1

THE WINSTON CHURCHILL MEMORIAL TRUST OF AUSTRALIA

Report by Peter Downs 2013 Churchill Fellow

To investigate models of best practice in sport and physical activity programs that include people with disability, particularly people with high support needs in Finland, UK and

USA. I understand that the Churchill Trust may publish this Report, either in hard copy or on the Internet or both, and consent to such publication. I indemnify the Churchill Trust against any loss, costs or damages it may suffer arising out of any claim or proceedings made against the Trust in respect of or arising out of the publication of any Report submitted to the Trust and which the Trust places on a website for access over the internet. I also warrant that my Final Report is original and does not infringe the copyright of any person, or contain anything which is, or the incorporation of which into the Final Report is, actionable for defamation, a breach of any privacy law or obligation, breach of confidence, contempt of court, passing-off or contravention of any other private right or of any law. Signed

Peter Downs 24th July 2014

2

Table  of  contents  

INTRODUCTION  ...........................................................................................................................  3  

EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY  .................................................................................................................  4  

PROGRAM  ...................................................................................................................................  5  

PURPOSE  OF  THE  FELLOWSHIP  PROJECT  ......................................................................................  6  Importance  of  cultural  context  ..................................................................................................................................................  6  

INCLUSION  DEFINED  ....................................................................................................................  7  

COMMON  CHARACTERISTICS  OF  INCLUSIVE  PRACTICE  ...............................................................  11  Leadership,  Passion  and  Grit  ....................................................................................................................................................  11  Collective  Impact,  networks  and  systems  of  accountability  .......................................................................................  15  Common  Agenda  .............................................................................................................................................................................  16  Shared  Measurement  ....................................................................................................................................................................  17  Mutually  Reinforcing  Activities  ................................................................................................................................................  18  Continuous  Communication  .......................................................................................................................................................  19  Backbone  Organization  ...............................................................................................................................................................  20  

Good  Habits  ......................................................................................................................................................................................  21  Vision  ....................................................................................................................................................................................................  24  Order  and  preparation  .................................................................................................................................................................  27  Creating  Time  ...................................................................................................................................................................................  30  Taking  Responsibility  ....................................................................................................................................................................  31  Accessibility  .......................................................................................................................................................................................  35  Activity  Adaptation  and  Development  ..................................................................................................................................  39  

CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  .................................................................................  42  

Bibliography  ..............................................................................................................................  44  APPENDIX  1:  EXAMPLE  CHECKLIST  .....................................................................................................................................  46    

3

INTRODUCTION

 I would like to acknowledge and sincerely thank the Winston Churchill Memorial Trust for

their support and commitment for my Fellowship to investigate models of best practice in

sport and physical activity for people with disability. I would also like to thank all those

that encouraged me to apply for the Fellowship in the first place, particularly Susie

Bennett-Yeo, Hamish Macdonald, Veneta Amies and Churchill Fellow Phil Brown. The

project could not have happened without the personal commitment of many people in

Finland, UK and USA. In particular, I will always be very grateful to Aija Saari, Ken Black

and Matt Schinelli for their help, friendship and considerable skills in organizing the

country itineraries. While I may not quote or refer to all the people I met and interviewed

on this study tour in this report, I am very grateful to all the people who freely gave their

time and they have all contributed to my thinking and how this report has come together.

I was fortunate to have the full support of my employers, the Australian Sports

Commission and Play by the Rules. I am very thankful to all the staff at the Australian

Sports Commission who supported my period away for the Fellowship and to the co-

Chairs of Play by the Rules Graeme Innes and Craig Martin for their personal support to

my application for leave. I will do my utmost to ensure the knowledge and insights I have

gained from this experience will be of benefit to the work of the Australian Sports

Commission and Play by the Rules. Finally, none of this would have been possible without

the support and constant encouragement of my wife, Dorothy. Her own expertise and

experience in this field and her enthusiasm to learn and explore new ways of doing things

has been invaluable and inspiring to me.

Throughout my professional career I have been acutely aware of the enormous benefits

that sport and physical activity can have in the lives of people with disability. Participation

in regular sport and physical activity can, and does, change lives for the better. This is why

I am involved in this field of work and why I applied for the Fellowship. Although I have

been working in this field for twenty-five years I have never stopped learning about the

approaches, techniques and models of inclusive sport and physical activity. One way to

continue this journey is to look closely at what others are doing around the world and try

to identify the hallmarks of inclusive practice that are consistent across different programs

and organisations. The Churchill Fellowship gave me a unique opportunity to focus

specifically on this and I hope I have been able to encapsulate what I have learnt from

some of the great work being done in Finland, the UK and US in this report.      

4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Name: Peter Downs, 3 Sampson Close, Melba, ACT 2615

Occupation: Manager – Play by the Rules, c/o Australian Sports Commission, Leverrier

Street, Bruce, ACT 2616

Email: manager@playbytherules.net.au | Phone: 02 6259 0316 | Mobile: 0418

281 174

Project Description

This project was to study models of best practice in sport and physical activity programs

that include people with disability, particularly people with high support needs. The

Fellowship took me to Finland, the UK and US on a four-week study tour. The study

involved 26 unstructured interviews with experienced practitioners and 8 site visits. A brief

introduction was given to each interviewee around the purpose of the study and

interview. Interviews were generally around 1 hour of broad discussion where key

hallmarks, issues and practices were identified. Following the general discussion a 15-20

minute video or audio recording was made, focusing on the key issues identified in the

earlier discussions. There were 17 video recordings and 5 audio recordings. There were 4

interviews where no recordings were made. Highlights of this study tour include:

• Meeting many innovative, committed and smart people who are making a real

difference in the world and having a chance to talk with them in their own backyard;

• Having time to reflect and think about the practices that really count;

• Reaffirming that we are not alone and that there are people all over the world

working toward the same objectives with the same challenges and successes, and

• Re-acquainting myself with like-minded colleagues.

Major lessons learnt include understanding the significance of local culture and

organizational context to how inclusion is delivered. Also, with a good deal of Grit and

passion; with long-term leadership; with creativity and skill, great progress can be made.

None of this was the work of one individual – it takes coordinated networks of like-

minded people, operating to a common vision, to achieve long-term change. The

information in this report wil l be disseminated in multiple ways. The report will be

made available and promoted via the Play by the Rules (www.playbytherules.net.au) and

Inclusion Club (www.theinclusionclub.com) websites. Articles will be produced in the Play

by the Rules online magazine and individual episode extracts published via The Inclusion

Club. Presentations will be made to the Australian Sports Commission and Play by the

Rules partners across the country.

