Handicap International: Study on Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response

A STUDY ON THE

DISABILITY INCLUSION PROCESS

IN THE EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO

TROPICAL STORM WASHI

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 to download a copy of this publication please visit

www.handicapinternational.ph

http://www.handicapinternational.ph/

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.

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

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

6.1.5. Existing attitudes and assumptions regarding disability and emergency response ....... 21

6.1.6. Opportunities for disability inclusion in emergency response ....................................... 22

6.1.7. Challenges and difficulties to disability inclusion in emergency response ..................... 23

6.1.8. 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

7.3.4. 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 | P a g e

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

9 | P a g e

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 tend to be missed by emergency registration systems

PWD may not be aware of what is happening, and therefore not comprehend the situation and its

consequences

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.

Emotional distress and trauma caused by a disaster may have long-term consequences on PWD

1 Word Disability Report (2011)

2 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

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

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

10 | P a g e

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.

11 | P a g e

c. 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.

4. 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 Washi-

response 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 open-

ended 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.

12 | P a g e

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.

13 | P a g e

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.

4Philippines, Republic Act No. 727 (1991), Chapter I, Section 4

<www.ncda.gov.ph/disability-laws/republic-acts/republic-act-7277> [accessed 12 June 2012]

http://www.ncda.gov.ph/disability-laws/republic-acts/republic-act-7277

14 | P a g e

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

all levels, especially the local community.5

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, differently-

abled 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

recover from the effects of disasters.’8

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

material, economic and environmental impact, risk assessment and mapping.’9

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

http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/article/227/NDRRMFramework.pdf

http://www.ndrrmc.gov.ph/attachments/045_RA%2010121.pdf

15 | P a g e

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

people’s organizations representing the most vulnerable and marginalized groups in the barangay.’10

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 11

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]

http://www.un.org/disabilities/countries.asp?navid=17&pid=166

http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=259

http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/questions.shtml#three

16 | P a g e

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

to the disaster or emergency16

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

http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?id=259

17 | P a g e

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 self-

regulatory, 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-international-commitments/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

http://www.ncda.gov.ph/international-conventions-and-commitments/other-international-commitments/biwako-plus-five/

http://www.ncda.gov.ph/international-conventions-and-commitments/other-international-commitments/biwako-plus-five/

18 | P a g e

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 22

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.’

19 | P a g e

language, culture, religion, disability, family status and socio-economic status.’24

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

20 | P a g e

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

21 | P a g e

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

22 | P a g e

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 cross-

cutting issue that needed to be mainstreamed. However, capitalizing on this awareness is limited by

their lack of capacity for disability inclusion.

23 | P a g e

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.

24 | P a g e

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

25 | P a g e

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 top-

down 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.

26 | P a g e

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%

27 | P a g e

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.

28 | P a g e

When asked about factors affecting

disability, the majority of respondents (69%

or 36 respondents) thought that socio-

economic, 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.

29 | P a g e

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 child-

friendly 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 disability-

focused 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.

30 | P a g e

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 self-

reliance 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.

31 | P a g e

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.

32 | P a g e

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.

33 | P a g e

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

34 | P a g e

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%).

35 | P a g e

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


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



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.

36 | P a g e

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



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.

37 | P a g e

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) 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%.

38 | P a g e

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


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

39 | P a g e

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.

40 | P a g e

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 WITH HANDICAP INTERNATIONAL

EMERGENCY RESPONSE TEAM

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

41 | P a g e

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.

42 | P a g e

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.

43 | P a g e

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

44 | P a g e

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 Non-PWD TOTAL

Cag

ayan

de

Oro

Agusan Elementary School 3 3 6

Balulang* 13 14 27

Barangay 24 3 3 6

Bulua Evacuation Center 3 3 6

Calaanan Tent City 1 8 11 19

Calaanan Tent City 2 4 4 8

Macasandig Evacuation Center 3 3 6

Mt. Carmel Evacuation Center 3 3 6

Patag Covered Courts 3 3 6

Tibasak Covered Courts 3 3 6

Xavier Ecoville 5 5 10

Sub-total Cagayan de Oro 51 55 106

Ilig

an

Hinaplanon* 10 10 20

Luinab Evacuation Center 3 3 6

Mahayahay* 5 5 10

Siao Shelter Box 3 2 5

San Roque Evacuation Center 3 3 6

Sta. Elena TS 3 4 7

Tambacan Elem School 3 3 6

Sub-total Iligan 30 30 60

TOTAL 81 85 166

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.

