Voting experiences III

• INTRODUCTION
  • My Opinion My Vote
  • Interview survey
• METHOD
  • Table of the interviewees’ gender and participation in the M.O.TE project
  • The interview guide
  • Interviewing people with learning disabilities
  • Recruiting interviewees
• VOTING RIGHTS IN THE PARTICIPATING COUNTRIES
• RESULTS FROM THE INTERVIEW SURVEY
  • About Politics
  • About Having an Opinion
  • About the Importance of Voting
  • About the Effect of M.O.TE – As Experienced by the Interviewees Themselves
• CONCLUSION – VOTING EXPERIENCES AMONG PEOPLE WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES AND THE M.O.TE PROJECT
• APPENDIX
  • A: MOTE, Poll III – Interview Guide
  • B: Interview guide for second interview round
  • C: Interview guide for first interview round
  • D: Interview guidelines
  • E: Criteria for the selection of interviewees
  • F: The project partners
  • G: Outline of the recruiting of interviewees in each participating country

It is characteristic of a modern democracy that all adult citizens have an equal opportunity to exercise active political influence. When a cohort of the population is denied their right to exercise democratic influence, it creates a democratic deficit in society as a whole.

Participation in elections is a primary opportunity to exercise your rights as a citizen in a democratic society. Not all citizens, however, have the same opportunity to make decisions and take part in elections.

For people with learning disabilities (see note 1) it can be extremely difficult to take part in elections, because electoral materials are not made in an accessible format for this target group. It can also be hypothesized that people with learning disabilities are not expected to make decisions and as a result are often not afforded the opportunity to learn about democracy, elections and political rights. British and Swedish surveys show that the level of participation in elections by people with learning disabilities is very low compared with the rest of the population (see note 2).

A Danish survey points out that many people with learning disabilities do not experience a natural expectation of having an opinion of their own or being responsible for themselves during their upbringing or at school. Likewise, many have not been taught about democratic conventions such as decision-making processes and legislation etc. (see note 3)

Political decisions influence the lives of people with learning disabilities in the same way as they influence the lives of everybody else. Looked upon as a group, people with learning disabilities are often one of the population groups whose life conditions are most dependent on political decisions. Nevertheless, people with learning disabilities continue to represent a cohort of society who is most frequently excluded from common practice of democratic functions.

Note 1: In this document the term ”learning disability” refers to a range of conditions that are associated with cogntive and intellectual impairments, as commonly understood in the UK (as opposed to the U.S. and Canada where the term ”learning disability” is used to describe conditions associated with acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning or mathematical abilities not due to intellectual impairments.)

Note 2: Keely m.fl.: Participation in the 2005 general election by adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, Volume 52, Number 3, March 2008 , pp. 175-181(7) and Kjellberg: Participation – Ideology and Everyday Life, The Swedish Institute for Disability Research, 2002 and United Response http://www.unitedresponse.org.uk/press/every-vote-counts-press-release.htm

Note 3: ”Veje til reelt medborgerskab. En kortlægning af udviklingshæmmedes vilkår for selvbestemmelse og brugerinddragelse”, Henriette Holmskov og Anne Skov, Handicapenheden, Servicestyrelsen 2007.

The project “My Opinion, My Vote” has been implemented between 2008 and 2010. The aim has been to increase political participation among people with learning disabilities.

The Italian organisation for people with learning disabilities, Associazione Italiana Persone Down (AIPD), has taken the initiative to create this project, which is funded by the Grundtvig EU Lifelong Learning Programme of European Education, Audiovisual & Culture Agency. The other participating organisations are The Equal Opportunities Centre for Disabled Persons from Denmark, Fundacio Projecte AURA and Universitat Ramon Llul from Spain, Sio2 from Italy, Down Syndrome Ireland, Down Foundation from Hungary, University of Malta and Equal Partners Foundation from Malta.

The purpose of the project is to create awareness among people with learning disabilities of their political rights and to create better opportunities for them to exercise their rights. The project is based on the assumption that there are various barriers preventing people with learning disabilities from exercising their political rights on an equal footing with others.

One barrier is lack of awareness and knowledge of political rights among people with learning disabilities, their relatives and persons in the caring professions. Another barrier is lack of awareness of the importance of political participation by people with learning disabilities in society as a whole. A third barrier is the lack of accessible electoral information and the need for the relevant authorities to ensure the accessibility of public and political information.

A survey pertaining to civic, political and social education practices with people with learning disabilities was conducted with teachers from special and mainstream education settings. A further survey was conducted with families of people with learning disabilities relating to political awareness and education. The report of this survey can be downloaded from www.myopinionmyvote.eu.

An awareness campaign was implemented in conjunction with the last European elections in June 2009. The campaign was targeted towards people with learning disabilities and those working in the field of learning disability. The aim of the campaign was to raise awareness of the elections and inform electors about voting procedures. An awareness campaign focused on political rights in general will also be implemented as part of the project.

As a part of the M.O.TE project an education programme focusing on politics, democracy and elections has been developed for use with people with learning disabilities. The programme was developed in collaboration with people with learning disabilities and respective professionals. The programme will be available for free download from the project website: www.myopinionmyvote.eu.

As part of the project, advisory groups were set up comprising four adults with learning disabilities per country. The advisory group met three times during the project period and contributed to the development and testing of the results of the project.

A qualitative interview survey of three rounds has been carried out. The first two interview surveys comprised interviews with twenty persons with learning disabilities in each of the six participating countries. The first interview survey pertained to political awareness among people with learning disabilities. The second interview survey focused specifically on political rights and voting, including decision-making processes when voting, voting on the Election Day, and the availability of accessible political information.

The purpose of the third interview survey has been evaluate the M.O.TE project, herein the effect of the project and the personally experienced effect of participating in the project. The interview guide focused on the confidence to vote, the identity as a voter, increased awareness and (political) participation in general.

In this survey four persons from the M.O.TE pilot group and four persons, who participated in the testing of the education programme, were interviewed in each of the participating countries. The interviews took place in the summer of 2010. The interviews were carried out in each of the participating countries and the interviewers subsequently submitted the results of the respective national interviews to The Equal Opportunities Centre for Disabled Persons in Denmark. The six national reports form the basis for this report. The interviews and national reports for the interview survey were carried out by: Hajnalka Biro, Orsolya Fiko-Leveleki and Krisztina Lakatos from Hungarian Down Foundation.

Elena Tanti Burlo from University of Malta, Juan Camilleri, Louisa Grech and Ninette Pace from Equal Partners Foundation (Malta).

Laura Schollert Hvalsum and Linda Bendix from The Equal Opportunities Centre for Disabled Persons (Denmark).

Laura Krauel from Fundacio Projecte Aura (Spain).

Carlotta Leonori from Associazione Italiana Persone Down (AIPD) Head Office, Rome, Jacqueline De Muro from AIPD, Pisa, Claudia Spina from AIPD, Campobasso, Elena Vanotti from AIPD, Bergamo and Roberta Maulà from AIPD, Potenza (Italy).

Grainne Murphy from Down Syndrome Ireland (DSI).

The structure and various fundamental parts of the M.O.TE project have been laid down by AIPD. AIPD has also made the overall design of the interview survey. A qualitative interview survey of three rounds has been carried out with twenty persons with learning disabilities in each of the six participating countries. The Equal Opportunities Centre for Disabled Persons from Denmark has been is responsible for the coordination of the interview surveys, development of interviews tools and reporting the results of the European interviews.

The interview survey has been designed as qualitative surveys with one-to-one interviews based on a semi-structured interview guide. The reason for choosing one-to-one interviews is that interviewees who are not familiar with voting might feel less motivated or even inhibited about participating actively in the actual interview if the interview was carried out within a group context.

The Equal Opportunities Centre has developed the interview guide. The Centre has drawn on foregoing studies from literature on the methods of interviewing persons with learning disabilities. The literature shows a general recommendation on formulating the questions in a very concrete way. It is emphasised that the questions should, in as much as is possible be phrased in such a way that they relate to things, persons, and events familiar to the interviewee. The interview guide for the second interview round is attached in appendix A, and the interview guide for the first interview round is attached in appendix B.

Twenty persons with learning disabilities were selected in each country to participate in the project. Sixteen participated in the project by participating in both the first and second interview survey and in the testing of the education programme. Four participated in the above-mentioned activities as well as in the pilot group activities in order to follow the project closely. The pilot groups have also participated in project meetings where they have been giving advise in relation to the development and testing of the materials and surveys of the project.

For the third and final interview survey eight persons have been interviewed per country. The reason for reducing the number of interviewees was that the interviews in the third interview survey would be more in-depth than the previous interview surveys and therefore the M.O.TE coordinators found that eight interviews carried out per country would be sufficient. 

Denmark - Female: 3 Male : 5 Member of pilot group: 4 Participants in education programme: 4

Hungary - Female: 3 Male : 5 Member of pilot group: 4 Participants in education programme: 4

Ireland - Female: 4 Male : 4 Member of pilot group: 4 Participants in education programme: 4

Italy - Female: 4 Male : 4 Member of pilot group: 4 Participants in education programme: 4

Malta - Female: 5 Male : 4 Member of pilot group: 4 Participants in education programme: 5

Spain - Female: 4 Male : 4 Member of pilot group: 4 Participants in education programme: 4

As mentioned previously, the interview guide focused on the confidence to vote, the identity as a voter, increased awareness and (political) participation in general. In order to find out about the interviewees’ opinions and experiences about the confidence as a voter the interview guide more specifically focused on the feeling of security in voting and the faith in that each and every vote counts.

In order to find out about the interviewees’ opinions and experiences about participation the interview guide focused on the opportunity to vote and the opportunity to be involved in politics in general. In order to find out the interviewees’ opinions and experiences about increased awareness the interview guide focused on increased awareness about politics, what politics is about and increased awareness about society in general. In order to find out the interviewees’ views on the identity as a voter the interview guide focused on the awareness of being a voter, being a citizen and that every vote counts.

