worldwide Coverage CountriesReplies European countries3679 Northern Africa652 Sub-Saharan Africa324 Asia & Pacific (including central Asia and Middle East)3744 Latin, Central America & Caribbean2634 North America216 Oceania1113 Total150242 Higher response rates: USA (16) Ireland (13) Belgium (10)

4. Analysing Data Working with experts Traffic light system + comments Yes Yes with Qualifications No N/A Analysis of 242 questionnaires (>15 answers) Quantitative and qualitative analysis Based on perspective and experience of the respondents

5. Use of data - Resources Website: Visual world maps (Zoomed in/out) Comments Summary of Results Open source database: Everyone can use it! (Downloads section)

6. Indicators – 9 Themes ThemesYES%YwQ%NO%N/A% UN CRPD general 1. Built environment (Q1, Q2)32.426.937.13.5 2. Transportation (Q3)2.945.448.72.9 3. Emergency (Q4)5.722.363.68.2 4. Education (Q7, Q8)32.842.518.36.2 5 Data (Q9, Q11, Q13, Q20)14.629.146.29.9 6. Employment (Q10, Q12)18.624.345.211.7 7. Implementation and Monitoring (Q14, Q15, Q16)2333.632.910.3 8. Independent livingFocus 2015 9. Political participationFocus 2015

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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 YesYwQNoN/A COMMUNITY-BASED SERVICES AND ALTERNATIVES TO INSTITUTIONS (Q21 Q22) 15.231.225.228.3 LEGAL & SOCIAL PROTECTION (Q23 Q24)13.25323.510.1 ASSISTANCE AND SUPPORT (Q25 Q26)13.645.230.310.7 EQUAL RECOGNITION BEFORE THE LAW (Q17 Q18)10.144.437.48 PERSONAL RIGHTS (Q19)51.633.46.28.6

11. 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

12. Indicators: focus on POLITICAL PARTICIPATION Expertise: FRA and IFES Political Rights 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 YesYwQNoN/A ACCESS TO JUSTICE (Q5)34.332.226.86.6 ACCESS TO INFORMATION (Q6)14.429.7505.7 POLITICAL RIGHTS (Q27 Q28) 49. 5 36.33.510.5 ACCESS TO VOTING PROCEDURES (Q29 Q30) 25.837.623.912.6

13. 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)

14. Thank you! Silvia Balmas European Foundation Centre Disability Thematic Network Coordinator sbalmas@efc.be s.balmas@zeroproject.org