2016 NAPD Report on its Polling Station Accessibility Audit in the Poltava Region by “Національна Асамблея інвалідів України”

2016 NAPD Report on its Polling Station Accessibility Audit in the Poltava Region

This report is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and through the support of Global Affairs Canada. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of IFES, USAID, Global Affairs Canada, the United States Government or the Government of Canada.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

On behalf of the implementers of this project we would like to thank all those without whom the research and the report would not have been possible. Thanks to all experts of civil society organizations uniting persons with disabilities in the Poltava region, who conducted the polling stations accessibility audit. Special thanks to the volunteers for their assistance in the conduct of this research, in particular: architects, designers, representatives of non-governmental organizations, those who made a significant contribution into the research by volunteering their labour at various stages of the study. Special thanks go to: – Commissioner of the President of Ukraine for Rights of Persons with Disabilities Valeriy Sushkevych, – Central Election Commission, – Poltava Region State Administration. Many thanks to the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) and its employees for their support of the initiatives of the NGO «National Assembly of Persons with Disabilities of Ukraine». The implementation of this project was made possible due to the generous support of the Global Affairs Canada and the US Agency for International Development (USAID).

CONTENT INTRODUCTION __________________________________________

І. Polling stations description __________________________________

IІ. Findings of the polling stations physical accessibility audit __________

ІІІ. Findings of analysis of technical characteristics of sites where polling stations are located __________________________

3.1. Territories adjacent to the buildings where polling stations are located _______________________________

3.2. Buildings where polling stations are located _____________________

3.3. Premises where polling stations are located ______________________

IV. Conclusions and recommendations ____________________________

APPENDICES APPENDIX. Polling stations accessibility audit questionnaire _________

INTRODUCTION From January 1, 2016 till March 24, 2016, as a part of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) project, upon the initiative of the Ukrainian NGO «National Assembly of Persons with Disabilities of Ukraine» (NAPD) and under support of the Poltava Region State Administration, an audit of polling stations accessibility, as one of the key components of accessibility of the electoral process on the whole, was conducted, and, respectively, possibilities for their improvement for persons with disabilities and limited mobility groups were analyzed. UN Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, in particular, Article 29 «Participation in political and public life», provides that the procedures, premises and materials for voting shall be appropriate and easy to understand and easy to use for persons with disabilities, and the rights of persons with disabilities to participate in voting by secret ballot shall be ensured, and their free will expression shall be guaranteed by the state, and, in case of need, voting assistance shall be ensured for them by any person of their choice. The purpose of this audit was to determine physical accessibility of the polling stations for persons with disabilities and other limited mobility groups (LMG), including: state of landscape engineering of adjacent territories and architectural accessibility of buildings and premises, in which polling stations are located. On the basis of the audit findings a set of proposals will be developed to address the identified drawbacks and to improve the accessibility of polling stations for the concerned categories of citizens. The audit that was conducted is one of the first steps on the way to ensure the accessibility of the electoral and political processes for persons with disabilities. Ukrainian NGO «National Assembly of Persons with Disabilities of Ukraine», jointly with the International Foundation for Electoral Systems and other partners, will continue to work on joint initiatives and projects in order to make sure that every person with disabilities is able, for example, to become a candidate, to work as an observer or as an election commission member, that the information necessary to participate in the political and social life is available in accessible formats, and that the persons with disabilities are no longer an invisible category for political parties, election commissions and mass media. The audit used the following: • Data of the monitoring and previous audits carried out by the local and regional accessibility committees (previous audits were conducted by experienced professionals qualified in the area of accessibility); • Legislative and regulatory framework and Building Codes that regulate unimpeded access to buildings and premises in the transport infrastructure, public facilities and environment, 5

• Findings of the study «Assessment of the situation regarding the access of persons with disabilities to the electoral and political processes of Ukraine» implemented by NGO «National Assembly of Persons with Disabilities of Ukraine» and the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) in 2015; • Expert opinions on the study of adjacent territories, buildings and premises where polling stations are located; • Statistical methods to analyze the polling stations audit findings on the basis of the software SPSS Statistics 17 Multilingual; • Additional information from the project monitoring team participants regarding their vision on issues causing accessibility problems. This report was prepared based on the examinations of 1269 (100.00 % of the total) polling stations located in 26 districts of the Poltava region. According to the previous studies of the situation with the aim to ensure the access of persons with disabilities to the electoral and political processes in Ukraine]1, persons with disabilities most often (30.6 %) cite the issue of architectural accessibility, which needs to be solved in accordance with the State Building Codes, to ensure that they can fully exercise their rights of voters. As the majority of polling stations are located in the places intended for the general public use (educational institutions, healthcare establishments, cultural institutions, social services facilities, penitentiary institutions, etc.), the examination of adjacent territories, buildings and premises, where they are located, with the purpose to identify physical accessibility barriers, and the elaboration of recommendations to create a barrier-free environment for persons with disabilities and LMG, will serve not only to improve access of persons with disabilities to the electoral and political processes in Ukraine, but will allow them also to fully enjoy human rights and fundamental freedoms. The examination of the Poltava region polling stations was conducted by the method of a polling station facility access audit. To streamline the work of experts, NGO «National Assembly of Persons with Disabilities of Ukraine» developed a special tool to be used, an accessibility audit questionnaire (Appendix 1). This questionnaire was prepared on the basis of specific requirements of the State Building Codes (DBN), in particular: – DBN V.2.2-9-2009 Public buildings and facilities (replacement of DBN V.2.2-9-99, effective from 2010-10-01), – DBN V.2.2-17:2006 Accessibility of buildings and facilities for limited mobility groups, – DBN V.2.2-5-2011 Landscaping. Assessment of the situation regarding the access of persons with disabilities to the electoral and political processes in Ukraine. – Kyiv: Copyright, 2015. – 88 pages, pages 54 – 55. 1

In the course of analysis of the polling stations accessibility audit findings, to determine the polling stations accessibility for persons with disabilities and other LMG, the following key tasks were solved: • Analysis of the polling stations passport data; • Assessment of compliance of adjacent territories, buildings and facilities, where polling stations are located, to the needs of persons with disabilities and other LMG, from a technical standpoint; • Identify specific drawbacks of the architectural environment that impede with timely and full access of persons to polling stations; • Determine physical accessibility of polling stations; • Develop and justify proposals to improve the compliance with the State Building Codes, as well as conclusions relating to their implementation using the optimal (or additional) amount of public resources.

І. POLLING STATIONS DESCRIPTION (Polling stations passport data analysis) A polling station is a place where the voting in elections is conducted. In addition to voting, other actions related to the electoral process, may be performed at the polling station. A polling station may be considered as a territory, where voters, registered (entered) in the voter lists pertaining to this particular polling station, permanently reside2. The election law in Ukraine regulates the division of polling stations on small, medium-sized and large, depending on a number of voters. In particular, the Law of Ukraine «On Elections of Members of Parliament of Ukraine» (Article 19) stipulates that polling stations are formed with a number of voters from twenty to two thousand five hundred voters and, respectively, shall be divided into: • small – with a number of voters up to 500 persons; • medium-sized – with a number of voters from 500 to 1500 persons; • large – with a number of voters more than 1500 persons. Also, this Law specifies the requirements as to the polling stations premises depending on their size (Article 83): • a small polling station shall have an area of no less than 50 square meters; • a medium-sized polling station shall have an area of no less than 75 square meters; • a large polling station shall have an area no less than 90 square meters. The same requirements as to polling stations premises were established by the Law of Ukraine «On Local Elections» (Article 76) and the Law of Ukraine «On Elections of President of Ukraine» (Article 74). Figure 1 shows the size distribution of the examined Poltava region polling stations.

large polling stations 26,00 %

Smal polling stations 41,00 %

Medium-size polling stations 32,95 %

Figure 1. Size distribution of examined polling stations Laws of Ukraine on local government. Collection of laws. – Kyiv, 2001; Political philosophy: Short Encyclopaedic Dictionary / Authors-compilers: V. P. Andrushchenko and others – Kyiv, 2002; Legal Encyclopaedia: in 6 volumes / Editorial Board: Y. S. Shemchushenko (editor) and others. – Kyiv, 1998. – Volume 3. 2

