Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Handicap International: Study on  Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Handicap International: Study on Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response

2,270

Published on

While natural disasters affect a large number of individuals, People with Disabilites (PWDs) tend to be more affected than others during such situations and often face bigger challenges in order to …

While natural disasters affect a large number of individuals, People with Disabilites (PWDs) tend to be more affected than others during such situations and often face bigger challenges in order to cope with the situation and survive. Due to their specific situations, they risk being excluded and invisible during response activities, and they often face additional barriers in accessing support and relief efforts. In an emergency context, their original vulnerability is greatly compounded, bringing about the risk of their vulnerability increasing.

Published in: Health & Medicine, Spiritual
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,270
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
28
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. A STUDY ON THE DISABILITY INCLUSION PROCESS IN THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO TROPICAL STORM WASHI
  • 2. A Study on the Disability Inclusion Process in the Emergency Response to Tropical Storm WASHI Published by Handicap International – Philippines program under its project ‘Emergency response to improve the living condition of WASHI affected vulnerable families in Cagayan De Oro and Iligan City’, funded by Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID). Study conducted by Camilla Reyes Pante, assisted by MItzie Santiago Written by Camilla Reyes Pante, with contributions from Satish Mishra and Catherine Vasseur © Handicap International – Philippines program, 2012 Photo Credits Handicap International – Philippines program This publication is the property of Handicap International. It has been produced with the financial assistance of the AusAID. The views expressed herein should not be taken, in any way, to reflect the official opinion of the AusAID. For more information and www.handicapinternational.ph to download a copy of this publication please visit
  • 3. About Handicap International Handicap International is an independent international aid organization working in situation of poverty and exclusion, conflict and disaster. Working alongside persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups throughout the world, our action and testimony are focused on responding to their essential needs, improving their living conditions and promoting respect for their dignity and their fundamentals rights. With a network of eight national association (USA, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Switzerland and UK), Handicap International, founded in 1982 and co-recipient of the Nobel Prize in 1997, has program in 60 countries and acts in both emergency and development situations. Handicap International in the Philippines has been operational since 1985 and is one of the key organizations in the disability sector in the country. It has wide range of complimentary projects which assists to promote inclusion of persons with disabilities and their issues in development policies and actions, build capacities of key local stakeholders and reduce the impact of natural disasters and conflicts. Handicap International in the Philippines is committed to enhances persons with disabilities access to services, promote their active participation and social inclusion, developing partnerships at all levels, in the frame of the national and international policies on disability. AusAID is the Australian Government agency responsible for managing Australia’s overseas aid program. The fundamental purpose of the Australian aid program is to help people overcome poverty. In the Philippines, Australia’s aid program focuses on: basic education, local service delivery, disaster risk reduction and climate change, peace and development in Mindanao, and governance. About the Project Handicap International WASHI Project: “Emergency response to improve the living condition of WASHI affected vulnerable families in Cagayan De Oro and Iligan City” was implemented from February 2012 to September 2012. Working with partners and community the project aims to ensure that vulnerable groups have access to relief services and are better equipped to cope with the crisis with a specific focus on persons with disabilities, persons with severe or chronic medical condition, children, expectant mothers, mothers with young children, and female heads of household and older persons.
  • 4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Handicap International would like to thank the following for their valuable participation and contributions to the study Action Contre la Faim Australian Agency International Develpment The Camp Coordination and Camp Management Cluster, Health Cluster, Protection Cluster, and WASH Cluster in Cagayan de Oro City and Iligan City Catholic Relief Services Community and Family Services International Department of Social Welfare and Development - Region X Department of Health - Region X Cagayan de Oro City Social Welfare and Development Office Cagayan de Oro City Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council Camp Managers in Cagayan de Oro City and Iligan City Iligan City - District 7 Social Welfare and Development Office Iligan City Administrator Iligan City Health Office International Organization for Migration Philippine National Red Cross Save the Children UN High Commissioner for Refugees UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs World Food Programme World Health Organization Xavier University - Lumbia Ecoville
  • 5. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................. 8 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 9 2. OBJECTIVE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................................... 10 3. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS .................................................................................... 10 4. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 11 4.1. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS ........................................................................................... 11 4.2. SURVEYS ........................................................................................................................... 11 4.2.1. Survey of Camp Managers .............................................................................................. 11 4.2.2. Survey of Washi-affected population ............................................................................. 12 4.3. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION WITH HANDICAP INTERNATIONAL........................................... 12 5. POLICY REVIEW ................................................................................................... 13 5.1. KEY NATIONAL POLICIES .................................................................................................... 13 5.1.1. Republic Act 7277: Magna Carta for Disabled Persons ................................................... 13 5.1.2. Republic Act 10121: The Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010................................................................................................................................. 14 5.1.3. Other disability laws ........................................................................................................ 15 5.2. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND FRAMEWORKS ......................................................... 15 5.2.1. United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) ......... 15 5.2.2. Biwako Millenium Framework ........................................................................................ 16 5.2.3. Other international conventions ..................................................................................... 17 5.3. HUMANITARIAN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS ................................................................. 17 5.3.1. The Sphere Handbook ..................................................................................................... 17 5.3.2. Other humanitarian standards and guidelines ............................................................... 18 6. RESULTS .............................................................................................................. 19 6.1. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS ........................................................................................... 19 6.1.1. Disability in general ......................................................................................................... 19 6.1.2. Relevant laws, conventions, and guidelines ................................................................... 19 6.1.3. Disability in the delivery of emergency relief and services ............................................. 20 6.1.4. Disability in monitoring and reporting ............................................................................ 21
  • 6. 6.1.5. 6.1.6. 6.1.7. 6.1.8. Existing attitudes and assumptions regarding disability and emergency response ....... 21 Opportunities for disability inclusion in emergency response ....................................... 22 Challenges and difficulties to disability inclusion in emergency response ..................... 23 Recommendations for disability inclusion in emergency response................................ 25 6.2. SURVEY OF CAMP MANAGERS ........................................................................................... 26 6.2.1. General Information........................................................................................................ 26 6.2.2. Knowledge and attitudes of respondents towards disability ......................................... 27 6.2.3. Perceptions on inclusive and targeted emergency relief for PWD ................................. 32 6.2.4. Respondents’ confidence and perceived challenges in including PWD in camp activities .......................................................................................................................... 38 6.3. FOCUS GROUP DISCCUSION WITH HANDICAP INTERNATIONAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM ............................................................................................................................... 40 6.3.1. Beneficiary Identification ................................................................................................ 40 6.3.2. General emergency relief activities ................................................................................ 40 6.3.3. Physical accessibility........................................................................................................ 42 6.3.4. Support to specific needs ................................................................................................ 43 6.3.5. Observations regarding coordination and other emergency response actors ............... 43 6.4. SURVEY OF AFECTED HOUSEHOLDS ................................................................................... 43 6.4.1. General Information........................................................................................................ 44 6.4.2. Effects of Tropical Storm Washi on affected households ............................................... 45 6.4.3. Search, rescue, and evacuation....................................................................................... 46 6.4.4. Immediate needs of affected households and assistance received ............................... 46 6.4.5. Access to emergency relief and support ......................................................................... 50 6.4.6. Physical accessibility of camp structures ........................................................................ 51 6.4.7. Disability and access to emergency relief and support................................................... 52 7. ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 53 7.1. CONSIDERATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF PWD NEEDS BY THE RESPONSE ......................... 53 7.2. MECHANISMS FOR THE INCLUSION OF PWD IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE ............................. 55 7.2.1. Beneficiary identification ................................................................................................ 55 7.2.2. Communication and information dissemination ............................................................ 56 7.2.3. Special arrangements for PWD during distributions and relief activities ....................... 56 7.2.4. Identification and consideration of the specific needs of PWD ...................................... 57 7.2.5. Coordination.................................................................................................................... 57 7.3. PREVAILING ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS OF DISABILITY IN DISASTER RESPONSE ............ 57 7.3.1. Inclusion is automatic through a blanket approach and through PWD caregivers ........ 58 7.3.2. Disability inclusion requires special and technical skills ................................................. 58 7.3.3. Disability inclusion will divert resources from the affected population ......................... 59
  • 7. 7.3.4. PWD cannot participate in camp and community activities ........................................... 59 8. CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 60 9. RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................... 61 9.1. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................... 61 9.1.1. RECOMMENDATION 1: Improve awareness and understanding of disability ................ 61 9.1.2. RECOMMENDATION 2: Increase capacities for disability inclusive emergency response .......................................................................................................................... 62 9.1.3. RECOMMENDATION 3: Improve data collection on disability ........................................ 62 9.1.4. RECOMMENDATION 4: Involve PWD .............................................................................. 63 9.1.5. RECOMMENDATION 5: Create referral systems for the specific needs of PWD ........... 63 9.1.6. RECOMMENDATION 6: Regulate and monitor disability inclusion ................................ 63 9.1.7. RECOMMENDATION 7: Increase advocacy at all levels .................................................. 64 9.2. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY ....................................................................... 64 ANNEX 1: List of Key Informants ............................................................................... 66 ANNEX 2: Guide Questions to Key Informant Interviews ........................................... 67 ANNEX 3: Survey Questionnaire for Camp Managers ................................................ 68 ANNEX 4: Survey Questionnaire for Washi-Affected Households............................... 71 ANNEX 5: Guide Questions to Focus Group Discussion with Handicap International Field Teams ............................................................................................... 74
  • 8. LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CCCM Camp coordination and camp management CDO Cagayan de Oro City CSO Civil society organization CSWDO City Social Welfare and Development Office DPO Disabled people's organization DSWD Department of Social Welfare and Development FGD Focus group discussion IASC Inter-Agency Standing Committee IOM International Organization for Migration NGO Non-governmental organization PWD Persons with disabilities SRE Search, rescue, and evacuation UN United Nations UNCRPD United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees IDP Internally displaced person LGU Local government unit NFI Non-food items WASH Water, sanitation, and hygiene 8|P a g e
  • 9. 1. INTRODUCTION The World Health Organization estimates that 15% of any given population lives with some type of impairment1. For the Philippines, it would translate into over 12 million persons with disabilities (PWD) however there is no available comprehensive and accurate data at national, regional nor provincial levels. In the Philippines, disability is more common among women, elderly and poor households and majority of PWD live in rural areas where social exclusion and isolation are part of their daily lives and experience. Tropical Storm Washi swept across the Mindanao region of Philippines from 16 to 18 December 2011, bringing strong winds and heavy rains that caused massive flooding, flash floods, and landslides. As the storm left Mindanao in the early hours of 17 December, rain-swollen rivers surged down the steep volcanic hills and mountains surrounding the cities of Cagayan de Oro (CDO) and Iligan flooding the Cagayan, Agus and Mandulog rivers. In some places, the mud-clogged rivers rose by over 3 meters in less than an hour, causing devastation more common with tsunamis, with entire neighborhoods and villages swept away. The flash floods struck in the early hours of the morning, giving residents little warning and killing many people as they slept. According to the Philippine National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council (NDRRMC), the tropical storm and its accompanying floods killed over 1,200 people, with almost 200 reported missing and 6,000 injured. Tropical Storm Washi was estimated to have affected 1,114,229 individuals (120,800 households).2 While natural disasters affect a large number of individuals, PWD tend to be more affected than others during such situations and often face bigger challenges in order to cope with the situation and survive. Due to their specific situations, they risk being excluded and invisible during response activities, and they often face additional barriers in accessing support and relief efforts. In an emergency context, their original vulnerability is greatly compounded, bringing about the risk of their vulnerability increasing. Factors that may make PWD more vulnerable in emergencies include the following3:   PWD are particularly affected by changes in terrain resulting from disaster  Because of limited physical accessibility, the loss or lack of mobility aids, or the lack of appropriate assistance, PWD may be deprived of rescue and evacuation services, relief access, safe location and adequate shelter, water and sanitation, and other services.  2 PWD may not be aware of what is happening, and therefore not comprehend the situation and its consequences  1 PWD tend to be missed by emergency registration systems Emotional distress and trauma caused by a disaster may have long-term consequences on PWD Word Disability Report (2011) National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council, SitRep No. 46 re Effects of Tropical Storm “SENDONG” (Washi) and Status of Emergency Response Operations (January 2012), p. 1 <http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/article/358/NDRRMC%20Update%20Sitrep%20No.46%20re%20Effects %20of%20TS%20SENDONG%20as%20of%2025%20Jan%202012,%208AM.pdf> [accessed 13 June 2012] 3 Handicap International, Including Disability Issues in Disaster Management (Bangladesh: Handicap International, 2005), p. 7 9|P a g e