5

PROGRAM  The study tour itinerary for Finland, the UK and US was as follows:  

Date Location Contact - Interview 14 April 2014 VAU, Radiokatu 20, Helsinki

(Finnish Sports Association for Persons with Disabilities)

Aija Saari, Tiinna Siivonen, Riikka Juntunen, Niina Kilpela

15 April 2014 Ruskis Special School, Helsinki (adapted swimming program)

Kira Durchman

16 April 2014 Pajulahti Sports Institute, Pajulahti Virpi Remahl, Osku Kuutamo 17 April 2014 Keskuspuisto Vocational College,

Helsinki Erwin Borremans Kari Koivumaki

18 April 2014 25 Mariankatu, Helsinki Kati Karinharju 21 April 2014 Community Sports Partnerships,

Manor House, 40 Moat Lane, Birmingham

Wendy Salmon (Birmingham Disability Forum) Amy Bird (Community Sports Partnerships)

22 April 2014 Mansfield Martin Mansell 22 April 2014 Loughborough University Dr David Howe 23 April 2014 Bromakin Wheelchairs,

Loughborough Peter Curruthers

23 April 2014 British Wheelchair Basketball, Sports House, Loughborough

Charlie Bethel

23 April 2014 English Federation of Disability Sport, Loughborough

Barry Horne

23 April 2014 Project Adapted, Nottingham Doug Williamson 24 April 2014 Inclusion Club, Shepshed, Leics Ken Black 28 April 2014 Disability Sport Wales, Cardiff City

Stadium, Cardiff, Wales Presentation and participation at the DSW Conference on Habits of Inclusion

29 April 2014 Disability Sport Wales, Cardiff Jon Morgan Fiona Reid Matt Fisher

1 May 2014 University of Worcester Glyn Harding, Andrea Faull, Mark Stevens, Rebecca Foster, Sophie Cargill

5 May 2014 Pheonix Centre, New Jersey Dr Gibbia 5 May 2014 Red Ribbon Academy, New

Jersey Linda Zani Thomas, Dr Marsha Wilks, Vicki Allen, Lisa Crilly, Linda Salerno

6 May 2014 Next Step Pediatric Physical Therapy

Chris Paserchia

6 May 2014 Ridgewood Public School, New Jersey

Dee Tobin

8 May 2014 Little Falls Recreation Centre, New Jersey

Dr Lynn Anderson

8 May 2014 Little Falls Recreation Centre, New Jersey

Presentation and participation at the New Era Conference

8 May 2014 New Jersey All People Equal, New Jersey

Matt Schinelli, Chelsea Cullen, Ashley Rillo

 

6

PURPOSE OF THE FELLOWSHIP PROJECT  The purpose of this Churchill Fellowship project was to study models of best practice in

sport and physical activity programs that include people with disability, particularly

people with high support needs. As the focus of this study was around best models of

inclusion it would appear to be logical to define the meaning of inclusion in this context

for the participants. However, there were no attempts made to define what is meant by

inclusion to any of the interviewees in this study. This was because it was important, for

the purposes of this investigation, to understand what others understood about inclusion

and how it applied in their own contexts.

While it was necessary to allow for differences in understanding about inclusive practice,

at the same time it was a focus of this study to identify some of the hallmarks of best

practice that were common across different programs and individual work habits. The

common hallmarks of best practice provide a framework for the recommendations in this

report. Some hallmarks and habits were more common than others and it has been

necessary to use my 25 years experience in the field to distinguish these in this report.

I was very conscious that the field of sport, physical activity and disability is extremely

broad and all encompassing. Because of this it was necessary to look at models, and talk

to individuals, across a broad range of settings and environments. These included

schools, tertiary institutions, sports associations, community programs, private providers

and government initiatives. The lessons learnt from this broad range of stakeholders were

often transferable, providing a rich collective of best practices. It soon became apparent

that there is no single model of best practice, rather, there are characteristics of best

practice at an organizational and individual level. When combined, they form a powerful

formula for inclusion.

Importance of cultural context  As the study progressed it became increasingly evident that local cultural context plays a

significant role in determining best practice. For example, Finland, a country of 5.4 million

people, has consistently ranked at the top in the international rankings for educational

achievements. While there are schools that are specifically for children with disabilities,

there is an embedded approach that all children are taught in the same classrooms. 30%

of children receive extra help during their first nine years of school. The difference

between the weakest and the strongest students is the smallest in the world. The school

7

system is 100% state funded. All teachers must have a masters degree, which is fully

subsidized. They have an established network of around 100 adapted physical activity

instructors in Finnish municipalities who cater for some 80,000 participants, providing

specialist services for people with disability wanting to get involved in sport and physical

activity programs. There is an umbrella organization that helps coordinate and foster the

network of stakeholders across the country. In short, Finland has a culture and an

organizational system that is highly conducive to inclusive practice and providing the best

possible opportunities for participation.

Similarly, in Wales, with a population of just over 3 million, the umbrella body Disability

Sport Wales has coordinated activities and programs for people with disability for over 20

years and currently has 293 disability sport clubs across 22 local authorities with over 150

clubs achieving the insport (a program to provide inclusive sport and activity programs in

local communities) governing body accreditation. There is strong cultural identity in

Wales. It is officially bilingual with over 560,000 Welsh speakers. Disability Sport Wales

have invested a lot of time and energy in fostering their network of sport development

officers and building their collective expertise that is delivered in each of the 22 local

authorities. Again, this mixture of cultural significance, organizational influence and

conduciveness to inclusion were very important in understanding models of best practice.

The following hallmarks of best practice are divided into two parts. First, I will look at the

broad common characteristics of inclusive practice that were consistent across all the

discussions and observations. Second, I will consider some of the practices that were

discussed and observed that, while not entirely unique, were highly advanced and

specific to particular contexts.  

INCLUSION DEFINED

 While inclusion was not defined for the participants in this study it is necessary to define

the term in the context of this report. Throughout this report I will refer to the term

inclusion. Inclusion, for the purposes of this report is defined as:

The participation of people with disability in sport and active recreation

activities at a level and setting of their choice. Downs, 2014

Important to the understanding of this definition are the concepts of level, setting and

8

choice. Sport participation opportunities are often referred to in the context of pathways.

Typically, the pathway starts at the grass roots level, through participation in local

community sport, either as an individual or as part of a team. Tens of thousands of people

are happy simply doing this, enjoying the opportunity to take part with peers at a level

they can have fun and enjoy the myriad benefits of participation. Others like to take part

in competition locally, at a regional and state level. Some also go onto national and

international level.

This typical pathway applies equally to people with and without disability. However,

research has repeatedly shown (Darcy, Taylor, Lock, Sherry, Downs, & Nicholson, 2011)

that people with disability have significantly fewer opportunities to participate at all levels

of the pathway. According to the Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 64% of Australians participate

in regular sport and physical activity programs. This compares to 23% of Australians with

disability who participate in regular sport and physical activity programs.