In order to organize a polling station, a part of a building, or premises, that have their own owner, or a balance holder, located in the area, where voters, pertaining to this particular polling station, reside, shall be allocated. Typically there shall be one polling station in a building. Thus, according to the monitoring findings, 1198 polling stations (94.40 % of all surveyed polling stations) are located in separate buildings. Only 27 buildings were used to accommodate two polling stations each, i.e. 54 polling stations (4.25 %) are located in buildings accommodating two polling stations. Distribution of facilities, in which polling stations are located, by owners/balance holders is represented in Figure 2. Others 60 4,73 % Government bodies 288 22,71 %

Education depertment 511 40,30 %

Healthcare depertment 78 6,15 %

Social protection depertment 6 0,47 % Culture depertment 325 25,63 %

Figure 2. Distribution of polling stations by facilities owners/balance holders

As per the monitoring findings, the distribution of polling stations by facilities owners/balance holders in the Poltava region is as follows: • Majority of polling stations (40.30 % of the total) are located in educational institutions; • About half of that number of polling stations is located in the cultural institutions (25.63 %) and government body premises (22.71 %); • Fewer polling stations are located in healthcare institutions (6.15 %) and in the facilities of other type of ownership (4.73 %); • The least number of polling stations (0.47 %) is located in institutions of the social protection sector. 9

Other owners of facilities in which polling stations are located are: 11 – joint stock companies; 10 – limited liability companies; 9 – industrial enterprises; 8 – consumer societies unions; 7 – private entrepreneurs; 6 – agricultural companies; 5 – companies facilitating the defense of Ukraine; 4 – religious communities. A polling station size shall be determined by a number of voters voting at this polling station3. By ensuring the architectural accessibility of a large polling station, we achieve a greater effect than in case of a small polling station. After all, if you comply with basic accessibility requirements (construction of a standard access ramp, installation of standard toilet facilities, etc.), in this case a greater number of people will be able to use them compared to that of a small polling station. This approach determines the priority of the subsequent actions and proves feasibility of specific proposals and efficiency of the public resources use to create a barrier-free environment. Distribution of polling stations by facilities owners/balance holders and by size is shown in the Figure 3. The greatest number of large (15.99 %) and medium-sized (13.79 %) polling stations are based in the educational institutions subordinate to education departments of local government bodies and executive power bodies. Among the objects of the study, requiring adaptation to the needs of persons with disabilities, these are the objects of the first adaptation priority. This is important, as it is required for promoting the inclusive education, that is being implemented by our state in line with the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Much smaller number of large and somewhat less number of medium-sized polling stations are based in the cultural institutions (3.94 % of large and 8.03 % of medium-sized polling stations) and in the premises of the government bodies (3.46 % of large and 8.35 % of medium-sized polling stations). Among the objects of the study that require adaptation to the needs of persons with disabilities and other LMG, these are the objects of the second adaptation priority. Approximately 1 – 2 % of large and medium-sized polling stations are based in the territorial centers of the social protection departments, health care establishments, other organizations as well as private enterprises. Among the objects of the study that require adaptation to the needs of persons with disabilities and other LMG, these are the objects of the third adaptation priority. The geography of location of different size polling stations in different size settlements (Figure 4) may also indicate possible priorities to guide subsequent efforts. Law of Ukraine «On Elections of Members of Parliament of Ukraine» (Article 19, 83), Law of Ukraine «On Local Elections» (Article 76), Law of Ukraine «On Elections of President of Ukraine» (Article 74). 3

Size

600

Smal polling station

Distribution of polling ststion by size

500

Medium-sized polling statioan

133 10,49 %

400

Large polling station 300

175 13,80 % 173 13,64 %

138 10,88 %

200

100

203 16,01 %

102 8,04 %

50 3,94 %

0 Education department

Culture department

0 0,00 % 4 0,32 %

2 0,16 %

Social protection department

62 4,89 %

8 0,63 %

106 8,36 %

8 0,63 %

44 4,47 %

Heaithcare department

Government bodies

15 1,18 %

22 1,74 % 23 1,81 %

Other

Owners of sites where polling station are located

Figure 3. Location of different size polling stations in the facilities of different owners/balance holders

Size 1 000

Distribution of polling ststion by size

Smal polling station Medium-sized polling station

800

492 38,77 %

600

400

Large polling station

26 2,05 % 72 5,67 %

200 265 20,88 %

25 2,08 %

311 24,51 % 35 2,76 % 27 2,13 %

0 City

Town

38 2,99 %

Village

Type of settlement

Figure 4. Location of different size polling stations in different settlements (city, town, village)

The greatest number of large (20.88 % of the total) polling stations is based in cities of district and regional subordination. Among the objects of the study, these are the first priority objects requiring adaptation to the needs of persons with disabilities and other LMG. A significant number of medium-sized polling stations operate in the rural type settlements (24.51 % of the total). Among the objects of the study that require adaptation to the needs of persons with disabilities and other LMG, these are the objects of the first adaptation priority. Medium-sized polling stations located in cities (5.67 % of the total) and large polling stations located in villages (2.99 % of the total) are the second priority objects among the objects that require adaptation to the needs of persons with disabilities and other LMG. The bulk of small polling stations (38.77 % of the total) are located in the facilities established in the rural areas, and among the objects of the study that require adaptation to the needs of persons with disabilities and other LMG, these are the third priority objects for the adaptation. The analysis of polling stations specificities suggests possible steps to guide efforts of local communities to ensure architectural accessibility of the polling stations for persons with disabilities and other LMG. In particular, that can be done on the basis of the geographic location of different size polling stations in different size settlements and depending on a facility owner / a balance holder. Stages to ensure architectural accessibility of polling stations: First stage: • Depending on an owner/a balance holder: large and medium-sized polling stations located in the educational institutions; • Depending on a settlement: large polling stations organized in cities of district and region subordination, medium-sized polling stations in rural settlements. Second stage: • Depending on an owner/a balance holder: large and medium-sized polling stations located in the cultural institutions and in the government body premises; • Depending on a settlement: medium-sized polling stations located in cities as well as large polling stations located in villages. Third stage: • Depending on an owner/a balance holder: large and medium-sized polling stations located in the territorial centers of the social protection departments, healthcare establishments, other organizations and private enterprises; • Depending on a settlement: small polling stations located in the facilities situated in villages. 12

ІІ. FINDINGS OF THE POLLING STATIONS PHYSICAL ACCESSIBILITY AUDIT (assessment of technical characteristics of adjacent territories, buildings and premises, where polling stations are located, for their compliance to the needs of persons with disabilities and other LMG) Physical accessibility of facilities and polling stations is a set of technical characteristics (adjacent territories, buildings and premises) that determine the absence or presence of physical barriers on the way of persons with disabilities and other LMG to the polling stations. Based on the assumption, that all polling stations cannot be equally accessible, we propose to distinguish their physical accessibility by the following features: accessible, partially accessible or inaccessible polling stations. The following criteria serve the grounds for inclusion of the polling station in one group or another: • polling stations are accessible if all elements of a site correspond to the accessibility requirements; • polling stations are partially accessible: a) if they have minor deviations from the requirements of the State Building Codes, such as a high threshold, narrow leafs of folding doors, etc.; b) if you can enter the premises not through the central entrance but through an alternative entrance (for office use, emergency exit, evacuation exit, etc.), provided there is a sign pointing out to its location; c) if they are located in the premises, accessible with somebody’s assistance, for example: an abnormally steep ramp, one step with a height of 15 – 20 cm at the entrance, etc.; d) if they are located in the facilities, to get to which somebody’s assistance is required, with the use of portable ramps and adaptations that violate the requirements of the State Building Codes; • polling stations are inaccessible if most persons with disabilities require somebody’s help to be transported on arms in order to enter such polling stations and if most elements of the facility are recognized as inaccessible. According to the polling stations accessibility audit (adjacent territories, buildings and premises), polling stations were divided into three groups depending on a degree of accessibility (Figure 5). Three (0.24 %) polling stations are recognized accessible on the basis of consideration of all components (adjacent territory, building, premises). 528 polling stations were recognized partially accessible (41.60 % of the total surveyed), including: 13

3 0,24 %

Accessible Partially accessible 528 41,60 %

Inaccessible

788 58,15 %

Figure 5. Polling stations grouping by accessibility

493 polling stations are partially accessible due to features of all three components of the facility; 14 polling stations are partially accessible due to features of the adjacent territory and the building; 10 polling stations are partially accessible due to features of the premises and the building; 2 polling stations are partially accessible due to features of the premises and the adjacent territory; 2 polling stations are partially accessible due to features of the adjacent territory; one polling station is partially accessible due to features of the premises; one polling station is partially accessible due to technical characteristics of the building. 738 polling stations were recognized inaccessible (58.15 Â % of the total surveyed), as follows: 589 polling stations are inaccessible by reason of the premises and the building; 77 polling stations are inaccessible by reason of all three components; 26 polling stations are inaccessible by reason of technical characteristics of the building; 22 polling stations are inaccessible by reason of technical characteristics of the premises; 7 polling stations are inaccessible by reason of characteristics of the adjacent territory; 4 polling stations are inaccessible by reason of characteristics of the building and the adjacent territory; One polling station is inaccessible by reason of characteristics of the premises and the adjacent territory. To test the assumption that ÂŤthe physical accessibility of polling stations, which are located in the facilities owned by different owners, is characterized by differ14

ent degrees of accessibility», a comparative accessibility analysis of different polling stations located in the facilities of different forms of ownership was conducted (Figure 6).