The interviewees had to choose between the following answering categories for most questions in the interview guide: “Yes, a lot”, “Yes”, “Yes, a little”, “No” and “Don’t know”, with the possibility of elaborating on the answers given. In that sense, this interview guide differs from the interview guides used in the previous interview survey by containing several answering categories.

The reason for including answering categories, compared to the two previous interview surveys, is that during these interview surveys, it seemed that the interviewees found it difficult to answer some of the questions without answering categories, and that this could make the interview situation more comfortable for the interviewees and ease/facilitate the answering process. The questions are marked in bold throughout the report.

Most questions in this interview proved rather difficult to reply for some of the interviewees, especially those questions that were open-ended. Furthermore, some questions were too abstract. During this interview survey it seemed that the interviewees found it quite difficult to distinguish clearly and choose between “Yes, a lot”, “Yes” and “Yes, a little”. For some interviewees the interviewers resorted to seeking a simple “Yes” or “No” so as to verify whether they agree with the statement or otherwise.

It could be discussed if the interviews should have been carried by other interviewers, as the one’s who interviewed also carried out the education programme. This might have affected the interviews in the way that the interviewees tried to answer as positively as possible. On the other hand, the fact that the interviewers and instructors of the education programme were the same could have affected the interview situation in the sense that the interviewees were secure and comfortable, than if someone who was unfamiliar to the interviewee asked the questions.

Methodical considerations must always be contemplated when planning qualitative research. The deliberations are twofold and relate to how to best prepare the interviews so as to acquire the most information from the target group and how to conduct the interviews effectively. Regardless of the target group being interviewed, considerations should always be made with respect to the format and nature of the interviews. Such considerations will generally include the following: Appropriate phrasing of the questions, cultural, sexual and gender sensitivity, etc. When interviewing persons with learning disabilities more specific considerations pertaining to an individual’s needs and circumstance may be required.

Prior to the interview survey, the Centre formulated guidelines for interviewing persons with learning disabilities. These guidelines describe how the interviews of M.O.TE should be carried out and indicate which aspects are important to be aware of in this context. The purpose of the guidelines was to describe some of the methodical considerations pertaining to conducting interviews with persons with learning disabilities. Furthermore, the guidelines were to ensure a degree of methodological consistency given the different cultural contexts the interviews are taking place in; see the guidelines in appendix C.

The Centre has drawn on foregoing studies from literature on the methods of interviewing persons with learning disabilities to make these guidelines (se note 4). The guidelines emphasise that it is important to allow sufficient time for the interview – both for information meetings and acquiring “informed consent”. The guide specifies the importance of informing the interviewees that all interviews are anonymous and advises that they can withdraw from the interviews at any time or refuse to answer any questions during the interview.

The guidelines emphasised that it is important to enquire about the interviewees’ impression of being interviewed on completion of the interview. It is important that the interviewees have the opportunity to reflect on and communicate their experience of the interview situation.

The guidelines called for an information meeting to be held with the interviewees prior to the interview. At these meetings the interviewees were informed of the purpose and the details of the project, as well as the number of participants and interview rounds involved in the project. Easy-to-read information was presented to each participant, detailing the project objectives, the interview, informed consent and the interviewers’ contact information. Especially, it was emphasised at this meeting to the interviewees that there were no right or wrong answers, and the interviewee could ask for further details or explanations at any time. Therefore, sufficient time was allocated for the information meetings.

The interview guide and the guidelines were sent to all project partners for further comments, and The Equal Opportunities Centre for Disabled Persons has considered these comments in the interview tools. Project partners have piloted the interview guide in all of the participating countries. The Equal Opportunities Centre has adapted the interview guide on the basis of these comments.

Note 4: A list of literature can be seen in the guidelines in appendix C.

The Equal Opportunities Centre for Disabled Persons prepared guidelines for recruiting the interview group. The guidelines stipulated that the interview group should be in the age range of eighteen to thirty-five. At least 30 % of the interviewees should be of an age where they either had voted or had been able to vote at least once before. There should be an equal representation of men and women, and the group as a whole should represent some diversity in age and ethnicity etc. Furthermore, the group should also present some diversity in reading and processing skills. It was however also stipulated that the criteria should be seen only as a guide with non-obligatory adherence to all recommendations. See appendix E for the list of criteria in full.

As a rule, the participants of the interview survey have been recruited through the participating organisations, see appendix F for a description of the participating organisations. Many of the participating organisations are either disability organisations or organisations that provide services to persons with learning disabilities and their families. These organisations have been able to recruit participants from among their members or service recipients. The Danish organisation is neither a service organisation nor a member organisation and therefore had no members or service recipients to recruit from. See appendix F for an outline from each country describing how the interviewees were recruited as well as the general characteristics of the interview groups of each country.

Participation in national elections has historically been an area where groups of people have been disenfranchised because of their group status. Age, gender, social status and disabilities have all at different times been used as criteria for exclusion from the political process. For instance in Denmark, women did not obtain the right to vote until 1915. In Ireland women were awarded the right to vote in 1918, and in Italy this right was realised for women in 1945. Historically, people with learning disabilities are a group who have been excluded from voting in most countries. In some countries they still are. In the participating countries the voting rights of people with learning disabilities vary (see note 5).

In Ireland, Italy and Spain, people with leaning disabilities have the right to vote with no exceptions (see note 6).

In Denmark, as a rule, everybody above the age of eighteen has the right to vote, although in some cases disability is a ground for restriction of legal capacity. Individuals who have been deprived of legal capacity therefore do not have the right to vote. Individuals who are placed under other types of guardianship are not deprived the right to vote (see note 7).

In Hungary, the legal form of interdiction excludes many persons with learning disabilities from exercising their fundamental civic and political rights. There are two types of interdiction in Hungary: the incapacitated (fully) and the restrictive (partial). Fully incapacitated status means that no contractual capacity is held pertaining to the right to work under legal forms, to get married officially or exercise democratic rights etc.

Restrictive or partial capacity is limited to certain areas, for example a person may be employed to freely utilise half of their income with the other half being under the trustee’s supervision. Restricted capacity does not allow people to exercise their democratic rights or marry. In 2006 more than 66,000 people were interdicted (most of them had a learning disability, and some had psychiatric diagnosis), 66 % of those interdicted are deemed fully incapacitated. There is a proposal for changing the Hungarian Civil Code that also includes a revision of the rules concerning the legal capacity, and the introduction of supported decision-making instead of restriction and exclusion from decision-making.

In Malta, the constitution has the following clause:

No person shall be qualified to be registered as a voter for the election of members of the House of Representatives if - (a) he is interdicted or incapacitated for any mental infirmity by a court in Malta or is otherwise determined in Malta to be of unsound mind;

For many years this clause was also applied to persons with intellectual disability, and the political parties in Malta sought advantage through it by denouncing to the Electoral Commission and the Maltese Courts any person they thought was not fit to vote. In 2002, pressure was put on the political parties to stop this practice and to give the right to vote to persons with intellectual disability.

Although there was agreement and consent on behalf of both parties, this practice might still be resorted to at times. Thus, the voting right of persons with learning disabilities can be taken away from them. Persons with learning disabilities are told that they cannot be given their vote because of their disability. If they contest it, the person is subjected to an interview to assess their knowledge of politics. If they are aware of the leaders of the political parties, why an election is held and other such information, they will be allowed to vote.

Note 5: Information about the rules of the participating countries have been provided by the project partners.

Note 6: Irish legislation does not deal with the question of voters with intellectual or learning disabilities. The common law has held that a person must have the legal capacity to vote. In general, legal capacity involves the ability to understand the nature and consequence of the act of voting. There is no system in place for assessing legal capacity.

Note 7: http://www.statsforvaltning.dk/site.aspx?p=6392 

As previously mentioned the purpose of this interview survey has been to evaluate the M.O.TE project, among these the effect of the project and the personally experienced effect of participating in the project. The interview guide has focused on the confidence to vote, the identity as a voter, increased awareness and (political) participation in general.

As mentioned in the introduction, political decisions influence the lives of people with learning disabilities in the same way as they influence the lives of everybody else. However, looked upon as a group, people with learning disabilities are often one of the population groups whose life conditions are most dependent on political decisions. The previous interview surveys focused on political rights and voting.

These interview surveys showed that the most difficult part of voting was connected to the decision of whom to vote for and not the physical act of voting. It should be mentioned that this assessment most likely would be shared by most voters and is thus not specific to people with learning disabilities. The reasons given show that many of the issues, faced by people with learning disabilities, are the same as the issues all people face when deciding which political party to side with. It was expressed that it is difficult to see through all the things the politicians say and find out what they really intend to do if they are elected, and that all the politicians promise the same things no matter what party they belonged to. Other issues concerned trust and political transparency. The previous interview surveys showed that the interviewees found politics generally inaccessible. One reason given is lack of accessible information about politics, where accessibility not only relates to written materials, but also the presentation of political ideas in general.

To begin with in this interview survey, the interviewees were asked the question: “What is politics?” The question was asked in order to find out if the M.O.TE project had promoted a better understanding of what politics is about. The interview survey shows that the interviewees had various notions of what politics is about and for some interviewees the question was difficult to answer. It appears from the Maltese interview report, that the question was hard to answer because it is open-ended and puts the onus on the interviewee to come up with an original answer.

In general, some interviewees associated politics with politicians, voting, laws and rules, while other interviewees though of politics as knowing one’s rights and making one’s voice heard. A few interviewees also spoke of politics in relation to the EU. In Denmark, the pilot group could easier explain the term than the rest of the interviewees. In Ireland, few participants referred to politics as being about the M.O.TE project. In Italy, some interviewees thought that politics refers to the law, which regulates the State and the task is to help people into a better coexistence. In both Italy and Hungary, a few interviewees made a connection between politics and TV news. In Spain some interviewees mentioned the names of Spanish politicians.

Then the interviewees were asked, if politics is important. The interview survey shows that a majority of the interviewees found that politics is important, but a lot of the interviewees found it difficult to explain the reason why. In Spain, a lot of interviewees found that politics is important because one have to vote. In Italy, the interviewees found that you have to pay attention to politics, because you can vote and because politics is a way to express your opinion, even if it differs from the opinion of other people:

“Because politics helps people and persons with Down Syndrome to understand what is happening all around, where they live and how politics is affecting one’s life”.