There are many different settings in which people with disability participate in sport. From

the local park, gym or sports centre to the various stadiums around the country. Due to

numerous factors, not least the architectural constraints, people with disability are

disadvantaged in the options they have to participate in these settings.

People with disability are also disadvantaged when it comes to the choices they have to

participate. Again, there are many, often complex, reasons for this. In recent years sports

organisations in Australia have looked at expanding the choices that people with

disability have to participate in sport. The Inclusion Spectrum, developed by the

Australian Sports Commission, has been a framework used by sports to explore the

various choices that are possible for people with disability.    

9

       

                    The Inclusion Spectrum presents six approaches to sport for people with disability. These range from sport that has no modification but includes people with disability, to sport activities that are solely for people with disability. It also includes participation in a non-playing role, such as an official, supporter or volunteer.

This approach is in contrast to other traditional models of inclusion that focus on a

continuum of participation where the preferred option is full participation of people with

disability with able-bodied peers. Furthermore, traditional models of sport participation

do not include non-playing role. The Inclusion Spectrum equally values all options based

on individual choice. The central notion of the Inclusion Spectrum is one that values

individual choice and, in a fully inclusive environment, all approaches will be offered at all

levels of the pathway.

Also important to The Inclusion Spectrum is understanding that people with disability

start from a disadvantaged position of choice. Often, we are not aware and have not

discovered what the best choice might be. The best choice is often unknown. Is the best

choice to be doing an activity only with other people with disability or where people with

10

and without disability are together? If different options were available would the choices

that people with disability make about their participation be different? To know the

answer to these type of questions we must be able to look and see what is possible by

redressing some of the disadvantages that people with disability commonly experience.

This often means being innovative and creative in our thinking, planning and

implementation.

This is a concept firmly rooted in the social model of disability. The social model

recognises the disadvantages that people with disabilities have as being imposed by their

environment. They are disadvantaged by a range of factors that has nothing to do with

impairment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Being innovative and creative means adapting and modifying the environmental

constraints that restrict peoples participation. Throughout the course of this study I saw

many examples of innovation and creativity. Examples that created new opportunities for

participation.

Central to these innovations was the understanding and acceptance that this inevitably

brings failure and success in fairly equal measure. A trait of innovators is that they are not

negatively swayed by failure, rather, they are more motivated to succeed.

A challenge for regular sport providers is to emulate the innovative thinking that

redresses disadvantage within the fairly structured and rigid environments in which they

commonly operate. This challenge is a very real one for sport providers, particularly as

Image from Social Model of Disability: http://ddsg.org.uk/taxi/social-model.html

11

adults in a society where creativity and innovation, and hence failure, is stifled and even

frowned upon. As Sir Ken Robinson in his 2006 TED Talk1 says:

“if you are not prepared to be wrong you will never come up with anything that is

original. By the time they get to adults most kids have lost that capacity. They become

frightened of being wrong.”

The large majority of participants in this study described inclusion in a manner aligned to

the approach of the Inclusion Spectrum.

“Although some might subscribe to inclusion as one universal placement for all, we would

argue that the underlying philosophy of inclusion does not automatically imply universal

placement or one size fits all. Rather, inclusion must not be defined as a place (or

placement) but rather inclusion must be reconceptualised as an attitude or process.”

(DePauw & Doll-Tepper, 2000)

 

COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF INCLUSIVE PRACTICE  

Leadership, Passion and Grit  Kira Durchman is a highly experienced teacher and physiotherapist at Ruskeasuo School,

or Ruskis for short, on the outskirts of Helsinki. She is a specialist in the teaching of

adapted swimming programs for young people with disabilities. Ruskis is a Government

funded special school that also acts as a service and development centre for children

physical disabilities, multiple disabilities and long term illnesses.

Kira stressed the importance of having clear systematic goals that are both short and long

term. As Kira said,

“if you don’t have a goal then you don’t know why you are doing something.” Kira Durchman

Kira described very vividly how she has cascading goals, starting with individual session

goals and leading to the achievement of medium and long term goals that are specific to 1 Sir Ken Robinson: How schools kill creativity. 2006 TED TALK - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iG9CE55wbtY

12

each individual. These goals were very well recorded and understood by the instructors,

the students and the parents. At Ruskis they use a conductive education system of

instruction that is based on individual potential. It is understood that often the potential is

unknown, so the long term goals move and advance as each program develops.

Similarly, Erwin Borremans, a lecturer at the Keskuspuisto Vocational College, described

how broad goals are set within the curriculum. These are broken down through the

system to individual education plans to session goals. He described, with significant

passion, these goals as being constant and front of brain for people working at the

College. In-built into the system is a degree of flexibility allowed so that teachers can

adapt as the need arises and students can experiment with their own learning.

“of course, there is flexibility within the plan. Not everything is set in stone. Teachers have

the professionalism and flexibility to adapt” Erwin Borremans

Charlie Bethel is Chief Executive Officer of British Wheelchair Basketball, one of the most

respected and successful national sports organisations in the UK. Charlie charted the

progress of British Wheelchair Basketball over the past decade from an organization with

two staff in 2002 to one in 2014 with 24 employees. He placed great emphasis in the

evolution of its planning processes into the whole of sport plans that are currently in

place. He stressed the importance of a clear vision with strategic objectives and a plan to

achieve these step by step. He quoted Shakespeare to illustrate their approach to

planning:

“Dream in light years, challenge miles, walk step by step.”

The importance of clearly articulated goals allied to a strong vision was also a hallmark of

success discussed with Chief Executive Officer of Disability Sport Wales, Jon Morgan.

Disability Sport Wales is the lead agency for the development of disability sport in Wales.

They have been very strategic in their approach to providing opportunities for people

with disability across Wales, putting place a network of development officers in the 22

local authorities whose role it is to develop grass roots opportunities. Jon talked about

getting everybody on the same page in terms of their vision and strategic objectives.

“it’s about strategic processes, building a framework and about getting everybody on

board and on the same page striving toward the same objectives.”

13

Jon Morgan

In the context of these discussions it became clear that critical to the importance and

significance of having well articulated and commonly understood goals was the quality

and experience of the people driving them from a leadership position. The people

interviewed for this study and who talked about the importance of goal setting and

having a clear vision and objectives had several things in common. They were highly

skilled and respected in their field and they had a great deal of experience and passion.

They have been a constant driving force behind the achievement of organizational

objectives. They have built on their experience and expertise over many years and

applied them to the broader vision and goals of the organisation. They have what is

known in psychology as Grit.