Distribution of polling stations by accessibility

100,0 %

80,0 %

Accessible 0 0,00 %

210 16,56 %

0 0,00 %

129 10,17 %

0 0,00 %

1 0,08 %

0 0,00 %

Accessible Partially accessible

2 0,16 %

114 9,15 %

24 1,89 %

Inaccessible

46 3,63 %

60,0 % 2 0,16 %

40,0 % 301 23,47 %

196 15,24 %

20,0 %

166 13,49 %

2 0,16 %

32 2,52 %

Social protection department

Heaithcare department

36 2,84 %

0,0 % Education department

Culture department

Government bodies

Other

Owners of sites where polling station are located

Figure 6. Indicators of physical accessibility of polling stations located at the sites of different forms of ownership

The comparative analysis of physical accessibility indicators for polling stations located at the sites of different forms of ownership demonstrates the following: • the most accessible for persons with disabilities and other LMG are such polling stations that are located at the sites of territorial centers of the social protection departments: Shares of «accessible», «partially accessible» or «inaccessible» polling stations are equal (33.33 %) and make 0.16 % of the total surveyed sites. On the basis of such statistics it is possible to recommend to accommodate the polling stations in the premises of the social protection departments; • accessibility status of polling stations located in the healthcare establishments: a difference between «partially accessible» (58.97 %) and «inaccessible» (41.02 %) polling stations is 17.95 %. The number of polling stations located in the premises of the healthcare establishments is 6 % of the total number of the surveyed polling stations. The quality of their adaptations 15

to the needs of persons with disabilities and other LMG suggests it is possible to recommend to accommodate polling stations in the premises of the healthcare establishments; • accessibility status of the polling stations located in the educational, cultural institutions, at the sites of the government bodies and the premises intended for other uses is «unsatisfactory». A difference between the share of «partially accessible» (less than 40 %) and «inaccessible» (more than 60 %) polling stations is about 20 %, that requires to take measures to equip these institutions in compliance with the State Building Codes. With an assumption that «physical accessibility of polling stations located in the settlements of different types is characterized by different degrees of accessibility», a comparative analysis of the accessibility of polling stations located in cities, towns and villages was conducted (Figure 7).

Distribution of polling stations by accessibility

100,0 %

2 0,16 %

0 0,00 %

1 0,08 %

Accessibility Accessible Partially accessible

80,0 %

156 12,52 %

32 2,57 %

331 26,57 %

Inaccessible

60,0 %

40,0 % 202 16,21 %

30 2,41 %

492 39,49 %

20,0 %

0,0 % City

Town

Village

Type of settlement

Figure 7. Indicators of polling stations accessibility in different settlements (city, town, village)

The polling stations accessibility geography points out to varying degrees of problems in villages, towns and cities: • accessibility status of polling stations located in towns is high: a difference of shares of «partially accessible» (50.76 %) and «inaccessible» (49.23 %) polling stations is 1.53 % with a sign «+»; 16

• accessibility status of polling stations located in cities is moderate: a difference of shares of «partially accessible» (44.07 %) and «inaccessible» (55.37 %) polling stations is 11.23 % with a sign «–»; • accessibility status of polling stations located in villages is unsatisfactory: a difference between the shares of «partially accessible» (39.83 %) and «inaccessible» (60.04 %) polling stations is 20.57 % with a sign «-», that requires efficient actions to be taken to equip the above mentioned sites in compliance with the State Building Codes. Figure 8 shows findings of the accessibility analysis conducted in 26 districts of the Poltava region. «The total height» of the column indicates the number of the polling stations in each districts and colors show the accessibility status of one or another polling station in a particular district. Accordingly, we can see that the top five districts of the region by the greatest number of inaccessible polling stations are the following: Lokhvytsky district, Lubensky district, Autozavodsky district in Kremenchuk city, Gadyatsky district and Poltavsky district.

The general findings of the polling stations physical accessibility audit for persons with disabilities and LMG in the Poltava region reveal a disappointing situation. In particular, most facilities are inaccessible and an adequate access by virtue of all components (adjacent territory, building, premises) is achieved only in three polling stations from the total number of the surveyed sites (1269 polling stations). The comparative analysis of the polling stations accessibility demonstrated the greatest accessibility of those polling stations that are located in the territorial centers of the social protection departments and healthcare establishments, that allows to recommend premises of those institutions as places where polling stations may be located in the future; at the same time, the accessibility status of the polling stations located in the educational institutions, cultural institutions and the government body premises is «unsatisfactory». Local authorities and local government bodies have to pay attention also to the unsatisfactory accessibility conditions of the polling stations, which are located in villages, as well as moderate level of accessibility in cities of the region that require urgent efficient measures to be taken to equip those sites in compliance with the State Building Codes.

Avtozavodsky district in Kremenchuk

Chutivsky DSA

Dckhvitsky DSA

14 14

Gadyatsky DSA

In accessible

Karlivsky DSA Khoiolsky DSA

Grebinkivsky DSA

Kjriv district in Poltava city

Komsomolsky city council

0 0

Kotelsvsky DSA

Kozelshchinsky DSA

0 7

Kreinenchutsky DSA

5 0

Kryukivsky district in Kremenchuk city

46 11

kubensky DSA

Kobelyatsky DSA

Leninsky district in Poltava cityÂ Lubensky city council

Mashivsky DSA

Novosanzlmsky DSA

0 23

25 31

Semsnivsky DSA Shishatsky DSA

14 10

Velykobagachansky DSA Zinkivsky DSA

11 0

0 18

17 10

22 19

Rjeshetiiivsky DSA

Pyryutynsky DSA

Poltavsky DSA

0 16

Oktyabrsky district in Poltava city

Mirgpiod city council

OizhitskyDSA

Miigoiodsky DSA

Partially accessible

Globinsky DSA

Accessible

Dikansky DSA

Districts of Poltava region

CliDinukMusky DSA

Accessibility

0 0 20

Distribution of polling stations by accessibility

Figure 8. Accessibility indicators of the Poltava region polling stations

ІІІ. FINDINGS OF ANALYSIS OF TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SITES WHERE POLLING STATIONS ARE LOCATED (revealing typical drawbacks of architectural environment that impede with timely and full access of persons to the polling stations) Summary data as to the distribution of accessibility characteristics of the polling stations as per various components (adjacent territory, building, polling station premises) are presented in Figure 9.