In Malta, the interviewees mentioned ‘helping people’, ‘welfare’, and ‘protection of the environment’ as their reasons. In Ireland, some of the interviewees made reference to rights, which may be reflective of some preliminary teaching carried out in Ireland in relation to human rights:

“It means that everyone rich or poor gets the same chance to have a voice and get rights”

In Denmark, the pilot group seemed to find it easier to explain why politics is important, than the interviewees who had solely participated in the testing of the education programme. Among the interviewees in general there seemed to be a common notion of democracy as being important in order to have someone administrating the country, and in order to keep up with things taking place.

Even though the majority of interviewees found it hard to explain what politics is, there was variation to the question if politics is easy to understand. Some interviewees thought that politics is fairly easy. It was stated that it becomes easier to understand politics if the interviewees become aware of what the politicians stand for and what they work with, for instance if the politicians tell about their work at meetings. A lot of interviewees found that politics is not easy to understand because politicians use jargon/difficult words, because they sometimes contradict themselves and speak about abstract topics. Another reason given it is difficult to understand how politics work. Some interviewees found that politics is not easy to understand because the ideas they convey are complex or confusing and therefore require someone else to help them to understand. A few mentioned that the complexity of politics also had to do with the lack of trust in what the politicians say. Here are some quotations from interviewees who did not find politics easy to understand:

“Sometimes they talk and it is difficult to see what they really mean but it is possible to understand if we get more information”

“I sometimes don’t understand at first what I hear so I have to read the newspaper to understand what it means. The journalist expresses it more in detail”

“I think they speak to fast sometimes. It can be difficult when they all have different opinions”

In Italy, all interviewees but one thought that politics is not easy to understand. Four interviewees thought that it very much depends on the situation and were missing the option of answering both yes and no. In Ireland, two interviewees stated that visiting the European, Hungarian and Italian Parliaments in relation to the M.O.TE project had made it easier to understand politics. Those who said that politics was not easy to understand made reference to political manifestos, which is possibly reflective of the M.O.TE education programme, where manifestos are discussed. Furthermore, is may be reflective of the M.O.TE awareness campaign in Ireland which focused on the production of easy-to-read political manifestos.

Most interviewees thought that politics would be easier to understand if political manifestos or news in easy-to-read were made, or if someone could explain politics in a way that differs from the way they speak about politics in the news. This might also reflect the participation in the M.O.TE education programme that has focused on politics, democracy and elections. Furthermore, easy to read manifestos have been produces as a part of the M.O.TE project.

As mentioned on the introduction to the M.O.TE project, an education programme was developed and tested in each of the participating countries. The education programme focused among other things on political participation and how to make one’s own voice heard. This also formed the background for posing the question “Can you influence politics?”. About half of the interviewees think they can influence politics. In Denmark and Ireland, all interviewees think they can influence politics. Some interviewees mention petitions or voting as a way to influence politics, other mention participating in political meeting as a way to exercise influence:

“I can have an influence on politics when I vote. And by trying to understand what the politicians want, for instance by reading their political programmes. That way I find out who I like”

In Ireland, the interviewees referred to the M.O.TE education programme and family support. They did not advise how to make an influence on politics but talked about having the confidence and knowledge to talk to politicians. The other half of the interviewees doesn’t think they can influence politics. The reasons given are: Not being politicians/Member of the Parliament, not knowing the laws, or not being able to solve a controversy. As for the Italian interview survey, most of the interviewees express mistrust towards the politicians. In Spain, five interviewees answered that they didn’t really know at first, but after some explanation from the interviewer, they answered that they can influence politics because they are able to vote and to decide whom to vote for.

Asked about the importance of having an influence on politics, the majority of interviewees found it important to have an influence. Some interviewees thought that having influence on politics was a way to make one’s opinion considered. Some interviewees mentioned, that influence could be exerted through voting, listening to other people’s opinions, sharing ideas and face-to-face talking. A minority of interviewees focused more on concrete and personal issues, such as traffic in the neighbourhood, transport and independent living.

In Malta, the vast majority said that it is important to have an impact on the political life but few had concrete ideas on how to do so, though some mentioned going to vote, talking to people you can trust and seeking help when problems arise. In Spain, the interviewees were a bit confused between the importance of having influence on politics and the importance of voting, but all eight interviewees found that is it very important to vote when there is an election. In the Danish interview survey the pilot group seemed to give more general answers than interviewees, who had participated in the education programme, but not in the pilot group. Here are some quotations:

“If I vote, I can change who is in power”

“It can be important to my everyday life. As someone having a learning disability, it can be important to get acquainted with what’s going on – for instance in relation to the current saving cuts that will take place in the municipalities”

“Because I am a part of a special group, who might have some needs that are a bit difficult. We might not have an education. However, I don’t have one myself. So it can be difficult to get into the work field. Not everyone treats you nice. We can influence the politicians, so that we get treated nice”

Two interviewees answered “No” or “Don’t know” to the question. One interviewee elaborated the answer by saying: “Because politicians mind their own business”.

Subsequently, the interviewees were asked, if they had learned something about politics be participating in the M.O.TE project. The majority of interviewees answered “Yes, a lot” to the question. Some interviewees both mentioned politics on a national and as well as on a European level. On a national level, the interviewees mentioned having the right and being able to vote, the need to vote, the Parliaments, elections and politicians. Some interviewees mention having learned about their own country and asking about things they do not understand. Some interviewees also explain that each participating country has its own political system, whereas other interviewees make reference to methods of redress:

“I learnt about how to contact the politicians and have a say, like with a petition or starting a campaign […]”

On a European level, the interviewees have learned about the EU due to visits to the Italian and European Parliament and other EU countries. Some interviewees also mention the possibility of interdiction of people with disabilities in Hungary. Some interviewees explicitly mention the education programme as the source of their knowledge. In Hungary, some interviewees also mention having learned about personal documents (e.g., ID cards).

“I learned that every country has its own politics. I met people from other countries with habits that are different from mine”

“Like I said before I know what to say to the politicians, I know what the local ones and the TDs [members of the Daìl, the Irish Parliament] have to do to stay in office”

“I’ve learned something about how to vote, and that they pass a bill […]In some countries you a re not allowed to get married because of your disability […]”

It can be hypothesized that the experience of travelling to the other European countries might have made Europe less abstract for the participants in the pilot groups and therefore enhanced the learning experience. However, it should be mentioned, that the pilot group members have been recruited through user organizations in the participating countries and therefore some pilot group members might be used to relate to politics in a broad sense of the term through their work. This could also be reflected in the learning experience and outcome of the education programme. Furthermore, the activity-based aspects of the education programme seemed to be the most effective way to enhance the learning experience and outcome of the education programme.

One of the purposes of the M.O.TE project has been to create awareness among people with learning disabilities of their political rights and to create better opportunities for them to exercise their rights. It can be hypothesized that people with learning disabilities are not expected to make political decisions just like every one else and as a result people with learning disabilities are often not afforded the opportunity to learn about democracy, elections and political rights.

The previous interview surveys showed that a lot of interviewees spoke with their families about politics and whom to vote for, and not necessarily in the lead up to an election. Some interviewees replied that they did not vote, mainly because they had their potential interest in voting put down or not supported by family members or others. Others seem to have voted not out of a personal choice, but because of familial pressures. This shows that there is still a need for education, not only with people with learning disabilities, but with their families and in society in general in order to eliminate the prejudices still connected to people with learning disabilities exercising their right to vote.

One of the components of this interview survey has been to find out if the interviewees have political opinions and if the interviewees have learned something about having an opinion by participating in the M.O.TE project. As for the Italian interview survey, the pilot group members seemed to answer with more confidence to questions about having an opinion, than interviewees who had solely participated in the education programme. However, this doesn’t seem to be applicable to the other national interview surveys.

Firstly, the interviewees were asked, if they had political opinions. Most interviewees answered positively to this question, yet some interviewees found it difficult to understand the question. It seems that there was no significant difference between the answers from the pilot group and interviewees who have not been members of the pilot group. In Hungary, two interviewees said they had sparse knowledge about politics and therefore they only had “little” opinion about politics. Other two interviewees did not have an opinion about politics. This could have to do with the current effective system of incapacitation, which might cause little political self-confidence among people with learning disabilities who are under interdicted.

Secondly, the interviewees were asked how they develop political opinions. The answers vary greatly, from finding out for themselves through experiences, talking to friends or family members, watching TV or reading newspapers.

“I listen to what the parties stand for. And from what I have experienced through life. And from my mum who’s interested in politics”

Some interviewees referred to political rights and the necessity to understand these rights in order to have an opinion about politics.

“Having an opinion is very important but first you need to know your rights. You can’t be looking for things that are not realistic”

As for the Italian interview survey, the pilot group describes in detail how they have developed their political opinion, referring to their own experience during the three M.O.TE pilot group meeting. It should also be mentioned that in the Danish interview survey the question “How do you develop a political opinion?” seemed to be too abstract for some interviewees, but the exemplification “How do you decide whom to vote for?” was much easier to understand.

In Malta, some interviewees’ notion of developing a political opinion seemed vague and they were not able to reply to the question. A few interviewees mentioned TV, the media and talking to others as potential factors that help form their political opinion. In the Irish interview survey, most participants referred to the importance of listening and “…hearing what people have to say”. This may be reflective of a preliminary teaching module delivered in Ireland that focused on facilitation and listening skills. In Spain, after the interviewer had explained the question the interviewees said that they choose a political party, but they weren’t able to explain the reasons for choosing that particular political party.

The majority of interviewees found it difficult to answer the question about how to show one’s opinion about politics and the answers vary greatly, so the question might have been to abstract to the interviewees. Some interviewees mentioned working in politics or using strength in numbers via support groups to share their political opinions. Some interviewees did not understand how one could visually show an opinion, and some came up with answers after having the question refreshed. Only few interviewees mentioned voting.

