Interactive Lab

Disability-Inclusive MEL Lab

An estimated 1 in 6 people live with a disability — yet most programme data still can't see them, because it never asked in a way that counts. This lab turns disability inclusion from a value into measurable practice: ground your MEL in the social model and the twin-track approach, count disability with the Washington Group Questions, write disability-inclusive SMART indicators, and make your data collection accessible. The practical companion to Disability Inclusion 101.

Frame it: the model decides the measure

How you understand disability decides what you measure. Get the frame right and the indicators follow; get it wrong and your data quietly excludes the people the programme is for.

Model	Sees disability as…	So it measures…
Medical model	A deficit inside the person, to be cured or fixed.	Diagnoses and impairments — and often screens people out of "mainstream" data.
Social model	The result of barriers — physical, attitudinal, institutional — meeting a person with an impairment.	Participation, access, and outcomes; whether barriers were removed. This is the frame MEL should use.

The rights backbone. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) — which India ratified in 2007 — and India's Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016 (which recognises 21 disabilities and mandates accessibility and non-discrimination) set the legal floor. "Nothing about us without us" is the operating principle: people with disabilities help design and interpret the data about their lives.

The twin-track approach

Credible disability inclusion runs on two tracks at once. Your MEL has to see both.

Track	What it does	What MEL captures
Track 1 — Mainstreaming	Makes every part of the programme accessible and inclusive.	All standard indicators disaggregated by disability — are people with disabilities reached and benefiting at the same rate as everyone else?
Track 2 — Disability-specific	Targeted actions that address specific barriers or empower the disability community.	Disability-specific indicators — accessibility audits, assistive devices, representation, barrier removal.

Set up your programme

Programme / project

The outcome you're measuring

Which track(s) does your MEL need to cover?

Count disability — the right way

Asking "Are you disabled?" or "Do you have a disability?" badly undercounts — many people don't identify with the label, or fear stigma. The global standard instead asks about functional difficulty in everyday activities. That's the Washington Group Short Set (WG-SS): six questions, comparable across surveys, and hard to game.

The six domains. Each question begins with the same stem — "Do you have difficulty…" — and uses the same four-point scale: (1) No, no difficulty · (2) Yes, some difficulty · (3) Yes, a lot of difficulty · (4) Cannot do at all. Try it below with one respondent to see how the cut-off works.

The recommended cut-off. A person is counted as having a disability if they answer "a lot of difficulty" or "cannot do at all" in at least one domain. Using a looser cut-off ("some difficulty") inflates prevalence and dilutes the signal; a stricter one misses people. Report which cut-off you used — always.

Good practice. Ask the WG questions of every respondent (not a "disability sub-survey"), so disability becomes a routine disaggregation like age and sex. Keep the exact wording and order. For children, use the Washington Group / UNICEF Child Functioning Module instead — the adult set under-identifies children.

Build disability-inclusive SMART indicators

Two kinds of indicator, matching the two tracks: mainstream indicators disaggregated by disability (Track 1) and disability-specific indicators (Track 2). Draft a few of each — the builder keeps them for your exported plan.

SMART, with a disability lens. Specific · Measurable · Achievable · Relevant · Time-bound — plus disaggregated by disability status (and, ideally, by WG domain, sex and age, since a wheelchair user and a Deaf woman face different barriers). "% of participants completing training" becomes "% of participants with and without disabilities completing training", with the gap itself as the equity signal.

Indicator statement Write it SMART. Include the disaggregation.

Track / type

Means of verification

No indicators yet. Add at least one of each track for a balanced, twin-track framework.

Starter examples you can adapt

Track	Indicator
Mainstream (T1)	Ratio of completion rate for participants with disabilities vs without (target: parity, 1.0).
Mainstream (T1)	% of participants with disabilities reporting they could fully take part in sessions.
Specific (T2)	% of programme venues meeting a basic accessibility checklist (ramp, accessible toilet, signage).
Specific (T2)	Number of participants receiving needed assistive devices / reasonable accommodations.
Specific (T2)	% of programme decisions with representation from people with disabilities or their organisations (OPDs).

Make the data collection itself accessible

You cannot count people your method excludes. If the survey isn't accessible, people with disabilities drop out of the sample — and the data "proves" they weren't affected. Tick what your MEL has a real plan for; the notes flow into your exported plan.

Accessibility & inclusion score

Do no harm. Disability can be sensitive and, for some, dangerous to disclose. Collect it only with informed consent and a clear purpose, store it securely, never expose an individual's status, and be ready for disclosures of violence or exclusion with a referral pathway. Inclusion is not just counting people — it's protecting them once counted.

Your disability-inclusive MEL plan

Everything you've built — approach, counting method, indicators and accessibility plan — pulled into one place. Review it, then export it into your MEL framework or proposal.

The test of a good plan. Could a stranger reading only your MEL framework tell whether people with disabilities were reached, included, and benefiting — and by how much less or more than everyone else? If yes, disability inclusion has moved from a promise to a measurement.

Export your plan

Download a plain-text disability-inclusive MEL plan — approach, WG counting decision, your twin-track indicators, and your accessibility commitments — ready to drop into a MEL framework, logframe, or proposal.

Working through the lab is free. Exporting the plan is a Premium feature (Practitioner plan and up).

Disability is now in your data

A social-model frame, a defensible way to count, twin-track indicators, and an accessible method — that's the difference between a programme that says it includes people with disabilities and one that can show it.

Twin-Track Washington Group Disaggregation Accessibility CRPD / RPwD

Disability Inclusion 101 → Build your full MEL system Explore more Labs