We often hear that there are “no good disability data.” But is that still true? In fact, 143 countries used the Washington Group questions between 2009 and 2025. If disability data exist, why do we keep saying they don’t, and where’s the real gap?
Where Did All This Disability Data Come From?
Times have changed. In 2001, the state of disability data was terrible, so the UN Statistical Commission convened a meeting to chart a way forward. They decided to create a group open to representatives from all member states’ national statistics offices (NSOs) to work on improving disability data collection and making it internationally comparable. They named this group the Washington Group on Disability Statistics, because that was the city of its inaugural meeting.
Those NSOs worked together to create question sets to collect better data on persons with disabilities – and they were successful. Their approach: identify persons with functional difficulties that put them at risk of exclusion if faced with environmental barriers and lack of support. They created, tested, and validated a short set of questions suitable for censuses, and a longer set for use in surveys that identifies more people, including those with psychosocial disabilities often missed by the short set.
The Disability Data Initiative tracks the availability of disability data. According to the initiative, surveys now commonly use functional questions to identify persons with disabilities. The Washington Group Short Set (WGSS) appears in 140 surveys, including 37 in Sub-Saharan Africa (1).
Data collectors usually use these questions correctly. However, issues such as translation methods can undermine data quality. Overall, data availability and quality have improved.
Is Disability Data Still Growing?
One criticism of the Washington Group Short Set of questions is that they miss many children with developmental disabilities. That is why UNICEF and the Washington Group created the Child Functioning Module (CFM) to improve disability data collection among those aged 2-17.
According to a UNICEF database, more than 60 countries have used the CFM, especially through the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) (2). An upcoming report, due in December, will likely document a significant increase in its use. This means we have better data on children with disabilities on a global scale than ever before.
The work on generating good disability data is not over. We need more and better data on the barriers persons with disabilities face and their support needs.
We also need better administrative data systems. As we explain in one of our policy briefs, we need to harmonize data collection tools. This would reduce confusion and help us use different datasets together more effectively.
Beyond age, coverage is expanding by sector too: UNICEF and the Washington Group created an inclusive education module, a teacher version of the CFM for education management information systems and a version for humanitarian use. The ILO and Washington Group created a disability employment module for labor force surveys. These have not been used much yet, but they do exist and are available.
Who Else Is Collecting Disability Data?
Some countries have also fielded special disability surveys. For example, Thailand has several rounds of a national disability survey (3). Vietnam conducted a national disability survey in 2016 and 2023 (4); Chile has collected three surveys focusing on disability (2004, 2015 and 2022), and Australia has a long-running series. In fact, the Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers (SDAC) in Australia has been implemented over 10 times.and Australia has a long-running series. In fact, the Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers (SDAC) in Australia has been implemented over 10 times (5). These are just 3 countries of many that are making intentional efforts to collect data on disability.
The World Health Organization (WHO) collects data on disability using the Model of Disability Survey, which is a standardized survey that includes questions on functional difficulties, activities, accessibility and social and attitudinal barriers that individuals face. The survey collects information from adults and aims to identify people living with disability and compare the barriers they face with the ones of others without disabilities. It has been collected in different countries around the globe.
And the work continues. The Washington Group is developing a set of questions to better capture psychosocial disabilities. More countries are adopting the various Washington Group question sets and are also turning to improve their administrative data systems to identify people with disabilities and their needs.
So Where’s the Actual Gap?
Data exists in most countries. What’s missing is a clearer picture of the barriers people with disabilities actually face, day to day, not just who they are. But the complaint that “there is no data on disability” or “we don’t know how to collect data on disability” is not valid anymore. The challenge today is to use the data we do have to improve the lives of persons with disabilities.
About Statistic of the Month
It is easy to quote statistics, but it is also easy to quote them badly. One must always be careful to interpret indicators and statistics correctly, as well as to choose the most appropriate ones. If not, you will not get the most appropriate, or even true, picture of reality.
In this monthly column, we highlight a statistic or indicator. We briefly discuss its strengths and limitations and explain how to interpret it.
Explore all our Stats of the Month here.