In Malta, some interviewees said that political opinions are something private and that they do not wish to share it with anyone. Others mention that they can show their political opinions by talking to others, getting advice, attending political rallies and voting for their party of choice. In Spain, all respondents say that they express their political opinion by voting and some mention the name of the political party they vote for. In Italy, the participants in the education programme couldn’t answer the question, whereas the pilot group members said they could show opinions by expressing them freely without any fear to make mistakes.

Most interviewees thought that their opinions were important but some found it difficult to explain why. Some found that their opinions were important because they are representatives of other people with learning disabilities. Some thought that only people with learning disabilities could advise about what living with a disability is like. Most interviewees found that their opinions were important to themselves, where some also mentioned politicians, other citizens and their families/relatives. Here are some quotations:

“If you don’t have an opinion then things just stay the same. If you want things to be different, you have to speak up”

“It is important to express what I think and not that others speak for me”

“Because I can inspire other people to vote so they won’t just sit in their couch and let other people decide for them. If they don’t choose themselves, they let other people choose for them. And then you can’t be dissatisfied with the answer afterwards”.

Asked about if the opinions of people with disabilities just as important as those of other people, almost all interviewees found that there is no difference between the opinions of people with disabilities and other people. The far most widespread reason is that people with disabilities are not different from anyone else; they are people with equal status in the society and their opinions are as just important as the opinions of others in society. Some interviewees thought that the opinion of people with disabilities is important because in the eye of the public this target group can’t have one, where other interviewees referred to using their strength in numbers. Two of the interviewees answered “Don’t know” and one interviewee answered “No” with the explanation that while the opinions of people with disabilities should be as important as other members of society, the fact remains that people with disabilities are not listened to or respected in the same say as members of the general population.

This interview survey indicates that there seems to be a difference in the way the opinions of people with disabilities should be regarded ideally, and the lived experiences of the interviewees. In the Maltese interview survey, one interviewee thought that it is not important for people with learning disabilities to have political opinions because politics is too hard to understand.

Asked if the participants have learned something from MOTE about having an opinion, about half of the interviewees found that they had learned something from their participation. Some interviewees pointed out that they have learned that about the right to have an opinion, while other interviewees now have more confidence to speak to others about politics, that they understand more and are able to share their opinions. Other interviewees thought that it is important to think independently and not easily being influenced by other people. Some refer to the unit in the education programme about forming an opinion. A few interviewees found it difficult to answer the question, maybe due to the time span between participating in the education programme and being interviewed for this survey. Some participants referred to M.O.TE teaching them about the importance of continuous learning:

“We have to keep learning, this kind of thing is always changing; new people, new policies. It is up to us to keep up”

“I express my thoughts and feelings and worries about the future and that is good”

One interviewee answered “No” because he works in a disability organization and thus knows about politics through his work.

Most of the interviewees in the previous interview surveys had voted at some point in their adult life. In the M.O.TE project, the interviewees attend an education programme about democracy and participation in elections. Therefore, it would be interesting to see if more interviewees would vote after the interviewees had been through the education programme than before. The previous interview rounds did not yield many differences and the two interview rounds do not show clearly if such a development has taken place. There are probably too many factors coming into play. For example, in some countries the interviewees had not been through the education programme when they voted in the election for the European Parliament.

Therefore, it would be interesting to go deeper into the interviewees’ views on voting and this forms the background for asking the interviewees about their opinion on the importance of voting. All interviewees but two thought that it is important to vote for several reasons. It is a right, and it is a way to express one’s opinion and a way to manifest which political party one supports. Furthermore, it is a way that the citizens have the possibility of deciding who should be in Parliament, it’s a way to show which politicians one trusts, and at the end of the day it is a way to have a say on how the future of the country/society should be.

“It is important to vote because you can choose politicians you like or whom you put your trust in”

“It is my moment to say there that’s what I think, it is a great feeling to walk up there like everyone else and give my vote”

Some interviewees who were pilot group members pointed out the importance of using the right to vote as there are still people with disabilities other in the world who do not have the right to vote. The interviewees here made reference to the interdiction in Hungary. As for the Irish interview surveys, pilot group members, who had visited other European countries as a part of the pilot group tasks, compared and contrasted the voting systems and places of government. They spoke from a national and European perspective, compared to participants who did not visit other countries and did not present the European perspective in their answers.

This also goes for the Danish interview survey, where the pilot group members, who were also interviewees, made reference to the fact that other countries have other political systems than the one in Denmark. It could be hypothesized from the interview survey that the learning experience has been enhanced by actual visits to places of government and meeting people from other countries.

Asked if the votes of people with disabilities are just as important as the vote of other people, all interviewees answered yes.

“Because we have just as much the right to vote as everyone else. We also want to have a say”

Some interviewees referred to the voting situation in Hungary where people with disabilities can be subjected to interdiction:

“Spain, Italy, Denmark and Malta need to keep going with the project so that the government in Hungary know that we won’t be giving up on this”

Other referred to voting as being a right to all citizens. Some interviewees pointed out that one should be careful to talk about people with disabilities as a homogenous group. Some interviewees found it difficult to explain what voting means to them, other interviewees thought that voting is important because they do something for the country, you can choose a representative and it is the voice of many people. Here are some quotations:

“It can be difficult to decide whom to vote for. I vote if I have found out whom to vote for”

“I have voted a couple of times, but it’s hard with the ballot paper. It needs to have larger letters and pictures. I’m dyslectic, so it’s hard for me. It’s hard to get an overview of both the left and right side of the ballot paper”

“Perhaps I get to say what I wanted to say. I get acquainted wih things before I vote. Then perhaps I know more about what is going on. I make up my mind”.

As for the Hungarian interview survey, those interviewees who were under custody found the question rather offensive.

Most interviewees found it hard to answer questions about what their vote means to politicians and to other people, maybe because the questions were too abstract. However the interviewees knew that their vote counts. In Malta and Spain, a few interviewees thought that voting for the politicians makes them happy, elects them in parliament and that voting shows that one agrees with his/her ideas. The interviewees were also asked about their view on what happens if people with disabilities do not vote. In the Hungarian interview survey, the interviewees explained that this is very much the situation in Hungary as some people with disabilities are interdicted and therefore cannot vote:

“There will be a result in the elections even without their vote but their vote could change the results”

“Their right to have an opinion is not acknowledged in that way”

The overall view is that voting is right, that voting is a way to have a say in political life and about society in general and that people with disabilities will not have a voice will loose their influence if they do not vote:

“Well then we would have no say in what the politicians decide about us”

“There is no reason to let it happen that we don’t get our voices heard”

“Then there will not be enough people voting. But that is annoying for they have just as much right […] You have to do something so that people with disabilities are in focus and have access to voting”

Some even pointed out that the living conditions of people with disabilities might deteriorate: “Then nothing happens. Everything stays the same. Perhaps it gets worse as well”.

Two interviewees mentioned that people with disabilities don’t have to vote and have a choice on whether or not they would like to vote, like the population in general:

“We have a choice too. We don’t have to do it. There can be days where you don’t want to and that’s my choice”

The interviewees were asked to finish two sentences. The first sentence sounded: “When you vote, you will…” Many interviewees found it difficult to answer the question. The interview guide for this third interview survey was considerably larger than the interview guides used for the previous interview surveys and this could possibly have affected the concentration of the interviewees. Some interviewees however associated voting with learning things because in order to vote you have to become aware of many things, whereas other interviewees thought that by voting you express your opinion. Here are some quotations:

“When you vote, you express your opinion. If you don’t vote, you don’t have an opinion”

“When you vote, you have an influence. Perhaps learn more about politics than I knew before. It’s all about acquainting oneself with things and learning things”

“When you vote, you are doing the right thing”

“When you vote, you choose a party”

“When you vote, you do your duty”.

In Italy, local elections took place in the Sprig of 2010, which were reflected in the answers as AIPD has arranged meetings with youngsters, who voted for the first time, where MOTE participants had the chance to explain the reasons for voting and how to vote:

“When you vote, you will help people with disabilities younger than yourself with voting, by explaining the reason why we vote and how we vote”

The interviewees were also asked to finish the contradictory sentence: “If you do not vote, you will…”. As it goes for the first sentence, the interviewees also found it difficult to finish this sentence. Yet some interviewees answered:

“If you do not vote, you will regret it”

“If you do not vote, you will not take up your right”.

“If you do not vote, you will you do not express your opinion”

“If you do not vote, then nothing happens, so it’s better to go and vote”

All interviewees but one found that they had learned something from participating in the M.O.TE project about voting. Most interviewees have learned how to vote; some say they have learned rights, about the EU and how they vote in other countries. Some underline that the vote is secret. Here are a few quotations:

”We know everything you need to about making a vote and the bits and pieces that come in the mail”

“I know my rights and I know what to say to the politicians”

“I have learned that I have a right to vote, no matter what people say. Everyone has a right to vote, and naturally we have that as well. It’s just hard to find out, whom you want to vote for”

In the Danish interview survey, some interviewees still find it difficult to vote and in particular they find it hard to cope with the very long ballot paper. They point out that the ballot paper should be simpler and that for instance pictures of the politicians would help.

Asked if M.O.TE has made it easier or more difficult to vote all interviewees, but two who answered “Don’t know”, thought that M.O.TE had made voting easier for them. Some interviewees talked about the easy to read manifestos that the M.O.TE project produced for the first module in the teaching programme and the role-playing games that were a part of the practical activities in the first module. It is the overall experience from the M.O.TE education programme that audiovisuals, petitions and role-playing enhanced the learning experience of the participants. Some interviewees found that the education programme had provided them with the appropriate knowledge and awareness to ask politicians relevant questions and propose changes. Two interviewees would like to have answered both easier and more difficult because certain things had become more complex in the sense that the more you learn, the more there is to understand and to think about. Here are some quotes:

“The education programme has opened my eyes to politics. I have become more aware”

“It has both become easier and more difficult. I have become a little confused with all this information”

In Malta, one interviewee who had votes yet as she just turned 18, said that now she knows enough about the voting process and is ready to vote when election time comes again. Among the reasons given by the other interviewees, one mentioned that he learned from the opinion of others in the group while another said that she learned how to vote as, despite having had the opportunities to vote in previous elections, she was never encouraged to and hence never voted. Therefore, after the experience with participating in the M.O.TE project she now looks forward to being able to when the next election comes.