100 %

90 % 80 % 707

70 %

703

60 % 50 %

Accessible 1148

Partially accessible

40 %

Inaccessible

30 % 555

544

Adjacent area

Building

Premises

20 % 10 % 0%

Figure 9. Indicators of distribution of polling stations accessibility characteristics as per various components

The comparative analysis of the accessibility characteristics shows that more than 55.39 % of premises and buildings are inaccessible for persons with disabilities and other LMG. At the same time, only 7.40 % of adjacent territories are inaccessible. Such distribution of the polling stations accessibility characteristics as per various components of the sites suggests that there is a need for re-equipment of those buildings and premises where the polling stations are located. 3.1. Territories adjacent to the buildings where polling stations are located In order to identify landscape engineering drawbacks in the territories adjacent to the buildings, where polling stations are located, an expert examination of parking zones and physical obstacles in the areas adjacent to the buildings, on the way to the entrance, was conducted. The following elements of the adjacent territories 19

were considered, if they are available, and if they are in compliance with the standards: • car parking lots; • sidewalks, walkways and crossings of sidewalks on the roadway; • entrances to fenced areas; • protruding elements and natural obstacles. 3.1.1 Car parking spaces In the areas adjacent to the buildings, where polling stations are located, in 1,141 cases (89.91 % of the surveyed polling stations) there are no parking spaces. Only 102 polling stations (8.08 % of the total surveyed) have parking spaces in the adjacent territories, and out of them only five (0.39 %) have 2,5 m 2,5 m 3,5 m 3,5 m car parking lots with designated lots for parking vehicles of persons with disabilities. In 10 cases (0.78 % of the total surveyed) places for parking vehicles of persons with disabilities are marked with the internationally accepted signs: road sign 5.38 «Parking»: the sign «International Accessibility Symbol» (IAS)

along with

To reserve appropriate size spaces for parking vehicles of persons with disabilities, to mark them with the road sign along with the International Accessibility Symbol does not require significant resources, and therefore such works can be done in the short term. 3.1.2 Sidewalks, walkways and sidewalk crossings on the roadway In the view of inability (since the survey was conducted in the winter/weather conditions, in particular, deep snow) to examine the surface of sidewalks, walkways and condition of sidewalk crossings on the roadway, the analysis of the drawbacks was conducted on a sample of 603 polling stations, representing 47.51 % of the total surveyed polling stations. In 19.77 % of areas adjacent to buildings where 0,015 m polling stations are located, sidewalks and walkways have level surface, free of barriers, obstacles, potholes, etc. Surface of concrete slabs is smooth, and the thickness of seams between the slabs is no more than 0.015 m, i.e. 251 sites (adjacent territories) are accessible for persons with disabilities and LMG. 20

Polling station No 530045, Gadyach city

Polling station No 530211, Batky village

Polling station No 530744, Machukhi vilage

In 26.6 % of areas adjacent to buildings where polling stations are located, sidewalks crossings through the roadway are smooth, without curbstones, with slopes less than 1:12. The height of curbstones at the intersection of sidewalks with the roadway shall not exceed 0.04 m. About 80 % of areas adjacent to the buildings, where polling stations are located, require lowering the curbstones height in places of crossings from sidewalks to the roadway, as well as liquidation of potholes and damages to the asphalt surface. Such works do not require significant resources, so they can be considered in the short term. 3.1.3 Entrance to fenced area 563 buildings (44.36 % of the total surveyed) are located in a separate, fenced area, the entrance to which has the following drawbacks: • in 33 cases (2.60 % of all surveyed polling stations) the width of the gate is less than 90 cm, that may be a barrier for a person that uses a wide wheelchair; 21

• in 100 cases (7.88 % of all surveyed polling stations) there are stairs, or thresholds, that are impossible to overcome for a person in a wheelchair, or difficult to overcome for other persons that belong to the category of people with limited mobility; • in 44 cases (3.46 % of all surveyed polling stations) there are obstacles in the form of garbage cans, pedestals, etc. Such obstacles represent a threat to persons with visual impairments and create problems for the movement of persons with the musculoskeletal disorders, in particular, those who are in wheelchairs.

Polling station No 530393, Keleberda village

Polling station No 530382, Chechelev village

Polling station No 531053, Kremenchuk city

In most other cases, the characteristics of the entrance to the adjacent territory comply with the requirement of the State Building Codes. Minor drawbacks of entrances to adjacent territories listed above can be eliminated with the least efforts. For example, widening the gate to 90 cm, removal of barriers (curbstones) in places of crossings of the walkways/sidewalks with entrances to the gates, removal of thresholds, removal of garbage cans, pedestals and other objects from the way, etc. do not require significant expenses or particularly strenuous efforts. However, that can help create a safe and comfortable environment for all citizens.

2,1 m

0,7 m

2,1 m

0,1 m

3.1.4 Ways of movement around adjacent territories In 221 cases (17.41 % of all surveyed buildings), on the way to buildings, where polling stations are located, obstacles in the form of horizontal structures, or branches of trees, were not found. This is important to ensure a safe movement throughout the area not only for persons with visual impairments (especially totally blind), but also for all other citizens in the dark, or in case when the area is not illuminated.

In most cases (79.35 % – 1007 surveyed sites), the distance to horizontal structures, or branches of trees, above the way of movement is no less than 2.1 m; that is a typical characteristic of 1228 polling stations (96.76 %), that are considered accessible on this basis. Only 10 sites (0.78 %) do not correspond to the established requirements. Obstacles in the form of objects sticking out above the walkways surface, or branches of trees, were not found in 220 cases (17.33 % of the surveyed polling stations). On the way to the buildings where polling stations are located, in 1009 cases (79.51 %) some obstacles were identified, however, their height above the walkway surface was no more than 0.7 m; that is a typical characteristics of 1229 polling stations (96.84 %), that are considered accessible on this basis. Only 9 sites (0.70 %) do not correspond to the established requirements. Obstacles in the form of objects sticking out on the way, or branches of trees, were not found in 182 cases (14.34 % of all surveyed sites). On the way to the buildings where polling stations are located, in 1052 cases (80.77 %) some obstacles were identified, however, they were not sticking out on the way to the building by more than 0.1 m; that is a typical characteristic of 1207 polling stations (95.11 %), that are considered accessible on this basis. Only 30 sites (2.36 %) do not correspond to the established requirements. In more than 90 % of cases on the way to the buildings, where polling stations are located, there are no obstacles in the form of horizontal items, branches of trees, items sticking out above the walkway surface, or they have dimensions permissible in accordance with the requirements of the State Building Codes. In those rare cases, where such obstacles were identified, it is possible to eliminate them, and that, in its turn, does not require additional resources. 3.2. Buildings where polling stations are located In order to identify architectural drawbacks of the buildings where polling stations are located, an expert examination of entrances to the buildings and ways to the polling stations, as well as sanitary facilities, was conducted. The following elements of the buildings were considered, if they are available, and if they are in compliance with the established building codes: • stairs and ramps on the way to the buildings; • entrance to the building (doors, thresholds, obstacles if any); • stairs, ramps, elevators, lifting platforms and other methods of moving persons in wheelchairs up and down on the way to premises, where polling stations are located; • horizontal and vertical items on the way to premises, where polling stations are located; • sanitary facilities.

bbbb

3.2.1. Stairs and ramps at the entrance to the building 235 polling stations (18.51 % of all surveyed sites) are loа а а а cated in the buildings without stairs. 475 polling stations (37.43 % of all surveyed sites) are located in the buildings, where stairs at the entrance to the building are characterized by the same height. In other cases – 542 polling stations (42.71 % of all surveyed sites) are located in the buildings, where the height of stairs at the entrance to the building does not comply with the State Building Codes and, therefore, represents a risk of an injury. That is, walking up or down these stairs, especially on the first and the last stair, you can stumble, fall down and get injured.

Polling station No 530211, Batky village

Polling station No 530045, Gadyach city

Polling station No 530456, Pisky village

In addition to it, only in 69 cases the marking of edges of the top and bottom stairs was found, representing 6.78 % of 1017 polling stations that are located in the buildings, where there are stairs at the entrance. Compliance with these requirements is necessary to assure safety and better orientation for persons with visual impairments, or other citizens, in case of darkness in the premises, or contrast between the indoor and outdoor lights. 24

Stairs at the entrance to the building in 503 cases are equipped with handrails (49.45 % of 1017 polling stations located in the buildings, the entrance to which is equipped with the stairs). Only 7.86 % stairs (80 units) have handrails on both sides. Even less, 2.45 % (25 units) of handrails have horizontal extensions both at the top as well as at the bottom (30 cm). The lack of that makes orientation 0,3 m in space difficult for persons with visual impairments. In 185 cases the width of stairs exceeds 2.5 m. However, the separating rails were found only in 20 places, representing 10.81 % of the required. This is important for persons with limited mobility that have musculoskeletal system disorders. 356 sites: stairs at the entrance to the buildings are combined with ramps, representing 35.0 % of the required. This is important for ensuring equal access of limited mobility groups of population to buildings and premises, and this requirement is also regulated by the State m Building Codes: «in the building there shall be minimum 1,2 one entrance accommodated to the needs of limited mobility groups of population, from the land surface and from each underground crossing, or a pedestrian overpass accessible for the limited mobility groups, that is connected with this building».4 0,3 m

m 0,9

The slope of ramp meets the standard in 131 cases (12.88 % of the 1017 polling stations located in the buildings the entrances to which are equipped with stairs) and is no more than 1:12.