  • 10.  PWD may misinterpret the situation, and communication difficulties make PWDs more vulnerable in disaster situations  PWD may be separated from their families or caregivers who serve as their support system. These individuals may also be affected by the disaster, with their capacity to support the PWD diminished. PWD also have specific needs that are not always taken into account by response activities. Although they have the very same basic needs as everyone else, meeting these specific needs may be critical to prevent their condition from deteriorating and allow them equal access to basic emergency relief. Examples of specific needs can include the need for assistive devices or technical aids, additional nutrition requirements, medical care specific to certain conditions, adapted physical environments, and the like. This study seeks to provide a broad picture of what the disability inclusion process was like in the Washi response, examining how the immediate response took into account the specific situation and needs of PWD as well as the current attitudes and perceptions surrounding disability inclusion in emergencies. The results gleaned from the study and their analysis will be utilized to formulate recommendations towards the improved inclusion of disability in subsequent disaster response. 2. OBJECTIVE AND RESEARCH QUESTIONS The objective of this study is to provide an analysis of the immediate response to Tropical Storm Washi, and provide recommendations for the inclusion of PWD in the disaster response of disaster management stakeholders in the Philippines. This will be done through answering the following research questions: a. Were the needs of PWD considered in identifying and providing immediate emergency assistance? b. What formal mechanisms are in place for the inclusion of PWD in disaster management, in particular in the immediate emergency response phase? c. What are the prevailing attitudes and perceptions of disaster management stakeholders towards mainstreaming disability in disaster response? 3. SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS Disability inclusion in emergency response is a broad subject, while the time and resources allotted for the study are limited. Given this, the following scope and limitations were established to delimit the study boundaries: a. The study shall cover the emergency response stage of the Washi response, from the onset of the disaster to three months after. b. The study will focus geographically on Washi-affected areas of Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental and Iligan City, Lanao del Norte, including evacuation centers, transitional sites, relocation sites, and affected communities. 10 | P a g e
  • 11. c. 4. While the researchers recognize that other factors aside from disability may impact on the inclusion of individuals in emergency response, an in depth analysis is not within the scope of the study. These factors, such as gender, age, ethnicity, religion, etc., will however be acknowledged where relevant. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY The study utilized mixed methodology for data collection, including both quantitative and qualitative methods covering a wide range of stakeholders. This section shall discuss each of the methods used and their respective samples. 4.1. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS In-depth key informant interviews were conducted with representatives of NGOs, UN agencies, coordinating bodies, government offices and agencies, and local civil society organizations with Washiresponse activities. These organizations, offices, and agencies were not selected at random but were selected through information collected from the contact lists of various coordinating bodies and from feedback provided by the Handicap International Washi-response team. They were all present from the onset of the disaster and, at the time of data collection, continued to be present in the Washi-affected areas within the scope of the study. The target participants for the interviews were coordinators, managers, or heads of office. A total of 22 key informant interviews were conducted. (See Annex 1 for a list of participating organizations, offices and agencies.) The interviews followed a semi-structured format, framed by an interview guide made up of openended questions (Annex 2). Information was collected on their knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions on disability and inclusion, their respective organizations’, offices’ or agencies’ current efforts at inclusion at the field level, challenges and limitations faced in including PWD in their activities, and recommendations for strengthening disability inclusion. 4.2. SURVEYS 4.2.1. Survey of Camp Managers A survey was conducted for camp managers of evacuation centers, transitional sites, and relocation sites in Cagayan de Oro City and Iligan City. All camp managers were targeted for the survey, conducted during the regular camp manager meetings in both cities. A total of 69 camp managers participated in the survey, representing 86% of all 80 camp managers. The tool utilized for this survey was a self-administered questionnaire (Annex 3), with closed questions aimed to gather information on the respondents’ knowledge and attitudes towards disability, and their perceptions of disability inclusion in their respective sites. 11 | P a g e
  • 12. 4.2.2. Survey of Washi-affected population A second survey was conducted for Washi-affected households. The sample included both households with PWD and those without PWD, providing a basis for comparison to help identify cases where reported non-inclusion or accessibility issues are due to disability as opposed to factors that also affect the access to relief of households with no PWD. For example, if households with and without PWD in one site provide reports about not being able to access relief services, this may more likely reflect issues in the general availability or accessibility of relief in their area rather than issues due to disability. The survey covered evacuation centers, transitional sites, relocation sites, and communities in Cagayan de Oro City and Iligan City chosen by the Handicap International Washi-response team. Given the study limitations in terms of time, the areas chosen were those where information already existed on affected households with PWD. Households with PWD were selected based on this information, while households with no PWD were selected at random. The survey had a total of 166 respondents. The tool utilized for the survey of Washi-affected households was a questionnaire administered by of Handicap International community workers (Annex 4). The questionnaire is made up of both closed and open-ended questions on the sample’s experience of the immediate response, their perceptions of the assistance they have received, and of their access to available relief and services. Households with PWD were asked additional questions on how their specific needs were met by the response and their perceptions on how their disabilities affected their access to emergency relief and services. 4.3. FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSION WITH HANDICAP INTERNATIONAL A focus group discussion was held with representatives of the Handicap International Washi-response team to discuss their various observations on inclusion and accessibility in the different sites covered by their activities. Participants included staff from the teams in Cagayan de Oro City and Iligan City. The discussion was semi-structured, framed by open-ended guide questions (Annex 5) covering various aspects of the emergency response. 12 | P a g e
  • 13. 5. POLICY REVIEW There exists a range of national laws, and international conventions and frameworks that include provisions for the mainstreaming of disability in disaster management. This section will explore the key provisions of these laws, conventions, and frameworks relating to disability mainstreaming in emergency response. 5.1. KEY NATIONAL POLICIES 5.1.1. Republic Act 7277: Magna Carta for Disabled Persons Republic Act 7277, entitled an Act Providing for the Rehabilitation, Self -Development and Self-Reliance of Disabled Persons and their Integration into the Mainstream of Society and for Other Purposes, is the central disability legislation in the Philippines. Also known as the Magna Carta for Disabled Persons, the act was ratified in 1991 with amendments following in 2007 and 2010. PWD are defined by the Magna Carta as ‘those suffering from restriction of different abilities, as a result of a mental, physical or sensory impairment, to perform an activity in the manner or within the range considered normal for a human being’; with impairment being defined as ‘any loss, diminution or aberration of psychological, physiological, or anatomical structure of function’. 4 The Magna Carta covers the rights and privileges of PWD to employment, health, education, social services, telecommunications, accessibility, and political and civil rights. Some of the key provisions of this act and its amendments include the following:  Establishment of a national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against PWD  Rehabilitation, development, and provision of opportunities towards self-reliance of PWD and their integration into mainstream of society  Establishment of the National Council on Disability Affairs (NCDA) whose task is to monitor and coordinate the efforts of government agencies  Granting of privileges to PWD in all public and private establishments offering direct services such as hotels or accommodations, transportation, health services, and other related services.  Granting of incentives to those caring and living with PWD.  Penalties for the verbal, non-verbal ridicule and vilification against PWD.  Establishment of a Persons with Disabilities Affairs Office (PDAO)in every province, city and municipality Republic Act 7277 does not include any provisions for PWD in case of emergencies such as natural disasters. 4 Philippines, Republic Act No. 727 (1991), Chapter I, Section 4 <www.ncda.gov.ph/disability-laws/republic-acts/republic-act-7277> [accessed 12 June 2012] 13 | P a g e
  • 14. 5.1.2. Republic Act 10121: The Philippine Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Act of 2010 Passed into law in 2010, the DRRM Act seeks to adopt a disaster risk reduction and management approach that is holistic, comprehensive, integrated, and proactive in lessening the socio-economic and environmental impacts of disasters including climate change, and promote the involvement and participation of all sectors and all stakeholders concerned, at 5 all levels, especially the local community. The scope of the act, as specified in Section 4, is ‘the development of policies and plans and the implementation of actions and measures pertaining to all aspects of disaster risk reduction and management.’6 Its key provisions include the following:  The renaming of the National Disaster Coordinating Council to the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council, as well as the organization, membership, powers, and function of this council  The establishment and organization of Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Councils at the regional, provincial, municipal, and local levels  The establishment of Local Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Offices in every province, city, and municipality; and the establishment of Barangay Risk Reduction and Management Committees in every barangay  The integration of DRR education in school curricula and mandatory training for public sector employees  Mechanisms for the declaration of state of calamity  Coordination during emergencies of the various DRRM councils and offices  Mechanisms for international humanitarian assistance There are no specific provisions for PWD in the act. PWD are included in what the act refers to as ‘Vulnerable and Marginalized Groups’, defined in Paragraph oo of Section 3 as ‘those that face higher exposure to disaster risk and poverty including, but not limited to, women, children, elderly, differentlyabled people, and ethnic minorities.’7 Throughout the act, these groups are made mention of thrice:  Under Section 2 – Declaration of Policy: ‘It shall be the policy of the state to… [d]evelop and strengthen the capacities of vulnerable and marginalized groups to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and 8 recover from the effects of disasters.’  Under Section 3 – Definition of Terms: DRRM Information System is defined as a specialized database that includes information on vulnerable groups, together with information on ‘disasters and their human 9 material, economic and environmental impact, risk assessment and mapping.’ 5 National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council, National Risk Reduction and Management Framework (2011), p.5 < http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/article/227/NDRRMFramework.pdf> [accessed 12 June 2012] 6 Philippines, Republic Act 10121 (2009), p.12 < http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/045_RA%2010121.pdf> [accessed 12 June 2012] 7 Ibid, p. 12 8 Ibid, p. 4 9 Ibid, p. 7 14 | P a g e
  • 15.  Under Section 12 - The LDRRMO: The act states that the head of the barangay should facilitate and ensure the participation of ‘at least two CSO representatives from existing and active community-based 10 people’s organizations representing the most vulnerable and marginalized groups in the barangay.’ 5.1.3. Other disability laws There are several other disability laws or laws that include provisions for PWD in addition to the Magna Carta for PWD, including the following:  Commonwealth Act 3203: Care and Protection of Disabled Children (1935)  Republic Act 3562: An act to promote the education of the blind in the Philippines (1963)  Presidential Decree 603: Child and Youth Welfare Code (1974)  Batas Pambansa Bilang 344: Accessibility Law (1982)  Senate Bill 1730: The Economic Independence of Disabled Persons Act (1999) 5.2. INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS AND FRAMEWORKS 5.2.1. United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) The UNCRPD was adopted on December 2006, and the convention and its Optional Protocol opened for signature by all states and by regional integration organizations on March 2007. The UNCRPD had 153 signatories with 114 ratifications, while the Optional Protocol had 90 signatories with 65 ratifications.11 The Philippines signed and ratified the convention, but is not a signatory to the protocol. The purpose of the UNCRPD, as specified in Article 1, is ‘to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities, and to promote respect for their inherent dignity.’12 PWD are defined by the convention as ‘those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.’13 The convention, seen as ‘mark[ing] a shift in thinking about disability from a social welfare concern, to a human rights issue’,14 covers areas including accessibility, personal mobility, health, education, employment, rehabilitation, participation in political life, and equality and non-discrimination. In terms of emergencies, Article 11 of the UNCRPD deals with Situations of Risk and Humanitarian Emergencies, and calls for State Parties to take ‘all necessary measures to ensure the protection and 10 Ibid, p. 25 United Nations Enable, Convention and Optional Protocol Signatures and Ratifications <http://www.un.org/disabilities/countries.asp?navid=17&pid=166> [accessed 14 June 2012] 12 United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006), Article 1 <http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=259> [accessed 14 June 2012] 13 Ibid. 14 United Nations, Why a Convention? <http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/questions.shtml#three> [accessed 14 June 2012] 11 15 | P a g e
  • 16. safety of persons with disabilities in situations of risk, including situations of armed conflict, humanitarian emergencies and the occurrence of natural disasters.’15 However, how this translates in practice is not defined by the convention. A paper published by the Conflict and Emergencies Task Group of the International Disability and Development Consortium defines what Article 11 can mean in practice for emergency response actors:  PWD are considered as a key target group across all intervention processes, including identification, assessment, planning, delivery of support, and monitoring and evaluation  Local organizations of PWD and their caregivers, and NGOs working in the disability field should be involved and consulted by humanitarian agencies to ensure the needs of PWD are recognized  Action and care is needed by humanitarian agencies to pro-actively seek out PWD to ensure they are registered and supported  Funding guidelines of donor agencies should include information on universal design for camps and shelters to ensure comprehensive accessibility  Sectoral agencies must include the needs of PWD, including with regard to disability access in their operations  Funding for post-conflict and post-disaster interventions needs to include PWD in a tailored way, supporting PWD as beneficiaries whilst enabling them to be included as part of the community response 16 to the disaster or emergency 5.2.2. Biwako Millennium Framework The Biwako Millennium Framework is a policy framework for the Asian and Pacific Region, for States to work towards an inclusive, barrier-free and rights-based society for PWD. Covering the period from 2003 to 2012, the framework identified seven priority areas for action:  Self-help organizations of persons with disabilities and related family and parent associations  Women with disabilities  Early detection, intervention and education  Training and employment  Access to built environment and public transportation  Access to information and communication  Poverty alleviation through capacity-building, social security and sustainable livelihood programs During its mid-term review in 2007, an explicit strategy recognizing the importance of disability-inclusive disaster management was introduced: 15 United Nations, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006), Article 11 <http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=259> [accessed 14 June 2012] 16 Emergency & Humanitarian Assistance and the UN Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities, p. 2 16 | P a g e
  • 17. Disability-inclusive disaster management should be promoted. Disability perspectives should be duly included in the implementation of policies and initiatives in this area, including the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015…. Universal design concepts should be integrated into infrastructure development in disaster-preparedness and post-disaster reconstruction activities.17 5.2.3. Other international conventions Other international instruments with provisions for PWD include the following:  Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): Articles 3, 21, 23 and 25  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966): Article 26  International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966): Article 2  The Declaration on the Rights of the Disabled Persons (1975)  Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989): Articles 2 and 23 5.3. HUMANITARIAN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS 5.3.1. The Sphere Handbook The Sphere Handbook is a widely accepted and recognized set of standards for humanitarian response, utilized by local and international humanitarian actors, donors, and UN agencies alike. Its creation was based on two core beliefs: ‘that those affected by disaster or conflict have a right to life with dignity and, therefore, a right to assistance; and… that all possible steps should be taken to alleviate human suffering.’18 Unlike the UNCRPD and other international conventions, the Sphere standards are selfregulatory, with no compliance mechanism for humanitarian actors. Two components make up the handbook: the humanitarian charter and the minimum standards. The humanitarian charter provides the ethical and legal background to the subsequent components of the handbook. Aside from establishing legal rights and obligations, the charter ‘attempts to capture a consensus among Humanitarian agencies as to the principles which should govern the response to disaster or conflict.’19 The standards ‘describe conditions that must be achieved in any humanitarian response in order for disaster-affected populations to survive and recover in stable conditions and with dignity’.20 These 17 United Nations Economic and Social Council, Biwako Plus Five: Further Efforts Towards an Inclusive, Barrier-Free and Rights-Based Society for Persons With Disabilities in Asia and the Pacific (2007), p. 14 <http://www.ncda.gov.ph/international-conventions-and-commitments/other-internationalcommitments/biwako-plus-five/> [accessed 15 June 2012] 18 The Sphere Project, Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response (The Sphere Project, 2011), p.4 19 Ibid., p. 20 20 Ibid., p. 4 17 | P a g e