45 | P a g e

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.

46 | P a g e

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.

47 | P a g e

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.

48 | P a g e

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.

49 | P a g e

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.

50 | P a g e

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

51 | P a g e

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.

52 | P a g e

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 non-

prioritization 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 organizations

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

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

53 | P a g e

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 child-

friendly 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

54 | P a g e

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.

55 | P a g e

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.

56 | P a g e

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 house-

to-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.

57 | P a g e

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.

58 | P a g e

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.

59 | P a g e

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

60 | P a g e

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.

61 | P a g e

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 disability-

inclusive 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 cross-

cutting 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.

62 | P a g e

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.

63 | P a g e

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.

64 | P a g e

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 disability-

focused 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.

65 | P a g e

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.

66 | P a g e

ANNEX 1

List of Key Informants

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

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

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

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.

GOVERNMENT OFFICES AND AGENCIES

NGOs and CIVIL SOCIETY ORGANIZATIONS

UN AGENCIES AND CLUSTERS

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.

67 | P a g e

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?

68 | P a g e

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. It is the parents’ responsibility to make their children participate in child-friendly spaces and community

activities. b. Children with disabilities need special activities, so we cannot make them participate in child-friendly

spaces. c. Activities in child-friendly spaces can be adapted for children with disabilities if we are familiar with their

needs and abilities. d. 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.

69 | P a g e

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

12. There are special food, NFI and water distribution arrangements for persons with disabilities.

If yes, what are these ways?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

YES NO

13. Persons with disabilities are located close to and can easily access the camp’s communal facilities such as latrines, bathing areas, kitchens, etc.

YES NO

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?

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

YES NO

15. Food and nutrition programs take into account the additional nutritional requirements of persons with disabilities, including them in feeding programs.

YES NO

70 | P a g e

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.

PO

OR

NEE

DS

IMP

RO

VEM

ENT

AV

ERA

GE

GO

OD

VER

Y G

OO

D

16. Efforts to locate, identify, and register persons with disabilitiesand their special needs:

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:

71 | P a g e

ANNEX 4

Survey Questionnaire for Washi-Affected Households

Date: Interviewer:

GENERAL INFORMATION

Location of Interview: Household with PWD Individual Screening Form #:

Full name of interviewee: Household without PWD

Occupation/Education: Date of birth:

Contact number: Household size:

EFFECTS OF SENDONG

Were you affected by Sendong?

Yes No

If yes, how? (Include disability-related changes)

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 If yes, from whom? (Check all that apply)

Government NGOs Civil Society Organizations

Religious Organizations Family/Neighbors Others: ______________________ Others: ______________________

What kind of assistance did you receive?

Check all that apply

Food Non-food items (ex. household items,

clothes, etc.) Water and related items

Items for sanitation and hygiene Shelter support (ex. tents, repair kits,

transitional shelters, etc.) Healthcare

Psychosocial support Money Livelihoods Items for specific needs

Others (List all) ______________________ ______________________ ______________________

72 | P a g e

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 Provide examples:

What do you consider was well-managed and well-implemented during the emergency response?

(ex. distributions were organized, enough latrines, distance to facilities, etc.)

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?

Bathing areas: Yes No

Why or why not?

Communal kitchens: Yes No

Why or why not?

Child-friendly spaces: Yes No

Why or why not?

Others: ______________________ Yes No

Why or why not?

Others: ______________________ Yes No

Why or why not?

73 | P a g e

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 If yes, which one?_____________________________________________

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?

INTERVIEWER COMMENTS

74 | P a g e

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?

75 | P a g e

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?

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

[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Health & Medicine

Handicap International: Study on Disability Inclusion in Emergency Response