Summary
Having a toilet isn’t the same as being able to use it. Most multidimensional poverty indices count services, but they don't ask whether those services are actually accessible for people with disabilities. So real deprivations for people with disabilities are not captured in the data, and it is invisible for public policies. If we want truly inclusive housing and infrastructure, accessibility aspects should be considered and the needs of people with disabilities have to show up in the numbers first.
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, briefly discussing its strengths and limitations, and how it should be interpreted.
Multidimensional poverty measures (MPIs) have become a widely used tool to assess poverty at both national and global levels. Nearly 50 countries now have national MPIs, and since 2011 the Human Development Report and the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHI) have published global MPI results for more than 100 countries.
MPIs are particularly important when looking at persons with disabilities, because the same level of economic resources may not generate the same level of wellbeing because of barriers in the environment.
However, the extent to which these measures capture the deprivations faced by people with disabilities remains questionable—particularly in relation to housing indicators such as access to water, sanitation, electricity, and adequate housing. MPIs are typically calculated at the household level, assuming that deprivations and achievements are equally shared among all members.
This approach overlooks the specific needs of individuals with different disabilities or functional difficulties.
For example, sanitation indicators rarely account for accessibility. A facility may exist, but if it is not usable by someone in a wheelchair, the deprivation is underestimated. As a result, official statistics may mask higher levels of deprivation among persons with disabilities.
One study in Tajikistan found that 24% of households with members with disabilities reported barriers accessing their main source of water; 14% reported that people with disabilities have difficulties accessing the source, with distance as the main barrier (17%), with physical accessibility or difficulty to transport the water reported by 11% of people with disabilities who mentioned not being able to access the main water source. In the case of sanitation, 20% of households with disabilities reported having problems accessing their sanitation facilities, and 60% that they do not have any adaptations to make their sanitation facilities accessible. These numbers reveal that the main issue is not only regarding having the improved source of water or sanitation but it being accessible.
Evidence from Jamaica’s national MPI in 2019 illustrates this issue. It found that 12% of people living in households with members with disabilities were multidimensionally poor, compared with 8% in households without members with disabilities. No significant differences were reported in access to water, sanitation, or electricity. However, because accessibility was not measured, the actual deprivation is likely greater. For example, in Tajikistan access to water and sanitation for persons with disabilities was less for their household members, although they were living in the same house.
Unfortunately, such data on access to basic services such as water, sanitation, and housing rarely incorporates accessibility dimensions. Thus, even when headline figures show little difference between households with and without members with disabilities, it is recognized that accessibility barriers prevent equal and adequate access.
For instance, analyses by the Disability Data Hub using data from multiple countries found no apparent differences between people with and without disabilities. Yet, these datasets do not allow examination of the barriers that limit access.
Few studies have incorporated accessibility dimensions into the definition of multidimensional poverty measures. For instance, Banks (2019) analyzed sanitation deprivation by considering whether facilities were accessible. In Nepal, the study found that 38.7% of people with disabilities experienced deprivation in sanitation, compared with 28.5% of people without disabilities. Therefore, it is fundamental to include questions on accessibility of different services to properly capture the barriers that people with disabilities face.