  • 18. standards cover four sets of activities: water supply, sanitation and hygiene promotion; food security and nutrition; shelter, settlement and non-food items; and health action. The handbook takes into account a number of cross-cutting themes, including disability. The other themes are children, DRR, environment, gender, HIV/AIDS, older people, and psychosocial support. For themes dealing with an affected population’s particular vulnerabilities and capabilities, the handbook further recognizes that ‘treating these people as a long list of “vulnerable groups” can lead to fragmented and ineffective interventions, which ignore overlapping vulnerabilities and the changing nature of vulnerabilities over time, even during one specific crisis.’21 The definition of disability provided by the UNCRPD is utilized by the handbook and it states that: Persons with disabilities face disproportionate risks in disaster situations and are often excluded from relief and rehabilitation processes… [They] are a diverse population including children and older people, whose needs cannot be addressed in a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Humanitarian responses, therefore, must take into consideration the particular abilities, skills, resources and knowledge of individuals with different types and degrees of impairments... It is essential, therefore, to include persons with disabilities in all aspects of relief and recovery. This requires both mainstreamed and targeted responses.22 Given this, the handbook makes mention of disability - either directly or through reference to ‘vulnerable people’23 - throughout its sections, from the Humanitarian Charter, the Protection Principles, the Core Standards, and the technical chapters on minimum standards. 5.3.2. Other humanitarian standards and guidelines In addition to the Sphere standards, other examples of standards and guidelines for humanitarian response that integrate disability include the following:  IASC: The Operational Guidelines on the Protection of Persons in Situations of Natural Disasters of the IASC acknowledges that certain persons are particularly vulnerable during disasters, including PWD. These guidelines include the specific human rights concerns that PWD may face and practical steps towards their protection in situations of natural disasters. The IASC Guidelines on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings also includes provisions for persons with severe mental disorders or disabilities.  UNHCR: The Handbook for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons, published by the Global Protection Cluster led by UNHCR, utilizes an age, gender, and diversity approach, with diversity defined as ‘other factors [that] might lead to significant inequalities and place persons at risk… includ[ing] ethnicity, 21 Ibid., p. 11 Ibid., p. 17 23 The handbook defines vulnerable people as ‘people who are especially susceptible to the effects of natural or man-made disasters or of conflict… due to a combination of physical, social, environmental and political factors… marginalized by their society due to their ethnicity, age, sex, disability, class or caste, political affiliations or religion.’ 22 18 | P a g e
  • 19. 24 language, culture, religion, disability, family status and socio-economic status.’ UNHCR have also published a guide entitled Working with Persons with Disabilities in Forced Displacement.  Other guidelines or toolkits published by NGOs working in disability also exist, such as Handicap International and Christian Blind Mission 6. RESULTS After discussing laws, conventions, guidelines, and standards relevant to disability inclusion in emergency response, this section will look at the research findings collected through the methodology and data collection tools described in Section 4. 6.1. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS Twenty-two interviews were conducted with various actors from NGOs, UN agencies, government offices and agencies, and civil society organizations (see Annex 1). The discussion of the results of these interviews will be structured by the main themes covered, focusing on responses shared by all or the majority of the informants, as well as statements that express important existing assumptions and attitudes towards disability. 6.1.1. Disability in general The informants and the bodies they represented took PWD as part of a broader grouping, referred to alternatively by the various actors interviewed as ‘most vulnerable’, ‘vulnerable groups’, and ‘persons with special needs’. Other groups commonly included under this umbrella term are women, children, older persons, persons with chronic illnesses, single-headed households including those headed by children, women, older persons or PWD, among others. PWD and the other groups mentioned were seen as needing special attention and prioritization in all emergency response activities. In general, the informants felt that to deal with disability required technical and medical expertise. Several informants also seemed to feel that disability was to be taken solely as a specialized sector, in a way disconnected from the mainstream. Many informants said that to work with disability required specialized teams or focal points which focused only on disability. A concrete manifestation of this is how a number of individuals targeted for the interviews refused or delegated the interviews to disability focal points, despite explanations that the interviews would cover the entire emergency response. This was especially noticeable for government offices and agencies participating in the response. Some informants also carried the assumption that PWD are not numerous in society, and that the exclusion of PWD is not an issue for the Philippines when compared to other places. These assumptions on disability together with others are explored further in Sub-Section 6.1.5. 6.1.2. Relevant laws, conventions, and guidelines 24 Global Protection Cluster, Handbook for the Protection of Internally Displaced Persons (2010), p. 14 19 | P a g e
  • 20. Official references regarding disability mainstreaming differed depending on the type of organization or office being interviewed. Government offices and agencies referred mostly to the DRRM Law of 2010 as their reference for disability inclusion in disaster response, while only a minority of NGOs, UN agencies, and civil society organizations mentioned the law. On the other hand, interviewees from the latter groups all mentioned the Sphere standards which were not mentioned by the government offices or agencies. A common reference mentioned by the informants was their own internal guidelines and mandates, ranging from organizational strategies, mission vision statements, to technical guides for emergency response. One important observation is that none of the informants mentioned the Magna Carta for PWD, the centerpiece legislation for disability in the country, or provided additional details on provisions specific for PWD in the DRRM law or the Sphere standards. 6.1.3. Disability in the delivery of emergency relief and services The activities of the informants took a general or blanket approach to emergency response, with the exception of some activities specifically targeting women and children, and activities where beneficiary selection is necessary. Informants noted that where selection is done, disability is always part of the criteria. The identification of beneficiaries as described by the informants is largely dependent on DSWD, CSWD, and the barangay. In some cases, additional information is also collected from or provided by the communities. Some organizations also conduct independent validation of the information they receive. Of the 22 informants, there were three25 with activities specifically targeting PWD through the provision of assistive devices, technical aids, and medicines. For the other informants, their means of including PWD was generally through addressing the issue of access to emergency relief and support. One informant described this approach as increasing PWD access to relief, or increasing their access to the PWD. The most common examples provided by the informants included special distribution arrangements such as special lanes and assistance in carrying relief items, providing additional support for certain activities such as shelter repair or construction, building of accessible facilities, increased monitoring of PWD for psychosocial and nutrition activities, among others. It was commonly acknowledged by the informants, and demonstrated by the above examples, that while disability changes the mode of delivery of relief or the frequency and intensity of monitoring for some activities, it does not change the actual service or support being provided. This was seen to be true even in cases where selection criteria included disability. As one informant observed, PWD are always part of the criteria but no specific interventions or adaptations to interventions follow for them. When asked about addressing the specific needs of PWD, the approaches described by the informants were largely ad hoc in nature. No mechanisms were mentioned for the systematic identification and 25 Specifically, CFSI Cagayan de Oro, CFSI Iligan, and UNHCR in partnership with CFSI 20 | P a g e
  • 21. referral of these needs. Where these special needs were identified, this was often through PWD or their families asking emergency actors directly for support. Informants representing clusters and coordination bodies were also asked to speak about how they monitor disability inclusion in their members’ activities. With the exception of the Displacement Tracking Matrix of the CCCM cluster which includes the number of PWD per site, it would seem that no systematic monitoring of disability is being done by the clusters or coordinating bodies. The discussion of disability issues during cluster or coordination meetings is largely ad hoc, brought up only when there are specific issues. Global indicators, the main monitoring mechanism of the clusters made up of three to five indicators selected by cluster members, also did not include disability. The terms of reference for the provincial clusters were not yet available at the time of the study, and were therefore not checked for the inclusion of disability. The informants had mixed responses when asked if they felt the emergency response was sufficiently inclusive for PWD, although it was commonly acknowledged that improvements can still be made. Despite this, informants felt that they did what they could, given their capacity and the challenges to the inclusion of PWD in emergency response they described (see Section 6.1.7.). 6.1.4. Disability in monitoring and reporting Apart from those conducting activities directed at PWD, the informants said their organization or office does not collect information on their beneficiaries with disabilities. Disaggregation of beneficiary data for monitoring and reporting is limited to gender and age, with other vulnerability factors not included. A few organizations collect disability information at the individual or household level but the data is not consolidated and therefore not reported. Examples include family access cards and individual nutrition screening forms. 6.1.5. Existing attitudes and assumptions regarding disability and emergency response Several existing assumptions, perceptions, and attitudes towards disability and emergency response emerged during the interviews. A number of informants were of the assumption that PWD and their needs were automatically being included in the emergency response. A statement repeated in a number of interviews was that because activities were implemented using a general or blanket approach26, PWD were automatically being covered. Although less common than this, some informants were also of the thinking that mainstreaming disability was something more or less automatic for international organizations. Voucher systems for distributions were also seen as a way to ensure that PWD needs were being covered. Only a minority of the informants said that increasing access of PWD to relief does not necessarily mean meeting their needs. 26 Approach where the entire population in a certain area such as an evacuation center, relocation site, or affected community is included in an activity, with no beneficiary targeting 21 | P a g e
  • 22. There were also assumptions that all PWD are able to access relief or have someone to access relief for them. When cases were mentioned where PWD reportedly were not able to receive relief goods, a number of informants said that this was the fault of the PWD themselves. For example, one informant said that if they really needed the items, they would come to the distributions. That they did not come meant it was really not essential to them. Another informant said that it is the responsibility of the PWD to find someone to collect relief for them, adding that all PWD have family. For these informants, there was very little acknowledgement of the possibility that some PWD may be living on their own and had no capacity to reach distributions or access information. Many of the informants were also of the opinion that making emergency response activities inclusive or accessible was significantly more costly than activities that were non-inclusive or accessible. This assumption has resulted to the opinion that considering PWD needs somehow reduces the resources available for the general affected population, with a number of informants saying they needed to think of the greater number before considering the few. This assumption can be linked to the thinking mentioned earlier that PWD are not numerous in society, which can lead to questions from actors on why they need to be considered in the response. A number of informants were also of the opinion that responding to disability equates to a long-term, sustainable response, showing some confusion in distinguishing between the emergency needs and the long-term needs of PWD. In some examples provided by the informants, it could also be seen that PWD were thought of as a generally homogeneous group. Their individual abilities were not always considered in the implementation of activities. A good example of this would be cash-for-work or food-for-work activities, where it is almost automatically assumed that all PWD will not be able to participate due to the nature of the work required, and alternatives such as cash vouchers or the direct provision of items are provided to them before an actual assessment of their capacity and willingness to participate. However, some informants also stated that while PWD need special attention, their capacities also need to be considered; that they have special needs, but this does not automatically imply that they are different from others. For a number of informants, this realization came after PWD in various sites expressed their willingness and determination to participate in cash-for-work and food-for-work activities despite alternatives being made available to them. 6.1.6. Opportunities for disability inclusion in emergency response The informants were asked to identify factors that facilitated or could facilitate the inclusion of PWD in their activities. Many of the respondents said that there already was a general consciousness and awareness of disability and the need to include PWD, that there was little question that disability was a relevant crosscutting issue that needed to be mainstreamed. However, capitalizing on this awareness is limited by their lack of capacity for disability inclusion. 22 | P a g e
  • 23. Informants also pointed out that there is some data on PWD such as existing databases or registries, and that communities are able to provide valuable information that is sometimes missed by barangays, the CSWD, or the DSWD. However, when asked further about the actual utilization of available information, there did not seem to be any systematic or clear manner in which the data is being used. Internal factors that can facilitate the inclusion of PWD include the mandate and nature of the informants’ respective organizations and offices, as well as having staff who are already experienced and exposed to disability and other cross-cutting issues. Another opportunity identified by the informants was the building of partnerships and coordination between actors, seen as contributing to a systematic referral system for PWD. The informants conducting activities targeting PWD and whose approach can be considered inclusive towards disability provided the following additional factors that they considered key to their being able to implement such activities:  Presence in the areas before the disaster  Existing partnerships with donors and local organizations  Their team already had experience with PWD  Inclusion was already being emphasized before Washi  Some information on PWD was already collected before Washi  Their activities took an individual, targeted approach  There were existing tools and capacity for the identification of PWD as similar emergency projects had already been implemented elsewhere before Washi 6.1.7. Challenges and difficulties to disability inclusion in emergency response When asked about the main challenges to disability inclusion in emergency response, the various responses given by the informants can be divided into four main themes: information, resources, knowledge and capacity, and representation and participation. Information was emphasized by almost all informants as the most significant challenge in making emergency response activities more inclusive. This was often the first answer provided by the informants. The informants noted a lack of information about PWD and disability in general, both before and after the disaster. There was no available census data on PWD from before Washi, and information on the affected population afterwards did not include disability. In cases where information is or was being collected, informants noted that there was still very little in terms of the actual utilization of data. They also noted issues in the consistency and reliability of data. For example, informants reported cases where information was not up to date or where various sources provided conflicting information on PWD numbers. 23 | P a g e
  • 24. Following information issues, limitations in terms of resources was the most common answer. These limitations were often attributed to the nature of emergency response, where time is limited and activities are implemented rapidly. Informants mentioned being stretched to capacity in terms of human resources given the emergency context. For example, most informants from government offices or agencies mentioned having no one to dedicate for PWD or having to divert their PWD focal point. This underscores two key assumptions: firstly, that disability inclusion requires additional human resources; and secondly, that it requires the dedication of a focal point or team, as mentioned earlier. Budgetary limitations to including disability and making accessibility considerations were also mentioned by informants, implying a common perception that disability inclusion is expensive and costly. Some informants mentioned there being no specific funding for disability. Also included in these limitations are external conditions such as the land contour in relocation sites and limited space in camps, seen to make accessibility modifications more challenging to implement. Another challenge mentioned by most informants was the lack of knowledge and capacity on disability. In a number of interviews, informants expressed confusion as to who is considered as a PWD and what disability is. Some informants admitted to understanding disability as something that can be visibly seen, an obvious physical condition of a person. Emergency field teams do not receive training on disability. For example, it was mentioned during the interviews that camp managers did not receive any training on dealing with disability in either Cagayan de Oro or Iligan. This lack of knowledge and understanding as to what constitutes disability can be directly linked to difficulties expressed by informants in identifying PWD, saying they are more difficult to identify and therefore more complex to include in activities compared to other vulnerable groups. Informants also expressed a lack of knowledge on what constitutes mainstreaming and inclusion, and on accessibility and minimum accessibility standards. Given the perception mentioned earlier of disability requiring specialized skills, informants mentioned their lack of technical or medical skills as another difficulty. In one case, this perception actually led to an organization choosing not to deal with PWD saying they did not have the medical capacity to do so. The low participation and representation of the disability sector in coordination meetings and emergency activities was also seen as a difficulty, with disability issues getting lost amongst other competing concerns. Informants expressed the need for constant presence from the sector for it to be included and to ensure existing policies are being implemented. A few informants also mentioned cases where PWD were being hidden by their families, making it difficult to identify them and ensure their needs are being considered. For some informants, PWD and disability inclusion were seen as unnecessary, additional work. One informant mentioned the additional assistance they needed to provide PWD as a challenge while another informant thought that the monitoring of disability inclusion was ‘too detailed’. A number of 24 | P a g e