Polling station No 531027, Myrgorod

Polling station No 531099, Kremenchuk city

Polling station No 531054, Kremenchuk city

289 ramps (81.17 %) are equipped with handrails. In 74 cases the handrails are installed on both sides of the ramp, representing 25.60 % of the 289 polling stations located in the buildings, the entrances to which are equipped with ramps with handrails. Paragraph 6.1.1 State Building Codes V.2.2-17:2006 «Accessibility of buildings and facilities for limited mobility groups»

In 41 cases (14.18 % of 289 polling stations) holding grips of handrails are set on two levels at a height of 70 cm and 90 cm. In 37 cases (12.80 % of 289 polling stations) handrails have horizontal extensions both at the top as well as at the bottom (30 cm). Over 90 % of polling stations located in the buildings, the entrances to which are equipped with stairs, require the appropriate contrast marking of edges of the top and the bottom stairs. Compliance with these requirements is necessary to ensure the accessibility of polling stations for people with visual impairments. Over 50 % of entrances to buildings require equipping the stairs by handrails from both sides with horizontal extensions both at the top as well as at the bottom by 30 cm. 886 sites, that have stairs at the entrance to the building, require duplication with an access ramps having an appropriate slope (no more than 1:12), equipped by handrails from both sides, having holding grips at two levels at the height of 70 cm and 90 cm and a slip-proof surface. 3.2.2 Entrance to the building

~ 1 200 – 1 500 m

In 182 buildings (14.34 %) the front doors are single leaf doors, in 102 cases the door leaf width meets the requirements of the State Building Codes and is no less than 90 cm. In 1070 buildings (84.31 %) the front doors are double leaf doors, the working width of doors in 599 cases (56 %) 0.9 m meets the standards of the State Building Codes and is no less than 80 cm. 539 buildings (42.47 %) are equipped with transparent doors. However, in 264 cases (48.97 %) there is no contrast marking on the transparent part of the door, by reason of which those 264 buildings can be only considered partially accessible. The lack of marking on the transparent parts of the doors and walls creates an illusion of an open space, and is invisible to persons with visual impairments, which can lead to danger and injuries. 1224 buildings (96.45 % of the total number of the surveyed polling stations) have thresholds in the door. The height of 420 thresholds (34.31 %) does not exceed 2.5 cm, which means that they meet the requirements of the State 0.25 m Building Codes (best is when there are no thresholds – as in 28 surveyed polling stations (2.28 %). 804 buildings (63.35 %) have thresholds with the height more than 2.5 cm. Such thresholds do not only complicate the movement of persons with musculoskeletal disorders, but they are a dismal barrier during the evacuation in emergencies.

Drainage and water collection grids, installed in the floor of the entrance areas and anGrathing width > 0.015 m techambers, shall be put at the same level as the flooring surface. Various objects (for example, a brush to wipe feet, a door clamping mechanism, etc.) shall not be an obstacle for pedestrians, especially LMG. This is especially important in case of evacuation in emergencies. The examination of entrances to the buildings to reveal any obstacles on the way demonstrated that the vast majority of the buildings, where 1144 polling stations (90.14 %) are located, have no obstacles at the entrance to the buildings, and the technical devices comply with the State Building Codes. However, there are drawbacks in the buildings where 108 polling stations (8.51 %) are located. Drainage and water collection

In 50 % of cases the doors that have transparent parts require contrast markings to avoid danger to persons with visual impairments. For more than 65 % of buildings it is required to eliminate, or to lower, thresholds (to 2.5 cm). 108 buildings have obstacles at the entrance (a brush to wipe feet, a door clamping mechanism, etc.). The elimination of these drawbacks can be considered in the short term, as it does not require significant efforts and resources. 3.2.3. Way to the premises where polling stations are located Polling stations are primarily (92.98 %) located on the ground floor of buildings; there are 1180 such polling stations. On the way to the polling stations located on the ground floor, in the lobby and in the corridors in 169 sites (13.31 % of buildings, where polling stations are located) there are stairs. Only in 14.20 % sites (in 24 buildings) there is a contrast marking of edges of the stairs. In 28 cases (16.56 %) the stairs are equipped with handrails. In 14 cases (8.28 %) handrails are located on both sides of the stairs. Only in 11 buildings stairs on the ground floor are combined with access ramps, representing 6.50 % of the need. Even fewer buildings are equipped with the railing along the ramp (9 buildings). The availability of properly operating means +2.50 max of moving people with limited mobility up and down the stairs (elevator, lifting platform etc.), especially persons in wheelchairs, is a key factor +0.00 in determining the accessibility of polling stations that are located not on the ground floor. 27

In total 72 polling stations (5.67 %) are located not on the ground floor: • 2 polling stations (0.15 %) are located on 0 floor of the building (stairs go down); • 64 polling stations (5.04 %) are located on the first floor of the building; • 5 polling stations (0.39 %) are located on the second floor of the building; one polling station (0.07 %) is located on the third floor. Only in 9 buildings (12.5 %), where the polling stations are located not on the ground floor, the elevators work properly; in one more building (1.38 %) the properly operating lifting platform was available; in one of the buildings (1.38 %) other means of moving people in wheelchairs up and down the stairs are used. Thus, only 11 polling stations (15.27 %), located not on the ground floor, are accessible and partially accessible for persons with disabilities. About 95 % of polling stations are located on the ground floor of the building. On the way to such polling stations, in the lobby and in the corridors, in 169 sites there are stairs, most of which require a contrast marking to be applied to edges of the stairs for persons with visual impairments, as well as the installation of railings, which, in its turn, does not require significant resources. 158 buildings require duplication of stairs with a properly organized ramp access. 63 polling stations that are located not on the ground floor require to be equipped with means of moving persons in wheelchairs up and down the stairs (elevator, lifting platform etc.) that is a key factor in determining the polling station accessibility for such voters. 3.2.4 Overhanging horizontally and vertically positioned items On the way to premises, where polling stations are located, in 7 cases (0.55 % of the surveyed sites) there are obstacles in the form of horizontally positioned items, or twigs. At the vast majority of sites (98.10 % – 1245 surveyed sites), the distance to the discovered horizontal elements, or twigs, above the way to premises, is no less than 2.1 m, on the basis of which those polling stations are considered accessible by virtue of this feature. Obstacles in the form of hanging items above the floor surface, or twigs, are found only in 6 cases (0.47 % of surveyed sites). In 1246 cases (98.18 %) there are no obstacles on the way to premises, where polling stations are located, on the basis of which they are classified as accessible by virtue of this characteristic. In 361 cases (28.45 % of all surveyed polling stations) there were no obstacles in the form of hanging items, or twigs. In 874 cases (68.87 %) obstacles are found,

2.1 m

0.7 m

2.1 m

0.1 m

but they are not sticking out on the way to premises by more than 0.1 m, on the basis of which 1235 polling stations (97.32 %) are classified as accessible by virtue of this feature. Only 17 sites (1.33 %) do not comply with the established requirements.

0.7 m

1.9 m

In 268 cases (21.11 % of all surveyed sites) the polling stations are located in the lobby that does not require the movement of voters through the building. In 862 cases (67.92 % of all surveyed sites), ways in the corridors, premises, galleries, etc. are free, their width is no less than 1.8 m. This requirement is essential so that two persons in wheelchairs have a possibility to pass by each other, when moving in the opposite directions. In total, 1130 polling stations (89.04 %) are accessible on this basis. The rest of the sites, 114 polling stations (8.98 %), do not correspond to the requirements of the State Building Codes. In 1166 buildings (91.88 %) there are no areas under open stairs, or other protruding structures on the way to polling stations inside of the buildings. 1.8 m In 62 cases (4.88 % buildings) there are areas under open stairs, or other hanging items, inside of the building, however, their inner height is no less than 1.9 m. Only 18 buildings (1.41 %) do not correspond to the State Building Codes by this criterion. In 57 cases (4.49 %) the areas under the open stairs, or other hanging items inside of the building, that have the inner height of min 1.9 m, are fenced. Only 16 buildings (1.26 %) do not meet the State Building Codes requirements by this criterion. On the way to premises where the polling stations are located: • Only in 7 cases there are obstacles in the form of horizontal structures; • In 6 cases there are obstacles in the form of structures protruding above the floor surface; • 114 sites are characterized by narrowing of ways in the corridors and in the galleries (less than 1.8 m); • 16 buildings have areas under the open stairs or other hanging items inside of the building with the inner size of less than 1.9 m – they require to be fenced to ensure safety of visitors, especially the visually impaired and totally blind. Most of those obstacles can be eliminated promptly without additional resources. 29

3.2.5 Sanitary facilities accessible for limited mobility groups Only in 3 buildings (0.23 %) there are universal toilet booths for general use, that have the following dimensions: minimum width of 1.65 m and minimum depth of 1.8 m. The toilet bowl is equipped with handrails. In 12 cases (0.94 %) there are toilet booths for general use with the following dimensions: minimum width of 0.9 m, minimum depth (a distance between the toilet bowl and the door) of 0.9 m, door width is no less than 0.8 m, doors open outwards. The toilet bowl is equipped with handrails.

Polling station No 531255, Poltava city

Polling station No 531183, Poltava city

In 145 cases (11.42 %) there are no toilet booths at all.

Polling station No 530045, Gadyach city

Polling station No 530201, Zinkiv city

Polling station No 530392, Royove village

Unfortunately, only in rare cases (in 3 buildings) there are universal toilet booths for general use. In 12 cases there are accessible toilet booths for general use. In 1254 polling stations, voters moving in wheelchairs are unable to use the toilet. There may be different reasons for that: it is impossible to come close enough to the toilet bowl in a wheelchair by reason of narrow doors and a small inner space; bowl of Genoa instead of a toilet bowl is not accessible for persons in wheelchairs and other persons with musculoskeletal disorders. In 145 cases there are no toilet booths at all. The vast majority of the latter (129 polling stations) are small and medium-sized polling stations in rural areas. To ensure decent sanitary conditions for people, it is necessary to have at least one toilet facility with a universal booth in each premises for public use, in accordance with the State Building Codes, i.e. the door width shall be minimum 80 cm, the toilet booth width shall be no less than 90 cm, and the depth, a distance between the edge of the toilet bowl (attention, not a Genoa bowl) and the door shall be no less than 90 cm. It is desirable to have supporting railings at a height of 80 cm on the side walls. This is important for those who come to the building as a voter, or involved in the electoral process as a polling station worker, an observer, a media representative, etc. To ensure accessibility of sanitary facilities is to ensure basic essential vital needs for every person, including persons with disabilities. This issue should become a priority to ensure physical accessibility of the sites where polling stations are located. 3.3. Premises where polling stations are located 3.3.1. Entrance to premises In 194 premises (15.28 %) there are single leaf doors; the door leaf width in 75 cases (38.66 % premises with single leaf doors) does not meet the requirements of the State Building Codes and is less than 85 cm. In 760 premises (59.8 %) the front doors are double leaf doors, the working width of the doors in 505 cases (66.44 %) does not comply with the State Building Codes and is less than 80 cm. 23.45 % premises (in 298 cases), where the polling stations are located, are not equipped with the front door. 1109 premises (87.39 % of all surveyed polling stations) have thresholds in the door. The height of 469 thresholds (42.29 %) does not exceed 2.5 cm, which is in compliance with the State Building Codes (best when there are no thresholds – 143 polling stations (12.89 % of all surveyed polling stations). 640 (57.70 %) premises have thresholds with the height of more than 2.5 cm. 0,25 m In most buildings (1235) where polling stations are located, there are no obstacles in the form of garbage cans, 31

pedestals, furniture, etc. located in the doorway; on that basis 97.32 % of polling stations are classified as accessible by that criterion. Only in 17 premises (1.33 %) the above mentioned obstacles are found. However, they can be easily eliminated.

Polling station No 530426, Chervonozavodsk city

Polling station No 530406, Mala Kokhnivka village

Polling station No 530733, Vatazhkove village

75 premises require enlargement of a single leaf door width to min 85 cm. 505 premises require enlargement of the working width of the double leaf door to min 80 cm. 640 premises have thresholds with the height of more than 2.5 cm, 17 premises have obstacles in the form of a garbage can, pedestal, furniture, etc. in the doorway. To eliminate such obstacles would not require significant expenses and resources, they can be easily removed. 3.3.2 Light in premises In 1206 premises (95.03 %), where polling stations are located, the light corresponds to the established standards. In 22 cases (1.73 % of the surveyed premises, where polling stations are located) there is not enough light. In 24 premises (1.89 %) there is no light at all. This is important for all citizens, especially for persons with visual impairments. It is of paramount importance for persons with hearing disorder, because the sound information in the electoral process is not accessible for them and the visual information is the only source of information and orientation in space. For 24 premises it is required to organize light. For 22 premises it is necessary to improve light. These actions do not require significant expenses and resources and can be implemented in the short term.

ІV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The general findings of the physical accessibility audit of the polling stations for persons with disabilities and other LMG in the Poltava region reveal a disappointing situation. In particular, most sites are inaccessible, and only three polling stations from the total number (1269 polling stations) have an adequate access in view of all components (adjacent territory, building, premises). Out of the total number of 1269 polling sites where polling stations are located: • Only three polling stations are accessible; • 738 polling stations are inaccessible, and thus, at 58.15 % of the polling stations the rights of persons with disabilities with regard to their participation in the electoral process are violated; • At 528 polling stations (41.60 % of the total surveyed) person with disabilities would be dependent on another person if they want to come to the polling station, thus, they cannot freely participate in the electoral process; such situation diminishes the human dignity. Only in three cases persons with disabilities are able to feel themselves equal citizens and voters. The study has found typical drawbacks that affect the accessibility of the buildings and the polling stations located therein. Adjacent territories In more than 90 % of the areas adjacent to the buildings, where polling stations are located, there are no parking places. Only five among the available parking places have designated lots for parking the transport vehicles of persons with disabilities, and in 10 cases such places are marked with a corresponding road sign and the International Accessibility Symbol. About 80 % of adjacent territories require lowering of border stones height in the places of crossings from sidewalks through the roadway, as well as elimination of potholes and damages of the asphalt road surface. In cases, when a building is located in a separate, fenced territory, entrances sometimes may have insufficient width of the gate, stairs or a threshold, and obstacles in the form of a garbage can, pedestal, etc. In 10 % of cases on the way to the building, where polling stations are located, there are obstacles in the form of horizontal structures, twigs, items sticking out over the surface of the walkway. 33

Recommendations: Most of the discovered drawbacks of the adjacent territories listed above may be eliminated in the short term, as they do not require significant financial, human and time resources: • Reserving places of appropriate size for parking vehicles of persons with disabilities, their marking and designation with the road sign and the International Accessibility Symbol; • Lowering the height of the border stone in places of the crossings from sidewalks through the roadway, eliminating potholes and damages of the asphalt road surface; • Elimination of thresholds; • Transfer of garbage cans, pedestals and other small architectural forms from the way to the polling station; • Elimination of obstacles in the form of horizontal objects, twigs, items sticking out on the way to the buildings. Building Over 90 % of the polling stations located in the buildings, where there are stairs at the entrances, require appropriate contrast marking of edges of the top and the bottom stairs. Over 50 % of entrances to the buildings require equipping the staircases with handrails on both sides with extensions both at the top and at the bottom (30 cm). 886 sites that have stairs at the entrance, require duplication of the stairs with the ramp having an appropriate slope, handrails from both sides with sets of railings at two levels and non-slip coating. In 50 % of cases the front doors that have transparent parts require application of contrast markings to avoid danger for persons with visual impairments. More than 65 % of buildings require their thresholds to be eliminated or lowered. 108 buildings have obstacles at the entrance (a brush to wipe feet, a door clamping mechanism, etc.). Recommendations: Most of the above listed drawbacks of the buildings can be eliminated in the short term because they do not require significant efforts, financial costs and human resources: • Ensuring appropriate contrast marking of stairs edges at the top and at the bottom at the entrance to the building as well as in the middle of the stairs on the way to the polling station; • Equipping stairs with handrails from both sides of the stairs with horizontal extensions at the entrance to the building as well as in the middle of the stairs on the way to the polling stations; • Application of contrast marking on transparent parts of glass doors; • Elimination or lowering of thresholds; • Elimination of obstacles at the entrance (a brush to wipe feet, a door clamping mechanism, etc.); 34

