RESULTS ANALYSIS

 

Guide with the analysis

In this topic, the results are presented in a summary form, looking for an integrated analysis between the answers obtained in the national level questionnaire and those of the good practices questionnaire. It is worth noting that the answers given by the European Level Questionnaire will also be mentioned here, with minor relevant annotations.

First, the geographical distribution of the countries responding to the different questionnaires is presented:

we had responses from 5 entities from Austria, Denmark, Finland, Germany and Hungary;

Distribution of the countries that responded to the European Level Questionnaire

we had responses from 22 entities from 21 different countries: Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Croatia, Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Montenegro, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands and Turkey;

we had responses from 25 good practices from 11 different countries: Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Ireland, Montenegro, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovenia, The Netherlands and Turkey. A total of 23 questionnaires were analysed, since 2 of the questionnaires did not present a description of any good practice.

Distribution of the countries that responded to the Good Practice Questionnaire

After the geographical distribution, it is important to identify generically the entities that presented their good practices, in the different
countries. The following table shows the entities that answered the questionnaire in each country. From the 23 good practices analysed, all said that they knew some examples of good practice related to the participation of people with disabilities in sport in education, health, clubs and municipalities (local, regional, etc.) but one which referred not to know examples of good practice.

Table 1

Organizations and programs of good practice that responded to the questionnair

ID COUNTRYORGANIZATION/ NAME OF LEAD ORGANIZATIONPROGRAM / INITIATIVENAME OF ANY PARTNER ORGANIZATION(S) AND TYPENUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS
1 Austria European Paralympic Committee Yamba/EWOS/ Be Inclusive Toolkit National Paralympic Committee of Hungary 10
2 Austria Austrian Sport Federation for Disabled/ SK Rapid Vienna SK Rapid Vienna Special Needs Team Vienna Sport Federation for Disabled 35
3 Croatia Croatian Paralympic Committee Paralympic School Day Members of National Paralympic Committee of Croatia (sport associations and local clubs), schools and local government 60,000 school children
4 Cyprus Cyprus Sport Organization Cyprus Sport for all Program N/A
5 Ireland Special Olympics Ireland Sports Competition and raining 8,500
6 Ireland Cara (Sport Inclusion Ireland) Camp Abilities NCBI (National Council for the Blind of Ireland), Vision Sport Ireland, Institute of Technology Tralee NCBI (National Council for the Blind of Ireland), Vision Sport Ireland, Institute of Technology Tralee
7 Ireland Institute of Technology Tralee/ Els for Autism Ernie Els #Game On Autism Golf Programme UNESCO/Institute of Technology Tralee/Castle Gregory Golf Club 14 8 Ireland Westpark Fitness/ Lizzie Minihan & Sharon Hogan Westpark Fitness: UFIT 5
7 Ireland Institute of Technology Tralee/ Els for Autism Ernie Els #Game On Autism Golf Programme UNESCO/Institute of Technology Tralee/Castle Gregory Golf Club 14 8 Ireland Westpark Fitness/ Lizzie Minihan & Sharon Hogan Westpark Fitness: UFIT 5
9 Ireland Football Association of Ireland Football For All Club Programme Community Football Clubs across variety of communities in Ireland approximately 900 players
10 Montenegro Paralympic Commitee of Montenegro * They did not respond to these topics and did not describe any good practice and therefore was not considered in the analysis
11 Portugal CST Casa João Cidade Um Passo em Frente (One Step Forward) Municipality, sports clubs, associations for disability peopel 29
12 Portugal FENACERCI Action 1 Mobile Unit Adventure; Action 2 Intercenters; Action 3 Nautical accessibility Portuguese Association of Sport and Youth, Federations of modality, Nautical Center of the Nations Park Marina, Commission of Olympic Athletes, Portuguese Federation of Canoeing, Portuguese Association of Class Access, Club “Mar Costa do Sol”, Lisbon Oceanarium and Public Security Police up to 2,000 participants every year in the 3 actions
13 Portugal Directorate-General for Education Desporto Adaptado no Desporto Escolar (Adapted Sport in School Sports) 7,400
14 Portugal Portuguese Swimming Federation *They do not know examples of good practice
15 Portugal Portuguese Federation of Corfebol Corfebol Adaptado para a Deficiência Intelectual (Corfebol Adapted for Intellectual Disability) Portuguese Institute of Sport and Youth, National Institute for Rehabilitation approximately 300
16 Portugal Almada Seixal Cerebral Palsy Association (APCAS) Desporto com Sentido: Desporto na Linha da Vida (Meaningful Sport: Sport in the Line of Life) National and Local authorities; Schools, Municipalities; Clubs 62,043
17 Romania National Paralympic Committee of Romania/ DHL and BETFAIR DHL Marathon; BETFair walking month 5,000
18 Serbia Paralympic Committee of Serbia Sampioni svaki dan (Every day’s champions) Apatinska pivara 400
19 Slovenia Paralympic Committe of Slovenia Be an Athlete Slovenian local sport organization 100
20 Turkey National Paralympic Committee of Turkey International Paralympic Youth Camp International Paralympic Committee, National Paralympic Committees, Turkey Disabled Persons Sport Aid and Education Organization (TESYEV) 117
21 Turkey National Paralympic Committee of Turkey * Did not respond to these topics and does not describe any good practice and therefore was not considered during the analysis
22 The Netherlands Sv Atomium›61 KombiFit AccentAvondschool 12
23 The Netherlands Team Sportservice ´t Gooi Regionale samenwerking ´t Gooi (Regional cooperation ‘t Gooi) Regionale samenwerking ´t Gooi (Regional cooperation ‘t Gooi)
24 The Netherlands NOC*NSF (National Olympic Committee * National Sports Federation) Samen voor Goud (Together for Gold) 80 participants and 60 top athletes
25 The Netherlands Special Heroes Netherlands & Knowledge Center for Sport Netherlands Rehabilitation, exercise & active lifestyle Institutions of Rehabilitation 24 rehabilitation institutions have implemented this program; 2,500 rehabilitants have taken part in the program and were supported in developing an active lifestyle.

* These numbers identify each good practice throughout the presentation of the questionnaire.

After the geographic framework and the presentation of the good practices that give us the information present in this analysis, the results are analyzed mainly focused on the results obtained in the National Level Questionnaires and the Good Practices Questionnaires.

In this way, the following analysis takes into account the topics defined in the thematic methodologies covered throughout the questionnaire:

  • Sport Structure,
  • Financing Sport,
  • Human Resources and Training,
  • Characteristics of the population,
  • Involvement of Sectors and Sport Participation.

 

OUR SUPPORTER

OUR PARTNERS