  • 25. informants were also of the opinion that PWD were generally more emotional and sensitive, and therefore always required extra care from their teams during communication or activities. In the most extreme case encountered throughout the interviews, one informant said that the challenge was the persons themselves, referring to PWD as problematic because they can disrupt activities when they are ‘weird’ or ‘noisy’. The same informant said they were hesitant to include PWD because it will become their responsibility or add to their work if the PWD are left alone or in case there is an emergency. This thinking ultimately led them to impose more requirements for PWD to meet before being allowed to benefit from their activities, including a medical exam and an additional waiver. 6.1.8. Recommendations for disability inclusion in emergency response To address the challenges and difficulties identified, informants said that general information management on disability should be improved. Disaggregated data should be available from early on in the emergency, before the actual implementation of activities for inclusion to take on a less ad hoc approach. Emergency actors also need to systematically monitor and document data themselves. Lastly, the actual utilization of available data also needs to be improved. Many informants mentioned the need for information on accessibility and mainstreaming needs to be made available before disasters, during the preparedness phase. Disability inclusion should also be covered in the contingency plans of emergency actors, clusters, and coordinating bodies. The need for training and capacity-building was also a common recommendation, with informants saying this is needed at various levels for it to be effective, covering key actors, the community, the household-level, and the individual level of PWD themselves. For the organizations and offices of the key informants, technical support and advice on disability inclusion needs to be provided. However, almost all these actors expressed the condition that support and advice be feasible, user-friendly, practical, simple, and not too burdensome. All actors agree that the post-emergency stage of Washi or the subsequent preparedness phase would be a good time for these efforts to be done. Advocacy efforts also need to be intensified at both national and local levels, with representation from local and international disability-focused organizations. Advocacy should take a bottom-up and topdown approach, engaging leadership while building the capacity of local disability organizations as well. Informants also mentioned the need for disability inclusion to be made systematic rather than the current ad hoc approach being taken. Suggestions on how to do this include the putting in place and tracking of monitoring mechanisms for inclusiveness and accessibility, as well as the improvement of referral pathways and systems between disability-focused organizations, specialized service providers, and other actors. The possibility of complementary activities between these actors should also be explored. Informants also thought that increased donor support for disability inclusion was an important means towards the actual practice of inclusive approaches by NGOs and other actors. 25 | P a g e
  • 26. 6.2. SURVEY OF CAMP MANAGERS 6.2.1. General Information A total of 69 camp managers were included in the survey. Of this number, 56 camp managers or 81% worked in sites located in Cagayan de Oro City, while the remaining 13 camp managers or 19% were covering sites in Iligan City. The majority of the camp managers surveyed were under the DSWD management, with 52 respondents or 75%. The remaining 17 respondents or 25% were IOM camp managers. The camp managers who responded to the survey covered 42 sites in Cagayan de Oro and 10 sites in Iligan. Figure 1 shows the percentage breakdown of all 69 respondents by city and by affiliation to either DSWD or IOM. Of the 69 respondents, 10 were camp managers in more than one site, with 6 respondents handling two sites each, 2 respondents handling three sites each, and another 2 respondents handling four sites each. All of these 10 respondents were IOM camp managers. Table 1 below lists the sites covered by the respondents by city. 56% 26 | P a g e
  • 27. TABLE 1 Sites covered by camp manager respondents CAGAYAN DE ORO SITES Agusan Elementary School Camaman-an Covered Court Lumbia Central Elementary School Amakan 1 Canitoan Elementary School Macasandig Covered Court Amakan 2 Carmen Zone 6 Mandumol Transitional Site Amakan 3 Carmen Zone 8 Mt. Carmel Parish Barangay 24 Covered Court Carmen Zone 10 Nazareth Multi-Purpose Hall Buena Oro Covered Court City Central School North City Central School Bugo Elementary School Consolacion Covered Court Patag Covered Court Bulua Elementary School Cugman Elementary School Provincial Capitol Grounds Bulua Covered Court Gusa Regional Science High School Puerto Elementary School Calaanan 1 Indahag 1 Sto. Niňo Parish Church, Tablon Calaanan 2 Indahag 2 Tibasak Covered Court Calaanan 4 Iponan Multi-Purpose Hall Xavier University - Ecoville Calaanan 5 KM 5 Elementary School Xavier Heights Covered Court ILIGAN SITES Luinab Diocesan Malta San Roque Tent City Sta Elena Luinab Gym 1 Tambacan Elementary School Tambo Tent City Madrasah Siao Shelter Box Upper Hinaplanon Elementary School Order of Malta On average, the total duration the respondents had spent as camp managers was 11 weeks, with answers ranging from 1 to 16 weeks. The majority of respondents, at 80% or 55 out of the 69 respondents, had been in their positions for between 9 to 12 weeks. 9 respondents or 13% did not provide an answer to this question. Figure 2 demonstrates the length of time the respondents had spent as camp managers at the time of the survey. 6.2.2. Knowledge and attitudes of respondents towards disability A number of questions to measure respondent knowledge and attitudes towards disability were included in the survey questionnaire. For some questions, there was a noticeable difference in answers between camp managers working under IOM and those under DSWD. This information will be presented where the difference can be considered significant. 27 | P a g e
  • 28. When asked about factors affecting disability, the majority of respondents (69% or 36 respondents) thought that socioeconomic, environmental, and economic factors all impact a temporary or permanent impairment and result to disability. The remaining 33 respondents thought that only economic (13% or 7 respondents), environment (12% of 6 respondents), or socio-cultural (2% or one respondent) factors affected disability, with 2 respondents not answering this question. The camp manager respondents were asked what means should be taken to ensure that emergency relief and support in the camps are inclusive of PWD. Of the 69 respondents, the majority at 58% (40 respondents) answered ‘integrate and include them and their needs in all camp planning and activities’. This response was followed by ‘allot a separate area in the camp for them so we can easily identify and meet their needs’, at 30% (21 respondents). 10 percent (7 respondents) said that they would ‘depend on disability-focused organizations to help them’. When the results are disaggregated between the respondents from IOM and DSWD, a stark difference can be noticed, as shown by Figure 5. While 88% of IOM camp managers chose integration and inclusion as the best response, only 48% of DSWD camp managers chose the same response. More importantly, the disaggregation shows that 37% of all DSWD camp managers thought that separation and isolation of PWD was the best answer. Although this is not the majority, it is still a high number representing 19 camp managers working in 19 camps. 28 | P a g e
  • 29. A question regarding children with disabilities asked respondents to choose the statement they thought the most true between four different possibilities. The option with the most respondents, at 40% (21 respondents) was that ‘activities in child-friendly spaces can be adapted for children with disabilities if we are familiar with their needs and abilities’. This was followed by ‘it is the parents’ responsibility to make their children participate in childfriendly spaces and community activities’, with 31% (16 respondents). The remaining two options - ‘children with disabilities need special activities, so we cannot make them participate in child-friendly spaces’ and ‘referring a child with disability to a disabilityfocused organization means we do not need to worry about them accessing support anymore’ had 17% (9 respondents) and 7% (4 respondents) respectively. Disaggregating responses further shows that answers from DSWD camp managers are more distributed than those provided by IOM camp managers. This is especially true for respondents choosing the statement on adapted activities and those choosing the statement on children with disabilities being their parents’ responsibility. While 65% of IOM respondents chose the previous statement, only 40% of DSWD respondents chose the same. On the other hand, while only 6% of respondents from IOM chose the latter statement, this number is 31% for DSWD. For both organizations, more than 10% thought that children with disability need specialized activities and therefore cannot be made to participate in activities. 29 | P a g e
  • 30. When asked to choose the statement they thought the most true regarding the physical accessibility of camp structures, the large majority at 75% (52 respondents) said that ‘Using minimum accessibility standards can create structures that are safe and functional for all users while promoting the selfreliance and ease of living of persons with disabilities.’ The remaining 25% of respondents were relatively spread out between the three remaining options, with 10% stating that ‘designing a structure to be more physically accessible is a lot more expensive than one without accessibility features’; 7% stating that ‘only people specialized in disability can design physically accessible structures’; and 6% stating that ‘only persons with disabilities will benefit from physically accessible structures’. Disaggregation of results between DSWD and IOM did not show any significant differences. Asked about means of communication with persons who have difficulties hearing and speaking, 80% (55 respondents) of all respondents said that they ‘can use gestures, body language, picture messages, and written text while I’m speaking to help them understand’. 14% (10 respondents) said that they ‘should just speak directly to and get information from their caregiver because these persons will not be able to express themselves’; while the remaining 6% (4 respondents) said that ‘if I speak louder and shout, the person will understand me’. Statements regarding disability were also included in the questionnaire, and the camp manager respondents were asked to indicate whether they thought these were true or false. 30 | P a g e
  • 31. The first statement provided was ‘If there are not many persons with disabilities in the site, we don’t need to consider their needs in relief efforts and camp activities’. A large majority of respondents, at 90% (62 respondents) disagreed with the statement, with 9% (6 respondents) agreeing with it. As Figure 10 shows, there was not a lot of variation between IOM and DSWD responses. For the next statement, ‘It is the sole responsibility of the caregivers of persons with disabilities to make sure they get any information we disseminate in the camp about relief or activities’, respondents were more evenly divided with 55% (38 respondents) considering the statement as true and 43% (30 respondents) considering it as false. However, a disaggregation of this result shows a large difference between IOM and DSWD responses. The majority of IOM respondents, at 76%, thought the statement is false, while the majority of DSWD respondents, at 65%, thought the statement is true The next statement was ‘Persons with disabilities cannot be active participants in camp and community activities because of their disabilities’. The majority of all respondents, at 74% (51 respondents), considered the statement false; with the remaining 26% (18 respondents) considered it to be true. Although the majority of responses indicate a belief that PWD can be active participants in camps and communities, the number of camp managers believing the contrary is still large enough to cause concern. This 26% represents 18 camp managers responsible for 20 different sites in both of the studies target cities. 31 | P a g e
  • 32. 6.2.3. Perceptions on inclusive and targeted emergency relief for PWD Following the questions on knowledge and attitudes towards disability, the respondents were asked questions regarding the emergency relief and assistance being provided to PWD in evacuation centers, transitional sites, and relocation sites, ranging from the identification of PWD to specific sectoral activities. The respondents were asked to base their answers on their actual observations and experiences from their respective camps. Unlike the data covered by the previous sections, results under this section are disaggregated by city to allow for a comparison between the emergency response provided in Cagayan de Oro and Iligan. When respondents were asked if children with disabilities in their sites attended activities in child-friendly spaces, the majority said yes with 59% (41 respondents). However, the disaggregation of results by city shows that while 66% of respondents from Cagayan de Oro agree with the statement, only 31% of camp managers from Iligan said the same. Perceptions regarding the access of PWD to communal facilities in the camps are almost evenly split, with 48% agreeing with the statement that ‘PWD are located close to and can easily access the camp’s communal facilities’, and 49% disagreeing. Results from Cagayan de Oro follow this pattern, with 50% of respondents agreeing and 46% disagreeing; while results from Iligan show more variation, with the majority disagreeing at 62% and the remaining 38% agreeing. With regards to food and nutrition programs, 65% of respondents (45 respondents) agreed that ‘programs take into account the additional nutritional requirements of PWD’ and that they are included in feeding programs. When the results were differentiated by city, this percentage was higher for Cagayan de Oro, with 85% of respondents agreeing as opposed to 61% for Iligan. 32 | P a g e
  • 33. The majority of respondents, at 70% (48 respondents), said that there were no special food, NFI and water distribution arrangements for PWD in their camps, with only 26% (18 respondents) saying that these arrangements were available. This pattern is also true for the disaggregated results, with 66% of camp managers in Cagayan de Oro and 85% of camp managers in Iligan saying that these arrangements were not put in place for PWD. For those saying that special arrangements were made for PWD, the following are the examples they provided:  Items were provided directly to the PWD  PWD are given priority  Specific NFIs were provided to PWD such as wheelchairs, mattresses, crutches, and catheters When asked about the means of communication utilized to disseminate information in camps regarding distributions and services, the answers were evenly split with 45% of respondents (31 respondents) agreeing with the statement that more than one means of communication is utilized and the same number disagreeing. This pattern holds true for respondents in Cagayan de Oro, with 41% agreeing and 46% disagreeing; while for respondents in Iligan, the majority agreed with the statement at 62% with 38% disagreeing. Compared to other questions, more respondents left this question blank, with 7 respondents (10%) not providing any answer. Examples of the different means of communication used in the camps included:  Through camp leaders who will disseminate information to vulnerable groups  Utilization of megaphones and microphones  Person-to-person information dissemination  Tent-to-tent information dissemination  Through camp information committees and camp public information officers  Neighbors pass the information 33 | P a g e
  • 34.  Announcements posted on bulletin boards and other written notices  Basic sign language  Through word of mouth  Through meetings where one member per family is present When asked whether ‘targeted, case-to-case assistance is sufficiently being provided to PWD by NGOs, LGU, and other actors’, the majority of respondents at 64% (44 respondents) said yes while the remaining 36% (25 respondents) said no. Results from Cagayan de Oro are similar to this, with 68% saying yes and 32% saying no. On the other hand, a lower percentage of respondents in Iligan said yes, with only 46%; while 54% said no. The respondents were also asked to judge how specific activities for PWD were being implemented through a scale with five options: poor, needs improvement, average, good, or very good. For efforts to locate, identify, and register PWD and their specific needs, the respondents were almost evenly spread out between those that thought these efforts needed improvement, were average, and were good, with 23% (16 respondents), 22% (15 respondents), and 28% (19 respondents) respectively. 10% of the remaining respondents judged these efforts to be poor, while 16% said they were very good. When comparing the results from the two cities, it can be seen that there is less variation in the responses from Iligan, with the clear majority saying these efforts were good. On the other hand, respondents from Cagayan de Oro were spread out between needs improvement (27%), average (21%), and good (23%). 34 | P a g e
  • 35. When asked about efforts of camp health services to address the prevention of disability or the deterioration of an existing impairment through the provision of appropriate drugs and assistive devices, 30% of respondents (21 respondents) said these needed to be improved. This was closely followed by respondents saying these efforts were average and poor, with 25% (17 respondents) and 23% (16 respondents) respectively. For camp managers coming from Iligan, the clear majority responded that these efforts needing improvement, with 62%. For Cagayan de Oro, respondents were evenly spread out between poor, needs improvement and average, with 27%, 23%, and 25% respectively. Given the additional vulnerabilities of and protection risks to women and girls with disabilities, the respondents were asked if these were taken into consideration by protection activities for women in their respective sites. The largest number of respondents said this needed improvement, with 29% (20 respondents). Following closely were respondents who thought the inclusion of women and girls with disabilities in protection activities was either average or good, with 23% (16 respondents) and 22% (15 respondents) respectively. In Cagayan de Oro, 34% of the respondents said this needed improvement, followed by 21% saying this was average and 20% saying this was good. Respondents in Iligan City were evenly spread out between average, good, and very good, each with 31% of respondents. 35 | P a g e
  • 36. The respondents were asked about the representation of PWD in camp management activities including in planning, decision-making, sector-specific camp committees, and coordination. 28% of respondents (19 respondents) said PWD representation was average, followed by those saying that representation was good and needing improvement, with 25% (17 respondents) and 17% (12 respondents) respectively. The largest number of respondents from Cagayan de Oro at 30% said PWD representation was average, while in Iligan 31% said this was very good. Respondents were of the opinion that the referral of the needs of PWD to specialized service providers such as hospitals, rehabilitation centers, and disability-focused groups was either average, good, or needing improvement, with 29% (20 respondents), 28% (19 respondents), and 26% (18 respondents) respectively. Responses from Cagayan de Oro were spread out between needs improvement with 30%, average with 27%, and good with 29%. In Iligan, the largest number of respondents at 38% said referrals to specialized service providers was average, followed by good and poor, each with 23% of respondents. 36 | P a g e
  • 37. When asked about the inclusion of PWD in relief activities conducted by government agencies and offices in their camps, the respondents were evenly distributed between those that thought this needs improvement, was average, or was good, with 28% (19 respondents) and 26% (18 respondents) each respectively. In Cagayan de Oro, an almost equal number of respondents said inclusion in government activities needed improvement or was good, with 30% and 29% each respectively. In Iligan, 31% of respondents said this was average, followed by those saying this was poor at 23%. When asked about PWD inclusion in activities conducted by NGOs, civil society organizations and religious groups, 29% of respondents (20 respondents) said this needed improvement. This was followed by respondents who said this was average and good, each with 23% (16 respondents). In Cagayan de Oro, the largest number of respondents at 32% said inclusion by NGOs, civil society organizations and religious groups needed improvement, followed by 27% thinking this was already good. In Iligan, 38% of respondents said inclusion was currently average, followed by those thinking this was very good with 23%. 37 | P a g e