• Elimination of obstacles in the form of horizontal and protruding items above the floor surface on the way to the premises, where polling stations are located; • Fencing areas under the open stairs, or other hanging items, inside the building, with the height of less than 1.9 m. In order to eliminate certain barriers in the buildings it is necessary to seek technical solutions, financial resources, sometime significant, therefore it would be fair to consider this process in the long term. • Duplication of stairs at the entrance to the building and in the middle of the building, on the way to the polling station (if it is located on the ground floor) by the ramp with appropriate slope equipped by handrails from both sides with railings set on two levels and non-slip coating; • Provide means of moving persons in wheelchairs up and down the stairs (an elevator, an elevating platform, etc.) at the polling stations that are located not on the ground floor; • Establish universal toilet booths for general use. Polling station premises About 95 % of polling stations are located on the ground floor. In 169 cases on the way to such polling stations there are stairs (in the lobby and in the corridors) most of which require contrast marking of edges of stairs for persons with visual impairments, as well as the installation of handrails. 158 buildings require duplication of stairs inside of the building by the properly equipped ramp access. 63 polling stations that are located not on the ground floor require to be equipped with means of moving persons in wheelchairs up and down the stairs (an elevator, a lifting platform etc.), that being a key factor of such polling stations accessibility for such voters. In some cases on the way to premises, where polling stations are located, there are obstacles in the form of horizontal items sticking out above the surface. 114 sites have narrowing of ways in the corridors and galleries. 16 buildings have areas under the open stairs, or other hanging items, inside the building, that require to be fenced for safety of visitors. Only in rare cases in the buildings there are universal and accessible toilet booths for general use. At 1254 polling stations the voters moving in wheelchairs do not have a possibility to use toilets. 145 polling stations are not equipped with toilet booths at all. In 580 premises the door leaf needs to be expanded. Thresholds on the way in 640 premises need to be eliminated. It is necessary to organize lights in 24 premises; and in 22 premises lights need to be improved.

Recommendations: Most of the above listed barriers in the premises of the polling stations may be eliminated in the short term, as they do not require significant efforts and financial resources: • Expansion of a door leaf of single leaf doors and the working width of double leaf doors; • Elimination or lowering of thresholds to 2.5 cm; • Removal of garbage cans, pedestals, furniture, etc. from doorways; • Ensuring adequate lights in premises. Overview of general problem issues The findings of the study outlined a number of issues that are typical not only for the Poltava region but for the entire Ukraine. The need to ensure equal rights and opportunities, including electoral rights for citizens with disabilities, does not appear to be a priority in the public policy. Until now, without civil society reminding about the needs of persons with disabilities, executive power bodies and local government bodies do not consider, for example, the issues of funds allocation for elimination of existing architectural barriers, construction of ramps, installation of elevators or other measures relating to physical accessibility of sites and public spaces. Recommendations: Central Election Commission: • During the time of elections to rent premises from owners of different types of ownership, to conclude rent contracts with owners of buildings and premises that are accessible for persons with disabilities and other LMG, according to the requirements of the State Building Codes. The importance of actions to create accessibility conditions for persons with disabilities is highlighted in a series of laws and other legal instruments in Ukraine. Public policy strategies define a list of priorities for sites adaptation. For example, among educational institutions, in which polling stations are based, there are institutions implementing inclusive education, thus, to ensure accessibility of such educational institutions shall be particularly urgent and considered a top priority. Findings of audits carried out in the Poltava region with the participation of the local officials in 2014 – 20155 are different from the findings of the study conducted directly by persons with disabilities – potential users of services and potential visitors of facilities. The public audit once again confirmed the importance of the slogan of the movement of persons with disabilities: «do not do it for us without us», as well Reports of district administrations of the Poltava region pursuant to the Resolution of the Poltava Region State Administration dated 08.07.2013 No. 307 «On ensuring an unimpeded access for persons with limited physical abilities and other limited mobility groups to transport, transport infrastructure and a street/road network». 5

as emphasized feasibility and efficiency of close interaction and cooperation of the power bodies and civil society organizations for the benefits of the community. Local accessibility committees at present do not have sufficient powers, their decisions are of «advisory» nature and they cannot provide for unconditional implementation of the initiatives, orders or regulations. In the course of the audit it turned out that there is apparently a lack of cooperation between village, town and city institutions, establishments, enterprises, organizations, local government bodies and executive power bodies with architects, design institutes, civil society organizations. This is evidenced by the fact that about 90 % of available devices were made in violation of applicable building codes and requirements. Among the surveyed sites there are such objects that have been renewed over the last few years; they have modern annexes, have gone through restructuring etc. In most cases, when construction works were executed, the requirements to ensure accessibility conditions were ignored by both customers and designers. Responsibility for the lack of architectural accessibility (with imposing significant penalties) and personal responsibility today rest with designers, architects and builders. However, heads of institutions, or building owners, who consciously or unconsciously (through the lack of awareness) ignore the legislation of Ukraine in the field of accessibility, are not brought to responsibility – the prosecutor’s office is not active in this domain and that is a key factor of inactivity on the grass root level. Among the factors that influence the formation of an open and accessible environment for all is a lack of awareness of the management of institutions in the matter of a barrier free environment, as well as inadequate information space and work of the media. Initiatives of the regional and local accessibility committees to conduct trainings are not sufficient to secure European standards in this domain. All above listed objective and subjective factors together represent a significant obstacle in overcoming barriers that exist both in the domain of architectural accessibility of buildings and facilities as well as in the minds of officials, heads of agencies and institutions, experts, and ordinary citizens. Recommendations: Top officials of the Poltava Region State Administration: • Take steps to ensure an unimpeded access to buildings and facilities that belong to organizations and enterprises that are subordinate to the state power bodies and local government bodies. Grounds: UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities: Article 9. Accessibility. «To enable persons with disabilities to live independently and participate fully in all aspects of life, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure to persons with disabilities access, on an equal basis with others, to the physical environment, to transportation, to information and communications, including information and communications technologies and systems, and to other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas». 37

The Law of Ukraine «On the Basis of Social Protection of Persons with Disabilities in Ukraine»: Article 26. «Enterprises, establishments and organizations shall be obliged to create conditions for an unimpeded access of persons with disabilities (including persons with disabilities that use special means of transport and guide dogs) to objects of physical environment.» Top officials of the Poltava Region State Administration, top officials of the local government bodies, city, town and village mayors shall: • Consider and analyze the conclusions of the accessibility audits of the buildings and premises; • On the basis of the findings of the accessibility audits to conclude defective acts to determine the types and volumes of construction works to ensure the accessibility of specific facilities in accordance with the State Building Codes, in particular, V.2.2-17:2006 Accessibility of buildings and facilities for limited mobility groups; • Determine priorities and on their basis develop a construction work schedule for 2016 and the following years; • On the basis of defective acts and the construction works schedule to provide annually for funds in the local budgets; • Constantly conduct the accessibility monitoring of the buildings and premises for persons with disabilities and other LMG; • Engage local accessibility committee representatives, in particular, organizations of persons with disabilities, in accessibility audits and monitoring. The findings of this study can be used for technical assistance to the Poltava Region State Administration, executive power bodies and local government bodies to develop strategic plans for the coming years to improve the accessibility of public facilities and public buildings, including those where polling stations are located. Filled in questionnaires on sites accessibility with identified drawbacks and practical recommendations for their elimination shall be basic documents to ensure positive changes in this field in the short term. The analysis of the polling stations characteristics allows us to suggest to the regional and local administrations possible stages in focusing efforts to ensure architectural accessibility of the polling stations for persons with disabilities and other LMG. In particular, that can be done depending on the geographic location of different size polling stations in different size settlements and depending on owners/balance holders of the sites.

Second stage

Third stage

Depending on owners/ balance holders

Large and medium-sized polling stations based in the educational institutions

Large and medium-sized polling stations based in the cultural institutions and in the state government bodies

Large and medium-sized polling stations based in the territorial centers of the social protection departments, healthcare departments, other organizations and private enterprises

Depending on settlement

Recommendations: Stages to ensure architectural accessibility of the polling stations First stage

Large polling stations that operate in cities of district and regional subordination; medium-sized polling stations in rural settlements

Medium-sized polling stations located in cities and large polling stations located in villages

Small polling stations based in the facilities located in the villages

The implementation of this project in the Poltava region was a certain experiment, and, at the same time, a possible model for such project further implementation in other regions of Ukraine.

accessible

partially accessible

І. Territory near the object is (underline):

CONCLUSIONS:

Not accessible

Full name of the persons who conducted accessibility audit: _______________________ _________________________________________________________________________ Tel. № _____________________________ Tel. № _____________________________

Full name of the authorized person of the institutions, where audit took place: _________________________________________________________________________ Telephone: (______) ____________________

Address: __________________________________________________________________ Telephone: (______) ____________________ Fax: (______) ____________________ Email: ______________________________________ Full name of the head of the institutions, where audit took place: ____________________ _________________________________________________________________________ Telephone: (______) _____________________

(operator of the property/institutional subordination, underline or indicate)

Name of the object where polling station is situated: ________________________________ Owner of the object: department of education; department of culture; department of social protection; department of health care; authority; other ______________________________ _________________________________________________________________________

(underline the correct answer or indicate)

FO L TIONA

RNA

Global Expertise. Local Solutions. Sustainable Democracy.