About the Effect of M.O.TE – As Experienced by the Interviewees Themselves As mentioned in the introduction, the M.O.TE project has been based on the assumption that people with learning disabilities face various barriers that prevent them from exercising their political rights on equal terms with others. Therefore, one of the purposes of the M.O.TE project has been to create awareness among people with learning disabilities of their political rights as well as creating better opportunities for the target group to exercise their civic rights. The purpose of this third interview survey has been for one thing to explore the effect of participating in the project as experienced by the participants.

In conclusion, the overall response was positive with regards to the interviewees’ learning experience as a result of their participation in the education programme. All interviewees, but three, stated that they have learned something from their participation in the M.O.TE project. The answers to what they have learned vary greatly, such as voting, politics, knowing the politicians and their different opinions, the difference between the State and the municipality, making a petition, role plays, the Parliament, and referendums.

“I learned that voting is important and also that I have to express my opinion”.

One interviewee also mentioned making friends as an outcome of the M.O.TE project. The pilot group members all point to the European perspective as they have learned something about the EU and about politics in other countries by taking part in the M.O.TE project.

Two of the three interviewees, who didn’t think they had learned from the M.O.TE project, didn’t consider their participation in the project as a waste of time either. They had their knowledge brushed up on, and they had met other people with learning disabilities. In Malta, the two people who had not learned from M.O.TE were not involved in the pilot groups, but only attended the education programme. Interviewees who had not learned from M.O.TE did not specify the reasons for not having learned from participating in the project.

The interviewees gave positive answers to whether or not others could learn from the M.O.TE project. The interviewees found that others should have the chance to experience what politics is about and some interviewees said they would recommend the M.O.TE project to other people with disabilities as it is an opportunity to make new friends and meet other people. Some interviewees advise that best way to understand politics is to visits places of politics and to meet with politicians in order to have the possibility to ask them what politics is about.

“I hope that others may be more interested in politics”.

In Spain, the pilot group would like the M.O.TE project to continue on an annual basis in order for all people with disabilities to have the opportunity to participate in M.O.TE. The interviewees were also asked about what M.O.TE could be used for. The interviewees mainly answer that M.O.TE could be used to get a better comprehension of what politics is about, because it deals with politics in easy words. It could also be used to show that people with disabilities can vote. Furthermore, some respond that M.O.TE can be used to socialize with people with disabilities. Some interviewees made reference to meeting people from other countries and the friendships they made as a national group while travelling. All interviewees would recommend other people with learning disabilities to attend M.O.TE:

“It is useful because the program teaches a lot of things to the participants. This is a good thing”

In a modern democracy all citizens have the right and have equal opportunities to vote. But for several reasons people with learning disabilities in general do not have the same opportunity to exercise their voting rights.

For this target group is can be very difficult to take in elections, because electoral materials are available in accessible formats. Another reason could be – as a hypothesis – that people with learning disabilities do not meet the expectation of having an opinion of their own to the same extent as other people. Furthermore, people with learning disabilities might not be afforded the opportunity to learn about democracy, political rights, elections, decision-making processes, legislation, etc. Therefore, a democratic deficit arises when a section of the population cannot overcome barriers or are even excluded from exercising their political rights.

The M.O.TE project has been based on the assumption that people with learning disabilities face various barriers that prevent them from exercising their political rights on equal terms with others. Therefore, one of the purposes of the M.O.TE project has been to create awareness among people with learning disabilities of their political rights as well as creating better opportunities for the target group to exercise their civic rights. This has been done through developing an education programme focusing on politics, democracy and elections has been developed for use with people with learning disabilities.

With the M.O.TE project, a much-needed focus has been put on voting experiences among people with learning disabilities. This has been done through a three round interview survey carried out among people with learning disabilities in the participating countries. The first survey pertained to political awareness among people with learning disabilities, whereas the second interview survey focused specifically on political rights and voting, including decision making processes and the availability of accessible political information. The purpose of the third interview survey has been to evaluate the M.O.TE project; herein the effect of participating in the education programme.

This third interview survey showed that politics is not easy to understand, mainly because politicians use difficult words. For most interviewees politics becomes easier to understand if the interviewees become aware of what the politicians stand for. Besides, politics would be easier to understand with easy to read manifestos. About half of the interviewees think they can have an influence on politics, whereas the other half doesn’t think they can influence politics, because they among other things not know the laws. However, the majority think it’s important to influence politics, e.g. it’s a way to have a say about society, and they respond positively to the questions if they have learned something about politics by participating in the M.O.TE project.

Most interviewees have political opinions, which are developed through their own experiences, talking to friends and/or family, watching TV or reading newspapers. Most interviewees thought that their opinions were important, e.g. because only people with learning disabilities can advise about what living with a learning disability is like.

It can be hypothesized that people with learning disabilities are not expected to make political decisions just like every one else and as a result people with learning disabilities are often not afforded the opportunity to learn about democracy, elections and political rights. About half of the interviewees found that they had learned something from their participation about having an opinion, and some refer to the unit in the education programme about forming an opinion. A few interviewees found it difficult to answer the question, maybe due to the time span between participating in the education programme and being interviewed for this survey.

The interview survey focused on the status of the opinions of people with learning disabilities and the opinions of everyone else in the eye of the interviewees. The interviewees find that there is no difference between the opinions of people with learning disabilities and everyone else. The far most widespread reason is that people with disabilities are not different from anyone else; they are people with equal status in the society and their opinions are as just important as the opinions of others in society. Some interviewees thought that the opinion of people with disabilities is important because there is a tendency that in the eye of the public this target group can’t have one, where other interviewees referred to using their strength in numbers.

All interviewees have learned about voting from participating in the M.O.TE project, and the interviewees thought that the project had made voting easier for them. In general, the interviewees seem to have an increased awareness about themselves as being voters. However the Danish interviewees still find it hard to cope with the ballot paper and call for e.g. pictures of the politicians in order to ease the voting situation. Some interviewees mentioned the easy to read manifestos that the M.O.TE project produced for the first module in the teaching programme and the role-playing games that were a part of the practical activities in the first module as well. The activity-based aspects of the education programme seemed to be an effective way to enhance the learning experience and outcome of the education programme.

The interview survey also show that the interviewees have learned something from their participation in the M.O.TE project, e. g. about how to vote, politics, and knowing the politicians and their different opinions. The pilot group members all point to the European perspective as they have learned something about politics in the other countries by taking part in the M.O.TE project.

Almost all interviewees find it important to vote, because it’s a right and a way to express one’s opinions and way to have a say about society. Some interviewees made reference to the interdiction in Hungary and other interviewees talked about the different political systems in the participating countries. It can be hypothesized that the experience of travelling to the other European countries might have made Europe less abstract for the participants in the pilot groups and therefore enhanced the learning experience.

In general, the pilot group members referred to a European level when talking about politics when being interviewed, than interviewees who had not been pilot group members. All interviewees thought, that the votes of people with disabilities are equally important to the votes of people without disabilities. And for people with disabilities, voting might also be a way to have a say on one’s own living conditions. Looked upon as a group, people with learning disabilities are often one of the population groups whose life conditions are most dependent on political decisions. This emphasizes the importance of creating awareness about political rights among people with learning disabilities and also the need for educating people with learning disabilities about their civic rights.

ABOUT THE INTERVIEWEE:

• Male
• Female
• Member of the MOTE pilot group
• Participant of the MOTE educational programme, but not a member of the pilot group

ABOUT POLITICS:

1. What is politics?

2. Is politics important?

• Yes, a lot
• Yes
• Yes, a little

If yes, why is politics important?

________________________________________

________________________________________

• No

If no, why is politics not important?

________________________________________

________________________________________

• Don’t know

3. Are politics easy to understand?

• Yes, a lot
• Yes
• Yes, a little

If yes, what makes politics easy to understand?

________________________________________

________________________________________

• No

If no, what makes politics difficult to understand?

________________________________________

________________________________________

What could make politics easier to understand?

________________________________________

________________________________________

• Don’t know

4. Can you influence politics?

• Yes, a lot
• Yes
• Yes, a little

If yes, how can you influence politics?

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

• No

If no, why can’t you influence politics?

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

 

What could make it easier for you to influence politics?

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

• Don’t know

5. Is it important for you to have influence on politics?

• Yes, a lot
• Yes
• Yes, a little

If yes, why is it important for you to have influence?

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

• No

If no, why isn’t it important for you to have influence?

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

• Don’t know

6. Have you learnt something about politics from MOTE?

• Yes, a lot
• Yes
• Yes, a little

If yes, what have you learnt?

___________________________________________

___________________________________________

• No
• Don’t know

ABOUT HAVING AN OPINION:

7. Do you have political opinions?

• Yes, very much
• Yes
• Yes, a little
• No
• Don’t know

8. How do you develop a political opinion?

________________________________________

________________________________________

 

9. How can you show your political opinion?

________________________________________

________________________________________

 

10. Do you think that your opinions are important?

• Yes, a lot
• Yes
• Yes, a little

If yes, why is your opinion important?

________________________________________

________________________________________

 

To whom is your opinion important?

________________________________________

________________________________________

• No

If no, why is your opinion not important?

________________________________________

________________________________________

• Don’t know

11. Are the opinions of people with disabilities just as important as those of other people?

• Yes

If yes, why are the opinions of people with disabilities as important?

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

• No

If no, why are the opinions of people with disabilities not as important?

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

• Don’t know

12. Have you learnt something from MOTE about having an opinion?

• Yes, a lot
• Yes
• Yes, a little

If yes, what have you learnt?

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

• No
• Don’t know

ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF VOTING:

13. Is it important to vote?

• Yes

If yes, why is it important to vote?

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

• No

If no, why is it not important to vote?

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

• Don’t know

14. Are the votes of people with disabilities just as important as those of other people?

• Yes

If yes, why are the votes of people with disabilities as important?