  • 38. 6.2.4. Respondents’ confidence and perceived challenges in including PWD in camp activities In the survey questionnaire, two questions were asked to look at how the respondents perceived their own capacity to include PWD in camp activities. One question asked about their confidence in working with PWD, and another one asked what they felt were the main challenges to the inclusion of PWD in their respective sites. Of all the respondents, majority said that their confidence to identify and integrate PWD and their needs in camp activities was either average or good, with 30% (21 respondents) and 29% (20 respondents) respectively. Seventeen percent (12 respondents) felt that their confidence needed improvement, 14% (10 respondents) said their confidence was very good, while 7% (five respondents) said this was poor. A larger percentage of respondents from Iligan, at 46%, felt their confidence to be average; whereas in Cagayan de Oro, respondents were mostly split between those feeling their confidence was average (27%) to those saying it was good (32%). None of the respondents from Iligan judged their confidence to be poor, compared to 9% for Cagayan de Oro. The percentage of those saying their confidence level was very good was also very different for both cities, with 31% of respondents from Iligan and only 11% from Cagayan de Oro. There are also some differences between the responses provided by camp managers from DSWD and IOM. The majority of DSWD respondents (31%) felt that their confidence level is good, whereas most respondents from IOM (41%) judged their confidence to be average. Almost the same percentage of respondents for IOM and DSWD judged their confidence level to be on the lower end of the scale, with 10% of respondents from DSWD judging their confidence to be poor and 15% saying it needs improvement; while 24% of IOM respondents said it needed improvement. A higher percentage of respondents from 38 | P a g e
  • 39. DSWD judged their confidence to be good or very good, with 31% and 15% respectively; as opposed to 24% and 12% respectively for IOM. Regarding the challenges or limitations in including PWD in camp activities, of the 69 respondents, 42% (29 respondents) thought that ‘only persons specialized in disability are capable of doing this’. This was followed by ‘I have no training on how to include disability in camp management’ with 30% (21 respondents); ‘it costs too much to include them in camp activities’ with 13% (9 respondents); and ‘there are no persons with disabilities in the camp’ with 8% (6 respondents). The pattern of the overall results is followed comparing responses provided by camp managers from Cagayan de Oro and Iligan, with the majority for both cities saying that only specialized persons are capable of including PWD in activities, followed by those saying they have no training. There is a more visible difference in responses when comparing between DSWD and IOM respondents, with the majority of DSWD respondents saying that inclusion needs people specialized in disability, and the majority of IOM respondents saying they have no training. It should be noted that, as mentioned in under the results of the key informant interviews, neither sets of camp managers received specific training on dealing with PWD. In Iligan, there was no training on this at all; while in Cagayan de Oro, disability was taken as a protection issue during trainings. It is also interesting to compare the responses to this question to those provided by respondents when asked about their confidence to identify and include PWD. 43% of all respondents said that their confidence level was good or very good. However, when asked about challenges, almost the same percentage said they felt that only persons specialized in disability are capable of inclusion. 39 | P a g e
  • 40. Other challenges indicated by respondents included:  PWD are sometimes passive participants in camp activities  There are no programs or activities planned for PWD  Some PWD are not capable of doing camp activities  PWD cannot participate in activities due to work 6.3. FOCUS GROUP DISCCUSION EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM WITH HANDICAP INTERNATIONAL A focus group discussion (FGD) was held with members of the Handicap International emergency response team from Cagayan de Oro and Iligan covering their observations of the emergency response. They were also asked to give specific examples for the different topics covered by the discussion, which included beneficiary identification, general emergency response activities, support to specific needs, physical accessibility, coordination, and general observations on other actors. 6.3.1. Beneficiary Identification To identify beneficiaries for activities targeting PWD and other persons with specific needs, the first stop for the field teams of Handicap International are camp managers for evacuation centers, transitional sites, and relocation sites. In affected communities, the teams go through barangay officials and barangay health workers or through DPOs where present. Participants in the discussion observed that while many areas have data available, information is almost always not complete. After collecting information from the sources mentioned above, the teams conduct tent-to-tent or house-to-house visits, and collect information from the community. They estimate that the data provided by camp managers and barangay officials miss out 20% to 30% of PWD in a given area. They also observed that information tended to be available in barangays where there is an active DPO, but usually not in others. The participants said that there is a tendency in camps and in communities to identify only those PWD with physical, visible disabilities. In some cases, even when camp managers are able to identify PWD, they have difficulties categorizing those falling under other kinds of disability. The same observation was made in the communities, where only a few categories of PWD are being counted. The participants also cited cases where families reject or hide the presence of PWD in their household, even from neighbors or other members of the community. A number of cases of this were uncovered in areas covered by the team, mostly of children with disabilities hidden by their parents. Another challenge in the identification of PWD noted by the participants is that some PWD move from camps to communities, thereby not being included in data collected in either area. Renters who are PWD are also not always included by barangays in data collection. 6.3.2. General emergency relief activities 40 | P a g e
  • 41. Participants were asked to describe their observations regarding the inclusion of PWD in emergency relief activities being implemented in the various areas they cover, and some reports coming from PWD that they have spoken with and assessed. Observations were shared for activities such as distributions, health services, education, and psychosocial support activities. The participants shared that a number of PWD reported difficulties in accessing relief goods. There were cases where PWD were unable to collect goods themselves and had no one to get the goods for them. Having non-PWD family members, attend distributions is also not an assurance that their households will receive relief, as these household representatives will not fall under prioritization criteria. A number of cases were reported where relief goods had run out before PWD or their households’ representative could receive any. There were also distributions where stubs or tickets were given with numbers and the numbers were applied for PWD as well. Prioritization was not practiced. Of all the PWD assessed, the FGD participants estimated that around 20% are unaccompanied. This implies that there is a possibility that these individuals are not receiving relief and are being missed by emergency actors. The participants observed that whoever comes to the distributions get served, but there is little or no effort to look for those that may especially need assistance. They lamented that even where data is available to direct relief to these individuals, the information is not being utilized. Another observation was that existing efforts at disability inclusion tended to be biased towards those with physical disabilities, those that are easy to identify as PWD, similar to the situation described in the previous section on beneficiary identification. Individuals with physical disabilities may be prioritized or be included in activities because of their appearance, while a person who may have severe hearing or visual impairments may not receive the same attention. An example was provided where one organization adjusted their criteria for distributions to include one PWD with a physical impairment seen by their project team. This individual was included in distributions normally intended for children. This example shows efforts at disability inclusion, but it also shows how inclusion was done in an ad hoc approach and in a way that was triggered solely by the visual recognition of the person as a PWD. The participants perceived access to water as something more equitable than other assistance provided, saying that having little or no water access in a site is something that affects everyone, not just PWD. For healthcare activities, the participants did not notice any prioritization given for PWD. Medical missions to sites as well as site health facilities more often than not do not have the capacity to deal with complex cases that PWD and other persons with specific needs may present. In addition to this, they observed that many IDPs were not aware that they could avail of services in the health centers of the barangays where their sites are located. One organization willing to cater to PWD referred by Handicap International was mentioned by the participants. For children with disabilities issues shared by the participants included disrupted access to special education schools due to displacement. Disruption of schooling was also raised as an issue for children in general due to loss of financial capacity and of supplies for schooling, in addition to displacement. 41 | P a g e
  • 42. The participants also shared their observations of activities conducted in child-friendly spaces. They noted that they have not seen any child with disability in the child-friendly spaces they have visited, and that facilitators are not trained at all on dealing with children with disability. They observed that communication regarding such activities is mostly through announcements, and there is little or no effort to seek out children who are not participating. They added, however, that the issue of participation sometimes also lies with parents who are either too protective or embarrassed of their child’s disability, or who are unable to accompany their child to the child-friendly space. Similar observations were made for psychosocial support activities targeted at adults, as facilitators did not always reach PWD who may have difficulties or apprehensions about participating in such activities and in camp activities in general. However, the participants shared an example of one site in Iligan where clear efforts were made by the camp manager to ensure PWD participated in all activities; and of one NGO where some community workers were able to communicate with PWD with hearing and speaking impairments through sign language. In addition to the above issues specific to PWD, the participants identified more general issues in terms of access to relief. These issues include inequitable relief within some sites, with organizations targeting one section of residents and not others; and inequitable relief due to ethnicity, religion, or political ties. Geographically isolated areas affected by Washi received noticeably less support than other more accessible areas, with a concentration of relief in camps compared to communities. 6.3.3. Physical accessibility The FGD participants were asked about their views on the physical accessibility of the different sites. For WASH facilities, the group generally agreed that there are efforts towards accessibility although these differ from site to site. They also agreed that these can still be technically improved. For instance, in some latrines fitted with ramps, the ramps are too steep to be used. The participants were of the opinion that a factor that tends to be neglected is the location of the latrines. For some of them, this posed a more significant barrier than how the latrines are designed. Designs may be accessible but if the site is not accessible itself, for instance there are barriers on the path to the facilities it will still be difficult for PWD or other residents to access. Distance to the facilities is also an issue. One example was given where a PWD who, in addition to not being able to access water, had to dig a whole just outside his shelter to use as a toilet. For shelter designs, participants noted that some accessible designs were already being implemented. They expressed concern that proposing design changes at the time of the focus group discussion would be difficult as the bulk of shelter activities were already planned. Regarding the possibility of specific designs for PWD, participants said that this was challenging as there was no pre-identification of which lot or house is for PWD beforehand, nor information on which PWD goes to which site. 42 | P a g e
  • 43. Efforts of other actors at improving disability inclusion were also shared such as the mapping of PWD in sites and the tracking PWD movement from site to site. However, there were also cases of segregation in some sites where PWD were all placed in separate blocks. Participants noted that in addition to PWD in evacuation centers, transitional sites, or relocation sites needing prioritization, universally accessible designs as well as the location of facilities also need to be considered. They observed that it was rare that these three were considered all together by emergency actors. For example, PWD may be prioritized in terms of the provision of shelters, but then they are placed far from a site’s WASH facilities, as was the case for the PWD described above. Although they acknowledged how challenging it is to consider all factors, participants noted that site planning needs to be improved in a way that not only places PWD as a priority but also considers their needs in terms of access to facilities, design-wise as well as location-wise. 6.3.4. Support to specific needs When asked about support being provided for the specific needs of PWD, the participants were of the opinion that no significant adaptation of relief or specific support was being given. They observed that there were some specialized programs that could meet the needs of PWD, but these are focused only on specific groups such as children, and pregnant and lactating women. They noted that voucher systems being implemented may provide a way through which PWD can get exactly what they needed. Participants mentioned that there were some organizations which provided items responding to specific needs such as assistive devices or technical aids, but their assessments show that some of these items are not appropriate to the needs of the PWD. For example, there were a number of cases where another device would have been more appropriate to the beneficiary. There were also cases where devices were not fitted correctly, such as adult wheelchairs being provided to children. 6.3.5. Observations regarding coordination and other emergency response actors The participants observed that other emergency actors knew they needed to consider and include PWD in their activities, but they did not know how to go about this. They noted that when these actors came across Handicap International teams, they began to reconsider their concerns and sought help. Barangay officials with whom the team worked with were also willing to learn. The biggest need of these stakeholders observed by the Handicap International team was for information and support to be provided to them, on PWD and on disability inclusion. In terms of clusters and coordination, no other organizations focused on disability are represented. FGD participants who attended various cluster meetings mentioned that how disability is discussed is quite variable from cluster to cluster, observing that this is person-dependent, depending on the cluster leader. 6.4. SURVEY OF AFFECTED HOUSEHOLDS 43 | P a g e
  • 44. 6.4.1. General Information A total of 166 affected households from 18 different sites were included in the survey. The geographical coverage of the survey included ten IDP sites and one affected community in Cagayan de Oro, and five IDP sites and two affected communities in Iligan. Table two below provides information on the sites covered and the number of respondents per site. TABLE 2 Sites covered by the household survey SITE PWD Tambacan Elem School 3 13 3 3 8 4 3 3 3 3 5 51 10 3 5 3 3 3 3 Non-PWD 3 14 3 3 11 4 3 3 3 3 5 55 10 3 5 2 3 4 3 Sub-total Iligan 30 30 81 85 Agusan Elementary School Balulang* Cagayan de Oro Barangay 24 Bulua Evacuation Center Calaanan Tent City 1 Calaanan Tent City 2 Macasandig Evacuation Center Mt. Carmel Evacuation Center Patag Covered Courts Tibasak Covered Courts Xavier Ecoville Sub-total Cagayan de Oro Hinaplanon* Luinab Evacuation Center Iligan Mahayahay* Siao Shelter Box San Roque Evacuation Center Sta. Elena TS TOTAL TOTAL 6 27 6 6 19 8 6 6 6 6 10 106 20 6 10 5 6 7 6 60 166 Of the 166 respondents, 64% were from Cagayan de Oro and 36% were from Iligan. An almost equal number of households with PWD and households with no PWD were included in the survey, with 49% (81 respondents) and 51% (85 respondents) of the total number of respondents respectively. 44 | P a g e
  • 45. 6.4.2. Effects of Tropical Storm Washi on affected households Respondents were asked to describe to the surveyor in what ways they were affected by Washi. The most common response for all respondents was that they had lost everything, their livelihoods, and their permanent shelters. Each of these responses was mentioned by almost all respondents, with 96%, 90% and 85% respectively. A smaller number of respondents also mentioned partially damaged shelters, losing their relatives who were either killed or missing, and losing some valuables. As demonstrated by Figure 32, there is little difference between the effects reported by households with PWD to those with no PWD. For the three leading responses, differences represent less than 4 points. 45 | P a g e
  • 46. 6.4.3. Search, rescue, and evacuation Respondents were asked to describe their experience of search, rescue, and evacuation during or after the onset of Washi. Of the 166 respondents, 69% (144 respondents) said they had to evacuate on their own. Only 14% (23 respondents) reported being rescued and evacuated by official SRE teams such as those from the barangay, the fire bureau, the army, the police, or the air force. 6% (10 respondents) were rescued by neighbors or relatives, and 2% (4 respondents) were rescued at sea by fishing boats or other vessels. The responses provided by households with and without PWD are generally similar, with the majority of respondents from both groups reporting evacuating on their own. However, 4% more households with no PWD reported being rescued and evacuated by official SRE teams compared to households with PWD. 6.4.4. Immediate needs of affected households and assistance received According to the respondents, their most immediate needs after Washi were food and clothing, with 93% (155 respondents) and 85% (141 respondents) of all respondents. 58% (96 respondents) also mentioned water, while a smaller percentage of respondents mentioned medical needs, shelter, financial assistance, and other household items. 1 household with PWD also mentioned needing an assistive device. There is very little difference between the responses provided by household with or without PWD, with not more than 3 points of difference for the three most common answers. 46 | P a g e
