WG3.18
Third Meeting Washington Group on Disability Statistics (WG),
19 – 20 February 2004,
Joint commentary prepared for the third
meeting of Washington City Group on Disability Statistics
Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS)
and
Australian
Unfortunately,
due to a number of reasons,
Purpose
Our
main concern is how to move quickly on the development of a small set(s) of
questions as a general disability measure(s) for censuses and sample based
national surveys, which is the main purpose of the group. Given that there are
multiple purposes for the use of a general measure(s) of disability, it is
necessary, in developing the measures, to focus on one or two specific
purposes.
Two
specific purposes are important for the general disability measure: to
In
the Australian population disability survey, the measurement of need for
assistance with activities of self-care, mobility and communication were used
as the broad indicators of need for services. These measures focus on the
activity dimension of disability and generate disability statistics on the more
severe disability population, which is the disability component of most
interest to policy planners and service funders/providers.
Australian
experience also shows that it is important and also feasible to collect
disability data on need for services using a set of survey questions on
activities. AIHW produced a number of key estimates of need for services that
were used to
The
Australian Census Advisory Group on Disability has also recommended that the
questions on need for assistance with activities in self-care, mobility and
communication be the first priority for consideration to be used in the
Australian 2006 population census.
The
existing Australian disability data show that the reported prevalence of severe
or profound disability (measured using need for assistance with activities of
self-care, mobility and communication) is more stable and less likely to be
affected by changes in perceptions and attitudes towards disability than less
severe disability (AIHW 1997). Analysis of US data also found that there is no
significant change in prevalence for people with more severe disability—need
for help with personal care activities (Schoeni et al. 2001). Hence, focus on
severe disability in the general measure of disability may increase the
comparability of data from different countries.
Australian
experience with disability survey, module and census approaches has shown that
with each successive shortening of the number of questions used to
identify disability, or a disability sub-set, the population obtained differs,
but can be related if careful question design is used.
Careful
consideration of the data needs/uses of
Governance
The
governance proposals are generally sound and comprehensive, however, a few key
points:
We
need to ensure that well-recognised international organisations such as OECD
are being involved in the work of this group. It is also important that
representatives of people with a disability should be included in the
development of indicators, as was agreed in the first meeting.
It
would also be of benefit if member statistical agencies were expected to liaise
with relevant policy departments and other key players in their respective
countries. This would ensure input of views from a broader perspective, and
assist in ensuring policy relevance of proposed questions.
Item
2 of the Operating Principles A, Content of Annual General Meetings (AGMs)
states that major work topics for the following year and future years will be
identified at the annual meeting.
However, to help generate momentum we see that it would be useful if the
Steering Committee could take a leading role in putting forward a suggested
work program via discussion papers circulated prior to the meetings. As such it is recommended that the current
list of responsibilities of the Steering
Committee be extended to include the preparation of a work program strategy
papers (or strategy review papers) for member review prior to AGM
meetings.
We
see that an initial paper would include a vision statement (drawing on
established WCG meeting decisions/priorities) along with the list of favoured
projects that might be undertaken to meet that end. A major benefit of such an approach is that
it provides a basis determining how particular projects might best be allocated
among working groups. It naturally also provides participants with the
opportunity of considering how they (and their sponsoring agencies) might best
contribute to particular projects before they arrive at the meeting.
The
AGM could then be used to collectively review and endorse the overall strategy,
clarify and confirm member interests in undertaking particular projects and, of
course, progressively review the outcomes of work being doing by the various
workgroups as the work develops.
Resources allowing we see that it would be extremely useful to have such
a paper prepared for discussion at the next AGM. Indeed if there were opportunity it would be
ideal if members could respond with comments/suggestions on an initial draft
of such a work program strategy paper so
that the meeting could review those comments/suggestions in totality.
We
also recommend the governance proposal makes reference to the need for a review
(or reviews) of the overall progress of the work as a basis for validating the ongoing need for the
groups continued operation. Such a
review (conducted at a minimum of three to four years) would provide a useful
opportunity for member countries to assess their ongoing commitments to the
work of the WCG.
References
Australian
Schoeni
R, Freedman V & Wallace R 2001. Persistent, consistent, widespread, and
robust? Another look at recent trends in old-aged disability. Journal of
Gerontology: Social Sciences 56B(4):S206–218.