APPENDIX Polling stations accessibility audit questionnaire

partially accessible

Not accessible

partially accessible

Not accessible

ІІІ. Premises of the polling station: 1. _______________________________________________________________________ 2. _______________________________________________________________________

Entrance:___________________________________________________________ Ramp:____________________________________________________________________ Hall:_____________________________________________________________________ Sanitary rooms:_____________________________________________________________ Walking ways inside the building: _____________________________________________

І. Territory: 1. _________________________________________________________________ 2. _________________________________________________________________ ІІ. Building:

RECOMMENDATIONS/SUGGESTIONS:

Indicate unsatisfactory features_________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________

accessible

ІІІ. Premises of the polling station is (underline):

accessible

ІІ. Building is (underline):

I F E S EM

Date of conduction of the accessibility audit (monitoring): __________________________ Number of the polling station: ________________________________________________ Size of the object: small polling station, middle polling station, big polling station

T ION FOR

25 Y ARS E

RAL SYST

QUESTIONNAIRE to evaluate the accessibility of the buildings and premises as well as polling stations taking into consideration the needs of people with disabilities or other groups with low mobility

Comments: _______________________________

3.3. Construction or branches of plants shall not stick out to the walking ways more than 0.1 m.

3.2. Distance between the walking path to the objects or branch of plants above it in not more than 0.7 m.

Absence of barriers on the walking ways on the territory: 3.1. Distance to horizontal constructions, or branch of plants, above walking ways is min 2,1 m.

Comments:________________________________

Comments:________________________________ ________________________________________ Are there smooth transitions from one pavement to another throughout the road, without barriers, and with inclination of no more than 1:12? (Height of the curb in the place of intersection of pavement with the road shall be not more than 0,04 m).

0.7 m

Picture according to architecture requirements

2.1 m

Photo

0.1 m

І. Territory near the facility. General requirements to the territory Does pavements have smooth surface, without barriers, bumps or gaps etc.? (Surface made of concrete plates shall be smooth, 0,015 m and distance between blocks shall be – no more than 0.015 m

Requirement of the legislation

2.1 m

Yes

Were requirements met? Partly accessible

Accessible

Level of accessibility of the object Not accessible

together with)

Comments:______________________________ _____________________________________

«Parking lot»:

5.3. Such places shall be marked with signs recognized by international practice: road sign 5.38

5.2. Parking zone has marked parking places for transport of people with disabilities

5.1. Are there parking places for transport of people with disabilities?

Parking zone

Comments: _____________________________

4.3. Such barriers as boxes, litter bins, pedestals etc. are absent

4.2. Absence of stair or doorstep

4.1. Width of the gate is min 90 cm

If the premises situated in a separate fenced territory. Does the entrance meet the following conditions:

Requirement of the legislation

2,5 м

3,5 м

Picture according to architecture requirements Photo Yes

Were requirements met? Partly accessible

Accessible

Level of accessibility of the object Not accessible

Comments: ______________________________

7.2. Inclination of the ramp meets the requirements

7.1. Ramp is present.

Ramp: If there are stairs near the entrance, then there should be a ramp / inclination 1:12

Comments: ______________________________

6.5. If stairs are wider than 2.5 m, separating rails are available

6.4. Railings are situated on both sides

6.3. Railings are 30 cm longer on each horizontal side

Railings are present near stairs

Railing on the ourside stairs:

Comments: ______________________________

6.2. The first and last stair is marked for the people with low vision

6.1. Are stairs the same in height?

Outside stairs

0,3 м

а а а а

ІІ. Building and premises Entrance to the building

1,2

0,3 м

bbbb

м 0,9

Comments: ______________________________

8.3. Doorsteps are not higher than 2.5 cm. (it is better when there are no doorways)

Comments: ______________________________

8.2. If doors are two-winged, working side shall be at least 80 cm.

Doors: 8.1. If doors are one-winged, they have width of at least 90 cm.

Comments: ______________________________

7.6. Railing are 30 cm longer on each horizontal side.

7.5. Railings are installed on two levels â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 70 cm and 90 cm from the ground.

7.4. Railings are on the both sides of the ramp.

7.3. Ramp has railings.

Requirement of the legislation

Entrance

0,25 Đź

Picture according to architecture requirements Photo Yes

Were requirements met? Partly accessible

Accessible

Level of accessibility of the object Not accessible

Comments:_______________________________

9.6. Does ramp have railings.

Comments:_______________________________

9.5. Is ramp present near the stairs.

Comments: ______________________________

9.4. Railings are situated on both sides.

Comments: ______________________________

9.3. Railings are present near stairs.

Comments: ______________________________

9.2. Are stairs marked?

(If yes, please write down the number of the stairs in designated column) Comments: ______________________________

9.1. Are there stairs in the lobby?

Comments: ______________________________

8.5. There should be marking on clear doors.

Comments: ______________________________

8.4. Different objects (for example, door retainer, brush for wiping shoes etc.) shall not be obstacles for citizens, especially for groups with low mobility. It is important in case of evacuation in emergency cases. Drainage bars placed on the floor of entrance zone shall be installed on the same level as the surface of the floor.

~ 1 200 – 1 500 м

Lobby

Ширина просвітів > 0,015 м

Дренажні і водозбірні ґрати

Photo Yes

Comments:_______________________________

10.6. Room under open stair or other hanging objects with less than 1.9 m shall be fenced.

Comments:_______________________________

10.5. Room under open stair or other hanging objects shall be not less than 1.9 m.

Comments:_______________________________

10.4. Walking ways in corridors, premises, galleries etc shall be clear; width shall be not less than 1.8 m.

Comments:_______________________________

10.3. Construction or branches of plants shall not stick out to the walking ways more than 0.1 m.

Comments:_______________________________

10.2. Distance between the walking path to the objects or branch of plants above it in not more than 0.7 m.

Comments:_______________________________

1,8 м

Partly accessible

Level of accessibility of the object Accessible

1,9 м

2,1 м

Lack of obstacles on the way inside of the building from the entrance to premises where the polling station is located 10.1. Distance to horizontal constructions, or branch 0,1 м of plants, above walking ways is min 2.1 m.

Picture according to architecture requirements

0,7 м

10.

Requirement of the legislation

0,7 м

2,1 м

Were requirements met? Not accessible

12.

11.

Comments:_______________________________

12.3. Is there other technical means for persons in wheelchair to move to other floor?

12.2. Is there a moving platform?

If the polling station is situated higher than the ground floor: 12.1. Is there an elevator to get to higher floors?

Location of the polling station: (please indicate the number of floor in the designated column)

Comments:_______________________________

11.2. Accessible toilet cabin is present. Explanation: Accessible cabin of general usage shall have dimensions not less than (in meters): width 0.9m; depth 0.9 m from toilet to doors; width of the door 0.8 m, doors shall open outwards. The toilet must be equipped with handrails..

Comments:_______________________________

11.1. Universal cabin is present. Explanation: Universal cabin of the restroom shall have the dimensions not less than (in meters): width – 1.65; depth – 1.8. The toilet must be equipped with handrails.

Presence of restroom accessible for low mobility groups:

ІІІ. Polling station

+2.50 max

Sanitary and hygiene rooms

+0.00

15.

14.

13.

Is there enough general light in the room where polling station is situated?

Comments:_______________________________

14.4. Such barriers as boxes, litter bins, pedestals etc. are absent.

Comments:_______________________________

14.3. Are doorsteps there not higher than 2.5 cm. (it is better when there are no doorways)

Comments:_______________________________

14.2. If doors are two-winged, working side shall be at least 80 cm?

Doors to the polling station. 14.1. If doors are one-winged, they have width of at least 85 cm?

Number of polling stations located in the building: (indicate number of PS in designated column)

Requirement of the legislation

Picture according to architecture requirements Photo Yes

Were requirements met? Partly accessible

Accessible

Level of accessibility of the object Not accessible