  • 47. All of the 166 surveyed households said they received assistance after Washi. Almost all of the responses reported that assistance was provided by the LGUs, NGOs, civil society organizations, and religious groups. A smaller percentage of respondents, with 37% said they also received assistance from their families. The responses provided to this question by households with and without PWD were almost identical, with only 1 point of difference for each source of assistance identified. Almost all 166 households reported receiving assistance for their food, NFI, water, hygiene, and healthcare needs. 70% (116 respondents) reported receiving shelter assistance, 63% (104 respondents) financial assistance, and 55% (91 respondents) psychosocial support. Only 4% (7 respondents) received support for their livelihood needs. None of the surveyed households, with or without PWD, received assistance for their specific needs. 47 | P a g e
  • 48. There were no significant differences between the reported assistance received by households with and without PWD, with the exception of psychosocial support. While 62% (53 respondents) of households without PWD reported receiving psychosocial support services, only 47% (38 respondents) of households with PWD reported the same. Almost all respondents said that the assistance they received was relevant to their needs, with only one household saying no. However, when asked if there was assistance they could receive that would be more relevant to their needs, 93% (157 respondents) said yes. 11% more households with no PWD, at 98%, said yes compared to 87% for households with PWD. 48 | P a g e
  • 49. When asked what assistance would be more relevant, 48% (46 respondents) of the households said financial assistance. Food, livelihoods, shelter, household items, and other types of assistance were also mentioned by 8% to 13% of surveyed households each. There was no significant difference between households with and without PWD, except for food needs with 10% more households with no PWD than those with PWD. Other responses specified included clothing, infant needs, and medical needs. One PWD respondent also mentioned accessible toilets, and another respondent mentioned needing assistance to locate his mother’s missing body. When asked what they needed the most, the most common response was shelter with 55% (91 respondents) of all respondents. This was followed by financial assistance and livelihood, with 29% (46 respondents) and 19% (32 respondents) respectively. A difference can be noted between households with and without PWD saying what they most needed was support to medical needs. While 10% of all households with PWD mentioned medical needs, none of the households without PWD gave the same response. All the other responses show similar percentages for both groups of respondents. Other needs specified were the same as those mentioned in the previous question. 49 | P a g e
  • 50. 6.4.5. Access to emergency relief and support Surveyed households were asked whether they thought they were easily able to access relief. The majority of respondents at 90% (150 respondents) answered positively to the question, with 8% (14 respondents) saying no. Households with and without PWD reporting not being able to access relief easily both provided living far from the venue of distributions and a lack of information regarding available relief and support as reasons for this. Other reasons provided by households with PWD included medical conditions or injuries that limit their ability to access relief, venues for distributions that are not accessible, and relief goods only being provided in evacuation centers. 92% (153 respondents) thought that those providing relief made efforts to reach everyone, with 7% (12 respondents) saying they did not think these efforts were being made. More households with PWD responded negatively to this question than households with no PWD, with 11% compared to only 4%. For those responding negatively, not enough stock being available for the distributions was a reason that households with and without PWD both provided. Households with PWD also mentioned being excluded from master lists, being far from distribution points, a lack of information about available relief and services, and PWD not being prioritized. For those responding positively, some examples they provided of efforts being made to reach everyone include house-to-house distributions done by some actors, the utilization of coupons and master lists, coordination and organization by community or cluster leaders, and the equitable division of relief. All surveyed households were also asked describe general difficulties they faced in accessing emergency relief and support. Difficulties identified by households both with and without PWD included having to deal with the crowds and distributions being time-consuming. One household with no PWD reported difficulties in burying their family members killed by the floods. Other than these, no other difficulties 50 | P a g e
  • 51. were identified by households with any PWD. On the other hand, households with PWD identified the following additional difficulties:  Dealing with distributions as being a general difficulty  Venues for distributions are far  Having to stay in line  Holding the bulk of relief goods  Illness, injuries, or other medical conditions makes it difficult to access relief  Exclusion from the master list 6.4.6. Physical accessibility of camp structures Respondent households residing in evacuation centers, transitional sites, and relocation sites were asked about access to communal facilities on site. Of the 166 households included in the survey, 109 (66%) were residing in these sites. This number will be the base for the percentages presented in this section. Households were asked whether or not they were able to use their sites latrines, bathing areas, and communal cooking areas. Of the 109 IDP households surveyed, 17% (19 respondents) reported not being able to use communal latrines, 18% (21 respondents) reported not being able to use communal bathing areas, and 48% (53 respondents) reported not being able to use communal kitchens. As demonstrated in Figure 42, more households with PWD reported not being able to use these facilities compared to households without PWD. 8% more households with PWD than those without PWD cannot use communal latrines; 9% more cannot use communal bathing areas; and 24% more cannot use communal cooking areas. Reasons for not being able to use these facilities provided by both groups of households include latrines and bathing areas being closed or locked, facilities not being accessible, and kitchens being far from the tents. For communal kitchens, 20% of all IDP respondents said there were no communal kitchens on site. Households with no PWD mentioned latrines and bathing areas being unsanitary as a reason for not using the facilities. Households with PWD said they could not use the communal latrines because they depended on public latrines and bathing areas where they were required to pay, there was not enough space, and there were not enough facilities for everyone. 51 | P a g e
  • 52. 6.4.7. Disability and access to emergency relief and support Questions were included in the survey specifically for households with PWD. Of the 81 households with PWD surveyed, 60% (49 respondents) did not think that their disabilities or impairments affect their ability to access emergency relief, while the remaining 40% (32 respondents) thought their disabilities or impairments had an effect on their access to relief. For those who thought there was an effect, these were similar to the difficulties provided in the previous section. For example, they mentioned difficulties staying in line, difficulties in carrying their relief goods, not being able to access information on relief, their physical condition, and nonprioritization of PWD. The majority of households with PWD did not feel that their specific needs linked to their disabilities were taken into account by the disaster response, with 56% (45 respondents). When asked to provide further information on this, the following points were mentioned:  Not receiving assistive devices despite being promised one  Not being prioritized by relief efforts  Limited number of addressing their needs  No proper distribution arrangements for PWD  No specialist organizations for specific illnesses  No available support for specific medical conditions  Only basic needs were addressed organizations Households with PWD were asked how they thought their needs could be better included in the response. The following were some of the responses provided:  Provide tools and gadgets for survival  Improve accessibility as respondent could not see efforts at accessibility 52 | P a g e
  • 53.  Conduct orientations on disasters  Include PWD in consultations  Give priority to PWD during the disaster  Provide relief personally when it is required due to the impairment of the person Of the households with PWD surveyed, only 6 were members of DPOs. This represents only 7% of all 81 households with PWD. Of this 6, only 2 reported being contacted by their DPO after the disaster to ask whether they were affected and provide information about distributions. 7. ANALYSIS Taken independently, the results gleaned from the various data collection methodology already provide important information about how PWD were considered and included in the immediate response following Tropical Storm Washi. This section will answer the research questions stated in Section 2 through summarizing these results and examining them alongside each other. 7.1. CONSIDERATION AND IDENTIFICATION OF PWD NEEDS BY THE RESPONSE Based from the survey of affected households, the basic needs of PWD immediately after Washi were met by the emergency response. Furthermore, the data presented in the previous section shows that there were no significant differences between the experiences of affected households with PWD to those with no PWD. Both had similar experiences during SRE with the majority having to rescue and evacuate themselves, signaling a need to improve preparedness in general. The major effects of Washi on their households reported by the respondents were also the same, as were their immediate needs, the assistance they received and the sources of this assistance, and what is still needed. However, there were noticeable differences in responses between the two sets of respondents for psychosocial support services and for healthcare needs. Access to psychosocial support services was 15% lower for PWD than for non-PWD. This is also in line with observations made during the FGD with Handicap International, where participants observed that the participation of adults and children with disabilities in psychosocial activities was limited. They attributed this to limited efforts at reaching PWD who may be apprehensive or have difficulties participating in such activities, as well as in other camp activities. Informants who had psychosocial activities also expressed difficulties in handling some cases of PWD. Examples shared include cases where there are communication difficulties and debriefings are more challenging to conduct, and childfriendly space facilitators having a difficult time managing children with mental disabilities. When asked about immediate needs after Washi, 16% of households with PWD and 20% of households with no PWD identified healthcare needs. However, when asked about what is still needed at the time of the survey, none of the households with no PWD mentioned this response whereas 10% of all households with PWD provided this answer. This can be taken to imply that health services provided 53 | P a g e
  • 54. after Washi were able to respond to the healthcare needs of affected persons with no disability, but only to a lesser extent for the needs of affected PWD. This difference may be explained by observations from the various sources of information that healthcare services were limited in their capacity to deal with complex cases that PWD and other persons with specific needs presented. The surveyed camp managers reported similar opinions regarding healthcare for PWD, with 53% saying services were poor or needed improvement. Moreover, it was also observed that there were not always efforts by healthcare staff or medical missions to seek out persons who may have difficulties accessing their services or reaching venues for the missions such as PWD. Perceptions of camp managers on the assistance being provided to PWD in their sites was collected through the surveys with the aim of providing additional information to that provided by PWD households and key informants. However, it is difficult to postulate from the results of this survey if and how disability inclusion was done as for each question designed to be answered using a scale, a central tendency bias27 can be observed from the responses. More or less 75% of all respondents chose the central options – needs improvement, average, or good – with the three options having an almost equal percentage share. While the majority of respondents said they felt that they or their households were able to access relief easily, more than 10% of the PWD respondents still felt that those providing relief did not make efforts to reach everyone. Moreover, 40% of PWD felt that their disability affected their ability to access relief. To recall, reported difficulties in accessing relief included the lack of information regarding relief, the lack of prioritization of PWD, their distance from distribution points, venues that were not physically accessible, physical or medical conditions that limited their access to relief, difficulties with staying in line and having to carry relief goods, among others. Similar accounts were shared by the FGD participants from Handicap International, further underscoring the difficulties for unaccompanied PWD. Issues were also raised regarding the physical accessibility of facilities in the evacuation centers, transitional sites, and relocation sites, with significantly higher numbers of PWD saying that they were not able to use the communal latrines, bathing areas, or kitchens. While there are some accessible designs being used, the Handicap International team noted that this does not address issues of location, where PWD are located far from the facilities and are still unable to use them. While the basic needs of PWD were generally met despite reported issues and difficulties, the situation for their specific needs shows a stark contrast. None of the households surveyed reported receiving assistance for their specific needs in the immediate response. However, it is also important to highlight that none of the respondents identified assistance for their specific needs as one of their immediate, urgent needs after the onset of Washi, with more basic needs taking precedence. Nevertheless, outside 27 Central tendency bias refers to the tendency for respondents to avoid using extreme response categories in a rating scale. 54 | P a g e
  • 55. of their immediate needs and the assistance received to respond to these needs, 44% of PWD still felt that their specific needs were not considered. 7.2. MECHANISMS FOR THE INCLUSION OF PWD IN EMERGENCY RESPONSE Based on the results from all sources of information tapped by the study, there seems to be no formal mechanisms existing for the inclusion of PWD in emergency response activities and in disaster management in general. Although included by the DRRM Law of 2010, the Sphere standards, and the UNCRPD, the informants were not all familiar with these and how their provisions relating to disability translate to practice. The inclusion of PWD, both for mainstreaming them in activities as well as for addressing their specific needs, took a generally ad hoc approach. Looking at systems for beneficiary identification, information dissemination, considerations taken for the delivery of relief, means to identify and address specific needs, and coordination can demonstrate this. 7.2.1. Beneficiary identification The identification of PWD is an important first step in ensuring that they are reached by relief activities and that their needs are considered. Ideally, this identification should be done before the implementation of activities with information taken into account in the planning of activities. The situation described by the study results shows a scenario that is quite different from this, except for activities where criteria for beneficiary selection are being applied such as activities that target only pregnant and lactating women, the distribution of shelter repair kits to selected households, nutrition activities for children, and the like. The identification of beneficiaries is highly dependent on lists provided by the DSWD, CSWDO, and the barangays, which do not always include PWD. For activities targeting the household level, beneficiary information will rarely include particularly vulnerable individuals in the household. Even where lists of PWD are available and asked for, as is the case for Handicap International and the other NGOs implementing activities targeting PWD, as many as 30% of PWD in a specific area may not be included and house-to-house assessments are still required. This percentage can be expected to be even higher if the number of PWD not emerging or being hidden by their families are added. What can this mean for PWD and for emergency response actors? This may mean that PWD are being missed by relief efforts. When the lists of affected individuals or households are taken as exhaustive, this can also lead to the assumption of emergency actors that their activities are already inclusive or the assumption that there are no PWD, diminishing the need to think about inclusion. With incomplete beneficiary identification that does not include PWD data emergency actors cannot plan for special considerations for PWD such as special lanes, identifying beforehand who needs to be prioritized so items do not run out, identifying individuals who may have difficulties accessing distribution venues, and the like. 55 | P a g e
  • 56. 7.2.2. Communication and information dissemination The means of communication utilized to disseminate information regarding available relief and services seems to be highly variable between locations, although this is usually delegated to community leaders. As mentioned above and in previous sections, lack of information is one of the reasons provided by both households with and without PWD for not being able to access relief. Although 45% of surveyed camp managers said that more than one means of communication was used in their sites, 8 out of the 10 examples provided were verbal means. It was also noted that there were no special efforts to reach individuals who may have difficulties or apprehensions participating in camp activities. Nevertheless, it cannot be assumed that the lack of information reaching PWD is because of a lack of effort to reach them. Going back to the issue of incomplete data, this can also be attributed to a lack of awareness as to who needs to be provided with information in an alternative manner. Attitudes of camp managers regarding communication and information dissemination for PWD as reflected by the survey results can also be a factor in the lack of information reaching PWD. As shown under the Results section, 55% of surveyed camp managers believe that PWD access to information is the responsibility of their caregiver. 14% think that to communicate with persons with communication difficulties, they should just speak to the caregiver. This can be taken to reflect two important assumptions regarding information and PWD: firstly, that information will somehow reach them, and secondly that all PWD have caregivers. 7.2.3. Special arrangements for PWD during distributions and relief activities Special arrangements for PWD such as special lanes, prioritization, and additional assistance for PWD during distributions were commonly mentioned by the study key informants, although it is not clear from their interviews how systematic these arrangements were put in place. A number of informants answered the question on considerations for PWD through providing specific examples rather than speaking about actual systems they have in place, which can be taken as an indicator that such arrangements are done on a case to case basis. Given that the majority of informants spoke about such arrangements during the interviews, it is surprising to observe that, when asked about special arrangements for food, NFI, or WASH distributions, 70% of camp managers said this was not being done, and only one PWD surveyed mentioned a houseto-house approach to the provision of relief. While it can probably be said that special arrangements for PWD are sometimes put in place, the contrasting responses provided by the informants and the camp managers makes it difficult to conclude how regularly and systematically these are made. To do so would require actual observations of activities implemented and more specific questioning of informants and camp managers than that done by the study at hand. 56 | P a g e
