The World Bank recently released additional Corporate Scorecard data, including data on 15 “disability-inclusive” indicators. These disability indicators purport to measure outcomes such as how many persons with disabilities benefit from transport services or how many students with disabilities are “supported with better education.” Unfortunately, these existing indicators fail to accurately show how many persons with disabilities are benefiting because the Bank takes an all-or-nothing approach to disability inclusion: either all project beneficiaries or no beneficiaries are counted in the “disability-inclusive” indicators. The Bank’s approach to disability inclusiveness is further compounded by the lack of publicly available information on the methodology used to calculate the “disability-inclusive” figures.
According to Bank staff, the “disability-inclusive” indicators in the Scorecard identify projects that apply universal access at design and then count the total number of beneficiaries under the disability-inclusive figure. This grossly overestimates the number of persons with disabilities benefiting from a project, since the entire beneficiary population is counted rather than the specific number of persons with disabilities who accessed project benefits. For example, if a public transportation project were to benefit five million people and used universal access principles, all five million would be counted under “disability-inclusive” for that project. Yet, according to the World Health Organization, 16 percent of the world’s population has a disability. In this example, we would expect a project to benefit no more than 800,000, likely less, given that projects are not yet fully accessible.
In addition to overestimating the number of persons with disabilities benefitting from projects, the Scorecard’s“disability-inclusive” data is limited to “projects that apply the concept of universal access at design, in line with Environmental and Social Standard 4 (ESS4).” Because of the reliance on ESS4, only Investment Project Financing projects are considered, ignoring Development Policy Financing and Program-for-Results Financing, which face significant inclusion challenges. The focus on universal access is also limiting. While universal access is necessary and fundamental to inclusion, it does not fully capture the diversity of disabilities. Within the context of ESS4, universal access primarily focuses on physical accessibility, which is most relevant for infrastructure projects. It does not account for intellectual or psychosocial disabilities, and overlooks measures that do not focus on physical accessibility, such as making curricula accessible for learners with disabilities.
With the upcoming mid-term review of the Scorecard in fiscal year 2026, now is the time to refine the methodology to collect more accurate data on the number of persons with disabilities who benefit from Bank-funded projects and to verify that inclusion measures are actually implemented on the ground. Over the last thirteen years, through our specific monitoring of disability inclusion in Bank-funded projects, BIC has observed a significant gap between project design and implementation. Stating that a project will incorporate universal access in project documents does not guarantee that those elements will actually be incorporated into project implementation, which suggests that looking only at project design may overestimate the number of persons with disabilities who can benefit from a Bank-funded project.
Moving forward, the Scorecard should include meaningful disability data that the Bank can use to take actionable steps to improve inclusivity. Project-level indicators on disability inclusion would help build disability data at the country level and also provide direct evidence to the Bank and the Borrower on how many persons with disabilities benefit from projects. Some of the Bank’s social protection projects already track this information. For example, the Pathways to Sustainable Livelihoods Project in Lesotho has a specific indicator for one of its project components that tracks the total number of persons with disabilities benefiting from that component. While this is a step in the right direction in measuring how many persons with disabilities benefit from a Bank-funded project, the indicator should be expanded to examine the project as a whole — including all components, not just one — and be replicated across projects.
We urge the Bank to refine its methodology for the disability-inclusive indicators so that the Scorecard measures how many persons with disabilities are actually benefiting from Bank-funded projects, rather than measuring the total beneficiaries of projects that use universal access. This is necessary to gain an understanding of how many persons with disabilities benefit, or are excluded, from Bank-funded projects, creating a baseline from which the Bank could seek to improve the way its projects serve persons with disabilities. The Bank has acknowledged its need to do more to include persons with disabilities across its operations and made commitments at the 2018 Global Disability Summit that are set to be achieved by 2025; this includes its commitment to “scaling up disability data collection and use, guided by global standards and best practices, such as using the Washington Group’s Short Set of Questions on Disability.” Incorporating a measure of disability inclusion that tracks beneficiaries within the Scorecard is an essential next step. Ultimately, without changes to the methodology, the Bank cannot use the data to understand how many persons with disabilities are benefiting or what needs to change to promote increased inclusion.