Grit is defined as perseverance and passion for long-term goals (Duckworth, Matthews,

Kelly, & Peterson, 2007). Grit is all about having stamina. It is about persistence in the

face of challenges and, sometimes, adversity. It’s about sticking to what you believe in

and not being distracted or letting set backs de-rail your progress. It’s about learning as

you progress and adapting to changing circumstances.

Angela Duckworth from Penn State University has been a leader in the study of Grit. In

her paper Deliberate Practice Spells Success: Why Grittier Competitors Triumph at the

National Spelling Bee (Duckworth, Kirby, Tsukayama, Berstein, & Ericsson, 2010) she

looked at how the personality trait of Grit contributed toward success and deliberate

practice. She found that perseverance and passion for long-term goals enabled spellers

to persist with practice activities that may be less intrinsically rewarding but more effective

than other types of preparation. A further takeaway from this research was the growing

recognition of non-cognitive skills like Grit and self-control and their contribution toward

success. This has little to do with intelligence (as measured by I.Q.) but more to do with

Grit as a predictor of success over the long-term.

Interviewees referred to programs and models as not being perfect or not always

succeeding. They talked about various challenges and political pressures that have

interrupted their journey. But, they have viewed these challenges as part of the process

and something that has been expected and necessary to manage. In short, they displayed

large amounts of Grit to keep going with the vision even when things got tough.

“I wouldn’t say that it’s perfect by any stretch of the imagination … but our long-term

14

vision is to build a pathway which is not dissimilar to mainstream sport … and we are on

the road.” Jon Morgan

The willingness to learn from mistakes is a characteristic of people that have Grit.

Interviewees showed that they were willing to persist, practice and learn from mistakes.

They understood the importance of deliberate practice (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-

Romer, 1993) and that they were often going into uncharted territory so were, inevitably,

going to make mistakes. The majority of people interviewed in this study had practiced

what they do, either administratively or practically, for decades and built up considerable

expertise and thus respect in their fields.

Perhaps the most impressive example of leadership, passion and Grit was found at the

Red Ribbon Academy in New Jersey. Linda Zani Thomas has been one of the driving

forces behind the establishment of the Red Ribbon Academy. The Red Ribbon Academy

is an innovative day program created from an original concept by The Parents Group. A

small group of parents campaigned for many years in trying to establish the Red Ribbon

Academy that is now providing a wide range of services and supports for young people

who, previously, had very few options in their local community. They are now able to

access a range of medical and recreational services, including an innovative multi-sensory

facility. This was achieved with large amounts of Grit to finally secure funding and

resources through the New Jersey Division of Developmental Disabilities. Following years

of work Linda and her colleagues finally presented the Business Case to the New Jersey

Department of Human Services in January 2011. Approval for baseline funding was

secured in mid June 2012. There was still a lot of work in establishing the Academy and

gaining funds for equipment and other facilities that were not covered by the seed

funding. Construction began in February 2013 with the Academy opening on March 25th

2013.

This was a long journey with many set backs along the way. Set backs, however, were

viewed as normal and, in many ways, a necessary part of the journey.

They were subsequently less fearful of failure and understood, instinctively rather than

academically, the implementation dip that commonly follows innovation. Michael Fullen,

in his book Leading in a Culture of Change defines the implementation dip as:

“a dip in performance and confidence as one encounters an innovation that requires new

15

skill and new understandings.”

(Fullen, 2001)

There seemed to be a common acceptance that being innovative commonly led to initial

failure but that persistence would pay off. This is a sign of Grit.

“The only thing that I see that is distinctly different about me is I’m not afraid to die on a

treadmill. I will not be outworked, period. You might have more talent than me, you

might be smarter than me, you might be sexier than me, you might be all of those things

— you got it on me in nine categories. But if we get on the treadmill together, there’s two

things: You’re getting off first, or I’m going to die. It’s really that simple…”

Oscar-nominated actor and Grammy award-winning musician Will Smith

Allied to the trait of Grit, another common broad characteristic of the people interviewed

in this study was that they showed consistent good inclusive habits on a regular basis.

Habits that, over time, build a culture of inclusion in their respective work environments

and organisations.  

Collective Impact, networks and systems of accountability  Many people interviewed in this study were change agents who facilitate inclusion rather

than deliver it directly. This is all about helping others take responsibility for inclusion.

Setting up systems of accountability within networks is critical in this respect. One

emerging framework for systems accountability, one that is strongly allied to the type of

environment that organisations in this field operate, is the framework of Collective Impact.

From evidence and observations found in this study, the most effective and widespread

models of change, particularly through the work of Disability Sport Wales and the Finnish

Sports Association of Persons with Disabilities, were ones that embraced the core

principles of Collective Impact.

Collective Impact is a framework for facilitating large scale social change (Kania & Kramer,

2011). The lasting change that organisations in this study are aiming achieve is greater

levels of inclusion of people with disability in community sport and physical activity

settings. To do this, umbrella organisations such as Disability Sport Wales, the Finnish

Sports Association of Persons with Disabilities and British Wheelchair Basketball,

coordinate the activities of individual and organisational networks toward clearly defined

goals. The coordination of networks in this manner is founded on the belief that, in order

16

to achieve the goals of inclusion, the collective approach is far more effective than single

organisations operating in isolation.

It was also recognized by the organisations in this study that there is no silver bullet

solution to systemic social problems, and the issue of exclusion of people with disability

from regular sport and physical activity programs cannot be addressed by simply scaling

or replicating one organization or program.

There are five conditions of Collective Impact success that will be considered here in the

context of how organisations in this study embrace these conditions.  

Common Agenda

All participants have a shared vision for change including a common understanding of the

problem.

Riikka Jutenen has worked for the Finnish Sports Association of Persons with Disabilities

for over a decade. She understands the value and strength of a close network of key

people who share a common agenda.

“for me personally, it’s the way for succeeding. It’s the trust that I have. It gives me the

answers when I need them. It gives me a place where I can ask the questions where I

don’t know the answers. It’s also a place where you go in the hard moments and a place

you go when you really succeed. For a very close network, what makes it very special, is

that you can always ask, you don’t have to explain all the background theories and so on

– you just go and ask.”

Riikka Juntenen

The close networks of leaders in Finland and Wales have worked together for long

periods of time. They know each other professionally and personally. They have an

acknowledged, but often silent, understanding of the common vision. While some of the

techniques and tactics may differ at times, there is always a common bond and mutual

respect that generates a momentum all of its own.

“if we had significant personnel changes or gone backwards and forwards with strategy, I

17

think we would have been way behind. It’s been a fundamental element of our long term

vision.”

