"We do not accommodate members of the public with disabilities, so Indicator 26 does not really concern us." This phrase, heard in many organizations, is exactly what leads to non-compliance. Indicator 26 does not audit your cases: it audits your ability to be ready. By a pedagogical director and disability referent of a CFA, audits validated since 2021.
What Indicator 26 requires
The standard requires you to mobilize the necessary expertise, tools, and networks to welcome, support, and train people with disabilities — or to refer them when direct accommodation is not possible. Three concrete components stem from this:
- An identified disability referent — designated, known to the team, with a written mission;
- A mobilizable network of partners — you don't have to know how to do everything, but you need to know who to refer to;
- A reception and adaptation process — what specifically happens when a person declares a disability?
And the point everyone underestimates: all of this is required even if you have never welcomed a person with a disability. The indicator tests preparedness, not statistics.
The three typical interview questions
The auditor almost always divides the topic into three parts:
"Who is your disability referent?" — The name should come immediately, from you and from any team member questioned. A referent whom trainers cannot name is a referent who does not functionally exist.
"Who are your partners?" — They expect real names and usable contacts: Agefiph, regional disability training resources, MDPH, local structures, relevant medical services. A generic list copied from the internet is identifiable at the first follow-up question: "and concretely, who have you already contacted?"
"Show me an accommodation file." — If you have had cases: the request, the analysis, the decision, the implementation (extended time, adapted materials, schedule adjustments), all dated. If you haven't: your written process, ready to be deployed.
The trap: the paper referent
The most common mistake is not the absence of a referent — it's the referent designated on the organizational chart but never equipped: no training, no dedicated time, no actions to report. In an interview, this leads to an uncomfortable moment: the auditor asks the referent what they have done this year, and silence answers for them.
The solution is reasonable: the referent does not need to be a disability expert. They must be able to show two or three dated actions per year — team awareness-raising at a back-to-school meeting, contacting a partner, updating the reception process, verifying accessibility mention on materials (the link with Indicator 1 is direct). This is little, and it's exactly what makes the difference in an audit.
What a solid "Indicator 26" file looks like
- The written designation of the referent, with a one-page mission statement: role, time, contacts;
- The list of partners with real contacts — and proof of at least one contact made;
- The reception process in a few steps: needs identification (from the needs analysis, Indicator 4), interview, analysis of accommodations, implementation, follow-up;
- Completed accommodation files, anonymizable, dated — the best proof available;
- The accessibility mention present on your public materials, with the referent's contact.
Why this indicator is unforgiving
Indicator 26 is one of the indicators where a discrepancy is directly classified as a major non-conformity. The logic is clear: accommodating disabilities is a legal and societal obligation, not a quality option. An organization unable to state who its referent is and who to refer a person to will have its certification blocked until demonstrated correction.
For a CFA, vigilance is double: the disability referent of Indicator 26 is in addition to the mobility referent required by Indicator 20 — two distinct missions, two forms, two series of actions. Confusing them in an interview makes a bad impression.
Self-diagnosis in one question
If a candidate with a disability presented themselves tomorrow morning, would your team know what to do — without improvising? Who they meet, who analyzes the needs, who contacts which partner. If the answer is hesitant, Indicator 26 is your project for the week: an equipped referent, a real list of partners, and a one-page process can be put in place in a few days.
To check the rest
Indicator 26 is one of the five we most often see sanctioned, along with Indicators 10, 21, 31, and 32. Our free D-30 Qualiopi audit checklist reviews all 32 with the expected proof for each. And the Qualiopi Audit Guide deciphers each indicator with the actual questions asked in interviews.
Article written by the founder of Objectif Certif, pedagogical director, quality referent and disability referent of an active CFA. Reference texts: decree n°2019-565 and the RNQ reading guide — check the current version before your audit.