known as players) in nine Special Olympics Programs, including four states in the United States (Washington, Florida, Southern California, and North Carolina) and five additional countries (Brazil, Mexico, India, Indonesia, and China). In addition to conducting a Unified Sports Player Survey, through conversations with experts in the field of Unified Sports, it became apparent that the perspective of the coach was crucial to answering the three priority questions and to contextualizing the player responses. Thus, phone interviews were conducted with Special Olympics coaches in two U.S. Programs to begin to unpack the coach perspective on developing social inclusion on his/her team and best practices for the future. SOI also conducted secondary data analysis using data from past evaluations of Special Olympics’ school-based program, Project UNIFY. The data was reframed to determine the impact of Unified Sports in U.S. school settings. Finally, SOI partnered with Nielsen to collect baseline data on the current levels of awareness of Unified Sports among the general public in the U.S. Using this combination of research activities, SOI has begun to answer the four priority questions above. The following report will discuss the activities associated with the first three priority questions, as well as questions to guide future research in the field of Unified Sports. This report includes two main sections: 1) Unified Sports in United States School Settings and 2) Unified Sports player survey and coach interviews. Section I: Unified Sports in United States School Settings Background and Statement of Purpose Since the 1970s, education policy and legislation in the United States has mandated that public schools include and accommodate students with intellectual disabilities (ID) (Young, Ne’eman, & Gelser, 2011). This shift represented a departure from previous policies and practices, which categorically denied students with ID access to public education or relegated them to segregated school facilities (Ferri & Connor, 2005). As a result of this shift toward integrated education, students with ID are now more likely to attend mainstream schools alongside their peers without disabilities. Laws have thus facilitated their physical presence and inclusion in public schools. Social inclusion in the school environment, however, still eludes many students with ID. Indeed, students with disabilities experience bullying in school more often than students without disabilities (Carter & Spencer, 2006). They are disproportionately likely to face peer rejection (Hodges and Perry, 1996). Non-disabled students report that they have limited contact with students with ID;
known as players) in nine Special Olympics Programs, including four states in the United States (Washington, Florida, Southern California, and North Carolina) and five additional countries (Brazil, Mexico, India, Indonesia, and China). In addition to conducting a Unified Sports Player Survey, through conversations with experts in the field of Unified Sports, it became apparent that the perspective of the coach was crucial to answering the three priority questions and to contextualizing the player responses. Thus, phone interviews were conducted with Special Olympics coaches in two U.S. Programs to begin to unpack the coach perspective on developing social inclusion on his/her team and best practices for the future. SOI also conducted secondary data analysis using data from past evaluations of Special Olympics’ school-based program, Project UNIFY. The data was reframed to determine the impact of Unified Sports in U.S. school settings. Finally, SOI partnered with Nielsen to collect baseline data on the current levels of awareness of Unified Sports among the general public in the U.S. Using this combination of research activities, SOI has begun to answer the four priority questions above. The following report will discuss the activities associated with the first three priority questions, as well as questions to guide future research in the field of Unified Sports. This report includes two main sections: 1) Unified Sports in United States School Settings and 2) Unified Sports player survey and coach interviews. Section I: Unified Sports in United States School Settings Background and Statement of Purpose Since the 1970s, education policy and legislation in the United States has mandated that public schools include and accommodate students with intellectual disabilities (ID) (Young, Ne’eman, & Gelser, 2011). This shift represented a departure from previous policies and practices, which categorically denied students with ID access to public education or relegated them to segregated school facilities (Ferri & Connor, 2005). As a result of this shift toward integrated education, students with ID are now more likely to attend mainstream schools alongside their peers without disabilities. Laws have thus facilitated their physical presence and inclusion in public schools. Social inclusion in the school environment, however, still eludes many students with ID. Indeed, students with disabilities experience bullying in school more often than students without disabilities (Carter & Spencer, 2006). They are disproportionately likely to face peer rejection (Hodges and Perry, 1996). Non-disabled students report that they have limited contact with students with ID;
Unified-Sports-Evaluation-Report-2015.docx