Jon Morgan

This consistency of personnel, strategy and vision allows for programs such as insport,

developed by Disability Sport Wales, to flourish and grow in a manner that brings

important partners together. Here, national governing bodies of sport strive to achieve

levels of inclusion set over four levels – Ribbon, Bronze, Silver and Gold. Agreed

measures are set between partners and an independent panel provides critical friend

feedback throughout the course of the program. The support of the network of

Development Officers, in partnership with 22 Local Authorities, is engrained in this

process. In turn, these are part of a single vision developed by Disability Sport Wales.

“Critically, key stakeholders are able to buy into a single vision. Welsh Government, Sport

Wales, National Governing Bodies of Sport, Local Authorities – irrespective of their level

of understand around disability sport and inclusive delivery - what they do understand is

the vision.”

Jon Morgan

Leaders such as Jon Morgan and Aija Saari understand the strength and power of a close

network and take meaningful strategic steps to foster it toward a common agenda.

 

Shared Measurement

Collecting data and measuring results consistently across all participants ensures efforts

remain aligned and participants hold each other accountable.

An outstanding example of shared measurement and consistent measuring of results is

insport. Insport supports National Governing Bodies of Sport (insport NGB), Local

Authorities (insport Development), and clubs (insport Club) to provide inclusive, quality

sessions to people with disability within their communities and at a level of their choice or

potential.

The insport model was inspired by the Australian Sports Commission’s 'Sports

CONNECT' program that worked with National Sports Organisations identifying supply

and demand for disability sport across the Australian States and Territories from 2002 to

18

2010.

No only do multi-sector partners align to a single vision, engaged partners report on

progress via a single reporting online process. The reporting processes are consistent and

aligned to standards set at each of the levels.

This kind of reporting process allows Disability Sport Wales to track and monitor

performance and provide feedback to sector partners, particularly governing bodies of

sport, local authorities and clubs. For example, in the past year alone Golf Development

and Golf Union Wales, Table Tennis Wales, Welsh Football Trust, Welsh Athletics and

Welsh Rowing have all achieved insport NGB Ribbon Standard; and Welsh Triathlon,

Welsh Sailing, Welsh Karate, Cricket Wales and Welsh Cycling are all pushing toward

NGB Ribbon Standard. 19 of the 22 Local Authorities have achieved insport Development

Standard. Conwy, Merthyr Tyfil, Bridgend, Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion are all insport

Development Bronze Standard authorities.

There are now 145 insport clubs, with a further 97 working toward Ribbon Standard. RCT

Tigers and Cwm Gymnastics have both reached insport club Gold Standard.  

Mutually Reinforcing Activities

Participant activities must be differentiated while still being coordinated through a

mutually reinforcing plan of action.

Disability Sport Wales has multiple direct partners involved in their collective vision and

series of programs. Yet they are continually looking for new partnerships where they can

make contributions to even broader visions. They team up with UK partners for mutual

benefits under, for example, the Sainsbury’s Active Kids for All course.

“Wherever possible our approach is to team up with our UK Disability Sport colleagues,

sharing learning, resources and effort to create products which are collectively endorsed,

but reflect tailored delivery for the Home Country context.” (Reid, 2014)

The Active Kids for All course is funded commercially and delivers across the UK to help

ensure inclusion is embedded with physical education and school based activity

programs. They adopt a similar collaborative approach in working with disability sport

sector partners, helping to align strategy for mutually beneficial outcomes with Welsh

19

Deaf Sport and Special Olympics Wales.        

Continuous Communication

Consistent and open communication is needed across the many players to build trust,

assure mutual objectives, and appreciate common motivation.

Communication is key to developing a true collective impact approach. Dealing with

multiple sector partners, with different perspectives and life experiences, requires a good

deal of compromise and expertise in listening. We spend approximately 60% of our

communication time listening (Barker, Edwards, Gaines, Gladney, & Holley, 1980). People

in this study were, generally, excellent listeners. They were what Julian Treasure would

call conscious listeners (Treasure, 2014). Conscious listening creates understanding. With

understanding comes acceptance as people react to and implement strategies that are

collectively supported. Conscious listening is a strong trait of people who have inclusion

at the forefront of thinking. They understand that compromise is necessary and that the

greater good is better than individual differences. This is particularly important in the

politicized world of disability sport where there are multiple, and passionate,

perspectives.

Another important aspect of communication is listening to the voices and wishes of

people with disability directly. Inclusion in sport cannot happen without listening to the

wishes and thoughts of people with disability. While this is generally accepted as a given

in many circles it is not necessarily the habits of regular sport providers who operate in a

traditional hierarchical environment with strong, instructional, cultures.

Dr Ernesto Sirolli is an authority in sustainable economic development, the founder of the

Sirolli Institute and someone that understands, through direct and long experience, the

power of harnessing the passion and expertise of community collectives. Core to the

success of his work has been the ability to shut up and listen!

“What you do (to provide better aid is) you shut up and listen. You never arrive in a

community with any ideas.” (Sirolli, 2012)

Sirolli advocates, based on many years experience, that the future of any community

collective lies in capturing the passion, energy and imagination of its own people. The

best source of ideas and strategy toward inclusion in sport lie in listening to the thoughts

20

and ideas of people with a lived experience of disability. However, like all communities,

strategy needs to be built around collective need rather than individual passions. This is

where leadership is very important and listening to the collective voices of people with

disability is critical to forming good policy and strategy. It is not good policy or strategy

to react to the individual promulgations of outspoken individuals or to base actions on

personal experiences with small collectives of people. Good inclusive strategy

exemplified in this study was more based on years of listening to the thoughts and ideas

of many thousands of people with disability, across many diverse circumstances.  

Backbone Organization

Creating and managing collective impact requires a separate organization(s) with staff and

a specific set of skills to serve as the backbone for the entire initiative and coordinate

participating organisations and agencies.

There is no question that organisations such as Disability Sport Wales and the Finnish

Sports Association of Persons with Disabilities are backbone organisations for inclusive

sport development. They have a history of coordination and have the staff and skills to

drive change in their jurisdictions. They have existing reputations in this role and a great

deal of respect. New Jersey All People Equal are striving toward being a backbone

organization in New Jersey. During this study New Jersey All People Equal organized the

New Era of Inclusive Movement Services conference with a wide cross section of

organisations from around the New Jersey area, all of which have some influence on the

provision of inclusive movement services. It was the first time such a conference was held.

Matt Schinelli, founding director of New Jersey All People Equal, explains the purpose of

the conference.

“It was a good time to put the inclusive thought processes into reality ... the thought of

the New Era conference was to collectively bring valuable players who are involved in this

game of movement and inclusion together and try and build a common bridge – a

common understanding – to connect people.” Matt Schinelli

New Jersey All People Equal are at the beginning of re-shaping themselves as a

backbone organization for inclusion around New Jersey. Matt identified some of the

challenges of this, not least, the perception of sport as a fairly rigid product promoted

through mass media. The product being one that promotes sport as an athletic,

competitive, aspirational and predominantly able-bodied activity. To combat this culture

21

New Jersey All People Equal emphasize pure enjoyment and joy of movement.

“I see physical education teachers and coaches getting into a terrible habit – they are

defaulting to sport as they see it on the TV – that this is the only way to play the game –

and that is the point that they should be heading their ship toward… part of what we

need to do is to allow joy and creativity to come back into play.” Matt Schinelli

The challenge they have is to influence the popular culture of sport, even within their own

sector, toward a more inclusive perspective where partners have a common

understanding and philosophy around inclusion. At the moment they are faced with a

competing culture around sport and a fragmented system. The Stanford Social Innovation

Review (Turner, Merchant, Kania, & Martin, 2012) outlines six common activities for

backbone organisations to facilitate collective impact frameworks:

1. Guide vision and strategy

2. Support aligned activities

3. Establish shared measurement practices

4. Build public will

5. Advance policy

6. Mobilize funding

While the challenges of implementation are many, the collective impact framework

provides organisations such as New Jersey All People Equal with a starting point. They

have the beginnings of a network and the expertise and passion to drive inclusion as a

collective.  

Good Habits  Due to the nature of their work and career commitments, the people interviewed in this

study had what can best be described as, good inclusive habits. Much of what they do

and how they behave, has people with disability at the forefront of thinking. While it

would be easy to dismiss this as something that is to be expected and entirely natural for

people in these positions, there are a lot of lessons that can be learnt from the regular,

familiar routines of people who act inclusively on a regular basis.

22

The challenge is identifying the important habits that are transferable and useable by

people who do not have people with disability at the forefront of thinking yet would

benefit hugely by adopting good inclusive habits. Essentially, what can we learn from the

actions of what experienced people take for granted but that make a significant

difference to how inclusive programs are delivered. First, before considering which

routine habits are the most important we will consider how habits are formed and what

influences them.

Research has shown that around 40% of the decisions we make everyday are made

unconsciously (Neal, Wood, & Quinn, 2006). We do not need to think about hundreds of

decisions – that’s because they are habits. It’s the body’s way of helping us cope with

ordinary life. Taken individually, most habits do not have much meaning. But collectively

and over time, they dictate much of our behavior – what we eat, how much we exercise,

how we go about our work. This has an enormous impact on our health, our productivity,

our financial security and well-being.

Individuals have habits and organisations have habits. The collection of habits is what

forms culture over time. How do habits form in our brain? The brain is like an onion. It has

layers over layers. The outside layers are where all the action happens. It is where the

most complex thinking occurs and where people make conscious decisions. When you

are trying to solve a problem or listening hard to understand what someone is saying,

then your outer layers kick in and decipher these messages. In the inner layers, near

where the brain meets the spinal column, is an area that dictates our more automated

behaviours, such as swallowing and breathing. In the centre of the brain is an area of soft

tissue known as the basal ganglia. This is the area of the brain that neuroscientists

attribute to storing our habits.

23

Basically, the basal ganglia converts a series of actions into an automatic routine and then

stores these behavioural chunks for later use. This is the core of how habits form. This is

pretty useful – as it saves us a lot of effort as our habits kick in, meaning we can turn our

thoughts to other things by using the outer layers of the brain while, for example, making

a cup of coffee or driving the car.

Neuroscientists have identified a three-step loop (Duhigg, 2012) that explains how the

basal ganglia does this. The first part is the cue, which basically acts as a trigger for your

brain, telling it which routine to set in motion. The routine is set in motion – the routine

can be physical, mental or even emotional. Then there is the reward. If the reward is

strong enough – it doesn’t have to be very strong – then the habit loop is formed and

becomes more and more entrenched in the basal ganglia over time as patterns are

repeated.

Habits can be changed, largely through the manipulation of routines. Cue’s and rewards

may also change and influence the loop but routines are at the core of the habit loop and

are what can, most effectively, impact on changing habits. Some habits are more

important than others. The keystone habits are the ones that have most impact on

outcomes.

It is useful to understand the neurology of habit formation as it gives us direction in

recommending actions that may influence keystone habits. While the neurology of habit

formation and change is easy to describe, it is not always easy to implement habit

change. Many routines are entrenched and have been in place for a long time. Changing

entrenched habits takes determination and patience. It takes serious commitment and

energy. It is also a challenge to identify entrenched keystone habits as they are often

Cue

Routine

Reward

24

simply described as business as usual. These are the unwritten ground rules (Simpson,

2005) of organisations that have developed a way of doing things that employees take for

granted. They are part of the 40% of unconscious decision-making.

So, what were the keystone habits identified in this study? Below are keystone habits that

were either observed directly during site visits or were talked about, directly or indirectly,

by interviewees.  

Vision  Many people in this study recognized that little things can make a big difference. They

displayed an ability to identify the incremental progress steps in any given activity. On

face value, these observations may seem straightforward, particularly for people

professionally involved in the area. Kira Durchman is able to see, sometimes in advance,

how people react to various intricate movements in the water, such as breathing patterns.

Erwin Borremans can see how young people react to various sensory stimuli as they enter

the building. Matt Schinelli sees clearly how one young person becomes slightly detached

during a group play session and understands where the distraction is coming from. There

were many other examples witnessed during this study.

It would be easy to explain this as the result of experience and training. These are very

experienced people and you could expect that they would use their experience and

training in this way. But, experience and training alone is not a prerequisite to these type

of enhanced inclusive observation skills. They have a special kind of vision. This vision is

an ability to see through the clutter of activity and dissect the reality of what is excluding

people from participation.

In what is now a famous experiment, Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons (Chabris &

Simons, 2010) in the late 1990s ran a test with students based on the work of Eric Neisser

in the 1970s looking at visual attention and awareness. They made a short film of two

groups of students passing a basketball, one group were wearing white t-shirts, the other

black. When the clip was finished and edited they took the footage and asked volunteers

to count the number of passes by the group wearing white, ignoring the passes made by

the black team. Most volunteers got the answer correct while some were only one or two

passes off. The answers were not important in this experiment. The instructions to

observe the number of passes was simply there to give people something to focus on. In

the video, about half way through, a young student wearing a full gorilla suit, walks out in

25

the middle of the activity and does a little gorilla dance and then walks off. The gorilla is

in the video about nine seconds2.

After asking the volunteers about the number of passes made the investigators asked ‘did

you notice anything unusual while you were doing the counting task?’ About half of the

volunteers did not notice anything unusual. They asked if the volunteers noticed anyone

other than the players. Again, about half said no. Finally, they asked if the volunteers

noticed the gorilla? Over many subsequent repeated experiments the authors found that

results were consistent – that around 50% of people do not notice the gorilla.