  • 57. 7.2.4. Identification and consideration of the specific needs of PWD There are no formal mechanisms in place for the identification of the specific needs of PWD. These are identified on an ad hoc basis, dependent on communicating such needs to emergency teams. When asked about how specific needs were identified and met, most informants referred directly to specific cases of PWD approaching them. These informants also confirmed that without this direct communication, these specific needs would otherwise not have been identified. 7.2.5. Coordination At the level of coordination, the inclusion of PWD in discussions is not done systematically. It is not a part of the regular agendas of the clusters, nor a part of their global indicators for monitoring. In general, disability is discussed only when there is a particular issue that needs to be raised. At the time of the study, there was no other disability-focused organization representing disability in the clusters and in coordinating bodies aside from Handicap International. 7.3. PREVAILING ATTITUDES AND PERCEPTIONS OF DISABILITY IN DISASTER RESPONSE The interviews conducted with selected emergency response actors and the survey of camp managers brings to light some existing attitudes and perceptions these actors have regarding disability and emergency response. While these do not provide information as concrete as looking at actual emergency operations and activities, they are important to understanding the level of disability awareness surrounding the response. Moreover, it is these attitudes and perceptions that essentially shape how disability inclusion is practiced. It is evident in the interviews, the survey, as well as the FGD that awareness and consciousness of disability as a cross-cutting issue in disaster management are already there. The willingness to participate of the study’s target sample can be seen as one manifestation of this, with no questions being asked as to the significance of such a study to the context they are working in. Another manifestation is the general openness of the interview and survey participants to improve their knowledge and capacity for disability inclusion in their activities. However, beyond this awareness, the understanding of disability and inclusion was quite variable between the interviewees and survey respondents. It is important to underscore that there are some prevailing perceptions and attitudes that can hinder disability inclusion, and in some cases even run counter to the principles of inclusion. Some of these were already discussed in Section 6, under the sub-section on existing attitudes and assumptions regarding disability and emergency response. A number of these will be recalled here, this time looked at together with information gathered from the camp managers. 57 | P a g e
  • 58. 7.3.1. Inclusion is automatic through a blanket approach and through PWD caregivers In terms of the ability of PWD to access available relief and their participation in various activities, there was a common assumption that a blanket approach to emergency response and the presence of caregivers automatically translated to their inclusion. For activities where all affected households were targeted, it is assumed that PWD and their households are automatically being captured, and that PWD can always depend on caregivers, family members, or neighbors to assist them. This assumption can ultimately lead to the false impression that there is no need for additional efforts to be made to ensure PWD are being covered. Furthermore, the assumption that PWD have caregivers, family members, or neighbors to assist them has led to some informants and respondents to clear themselves of their responsibility for ensuring that emergency relief and activities are able to reach everyone. A number of examples of this were already provided earlier, including the thinking that it is the responsibility of the PWD to find someone to get relief for them or to come themselves, that if they cannot come to the venues that means they do not really need the relief being provided. In terms of participation in activities, an example can include facilitators refusing the participation of children with disabilities unless accompanied by a parent or caregiver. The results of the camp manager survey further show that many camp managers believe that the participation of children with disabilities in such activities is the sole responsibility of the parent or caregiver, with 31% confirming this statement. Likewise 14% of camp managers believe that to communicate with persons with hearing or speaking impairments they should just speak directly to caregivers whose responsibility it will be to pass on information. These examples ultimately show that the possibility that there are affected individuals truly not able to access relief is rarely considered. As mentioned by Handicap International team members during the FGD, an estimated 20% of all PWD they have assessed are unaccompanied. This percentage does not yet include other persons with specific needs who are unaccompanied, those who are often left by their families or caregivers to work during the day, or those who are being hidden by their families. This can say a lot about whom the response is reaching and who it is not. Unfortunately, the data collected by the study does not disaggregate between PWD in different situations. However, this warrants a further examination of the situation of unaccompanied, especially vulnerable PWD. 7.3.2. Disability inclusion requires special and technical skills Results from both the key informant interviews and camp manager surveys showed a widespread perception that disability inclusion required special, technical, or medical skills and staff. Of the camp managers surveyed, 42% said thought that only persons specialized in the field are capable of doing disability inclusion. The same was also repeated in many of the interviews conducted, where this perception was sometimes cited as a reason for not addressing disability issues. 58 | P a g e
  • 59. However, despite this perception, most of the informants and respondents were still able to speak about mainstreaming measures such as special lanes during distributions, the provision of additional assistance, the use of other means of communication, among others. How these mainstreaming methods were discussed at the same time as the perception of disability inclusion as something technical can be taken to reflect confusion of informants and respondents between mainstreaming PWD in the response and providing them with specific, specialized support. The concurrence of these two approaches is referred to by Handicap International as the twin-track approach, where specialized services for PWD are provided at the same time as inclusive strategies are adapted, with the overall goal of providing them equal opportunities and full participation in both contexts of emergency responses as well as of development. To address the assumption that disability inclusion is specialized and technical, any awareness-raising activities or capacity-building activities to be undertaken in the future need to highlight the twin-track approach and clearly distinguish its two components. 7.3.3. Disability inclusion will divert resources from the affected population Participants in the study were also of the opinion that disability inclusion demanded a lot more resources than the approaches to emergency currently being taken. Thirteen percent of the surveyed camp managers said that disability inclusion costs too much. Many informants expressed the opinion that to do disability-inclusive activities would take away resources from the greater number of affected, limiting the reach of available relief and support. This can also be linked to the previous point on the twin-track approach, with informants and respondents tending to relate disability inclusion to specialized services which cost more, rather than thinking of means to promote inclusion which many of them are already familiar with. As with financial resources, participants were also of the opinion that disability inclusion would either put a strain on existing human resources or require additional human resources. The more moderate end of opinions expressed were those who felt their teams already had too much on their hands and were stretched to capacity. In the more extreme cases, PWD were seen as unnecessary, additional work for emergency teams. Examples of the latter were included in Section 6.1., under the sub-section on challenges and difficulties in disability inclusion. 7.3.4. PWD cannot participate in camp and community activities Another important assumption reflected by the survey of camp managers is the assumption that PWD cannot participate in various activities in the camps and communities. To recall some of the results from Section 6.2., 26% of all camp managers surveyed representing 18 different sites said that ‘PWD cannot be active participants in camp and community activities because of their disability’. Seventeen percent said that children with disabilities required special activities, so they 59 | P a g e
  • 60. cannot participate in child-friendly spaces. Another 9% said that if there are not a lot of PWD on site, there is no need to consider them. These results raise questions on the treatment of PWD on site and, with the belief that they are unable to participate, if efforts are still made to ensure that they are given the opportunity to become active members of their camps and their communities. As the discussion on prevailing attitudes and assumptions is closed, it is important to acknowledge that there were a number of informants and respondents who presented a different understanding of PWD than shown by the above sections. For these participants, there was an acknowledgement of the diversity of PWD and an appreciation of their capacities. However, the attitudes and assumptions above were discussed more at length as points that recur often in the study findings and which are common between the key informants and the surveyed camp managers. 8. CONCLUSION The study found that the experiences of Washi-affected households with or without PWD were similar. Both groups reported that they had to rescue and evacuate themselves, with only a minority being reached by official SRE teams. Their immediate needs were met by the emergency response, with needs for food, NFIs, and WASH, provided for by actors from the government, NGOs, CSOs, and religious groups. PWD included in the study, however, had less access to psychosocial support services and reported more residual needs for healthcare services. More PWD also reported not being able to utilize communal facilities such as latrines, bathing areas, and cooking areas in evacuation centers, transitional sites, and relocation sites. Despite this, majority of PWD felt that they were easily able to access relief and that efforts were made to reach everyone. On the other hand, more than half of the PWD surveyed said that their specific needs related to disability were not considered by the response with only a limited number of organizations able to address such needs. Although the majority of surveyed PWD were able to access relief, reports from HI and some surveyed PWD show that there is a possibility that a portion of the PWD population is not being reached by emergency actors; more specifically, unaccompanied PWD who have no caregivers and who are not always identified by emergency actors. This population can be extended to include those who are being left behind by caregivers or family members during the day due to go to work, and those who are hiding or are being hidden by their family. Handicap International estimate that 20% of all the PWD they assessed fall under at least one of these categories. That other persons with specific needs such as older persons and persons with chronic illnesses fall under these categories also needs to be considered. However, having caregivers or family members does not always assure inclusion due to reasons such as relief items sometimes running out, venues that are too far, households missed by master lists, and the like. The organizations, offices, and agencies included in the interviews and the camp managers surveyed showed an awareness and consciousness of disability as a cross-cutting issue in emergency response. 60 | P a g e
  • 61. However, beyond this awareness, significant gaps remain before it can be truly said that disability inclusion is being done, and that emergency relief is reaching all affected PWD. Firstly, the study found that, outside of organizations implementing activities targeting PWD, there are no formal mechanisms or strategies in place to ensure the inclusion and participation of PWD. This can be said for the beneficiary identification methods used, the means of communication and information dissemination, the implementation of special arrangements for PWD during activities, the identification of specific needs, and coordination. When PWD are not included in initial beneficiary identification, their inclusion in succeeding activities takes on an ad hoc approach as their needs for special arrangements or their specific needs are not anticipated and planned for beforehand. Secondly, a number of prevailing assumptions and attitudes expressed by key informants and camp managers need to be addressed to improve their understanding of disability and disability inclusion, and ultimately how their respective organizations, offices, and agencies are able to implement a disabilityinclusive response. Lastly, the challenges identified by the participants of the study also impact on how they are able to include PWD in their response. The main challenges include gaps in information, a lack of knowledge and capacity to deal with disability, and low participation and representation from the disability sector. These gaps will be tackled further in the following section on recommendations. 9. RECOMMENDATIONS 9.1. GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS The results of the study show that there exists a good level of consciousness of disability as a crosscutting issue amongst emergency actors. The following recommendations seek to build on this consciousness, while addressing the gaps identified by the study. These are not applicable only for the emergency response stage, but should be implemented throughout the disaster management cycle to lead to an improved, systematic, and automatic disability inclusion process in future emergencies. 9.1.1. RECOMMENDATION 1: Improve awareness and understanding of disability While emergency stakeholders are conscious of disability, awareness-raising efforts are needed to reinforce this. Moreover, awareness-raising efforts are needed in order to confront and break existing perceptions and attitudes towards disability, including those expressed by the study’s key informants and survey respondents. Improving the understanding of disability of disaster management stakeholders will not only lead to a more inclusive emergency response, but can also contribute to disability inclusion across all the stages of disaster management. 61 | P a g e
  • 62. 9.1.2. RECOMMENDATION 2: Increase capacities for disability inclusive emergency response An improved awareness and understanding of disability is not enough for a disability inclusive response. There is also a need to increase the current capacity of disaster management stakeholders to implement a disability inclusive emergency response. Efforts at capacity-building should concentrate on improving disability knowledge, from basic concepts to understanding issues surrounding disability, and improving know-how. Capacity-building can be done through formal trainings, the dissemination of educational materials with practical information on disability inclusion, having disability-focused organizations serve as a technical reference for emergency actors providing support and guidance to them when needed, and other such activities. Such efforts should cover management teams as well as field staff, and all levels of the country disaster risk reduction and management structure, from the national level to the barangay level. Given the nature of emergencies, capacity-building may be difficult to implement in an effective way during the actual response phase. There is a greater chance that stakeholders will be able to apply learning if these are done before the onset of a disaster, giving them the opportunity to include disability in their emergency response plans and strategies. Efforts can also be effective during the early recovery phase for disability inclusion to be ensured at least for recovery and rehabilitation. This does not, however, discount the need for the provision of such guidance and support during the emergency response stage. 9.1.3. RECOMMENDATION 3: Improve data collection on disability The availability of up-to-date, reliable, and consistent information on PWD is an important step towards their inclusion from the emergency response to rehabilitation and recovery. Majority of the study key informants said during the interviews that the availability of information on PWD would have allowed them to include PWD in their planning and adapt their strategies accordingly. Ideally, information on PWD should be available even before a disaster strikes. Community census and vulnerability profiles should include this data, also noting any specific needs. Having this information from the preparedness stage allows PWD and their needs to be considered in contingency plans, early warning systems, SRE plans, etc. This leads not only to a more inclusive disaster response, but also to reducing their overall vulnerability to disasters. Where no information is available before the disaster, assessments should include PWD information. This information should be disseminated to all actors as soon as possible to ensure integration and consideration in subsequent actions. Improving data collection on disability also means improving the capacities of those in charge to accurately identify and categorize disability. This can contribute to data that is as complete and accurate as possible, an important step towards ensuring that all PWD are being reached. 62 | P a g e
  • 63. 9.1.4. RECOMMENDATION 4: Involve PWD The most reliable source of information about the needs of PWD and how they can be included are the PWD themselves. The best way to ensure that their needs are identified and considered is to involve them in every step of the disaster management cycle, from preparedness to recovery. Like every individual affected by disasters, PWD are not just victims of disaster but can be active participants in disaster management. As some PWD surveyed mentioned, they want to be involved in consultations. More than this, they also expressed the desire to be prepared for disasters and to be equipped for survival. Their capacity to be better prepared for and cope with disasters should therefore also be included in disaster risk management activities. DPOs, where they exist, can also be a source of information on PWD and their needs. Conversely, the capacity of DPOs to participate in DRM also needs to be strengthened, starting with increasing their understanding of the roles they can play in ensuring the inclusion of PWD in all stages of the disaster risk management cycle. 9.1.5. RECOMMENDATION 5: Create referral systems for the specific needs of PWD Not all emergency actors have the capacity or the resources available to meet the special needs of PWD after an emergency such as needs for specialized healthcare, assistive devices, special education, and the like. However, in many cases, meeting such special needs is crucial in preventing a condition from worsening or ensuring they are able to access support. In these cases, meeting these needs becomes just as important as addressing a PWD’s basic needs. There is therefore a need to create referral systems which identify organizations or service-providers able to meet the various specific needs of PWD. Conversely, referral systems for the basic needs of PWD can also be put in place. Such systems can be useful for PWD whose basic needs are not being met or who are not accessing relief. Through a mapping of available services and clear referral systems, ideally initiated during the preparedness or contingency planning phase, emergency actors and more specialized service-providers can work together to ensure that the emergency needs of PWD are being addressed in a comprehensive manner. 9.1.6. RECOMMENDATION 6: Regulate and monitor disability inclusion Monitoring mechanisms for the inclusion of disability need to be put in place, starting with clarifying and disseminating information on standards for inclusion and mainstreaming for emergency actors. Donors and coordinating bodies such as the clusters can take a more proactive role in monitoring disability inclusion, encouraging emergency actors to consider disability as a cross-cutting issue in all their activities. Systems for collecting information and reporting any issues related to disability also need to be established. With no clear system for reporting any incidents, this information is lost together with the opportunity to improve emergency response activities to better reach and address the needs of PWD. 63 | P a g e