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

• No

If no, why are the votes of people with disabilities not as important?

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

• Don’t know

15. What does voting mean to YOU?

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

• Don’t know

16. What does your vote mean to the POLITICIANS?

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

• Don’t know

17. What does your vote mean to OTHER PEOPLE in your country?

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

• Don’t know

18. What will happen if people with disabilities do not vote?

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

Finish these sentences:

19. When you vote, you will…

20. If you do not vote, you will ……

21. Have you learnt something from MOTE about voting?

• Yes, a lot
• Yes
• Yes, a little

If yes, what have you learnt?

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

• No
• Don’t know

22. Has MOTE made it easier or more difficult for you to vote?

A lot easier

• Easier
• A little easier

If easier, how has MOTE made it easier for you to vote?

________________________________________

________________________________________

• More difficult

If more difficult, how has MOTE made it more difficult for you to vote?

________________________________________

________________________________________

• Don’t know

ABOUT THE EFFECT OF MOTE – EXPERIENCED BY THE INTERVIEWEES THEMSELVES

(The Educational Programme / the MOTE project):

23. Have you learnt something from MOTE that you did not know before?

• Yes, a lot
• Yes
• Yes, a little

If yes, what have you learnt?

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

• No

If no, why have you not learnt something from MOTE?

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

• Don’t know

24. Do you think that others can learn something from MOTE?

• Yes, a lot
• Yes
• Yes, a little

If yes, what can they learn from MOTE?

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

• No

If no, why can others not learn from MOTE?

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

• Don’t know

25. What can MOTE be used for?

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

26. Would you tell other people with disabilities to attend MOTE?

__________________________________________

__________________________________________

Interview guide for one-to-one interviews

As I told you at the information meeting, I would like to interview you about voting in elections. I am also going to interview other people about voting in elections. I am making a project together with some other countries in Europe about voting in elections. We would like to find how to explain what democracy and elections is, and how to have your say in (country).

It is important to remember that there are no correct answers – no rights and wrongs. What I would like to know is your experience about voting, so you can tell me the things that you find are important – also if you have never voted in elections.

The interview will be so that I ask you some questions, which you may answer. If there is something that you do not understand, you are welcome to tell me. And it is quite ok if there is something you do not want to answer. If you would like a break during the interview, just let me know.

None of the things you say are told to anybody. When I have listened to the tape and written down what you have said, I remove your name from the paper, so no one knows what you have said, but only your opinion about the things.

Questions

1. Age of the interview person

To begin with, could you tell me your age?

2. Participation in elections

Then I would like to ask you some questions about the latest election. In June there was an election where we voted for members for the European Parliament. Do you remember if you voted the last time there was an election?

If yes, go to section 3.

If no, go to section 5.

For interviewees who voted

3. Questions about the previous election

• What was it like to vote?
• Was it easy or difficult to vote? Why?
  • Did you get any help to vote? If yes, what kind of help?
  • Was the staff at the polling station helpful?
  • Was the ballot paper easy or difficult to understand?
  • Why?
• Had you seen the ballot paper before?
• Had you discussed it with anyone? If yes, with whom?

• How would you have liked it to be? The following suggestions are read aloud to the interview person:
  • With pictures or party logo
  • With photos o Read to you
  • Large print
  • On computer

• How did you find out about the fact that the EU elections took place?
• How did you find out when it took place?
• How did you find out where to vote?

4. Questions about deciding who to vote for

• Did you know the parties that were running for the EU Parliament before the election was held?
• How did you find out who was running for the EU parliament?
• Was it easy or difficult to decide who to vote for? Why?
• Did you talk to anyone about who to vote for?
  • If yes: Who did you talk to?

5. For interviewees who did not vote

• Did you know about the EU election?
• Did you know when it took place?
• Did you know where to vote?
• Did you talk to anyone about voting?
• Would you like to vote next time?
• Why, why not?

6. All interviewees

Information about the Election

• Before the EU elections, did you do something to find out what the politicians or the political parties think about different issues?
  • Did you ask someone?
• Did you use the Internet?
• Did you read newspapers?
• Did you do other things?
• What issues are important to you?

7. General Questions

• Do you talk to anyone about politics and about voting in elections? If yes: Who? Friends? Staff? Family? If yes, what did you talk about?
• What about your friends and family. Do they vote?
• Have you sought information about politics lately? Why? How?
• Do you know who to talk to, if you want to know more about democracy (too abstract) and politics?
  • If the answer is yes, then ask who.
  • If the answer is no, then ask why.
• Do you watch the news?
• Did you follow the election results on TV, on the radio or in the paper after the last elections?
• Do you read the paper?
• Do you find howEurope is run interesting? Why/why not?
• If you were making all the decisions in Europe, what would you decide to do?
• Are you interested in other political topics?

For countries where you have to register as a voter

• Are you registered as a voter?
• Why/why not?
• If no: Have you talked to anyone about being registered as a voter?

Round off – all interviewees

• Do you have you any questions about the things we have talked about?
• Were any of the questions difficult to answer?
• Or were there questions you did not understand?
• What do you think of being interviewed?
• Would you like to be interviewed again?

Interview guide for one-to-one interviews

As I told you at the information meeting, I would like to interview you about voting in elections. I am also going to interview other people about voting in elections. I am making a project together with some other countries in Europe about voting in elections. We would like to find how to explain what democracy and elections is, and how to have your say in (country).

It is important to remember that there are no correct answers – no rights and wrongs. What I would like to know is your experience about voting, so you can tell me the things that you find are important – also if you have never voted in elections.

The interview will be so that I ask you some questions, which you may answer. If there is something that you do not understand, you are welcome to tell me. And it is quite ok if there is something you do not want to answer. If you would like a break during the interview, just let me know.

None of the things you say are told to anybody. When I have listened to the tape and written down what you have said, I remove your name from the paper, so no one knows what you have said, but only your opinion about the things.

Questions

Participation in elections

To begin with I will ask you some questions about the last election. Do you remember if you voted the last time there was an election in [country]?

For interviewees who voted

Questions about the previous election

• What was it like to vote?
• Was it easy or difficult to vote? Why?
• Did you get any help to vote?
• Was the ballot paper easy or difficult to understand? Why?
• How would you have liked it to be?
  • With pictures or party logo
  • With photos
  • Read to you
  • Large print
  • On computer

Questions about deciding who to vote for

• Was it easy or difficult to decide who to vote for?
• Did you talk to anyone about who to vote for? If yes: Who did you talk to?

For interviewees who did not vote

• Did you talk to anyone about voting?
• Would you like to vote next time?

All interviewees

Information about the election

• Do you know what the political parties think about things that are important to you?
• Did you know this before the election?

Polling card and registration as a voter

• Each country formulates questions about the polling card and voter registration which are relevant to the specific context, e.g. ''Have you received a polling card?'' ''Have you registered as a voter?'' etc.

General questions

• Do you talk to anyone about politics and about voting in elections?
• If yes: Who? Friends? Staff? Family? If yes, what did you talk about?
• What about your friends and family. Do they vote?
• Do you watch the news?
• Do you read the paper?
• Do you think it is interesting who makes decisions about the way that [country] is run?
• If you were making all the decisions in [country], what would you decide to do?

For countries where you have to register

• Are you registered as a voter?
• Why/why not?
• If no: Have you talked to anyone about being registered as a voter?

Round off

• Have you any questions about the things we have talked about?
• Were any of the questions difficult to answer?
• Or were there questions you did not understand?
• What do you think of being interviewed?
• Would you like to be interviewed again?

Guidelines for interviewing people with learning disabilities

These guidelines describe how the first interviews of M.O.TE are carried out, and which aspects are important to be aware of in this context. Careful consideration is necessary when interviewing people with learning disabilities. Many of them are dependent on daily help from professionals and relatives. That is why the first contact will involve professionals and/or relatives too. It is important to keep in mind that this may influence the interview situation in such a way that the interviewee may try to please in certain situations. Therefore, it is important to explain that it is the words and experience of the interviewee him/herself that are interesting. In order to secure methodological consistency within all interviews, it is very important that all interviewers adhere to the guidelines.

Form of interview

The interviews are carried through face-to-face – one interviewer and one interviewee (one-to-one). The background of choosing this form of interview is that interviewees who are not familiar with voting can feel less motivated or even inhibited about participating actively in the actual interview with too many persons present.

The interviews are carried out on the basis of a semi-structured interview guide. The reason for this is that it should be possible to ask more detailed questions or to rephrase the questions if the interviewee seems to need that. When the question requires a yes/no answer, the question should be clarified through a further question from the interviewer: ''Why?'' The interview is taped and subsequently transcribed.

It is important to allow for plenty of time for the interview – time for explaining the purpose of the project as well as the procedure of the interview before the actual interview is started. Before the interview, there should be plenty of time to explain the term “informed consent” and to obtain such from the interviewee. In this way the situation should be made clear to the interviewee, and he/she should be provided with sufficient information so that he/she is able to weigh the pros and cons and give an answer by choice and not by force.

It should also be explained that there are no right or wrong answers, but it is important to hear the views of the interviewee about general elections, and that the interviewee can ask for further details or explanations at any time.

Interview guide

The interview guide is based on the following considerations:

• The questions should – as far as possible – be phrased in such a way that they relate to things, persons and events familiar to the interviewee.
• Both the interview as a whole and the questions should be a clear as possible.
• The main part of the questions should probably be phrased as open questions. If they are closed, few and clear categories of answers should be used.
• Questions should only relate to one issue at a time.
• Time and numbers are difficult for many people with learning disabilities. Therefore, such questions should be avoided.
• The interviewer should be aware of the fact that interviewees tend to choose the last option, and therefore the options should be randomised.

Information meetings

Prior to the interview, information meetings are held with the interviewees selected. At these meetings, the interviewees are informed of the purpose and the details of the project, as well as the number of participants and interview rounds during the project.

Besides, a fact sheet is made, where the project, the interview round and the term “informed consent” are explained in easy-read. The fact sheet also contains information about the interviewer, including contact information. The interviewee can keep the fact sheet so that he/she can remember what the project is about and perhaps answer questions at a later time.