Typically, in activity situations, there are a lot of things happening, particularly in large

group situations. Even in small group and one-on-one situations it is often difficult to see

the reality of the things that are important to inclusion. Our focus is easily taken up by

either the immediate or the peripheral activities that are happening in any given situation.

This is known scientifically as inattentional blindness.

This means that if we are not paying attention to something then we are blind to it. It’s

understandable therefore that in busy places where multiple activities are taking place

simultaneously, that it’s very common for peoples attention to rapidly jump from one area

of focus to another. Attention is taken away from the detail of what makes a difference to

individuals with disability. Many of the people in this study had the habit of paying

attention to the detail of what makes a difference to inclusion.

Dan Simons also refers to something called the illusion of attention. This is when we think

we are paying attention when we are not. People think they are paying attention to the

road when they are using their mobile phones whilst driving. They are not paying as much

attention as they think they are and that’s often how accidents happen. Practitioners in

this study understood the importance of paying attention to the small details. They did

this consistently. They had that habit and the vision to identify the important details. It

was no illusion.

Inclusion, particularly ad hoc inclusion, can depend on the small changes. Those small

changes can be deliberate or non-deliberate. The challenge is attributing those changes

to greater levels of inclusion. For example, you change the rules of a practice volleyball

game – making sure that the ball can bounce before setting and spiking. This clearly

2 to see the video visit www.theinvisiblegorilla.com

26

helps a person in a wheelchair be more included into the volleyball practice. The change

is obvious and it results in greater levels of inclusion.

But make a rule that a throw-in for football can be underarm, not always overarm - it’s a

less obvious change but no less significant to an individual. Here, it is more likely that we

would have what Dan Simons calls change blindness.

This is where we fail to see the differences that changes make, particularly where those

changes are seemingly small. A number of establishments visited on this study tour, such

as Keskuspuisto Technical College, Ruskiss Special School, the Pheonix Centre and

Ridgewood Public School, used symbols, or visual aids, to assist student learning.

Symbols are used extensively in special education to assist students who have various

degrees of communication and learning difficulties. They are a form of Augmentative and

Alternative Communication (AAC) – the term used for describe ways of communicating

other than by speech or writing.

The rationale for the development of symbols as a means of communication was based

on the fact that symbols are static and consistently provide a simple means of

communication that promotes understanding and meaning. The Picture Exchange

Communication System (PECS), one of the most widely used tools, was first developed by

Bondy and Frost (Bondy & Frost, 1994). They were developed as a means of developing

opportunities for spontaneous exchange for children with social and communication

difficulties.

They were used in a wide variety of contexts, for example, as visual schedules to help

students remember where to be and what to

do. A visual schedule is a series of symbols

that depicts related actions in a sequence.

For example, symbols can depict actions for

a swimming lesson such as enter the water,

relax in the water, attempt to blow bubbles,

with assistance demonstrate a front kicking

action and get the face wet. These are

related tasks where symbols can help with

understanding a swimming lesson.

Symbols were also used for Social StoriesTM. A Social StoryTM is more like a pictorial

Swimming symbols at Ruskiss School

27

narrative of a related sequence of actions. Carol Gray first defined Social StoriesTM in 1991.

According to Gray.

“A social story describes a situation, skill, or concept in terms of relevant social cues,

perspectives and common responses in a specifically defined style and format.” Carol Gray3

Social StoriesTM were originally developed to help young people with Autism Spectrum

Disorder but have since been used extensively with a very diverse cohort of people with

communication and comprehension difficulties.

The significance of these symbols and the systematic way in which they were deployed by

the different establishments was, to a large extent, reliant on the habits of practitioners

who have the vision to use them in the way they are meant to. It is also because they

understood the significance of symbols and had the relevant training on how to use them.

However, being trained in the use of symbols is no guarantee that they would be used so

effectively, with imagination and persistence. This takes a level of vision.

It also begs the question, however, as to why these simple yet highly effective tools could

not be used in regular sport and physical activity settings. Perhaps this is because regular

providers are largely blind to the change that this can make. People simply do not have

the vision.

In places where sport and physical activity happens there are hundreds of distractions. It’s

hardly surprising therefore that people miss the important little things that can make a big

difference.

It takes a special kind of vision and habit to see the little things.

This also has implications for how we organize our activity places, which brings us to the

next habit.

Order and preparation  

3 From  What  Are  Social  Stories?TM  by  Carol  Gray.  www.thegraycenter.org.

28

One of the things that will help us see the little things is if we minimize the possibility of

ad hoc, spur of the moment adaptations by being prepared and ordered. While we will

never completely get rid of the need to adapt in an ad hoc and experimental way, nor

would we want to, being well prepared will help us be more inclusive. This was evident

time and time again on this study tour.

All of the facilities visited on this study tour were highly organized and prepared on a

number of levels.

Of course, good teachers and coaches are well planned and have the ability to create

order from chaos. It ‘goes with the territory’ to a large extent. But it is the importance that

this has on student inclusion that is significant in this context.

Swimming equipment at Ruskiss School

The benefits of being prepared and ordered

accrue from a teaching and a student

learning perspective. There is a level of

complexity here that sets apart effective

inclusive instruction from regular instruction.

The Keskuspuisto College were highly

prepared on a daily basis for the visiting

students, down to the level of controlling the multiple different sensory experiences each

student would undertake as they entered the building, the multiple use of symbols for

timetabling and task recognition, the availability of play and activity equipment and the

colour coding of days and individual student rosters. Similarly, at the Ruskiss School

adapted swimming program there was a large range of equipment options available for

instructors, all ordered and prepared ready for use.

Symbols used for student timetabling at Keskuspuisto College

29

This level of preparedness is particularly important where the students concerned have

difficulty with the transfer of learning in one environment to another and where students

need systematic instruction and a range of pedagogies. Not only does it help the

teacher/coach be prepared and have multiple options available at any given moment, it

also has huge benefits for students that need predictability, stable environments and

consistency. In special education circles these are practices that are taken for granted as

best practice yet in regular sporting circles its importance is much further down the scale

of relevance and priority.

Perhaps this is because regular coaches and instructors have what Dan Simons calls the

illusion of knowledge. This is when we assume we know more than we do. In this case it’s

often assumed that we know how to plan and create order. Most coaches and sports

instructors would say that they are prepared most of the time. There is an explicit

assumption that this level of preparedness is sufficient and, if standards drop in the short

term, then there are no real significant consequences. They can get away with a bit of

chaos!

