Accessible Technology Election technologies, such as electronic voting machines, are often proposed as an easy way to make the voting process more accessible to persons with disabilities. However, EMBs should think carefully about all technical and logistical considerations before supporting advanced technology options in countries that may lack the capacity to maintain elaborate technological solutions. In these cases, some simple forms of technology can make the process more accessible with little risk. For example, in Australia, voters who are blind or have low vision can vote via telephone. Online voting is another solution that has been proposed to make the process more accessible to persons with disabilities. Some European countries, such as Estonia, allow voting online and tout this process as being more accessible. However, online voting requires trust in the system as well as advanced technological resources and capacities, which might not exist in many countries. USAID programs supporting the disability community require objectives, outcomes and indicators tailored to the goals of the program. USAID’s own indicators are called “Standard Foreign Assistance Indicators,” or “F-Indicators.” Below is an example from an IFES project in Libya: OBJECTIVE: Civic engagement is increased, particularly among marginalized and underrepresented groups, through higher levels of public understanding of processes related to Libya’s political transition. INTERMEDIATE RESULT: Improved awareness of key issues, needs and barriers of persons with disabilities in accessing the electoral process among EMB and electoral stakeholders. OUTCOME INDICATOR (IFES-custom): Number of recommendations on adapting voting procedures to address the needs of persons with disabilities made to EMB and electoral stakeholders. Monitoring and Evaluation When designing a program description or request for proposals, donors should specify that all program indicators should be disaggregated by disability. Qualitative data on disability inclusion should also be collected. Monitoring and evaluating disability inclusion programming can be difficult. As noted earlier, the definition of disability varies from country to country. There are four different types of definitions that could be used: host-country, implementing partner country, donor country or the WHO. The global lack of a commonly-accepted definition can lead to inconsistencies when comparing information. Donors often do not have disability-specific indicators, so some implementing partners develop their own custom indicators. While this is useful for the project, it makes it more difficult for donors and implementing organizations to track the impact of all programming. Section 5 Examples of Indicators In addition to basic monitoring and evaluation, donors should encourage impact assessments. These assessments determine the impact of programming on persons with disabilities. They can also help determine if the disability inclusion programming had a broader impact on society, such as any changes in social attitudes, government openness to persons with disabilities or a more open political process. OUTCOME INDICATOR (F-Indicator): Number of CSOs receiving USG assistance engaged in advocacy interventions. Equal Access: How to Include Persons with Disabilities in Elections and Political Processes 65