  • 64. 9.1.7. RECOMMENDATION 7: Increase advocacy at all levels Advocacy and representation are key means to ensure that disability is not lost and forgotten amongst all other concerns during emergency response. It is therefore important that representation and participation of disability-focused organizations are maintained throughout the response. This will serve not only to remind actors to consider disability issues, but will also be an opportunity to disseminate information on disaster-affected PWD, to share practical information on disability inclusion, and to report on any issues. Advocacy should be done at various levels, from national, regional, to local. However, the risk of too much dependency on disability-focused organizations needs to be avoided, where the inclusion of disability in coordination or in activities becomes dependent on the presence of disability-focused organizations. Disability is a cross-cutting issue that is not the sole responsibility of a few organizations, and the ultimate goal of advocacy, capacity-building, and awareness-raising is for other actors to be able to tackle disability on their own, with the support and guidance of disabilityfocused organizations. To contribute to the sustainability of advocacy and mainstreaming efforts after the emergency, the capacity of local organizations including DPOs to represent themselves and advocate for their rights and needs also needs to be strengthened. Advocacy efforts directed towards the implementation and enforcement of existing disability laws, up to the municipal and barangay levels, can also contribute to the better inclusion of PWD come a disaster. 9.2. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY The study not only provided information on the emergency response to Tropical Storm Washi, but also highlighted issues that merit further examination. Indeed, one of the study major limitations was in providing an analysis that took into account the different situations of PWD. PWD are not a homogenous group, and their varying levels of vulnerability leads to varying experience of disaster response. These differences should be taken into consideration by similar studies conducted in the future. Studies that focus on specific sub-groups of PWD can also provide valuable information on specific vulnerabilities of PWD during disasters. Future studies can:  Examine deeper the specific situation of unaccompanied, especially vulnerable PWD  Look further into cases where PWD are being hidden or denied by their families  Disaggregate results by type of impairment or disability, to gather information on how a specific impairment or disability affects access to emergency relief  Focus on specific sub-groups of PWD such as women and children with disabilities, older persons with disabilities, persons with mental illnesses, etc. 64 | P a g e
  • 65. On the other hand, the disability inclusion process in disaster management can also be studied through a broader lens than offered by the current study which covered only the immediate response at the level of Cagayan de Oro and Iligan. To extend this scope, studies conducted in the future can:  Examine the disability inclusion process in other stages of disaster management, from disaster prevention and mitigation, disaster preparedness, disaster response, early recovery, to rehabilitation  Cover a broader range of disaster management actors, extending the sample from local level actors to include government offices and agencies at the central level, bilateral and multilateral donors, main office representatives of UN agencies and INGOs, and local organizations.  Focus on the policy-level from which practices at the local level emanate  Broaden the geographical focus of the study to include other disaster-affected areas of the Philippines to gather information more representative of the disability inclusion process in the country  Broaden the disaster focus from floods to other disasters such as earthquakes and landslides, as responses may vary slightly from one type of disaster to another. 65 | P a g e
  • 66. ANNEX 1 List of Key Informants GOVERNMENT OFFICES AND AGENCIES 1 Department of Social Welfare and Development - Region X 2 Department of Health - Region X 3 Cagayan de Oro City Social Welfare and Development Office 4 Cagayan de Oro City Disaster Risk Reducation and Management Council 5 Iligan City - District 7 Social Welfare and Development Office 6 Iligan City Administrator 7 Iligan City Health Office NGOs and CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS 8 Action Contre la Faim 9 Catholic Relief Services 10 Community and Family Services International - Cagayan de Oro City 11 Community and Family Services International - Iligan City 12 Philippine National Red Cross 13 Save the Children 14 Xavier University - Lumbia Ecoville UN AGENCIES AND CLUSTERS 15 International Organization for Migration - Cagayan de Oro City 16 International Organization for Migration - Iligan City 17 UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - Cagayan de Oro City 18 UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - Iligan City 19 UN High Commissioner for Refugees 20 World Food Programme 21 World Health Organization 22 Camp Coordination and Camp Management Cluster - Cagayan de Oro City1 23 Camp Coordination and Camp Management Cluster - Iligan City2 24 Health Cluster3 25 Protection Cluster4 26 WASH Cluster - Cagayan de Oro City5 27 WASH Cluster - Iligan City 1 IOM represented the CCCM Cluster for this interview. Only one interview was held, with questions for IOM both as service-provider and cluster lead. 2 Ibid. 3 WHO represented the Health Cluster for this interview. Only one interview was held, with questions for WHO both as service-provider and cluster lead. 4 UNHCR represented the Protection Cluster for this interview. Only one interview was held, with questions for UNCHR both as service-provider and cluster lead. 5 The WASH cluster leads for Cagayan de Oro City and Iligan City were interviewed simultaneously. 66 | P a g e
  • 67. ANNEX 2 GUIDE QUESTIONS Key Informant Interview GENERAL INFORMATION Interviewee information (i.e. position, base, contact information, etc.) Information on and description of the organization/office/agency’s Washi-response activities including sectors covered, activities conducted, target areas, etc. DISABILITY AND INCLUSION IN ACTIVITIES (discussed by sector) In general, how does your organization/office/agency define and deal with PWD? Does your organization/office/agency follow any specific guidelines, policies, or legal frameworks for the inclusion of PWD in your disaster response activities? If yes, which ones in particular? Do you generally feel that your activities were sufficiently inclusive of PWD? Did your activities specifically target any vulnerable groups? If yes, which ones? What methods were used to identify and/or target beneficiaries? How did your organization/office/agency ensure that the needs of PWD were identified and included in your Washi-response activities? Please provide examples. Do you monitor the implementation of project activities with regards to PWD inclusion? If yes, how? Do you have an idea of how many PWD benefitted from your activities? DISABILITY AND INCLUSION IN CLUSTERS AND COORDINATING BODIES In general, how does the cluster define and deal with PWD? Do you generally feel that the response implemented by cluster members was sufficiently inclusive of PWD? What guidelines, policies, or legal frameworks do you promote to your partners for the inclusion of disability in disaster response? How do you ensure that disability is included by the clusters? Is the inclusion of disability in the clusters being monitored? If yes, how? CHALLENGES, OPPORTUNITIES, AND RECOMMENDATIONS In cases where you feel your organization/office/agency was able to effectively include PWD, what opportunities that facilitated this inclusion? What are the main challenges your organization/office/agency faces in including PWD in your activities? What would allow you to improve the inclusion of PWD in your activities? 67 | P a g e
  • 68. ANNEX 3 Survey Questionnaire for Camp Managers Date:___/___/2012  Cagayan de Oro City Iligan City Name (optional): __________________________________________________________________________ Name of Camp: ___________________ Camp Type:  Evacuation center Transitory site Permanent relocation site  Other: ____________ How long have you been a camp manager (indicate in months or weeks): ___________________________ Encircle the letter of your answer for each of the following questions: 1. Disability results from a temporary or permanent impairment, either physical, mental or sensory, further impacted by: a. Socio-cultural barriers b. Environmental barriers c. Economic barriers d. All of the above 2. To ensure that the relief and support in the camps are inclusive of persons with disabilities, we should: (Choose only one answer) a. Allot a separate area in the camp for them so we can easily identify and meet their needs. b. Integrate and include them and their needs in all camp planning and activities. c. Depend on disability-focused organizations to help them. 3. In your opinion, which of the following statements is true about children with disabilities?(Choose only one answer) a. b. c. d. It is the parents’ responsibility to make their children participate in child-friendly spaces and community activities. Children with disabilities need special activities, so we cannot make them participate in child-friendly spaces. Activities in child-friendly spaces can be adapted for children with disabilities if we are familiar with their needs and abilities. Referring a child with disability to a disability-focused organization means we do not need to worry about them accessing support anymore. 4. In your opinion, which of the following statements is true about the physical accessibility of structures in a camp such as communal latrines, bathing areas, cooking areas, etc.?(Choose only one answer) a. Only people specialized in disability can design physically accessible structures. b. Using minimum accessibility standards can create structures that are safe and functional for all users while promoting the self-reliance and ease of living of persons with disabilities. c. Designing a structure to be more physically accessible is a lot more expensive than one without accessibility features. d. Only persons with disabilities will benefit from physically accessible structures. 5. To communicate with someone who has a difficulties hearing and speaking:(Choose only one answer) a. If I speak louder and shout, the person will understand me. b. I can use gestures, body language, picture messages, and written text while I’m speaking to help them understand. c. I should just speak directly to and get information from their caregiver because they will not be able to express themselves. 68 | P a g e
  • 69. 6. The main challenges in including persons with disabilities in camp activities include (encircle all that apply): a. Only persons specialized in disability are capable of doing this. b. It costs too much to include them in camp activities. c. I have no training on how to include disability in camp management. d. There are no persons with disabilities in the camp. e. Others: ____________________________________________________________________________ Encircle either true or false for the following statements: 7. If there are not many persons with disabilities in the site, we don’t need to consider their needs in relief efforts and camp activities. TRUE FALSE 8. It is the sole responsibility of the caregivers of persons with disabilities to make sure they get any information we disseminate in the camp about relief or activities. TRUE FALSE 9. Persons with disabilities cannot be active participants in camp and community activities because of their disabilities. TRUE FALSE Answer the following yes or no questions.Base your answers on your actual experience and observations in your camp. 10. Targeted, case-to-case assistance is sufficiently being provided to persons with disabilities by NGOs, LGU, and other actors. YES NO 11. Children with disabilities in the site attend activities in child-friendly spaces. YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO YES NO 12. There are special food, NFI and water distribution arrangements for persons with disabilities. If yes, what are these ways? __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 13. Persons with disabilities are located close to and can easily access the camp’s communal facilities such as latrines, bathing areas, kitchens, etc. 14. More than one means of communication is used to spread information in the camps about distributions, available services, etc. If yes, what are these ways? __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________________ 15. Food and nutrition programs take into account the additional nutritional requirements of persons with disabilities, including them in feeding programs. 69 | P a g e
  • 70. 16. Efforts to locate, identify, and disabilitiesand their special needs: register persons VERY GOOD GOOD AVERAGE NEEDS IMPROVEMENT POOR Based on your actual experience and observations in your camp, indicate whether the following are poor, needs improvement, average, good, or very good. Place a check in the appropriate box. with 17. Efforts of camp health services to addressthe prevention of disability or the deterioration of an existing impairment by providing appropriate drugs (ex. diabetes, hypertension, epilepsy, mental illness, etc.) and assistive devices: 18. The additional vulnerabilities of and risks to women and girls with disabilities is taken into consideration by protection activities for women (ex. prevention of SGBV) on site: 19. Representation of persons with disabilities in camp management activities including in planning, decision-making, sector-specific camp committees, coordination, etc.: 20. The referral of the needs of persons with disabilities to specialized service providers (ex. hospitals, rehabilitation centers, disability-focused groups): 21. The inclusion of persons with disabilities in relief activities conducted by government agencies and offices in the camps: 22. The inclusion of persons with disabilities in relief activities conducted by NGOs, civil society organization and religious groups in the camps: 23. My confidence to identify persons with disabilities, their needs, and integrate them in camp activities: Please share any suggestions or comments you may have on mainstreaming disability in camp management: 70 | P a g e
  • 71. ANNEX 4 Survey Questionnaire for Washi-Affected Households Date: GENERAL INFORMATION Location of Interview: Full name of interviewee: Occupation/Education: Contact number: EFFECTS OF SENDONG Were you affected Sendong? Interviewer:  Household with PWD  Household without PWD Date of birth: Household size: by  Yes  No If yes, how? (Include disability-related changes) Individual Screening Form #: What has changed for you since Sendong? THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND THEIR NEEDS Can you tell me about your experience during search, rescue and evacuation? Key information to gather: Pre-emptive evacuation or after the floods? Evacuation on their own or with assistance? Assistance from whom? Where were they initially evacuated? Etc. Right after Sendong, what were your most significant needs? Since Sendong, have you received any assistance?  Yes  No What kind of assistance did you receive? Check all that apply  Food  Non-food items (ex. household items, clothes, etc.)  Water and related items If yes, from whom? (Check all that apply)  Religious Organizations  Family/Neighbors  Others: ______________________  Others: ______________________  Items for sanitation and hygiene  Psychosocial support  Others (List all)  Shelter support (ex. tents, repair kits,  Money ______________________ transitional shelters, etc.)  Livelihoods ______________________  Healthcare  Items for specific needs ______________________  Government  NGOs  Civil Society Organizations 71 | P a g e
  • 72. Did the assistance you received respond to your needs?  Yes  No Is there anything that would have been more relevant to your needs?  Yes  No If yes, what assistance or support would that be? Today, what do you feel you need the most? ACCESS TO RELIEF Can you or your household easily access relief? (ex. information on relief is available, venue is accessible and nearby, etc.)  Yes  No Provide examples: In your opinion, do those providing relief make efforts to reach everyone?  Yes  No What do you consider was well-managed and well-implemented during the emergency response? (ex. distributions were organized, enough latrines, distance to facilities, etc.) Provide examples: What were your main difficulties in accessing relief? For IDPs: Are you able to use the following communal facilities on site? Communal Latrines:  Yes  No Why or why not? Child-friendly spaces:  Yes  No Why or why not? Bathing areas:  Yes  No Why or why not? Others: ______________________  Yes  No Why or why not? Communal kitchens:  Yes  No Why or why not? Others: ______________________  Yes  No Why or why not? 72 | P a g e
  • 73. FOR HOUSEHOLDS WITH PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES Do you think your disability or impairment affects your ability to access relief?  Yes  No If yes, how? Do you feel that your specific needs due to your disability were taken into account in the disaster response?  Yes  No If yes, how? If no, why not? How do you think you and your needs can be better included in the disaster response? Are you a member of a DPO?  Yes  No Did you contact the DPO after the disaster for assistance?  Yes  No If yes, what actions did the DPO take? Did the DPO contact you after the disaster?  Yes  No If yes, what did they contact you for? If yes, which one?_____________________________________________ INTERVIEWER COMMENTS 73 | P a g e
  • 74. ANNEX 5 GUIDE QUESTIONS Focus Group Discussion with Handicap International Field Teams GENERAL INFORMATION List of IDP sites and communities covered by the team’s assessments IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF PWD In the IDP sites, describe how PWD are identified by the team. In the communities, describe how PWD identified by the team. Are there any differences between the data provided by camp managers, barangays, LGU, etc. and the actual data collected by the team? If yes, describe these differences. For the IDP sites, how knowledgeable would you say camp managers are on disability? For the communities, how knowledgeable would you say barangay officials or health workers are on disability? OBSERVATIONS BY SECTOR: ACCESS TO RELIEF, SERVICES, AND FACILITIES In general, do the PWD report receiving support from emergency actors working in a particular sector? Are there reports of them not being able to access available support, services, or facilities? Are their specialized needs in this sector being met? Are there any significant examples you can think of where PWD needs were not taken into account? Are there any significant examples you can think of where noticeable efforts were made to ensure PWD are included in activities? What would you say are the key gaps in including PWD in the emergency response? Key strengths? Is there a noticeable difference between the available support in IDP sites and in the communities? PWD PARTICIPATION Would you say that PWD are active participants in the different places you have visited? For example, are they members in the IDP sites sectoral committees? Are they part of the consultation/decision-making process? DPOs Are there DPOs present in the places you have been? In general, are the PWD you’ve assessed familiar with the DPO in their area or city? Are they members of the DPO? Would you say that the DPOs are participating in the emergency response? 74 | P a g e
  • 75. COORDINATION Aside from HI, would you say that disability is being spoken about in different cluster meetings? Aside from HI, who else represents disability issues in the clusters? If any, what kinds of issues are being raised? 75 | P a g e
  • 76. If you need further information or technical support please contact: Handicap International – Philippines Program 122 The Valero Tower, 122 Valero St. (accessible entrance at 122 San Agustin St.) Salcedo Village, 1227, Makati City Tel: +63 (2) 812 6990 +63(0) 915 332 8690 Fax: +63 (2) 892 4583 mla-office@handicapinternational.ph

×