Attachments
Executive Summary
1.1 Purpose of the Assessment
In 2023, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) conducted a comprehensive Accessibility Audit of 78 key service facilities in Rohingya refugee camps under its Area of Responsibility (AoR)1 . The audit identied physical and service-level barriers aecting persons with disabilities, the elderly, and children, and provided recommendations for improvement. As part of the routine post-monitoring process to assess the impacts of previously implemented audits, IOM carried out a follow-up Impact Assessment in 2025 across 54 of those facilities. The purpose was to evaluate the extent to which previous recommendations had been implemented, measure tangible progress, identify persisting challenges, and capture user satisfaction levels. This ongoing assessment cycle serves as a critical accountability mechanism, informing adaptive programming and advocacy eorts to advance inclusive and equitable humanitarian service delivery. 1
1.2 Key Findings
Partial Progress Achieved:
▪ 65 per cent of facilities demonstrated some improvement-primarily in sanitation, lighting, or basic infrastructure.
▪ Only 11 per cent were classied as Well Improved, meeting most accessibility standards.
▪ 24 per cent showed no measurable change since 2023, indicating stagnation in certain locations. High User Awareness but Mixed Satisfaction:
▪ 70 per cent of respondents reported users were Somehow Satised—acknowledging progress while noting persistent access barriers.
▪ 15 per cent expressed full satisfaction, while another 15 per cent remained unsatised.
Accessibility Gaps Persist:
▪ 96 per cent (52 facilities) still face signicant accessibility barriers, including: ◦ Steep, unsafe, or missing ramps. ◦ Lack of pictorial and multilingual signage. ◦ Poor drainage or raised thresholds. ◦ Inaccessible toilets and water points. ◦ Absence of trained support sta or guides. Facility Types Most Aected: Health posts, learning centres, and multi-purpose centres in Camps 14, 19, and 20 remain particularly challenging for users with limited mobility or other access needs. 1.1 Purpose of the Assessment 1.2 Key Findings 1.3 Major Gaps Identied
▪ Infrastructure-Only Approach: Many upgrades focused solely on physical works (e.g., ramps, lighting) without complementary inclusive service measures such as signage, caregiver support, or user guidance. ▪ Non-Standard Compliance: Several improvements did not meet universal accessibility standards-ramps were too steep, handrails were missing, and signage lacked visual accessibility.