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:

European Level Questionnaire:

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

National 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;

Good Practices Questionnaire:

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	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	NOCNSF (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: