Qualiopi indicator 26 (disability): expected evidence and mistakes to avoid

Indicator 26 is one of the most feared in the Qualiopi framework — not because it is complex, but because it prepares badly the night before the audit. It requires a living arrangement: an officer who knows the subject, genuinely identified networks, credible adaptation procedures. Here is what the indicator says, the evidence that convinces an auditor and the gaps that keep appearing in reports.

What indicator 26 requires

Attached to criterion 6 of the framework, indicator 26 expects the provider to mobilise the expertise, tools and networks needed to welcome, support or refer people with disabilities. Three verbs, three distinct requirements:

• welcome: detect needs from registration and adapt the service where possible;
• support: implement accommodations during the pathway (pace, materials, assessment methods);
• refer: know how to hand over to specialist structures when the adaptation exceeds your means.

The auditor is not looking for a disability-specialist provider: they are looking for a provider that has prepared its answer and knows who to turn to.

The centrepiece: a disability officer who really exists

Appointing a disability officer is the foundation of the arrangement. Three pieces of evidence make it credible:

1. a formalised appointment: name, remit, contact details, mention in the trainee welcome booklet and on your public information (indicator 1 requires the public to know who to contact);
2. traceable upskilling: awareness sessions, webinars, self-study — dated and archived, as they also feed indicator 22;
3. a demonstrable practice: on audit day, the officer often answers the questions. If they can name neither the Agefiph nor a local partner, the appointment counts for nothing.

The network: proof that referral is possible

Second pillar: the map of partners you can mobilise. No need for ten signed agreements; you need an up-to-date list with the right contacts:

• the Agefiph’s Ressource Handicap Formation (RHF), the reference support for analysing an adaptation need;
• local players: Cap emploi, MDPH, France Travail, missions locales;
• where relevant, the certifiers’ disability officers for exam accommodations.

One simple, effective piece of evidence: a documented contact (email, meeting note, participation in an RHF webinar) showing the network has not remained a theoretical list.

Adaptation evidence, with or without a real case

If you have already hosted a trainee with a disability, the adapted-pathway file is your best evidence: needs gathered at entry positioning, accommodations implemented, exchanges with partners, adjusted assessment.

Without a real case, prepare the arrangement cold:

• a short, realistic reception and adaptation procedure, known to the team;
• a needs-detection question in your registration and needs-analysis forms;
• published accessibility information (website, programmes, public accessibility register for premises open to the public, digital accessibility for distance learning).

The stakes go beyond compliance: the literature review by Silvia Bonaccio and co-authors published in 2020 in the Journal of Business and Psychology (« The Participation of People with Disabilities in the Workplace Across the Employment Cycle ») shows that employers’ main fears — accommodation costs, complexity — are largely overestimated compared with the empirical evidence, most adaptations being inexpensive and often benefiting everyone. The finding applies point for point in training: most accommodations are organisational, not capital investments.

The typical non-conformities on indicator 26

• The paper officer: named in an org chart, never trained, unable to describe a single procedure.
• The empty accessibility notice: “wheelchair-accessible premises” on the website, with no procedure behind it and no answer for other forms of disability.
• The generic partner list copied from a template, with no real contact and no local details.
• No detection: no field, no question in the registration process — the adaptation can then never be triggered.
• Distance learning forgotten: inaccessible platform, incompatible materials, no thought given to digital accommodations.

A gap on this indicator regularly ranks among the most frequent non-conformities; it corrects well through a corrective action plan, but is better avoided upstream through an honest self-assessment.

Take action

The Complete Kit Certif (€297, 14-day guarantee) includes the disability officer’s mission sheet, the reception and adaptation procedure, the partner-mapping template and the evidence table for indicator 26. The ebook “Create your training organisation in 30 days” (€67) builds the disability component in from creation, and the full pack (€347) bundles both.