1. EurostatEurostat GALI as a core variable Item 4.3 DSS Meeting 15 - 17 September 2015

2. C ONTENTS Brief reminder Result of the EoV and its analysis UNCPRD: last developments DSS possible conclusions 2

3. B RIEF REMINDER (1) DSS November 2013 "Strategic issues related to the modernisation of … health statistics" As for the possible introduction of two new core variables related to health and disabilities, reservations were expressed. The DSS however agreed with methodological work by national health experts to improve the GALI variable. Results will be reported to DSS in September 2014. DSS April 2014 "The future of disability statistics within the ESS" The DSS was in favour to continuing methodological discussion for the possible introduction of SPH and GALI as core/common variables. Eurostat will send a questionnaire to possibly organise testing. A final decision will be taken in 2015, together with income variable in LFS. 3

4. B RIEF REMINDER (2) Methodological work through the "GALI Task Force" The experts: 12 countries (BE, DE, EE, FR, IT, MT, NL, NO, AT, SI, FI, UK), epidemiology, public health and statistics/surveys Two meetings in 2014 and 2015 + Qualitative study by Eurostat on cognitive testing on different split versions of GALI in 3 languages Final report (August 2015) which includes 9 recommendations Report is positive as regards the use of GALI (in short..) The report (annex 1 of the DSS document) + LAMAS WG discussion (annex 2 of the DSS document) support Eurostat current proposal for GALI as a Core Variable 4

5. R ESULT OF THE E O V "GALI AS A C ORE V ARIABLE " 32 countries consulted (28 MS+4 EFTA; 30 replies, LU & LI missing) YES: 10 (8 MS) [+ 2 MS in favour of GALI in LFS] NO: 13 (12 MS) ?: 7 (7 MS) Why "No" and "?" ? -LFS is not appropriate (tool, burden, use of proxies, etc..) -More studies/tests are needed -Costs and burden on ESS in general -Not enough discussion in Working Groups -"Manage" availability of data from different surveys -What about use of administrative data on disability? 5

6. A NALYSIS OF THE E O V: "LFS ISSUE " (1) GALI in LFS means: Ad hoc modules on the employment of persons with disabilities are discontinued Proposal for GALI in LFS: -Every 2 years -"Rotating" with the 4 additional "LFS education variables" (PART12M) Use of proxy in LFS: Not specific to GALI but a general issue. Examples: Number of hours actually worked Paid and unpaid overtime Main reason for looking for another job Policy need for joint distribution of labour and disability status: only LFS can provide reliable and accurate data (see also next slide) 6

7. A NALYSIS OF THE E O V: "LFS ISSUE " (2) LAMAS views in June 2015 Yes: AT, BE, BG, CY, CZ, EE, FI, FR, HR, HU, IT, LU, LV, MT, RO, UK, IS, NO and CH (19 countries, 16 MS) With some reserves on final opinion (results of pilot tests, proxy interviews) No: 12 MS → a slight majority in favour Use of disability variables in LFS -FR & CH: implement MEHM annually -BE, DK, HU, NL, UK & NO: question(s) similar to GALI -BG, DE, SK & PL: a question on official recognition of disability Possibility for BE, DK, HU, NL & UK to alternate in LFS: national questions/GALI each 2 years (time series, etc…)? 7

8. A NALYSIS OF THE E O V (3) More studies/tests are needed -Extended guidelines for implementing GALI are available (see annex 1 DSS document). Grants can support their implementation in ESS surveys -Agreement to test in LFS: LAMAS WG June 2015 concluded "The principles of further testing of these variables in some countries was agreed upon" In 2015, grants for studies/testing (in LFS) to be signed with HU ("?") & NL ("No"). Other possible grants in 2016 & 2017 -Similar testing as in LFS can be envisaged in other surveys as well Costs & burden on ESS in general (beyond LFS) -Burden on the ESS: EHIS & AES from 5 years to 6 years -No more dedicated survey on disability (EHSIS) -ICT: new variable(s) but not annually (?) (as for LFS) 8

9. A NALYSIS OF THE E O V (4) Not enough discussion in WGs -Extensive discussion in LAMAS WG June 2015 -Discussions in ICT WG in the recent past (i.e. not new) -ETS WG "informed" in June 2015 (and AES TF) "Management" availability of data from different surveys -SILC: for computing prevalence of activity limitations and HLY -LFS, AES, EHIS, ICT: breakdowns by level of activity limitation -EHIS: also specific role in "validating" GALI -General communication issue at national & EU levels What about use of administrative data? Comparability across countries issue (see UNRPD request): non- harmonised administrative definition versus harmonised statistical definition (similar to "Registered unemployment" and "Unemployment measured according to the ILO concept") 9

10. UNCRPD: LAST DEVELOPMENTS (1) Concluding observations on the initial report of the European Union (3 rd September 2015): "Concerns about the lack of consistent and comparable data on persons with disabilities in the European Union and the lack of human rights indicators" Next report of the European Union: 2 nd and 3 rd reports to be submitted no later than 23 January 2019, and to include therein information on the implementation of the concluding observations 10

11. UNCRPD (2): LAST DEVELOPMENTS R ECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE EU To include disability-specific indicators in the Europe 2020 Strategy when pursuing the target on education To take effective actions to measure the employment of persons with disabilities and to increase their employment rate in open labour market To identify and put in place mechanisms to disaggregate data on disability to monitor the rights of persons with disabilities in European Union development programmes To develop a human rights–based indicators system, as well as a comparable comprehensive data collection system, with data disaggregated by gender, age, rural/urban population and impairment type To establish a monitoring and accountability framework for the implementation of European Union policies and programmes including the collection of disaggregated data on sex, disability and age 11

12. DSS POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS (1) DSS supports the need to collect disability-related information in all ESS social surveys? = Support the inclusion of GALI as a Core Variable -SILC & EHIS: continue with Minimum European Health Module (MEHM) -LFS: 12 countries (10 MS) but….LAMAS results + national practices; alternating with education module every 2 years; operationalization to be discussed in WG, testing in 3 coming years Why? UNCRPD requires access to labour market…and see recommendation 1 of UNCRPD (indicator computed from LFS) -ICT: every 2 to 3 years (manageable?) Why? UNCRPD requires access to information and communications technologies and systems, including the internet, as well as the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to such access 12

13. DSS POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS (2) -AES: every 6 years (manageable?) Why? UNCRPD requires an inclusive education system at all levels and lifelong learning (access to general education, including tertiary, vocational training, adult education and lifelong learning without discrimination and on an equal basis with others) -HBS: every 6 years (manageable?) Why? UNCRPD recognizes the right to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions -TUS: every 10 years (manageable?) SPH (PH010) and CHRON (PH020) already in TUS 2010 wave Why? UNCRPD requires ensuring full participation in all aspects of life on an equal basis with others (not only in education, employment but also in cultural, recreational, leisure and sporting activities)

14. DSS POSSIBLE CONCLUSIONS (2) DSS supports (also) "Self-perceived health" as a Core Variable -"Introductory" variable to GALI is needed -Preference for SPH (PH10) (versus "Chronic morbidity" PH20) -Need to analyse activity limitations in the light of this variable DSS takes note of the GALI Task Force report, asks the respective WGs to examine the recommendations and their possible technical implementation and to report to the DSS by end 2016? 14