Plenty of time is needed for information meetings in order to explain the purpose of the project and the interviews, and also to explain and obtain informed consent.

Information on the project, the survey, informed consent and the interview itself may be divided into two meetings so that the interviewee can keep concentration. The fact sheet will also help to connect the two meetings. The fact sheet is run through prior to each of the three interviews.

It is possible for the interviewee that relatives or other support persons receive the mentioned fact sheet, but this should only be done in agreement with the interviewees.

Locality

The interview takes place in the interviewee’s home, unless he/she wants the interview to take place at another locality. Already at the information meeting, it should be possible for the interviewee to say where he/she wants the interview to take place, in order to make the environment of the interview as safe as possible. If the locality of the interview is not agreed upon at the information meeting, the interviewee should be contacted just before the interview.

Anonymity

The interviewee is informed in detail that all interviews are anonymous, meaning that it must not be possible to see from the material who has answered which questions. Before the interview, the interviewee should also be informed that he/she can withdraw from the interview at any time, just as it is always possible to refuse to answer the questions.

It is important to take time to explain what confidence and anonymity mean. Always ask the interviewee if there is something he/she will ask or is in doubt about before the interview.

Presence of support person

If the interviewee wants the presence of a support person, it should be possible. It is important to make sure that it is the interviewee who answers the questions, and not the support person. However, it can be advisable to offer the support person the opportunity to participate in the interview in such a way that he/she can help to clarify questions by relating them to the life and interests of the interviewee. If the interview is carried out in the presence of a support person, it is important to make sure that the support person is aware of the fact that the interviewee speaks anonymously so that information given during the interview is not passed on to other persons than the support person – no matter what kind of information it is.

Timeframe for the interviews

Some interviewees might find it hard to concentrate for hours. It is recommended that the interviews take no more that an hour at a maximum. A pause can be included if the interviewee needs it. Allow time for explaining the purpose of the project and the interview to the interviewee if he/she needs to be briefed just before the interview.

Using pictures or symbols

During each interview, the interviewee should have the opportunity to look at pictures/symbols supporting the specific meaning of the questions - also for interviewees who are not familiar with polling, or interviewees who might feel insecure during the interview. When using pictures/symbols, the political and cultural differences between the participating countries have to be taken into consideration, and it is important that the pictures/symbols relate to the actual context of the interview. Therefore, the interviewers are responsible for producing pictures/symbols that are used during the interviews.

Round-off (end of the interview)

When the interview is over, follow-up questions are asked about the interviewee’s experience of being interviewed. It is important that the interviewee gets the opportunity to tell about his/her impression of the interview situation and to ask questions about unclear aspects of the interview situation or other questions that he/she might find relevant.

To many people with learning disabilities, it can be a matter of both satisfaction and insecurity that someone you don’t know is listening to you in other ways than you are used to. It is very important be careful when rounding off the interview so that the interviewee does not get the impression that you have become a new friend.

After the interview, time should be allowed for explaining the follow-up on the interview, what is the next step of the survey etc. It should be explained to the interviewee that the survey reports are sent to them.

Payment

In the literature mentioned in the bibliography about interviewing people with learning disabilities, there are some arguments for paying people with learning disabilities for participating. But there are different viewpoints on this and different traditions in terms of payments. It is recommended that the partners of M.O.TE decide themselves whether to pay the interviewees in accordance with the traditions in each participating country.

Bibliography

• Baxter, Vanessa (2005): ''Learning to Interview People with a Learning Disability''. Research Policy and Planning 23 (3), 175-180.
• Cameron, Lois & Joan Murphy (2006): ''Obtaining consent to participate in research: the issues involved in including people with a range of learning and communication disabilities''. British Journal of Learning Disabilities. 35, 113-120. University of Sterling.
• D’Eath, Mx. Maureen (2005): ''Guidelines for Researchers when Interviewing People with an Intellectual Disability''. National Federation Research Sub-Committee.
• Flynn, Margaret C. (1986): ''Adults who are mentally handicapped as consumers: Issues and guidelines for interviewing''. J. ment. Defic. Res. 30, 369-377.
• Gates, Bob & Mary Waight (2007): ''Reflections on conducting focus groups with people with learning disabilities: Theoretical and practical issues''. Journal of Research in Nursing. Vol 12, 111-126. SAGE Publications.
• Gilbert, Tony (2004): ''Involving people with learning disabilities in research: issues and possibilities''. Health and Social Care in the Community. 12 (4). 298-308. Blackwell Publishing.
• Knigge, Marie Louise (2005): Mad til forhandling – Udviklingshæmmede, livsstil og overvægt. UFC Handicap.
• Kvale, Steinar (1997): Interview. En introduktion til det kvalitative forskningsinterview. (1994). Hans Reitzels Forlag, København.
• Lloyd, Vicki, Amanda Gatherer & Sunny Kalsy (2006): ''Conducting Qualitative Interview Research With People With Expressive Language Difficulties''. Qualitative Health Research, Vol. 16, nr. 10. 1386-1404. SAGE Publications.
• Madsen, Vibeke (2002): ''Brugerundersøgelser, metode og etik'' i Thomas Gruber (red.) m.fl.: Brugerundersøgelser i en kommunal virkelighed. Formidlingscenter Øst.
• Rosenlund, Line (2000): ''Selvbestemmelse – kan det dokumenteres?'' Videnscenter for Psykiatri og Udviklinghæmning.
• Specialcentret for Voksne, Aalborg Kommune (2002): Brugerundersøgelse om kvaliteten i det socialpædagogiske arbejde.
• Walmsley, Jan & Kelly Johnson (2003): Inclusive Research with people with Learning Disabilities. Past, Present and Futures. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London.
• Walmsley, Jan (2004): ''Inclusive learning disability research: the (non-disabled) researcher’s role''. British Journal of Learning Disabilities. 32, 65-71. BILD Publications.
• Wehmeyer, Michael L. & Nancy W. Garner (2003): ''The Impact of Personal Characteristics of People with Intellectual and Developmental Disability on Self-determination and Autonomous Functioning''. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 16, 255-265.

Criteria for recruiting the 16 participants in the interview survey and the educational programme

Criteria are to be seen as guiding. The partners should try and meet them to the best of their ability, but if it is not possible to recruit participants that meet all criteria, partners should strive for as good a match as possible.

The interviewees should be found via personal introductions, not by randomised contacts.

Letter about the project and the poll in easy-read is sent to relevant organisations and places of education, living or employment and/or posted in newsletters or WebPages. Call for people with learning disabilities in the right age frame to participate in the polls and educational programme.

Criteria for selection:

• 50% women, 50% men
• Age group 18-35. Participants should cover the age range.
• At least 30% (including the two in the other group) of the interviewees are of an age where they either have voted or have been able to vote at least once.
• The group as a whole should represent some diversity in age, ethnicity etc.
• The group should also present some diversity in reading and processing skills.
• Interest in the subject matter. Able to participate in both interviews and educational programme.

Criteria for recruiting the four people participating in both the interview survey, the educational programme and in the pilot group

Criteria are to be seen as guiding. The partners should try and meet them to the best of their ability, but if it is not possible to recruit participants that meet all criteria, partners should strive for as good a match as possible.

The interviewees should be found via personal introductions or prior acquaintance, not by randomised contacts.

Mild to moderate learning disability

• Two men, two women
• Aged between 18 and 35 years. Two are of an age where they could have voted or have voted at least once.
• Basic reading skills.
• Have participated in project work, research and likewise before.
• Are interested in the subject matter.
• Can travel without private support person.

English skills are a plus, but it is not probable that all the participants will possess English skills.

It will be a plus if there is some diversity in the group. We will therefore recommend that the partner organisations report the characteristics of their participants so that we can work together to create a group that represents some diversity in age, ethnicity etc.

AIPD, Italy

The association of people with Down syndrome, their parents and guardians (AIPD) was officially established in Rome in 1979.
The association’s main objectives comprise the following:

• Provision of expert advice on all aspects of Down syndrome to families, social workers, and teachers.
• Promotion of full social and work inclusion for people with Down syndrome.
• Circulation of up-to-date information on Down syndrome to social workers, organisations, and members of the public
• Advocate for best practice
• Provision of the most accurate information relating to Down syndrome to the general public
• Development and promotion of programmes aimed at achieving a fuller public appreciation and acceptance of persons with Down syndrome, their needs and individual roles in society.
• Advocate on behalf of members and their families

The AIPD provide the following services:

• ''Telephone D'' - a telephone consultancy service
• Information and consultancy service
• School and work inclusion observatories 
• Legal Advice service
• Library. AIPD are members of ''The European Down Syndrome Association'' (EDSA).

The AIPD has conducted the Italian interviews.

Down Foundation, Hungary

The Down Foundation was established in 1992 as a result of union of parents. Its aim is to improve the quality of life of persons with intellectual disability as guided by the principles of integration. Presently, the Down Foundation plays an instrumental role in the provision of education for people with intellectual disability in Hungary. Individualised advice and support services are provided to members and their families.

This organisation runs 'gap filling' institutes and programmes, which support members and their families (according to their differing needs), for example:

• Two temporary residence halls
• Day-time hall
• Residence halls
• 'Down Ambulance'
• Specialised dentistry services
• Early-development centre
• Specialised 'Down-Nurse' service.

Down Foundation has conducted the Hungarian interviews.

Down Syndrome Ireland

Down Syndrome Ireland (DSI) is a national charity supporting people with Down syndrome and their families. The organisation’s mission is to support people with Down syndrome in making their futures as complete as possible by providing them with the necessary structures to fulfil their potential.

DSI was founded in 1971 as a support group for parents and carers of people with Down syndrome. However, the remit and profile of the organisation has evolved significantly. A professionally staffed national office has over the last decade developed alongside the organisation’s voluntary committees.

