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;
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.
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.
Organizations and programs of good practice that responded to the questionnair
|ID||COUNTRY||ORGANIZATION/ NAME OF LEAD ORGANIZATION||PROGRAM / INITIATIVE||NAME OF ANY PARTNER ORGANIZATION(S) AND TYPE||NUMBER 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|
|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.