The national office of DSI includes a team of specialists, a fundraising department and a members support / administration section all headed up by a chief executive officer. The DSI team provide both direct and indirect services to members, professionals and the wider public. The team of specialists are referred to as the 'National Resource Team' and comprise the following expert services:

• Early Intervention
• Education
• Medical
• Counselling/ Psychotherapy/ Drama Therapy
• Independence

Down Syndrome Ireland has conducted the Irish interviews.

Equal Opportunities Centre For Disabled People, Denmark

By parliamentary resolution B 43 of 1993 it was decided to establish an Equal Opportunities Centre for Disabled Persons under the Danish Disability Council.

The Equal Opportunities Centre for Disabled Persons is to monitor developments in the equalisation of disabled people and non-disabled people. Moreover, the Centre’s task is to draw the authorities’ attention to areas and situations where there are not equal opportunities for disabled people and non-disabled people. The Centre is also to publish information on the subject of equal opportunities for disabled persons in the Danish society.

The Centre is financed by the Danish State and obtains its funds via the Ministry of Social Affairs. An independent executive committee made up of an equal number of representatives from the organisations for disabled persons and from the public authorities guarantees the autonomy of the Centre. The Centre has no formal legal competence, but exercises its influence by documenting problems relating to equal opportunities.

The Centre was established at the request of the Danish Disability Council, and it is in charge of the secretarial function of the Danish Disability Council.

The Equal Opportunities Centre for Disabled Persons is responsible for the coordination of the interview surveys, development of interviews tools, conducting the Danish interviews and reporting of the results of the Danish interviews, as well as the results of the interviews of all the participating countries.

Equal Partners Foundation, Malta

Equal Partners is a parent-run, non-profit foundation providing support to over 200 partner families with children and adults with disabilities and/or learning difficulties.

Following the social model of disability as a guiding philosophy, all the support programmes are individualised and are delivered in the natural environment where the individual requires support, i.e. in homes, schools, places of work and recreation, and the community at large. It is in these places that one can find our partners receiving support.

Equal Partners seeks to support people with disabilities and/or learning difficulties towards an independent and meaningful life within an inclusive society.

Equal Partners has conducted the Maltese interviews together with University of Malta, Faculty of Education, Department of Psychology for Inclusive Education.

Project Aura, Spain

Project Aura is a non-profit organisation. The objective of Project Aura is to improve the quality of life of its members through social and work inclusion programmes.

Project Aura comprises four programmes:

1. A social skills and personal autonomy programme
2. An individualised employment-training programme in the work place (with a job coach for the necessary time)
3. A follow-up programme and ongoing training to ensure continued growth in a given employment position
4. Independent living programme.

Since 1989 Project Aura has provided advice and support services based on the individual capabilities of its participants. The organisation follows the methodology of 'Supported Employment'.

Project Aura is also active in the design and implementation of quality systems, certification and labelling standards according to EU and ISO standards in the employment and education sectors.

Project Aura has conducted the Spanish interviews.

Ramon Llull University - Blanquerna Faculty of Psychology Education and Sport Sciences, Spain

The Blanquerna Faculty of Psychology, Education and Sport Sciences (Ramon Llull University, Barcelona) is an institution that provides training in education, psychology, sport sciences and speech therapy, whilst offering possibilities for practical experience in the professional world through projects and research.

Their aim is to ensure the highest quality of teaching through tuition in small groups, including tutorials and seminars.

The curricula available are:

• Teacher Training Degree (Specialties Pre-school Education; Primary Education; Special Needs Education; Musical Education; Foreign Language Teaching –English; Physical Education)
• Degree in Speech & Language Therapy
• Degree in Psychology
• Degree in Sports Science
• Doctorate (Phd) and Postgraduate Studies
• Masters Degree in ''Early Intervention and Family''

Ramon Llull has not participated in the interview survey, but participates in other parts of the M.O.TE project.

SIO 2 Srl, Italy

Sio2 srl. is a company providing hardware and software consultancy services. The organisation’s main client group comprise those in the fields of disability and social disadvantage.

SIO 2 Srl has not participated in the interview survey. SIO 2 Srl has established and maintains the M.O.TE project webpage www.myopinionmyvote.eu

University of Malta. Faculty of Education, Department of Psychology for Inclusive Education

The programme for inclusive education at the University of Malta is responsible for training and research in the fields of disability and general learning disabilities. It has been instrumental in the creation of courses and study units in the field of inclusive education both in general and with respect to specific areas of disability and learning difficulties, e.g. children with autism, Down syndrome, dyslexia and children requiring the use of alternative and augmentative means of communication (AAC).

The programme collaborates with an NGO (Equal Partner Foundation and Dar tal-Providenza) acting as consultants and conducting training and research in specific schools. The department is regularly involved in organising seminars and workshops in these areas. The programme further engages in international liaison with foreign universities including the University of Padova, Istituto Universitario delle Scienze Motorie, the University of Anaheim and St. Mary’s College, Belfast.

The department has been successful in running the ‘Comenius Project’ entitled ‘See-It’ in collaboration with Holland and Ireland, which has been instrumental in setting up courses and services in alternative and augmentative communication.

University of Malta, Faculty of Education, Department of Psychology for Inclusive Education has conducted the Maltese interviews together with Equal Partners.

Below is an outline from each country describing how the interviewees were recruited as well as the general characteristics of the interview group of each country (see note 8).

Denmark

The Equal Opportunities Centre for Disabled Persons has conducted the interviews and recruited participants for the project. The Centre has contacted seven sheltered workplaces in Denmark with an inquiry for recruiting interviewees for the interview survey. Two of these workshops did not have employees in the target group in question, but the remaining five workshops have sent a positive reply.

The Centre has later sent a poster to the sheltered workshops; written in easy-read format, with information on the project and the interview survey itself. If the interviewees themselves were not able to read the poster, the Centre asked a contact person from the staff to read the text of the poster aloud at information or morning meetings etc. The interviewees have not been asked to decide whether they wanted to take part in the survey on the basis of the poster, but the Centre has later held information meetings with persons who expressed interest in participating in the project. On the basis of this information meeting, the potential interviewees could then decide whether they wanted to take part in the interview survey.

The advisory group, set up to contribute to the development and testing of the project outcome, has also been interviewed. In all, three women and five men have been interviewed.

All interviewees had taken part in the previous interviews. Two of the interviewees, who were also members of the pilot group, joined the project prior to respectively the second and third pilot group meeting. Both interviewees participated in the testing of the education programme.

Hungary

The Down Foundation has conducted the interviews and recruited participants for the project. Interviews were done with the 20 participants of the Down Foundation’s training programme at different places of the Hungarian Down Foundation. Most of the interviewees were interviewed at their sheltered workplace, and the others were interviewed in their homes. After some training sessions, some participants decided not to continue the training. In the report made by the Hungarian Partner after the interviews, the answers of the twelve participants, who had been participating in the educational programme since the beginning, were analysed. Half of the participants who were interviewed were men, half were women.

In this report we have performed the interview with 8 persons whom we have selected based on the guidelines: four people who participated in the MOTE project since its beginnings and four people who have attended and finished the training program. The age range is between 22 and 59 years, 3 women and 5 men were interviewed. The interviews were performed in different institutions of the Hungarian Down Foundation, following the interview protocol.

Ireland

Down Syndrome Ireland has conducted the interviews and recruited participants for the project. Participants were recruited through Down Syndrome Ireland (national organisation for persons with Down syndrome and their families in Ireland). Participants were already enrolled and taking part in a personal development-training programme, in preparation for the World Down Syndrome Congress 2009 (to be hosted by Ireland). Participants were provided in person with a brief overview of the project and asked if they would be interested in participating in the voter education programme. Interested participants were then provided with written information about the project and a follow-up phone call was made to each of the respective families.

Participants are aged between nineteen and thirty-nine years of age. Ten male and female adults were recruited from across Ireland. Up-to-date psychological assessment results were not available. All participants have Down syndrome.

All interviewees have been part of the MOTE project since the beginning of the project i.e. they have completed the education programme (modules 1 & 2) and two previous poll interviews.

Italy

The AIPD has conducted the interviews and recruited participants for the project. Participants were recruited through the AIPD, national organization for people with Down syndrome and their parents in Italy, which has 40 branches all over the country.

The national office of AIPD has suggested four among its branches to take part in the project as working groups in the poll and in the educational programme, together with four members forming the pilot group coming from the Roman branch. When choosing the branches, the following criteria have been adopted: distribution all over the country (north, centre and south), number of full age members, number of experienced leaders in the field having worked on the subject and willing to apply the educational programme proposed in the project.

Every branch has chosen four members following shared criteria: people interested in the subject, equal number of men and women, equal number of “young electors” (18 – 24 years of age) and of “experienced electors” (above 25), also those who, being major, had not exerted so far their right to vote, but who expressed a clear wish, and whose families were ready to support them in exercising their right. The selected “electors” have been invited by phone to a meeting to introduce the project, to explain the final goals, the differents steps, and how and when they would be involved.

Thus, the Italian sample is composed by 20 people, 10 women and 10 men, 10 between 18 and 24, and 10 were 25 and over.

Participants were recruited through AIPD, national organization for people with Down syndrome and their parents in Italy, which has 41 branches all over the country. The Italian sample who has taken part in the third round is composed by 8 people chosen according to the following shared criteria: distribution all over the country (north, centre and south); equal number of men and women, equal number of “young electors” (18 – 24 years) and of “experienced electors” (above 25), also those who, being major, had not exerted so far their right to vote, but who expressed a clear wish and whose families were ready to support them in exercising their right.

Malta

The Equal Partners Foundation and The University of Malta have conducted the interviews and recruited participants for the project.

The poll was carried out with eight interviewees. Four men and five women were interviewed. Most have Down Syndrome, two have other learning disabilities. Their learning disabilities are mild to moderate.

The participants were recruited through the Equal Partners Foundation or through the Down Syndrome Association.

Spain

All the interviewees belong to the Foundation Project Aura. Eight users of the Aura Project have been interviewed. The age of the interviewees ranges between 26 and 42 years. Four of the interviewees were women, four were men. All the interviewees live in Barcelona city or in the metropolitan area.

Note 8: The information appears in the length and form it was supplied by the project partners.