For many people with disabilities this is a poor assumption, particularly at local grass roots

sport where people with disabilities will be accessing sport for the first time. Initial point

of contact and experience is vitally important at the grass roots level. It can make or break

participation and inclusion. Grass roots sport is run by volunteers who receive little or no

training. We expect them to be able to plan and cover all eventualities. It’s not the case.

The expectations on grass roots volunteers far exceed the time they have available and

the resources at their disposal.

The importance of being prepared and ordered needs to be elevated in the content of

training and education programs at the grass roots level. The provision of training,

however, does not guarantee that people will be good at planning. Perhaps it is more

dependent on your personality type than on training.

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator personality test is a test to help people identify their

own personality type – their strengths and weaknesses. There are four key variables and

two elements to each variable.

For example, you can be extrovert (E) or introvert (I). Or you can be sensing (S) or intuitive

(N). Once you have completed the battery of questions you end up with a Myers-Briggs

Type Indicator signified by four letters. For example, if you are ISTJ then you are Introvert

30

– you focus on your own inner world – Sensing – you focus on basic information you take

in – Thinking – you prefer logic – and Judging – you like to make firm decisions.

Generally, people that are good at planning and that like structure are the ISTJ

personality types. If you are the opposite of this - an ENFP – it is highly unlikely you are a

good planner. The good side of this is that ENFP people are likely to be more creative

and able to adapt to ad hoc situations better.

The point here though is that we need the personality types that create ordered and well

prepared sport and physical activity programs. Not to the detriment of creativity and

innovation however, but to give us a place where we can see the possibilities for

inclusion.

Creating Time  Creating time to think and plan for inclusion is very important. While this is, to a large

extent part of being prepared, as discussed earlier, it is also worth considering as a core

hallmark of inclusion in its own right. Creating time for inclusive thinking was something

all the participants in this study did on a regular basis, regardless of their experience.

There was a general acceptance that you never stop learning in this field. This reflects a

very healthy and progressive set of attitudes.

The ability and willingness of people, more generally, in regular sports to make time to

think inclusively needs to be considered. Slow learning has fallen into disuse. There’s a

time pressure on our teachers, our coaches, our volunteers to do things quickly. In

modern society we are losing the ability to contemplate and reflect.

Our default mode or d-mode (where d stands for deliberation), as Guy Claxton in his

book Hare Brain – Tortoise Mind (Claxton, 1997) calls it, is all about fast food solutions.

Quick, shallow and often not very good.

Part of the reason for the decline in slow learning is what social critic Neil Postman calls

‘technopoly’. In short this is:

“The widespread view that every ill is a problem which has a potential solution”

(Postman, 1993)

Technopoly has created a culture whereby examining the question is only beneficial if it

31

leads to a quick solution. Time is too precious to spend dwelling on the question. We

need solutions and we need them fast.

In a typical sports setting the act of giving instruction and advice is at the very core of

teaching and coaching. Most coaches and teachers understand that observation and

practice are fundamental to learning and any tips, hints and explanations need to be

introduced slowly and appropriately. Practical mastery occurs through repetition and

integrating learned practice into routines that can be called upon over time. Claxton

compares coaching to making mayonnaise. You need to add advice, like oil, very

sparingly and slowly. If you add too much too quickly then the mayonnaise curdles. If you

try to find a quick solution to inclusion then the likelihood is that the mind will ‘curdle’ in

much the same way. The result is that if a technical solution is not forthcoming then the

likelihood is the regular teacher or coach will simply give up and move on.

Regular teachers, instructors and coaches need to understand that inclusive solutions can

take time and that inclusion is a human problem that does not always lead to a very fast

or technical solution. As demonstrated in this study, it requires people to be clever,

innovative and creative. This is contrary to d-mode when we often seek out the expert to

find our solution for us and to put things right. Abdicating responsibility to find the time

for inclusive solutions is easy if we think there are experts at hand to do this for us. This is

a critical point and leads to our next hallmark.

Taking Responsibil ity  All the participants in this study took responsibility for making inclusion a major part of

what they do. Most also understood that their role was very much to facilitate inclusion

and help others take responsibility. Martin Mansell, former Paralympic athlete and now a

leading practitioner and advocate, talked about the need to help people understand the

significance of their intervention on the individual with disability. It is common for regular

instructors and administrators to underestimate the long term impact that participation

can have on the person with a disability. They fail to see the significance of the big

picture.

“I think we need to share a philosophy that says ‘this is not about a short term fix’, this is

actually about a long term fix … about a life changing fix on the individual.” Martin Mansell

If people were able to see the significance of the long term impact of participation then

32

we are more likely to take responsibility to make it happen.

Matt Fisher is a Case Officer with Disability Sport Wales working with national governing

bodies of sport to help facilitate inclusion through existing structures and practices. His

role is very much as a critical friend to sports - checking, challenging and asking questions

of sports to help guide their approach to inclusion. Matt notes that in some sports there

are individuals that take responsibility for inclusion and wear the disability hat. While this

is a positive step forward it is also, at times, a negative. In effect the disability expert

within a sport becomes the gatekeeper of inclusion, thus inadvertently helping others

abdicate responsibility for inclusion in a broader context. Their role as a facilitator in this

respect is critical.

“some of the people that we work with get the ‘disability hat’ … anything that is about

disability comes to that individual. So you have one person that is quite knowledgeable in

an organization, but sometimes outside that you get people involved but don’t

understand the implications of what we are talking about.” Matt Fisher

While having someone who is knowledgeable is important as a leader in an organization,

they need to play the role as a change agent rather than a gatekeeper. This then

becomes a very powerful combination of having a knowledgeable person that is able to

share and instill a philosophy and approach to inclusion yet does not keep that

knowledge and approach as a secret. As Matt also says:

“a lead person is very important … you need them to champion and be a catalyst but I

use them to find out who is in favour or may act as a blocker to inclusion.”

New Jersey All People Equal understand the dangers of becoming the gatekeeper of

inclusion and have as one of their core pillars of operation their approach to partner and

support community organisations to be inclusive.

“we want to partner with local groups – help to train them – to own the product and

activity – so that eventually we put ourselves out of business. We really believe that it’s

important not to be the gatekeeper of success.” Matt Schinelli

To avoid this gatekeeper of inclusion situation perhaps what is needed is what Scott

Belsky in his book Making Ideas Happen (Belsky, 2010) describes as a system of

33

accountability. This is where an organization can harness the power of a community that is

focused on a particular collective goal. There are many ways to make this happen. The

important aspect of this is that responsibility is shared and each participant has a role to

play that is, to varying degrees, dependent on the actions of others in the community.

Brock Davis is the founder of Behance (https://www.behance.net), one of the worlds

largest creative online networks. He started Behance in 2009 by simply declaring that he

would make something cool every day. Every day he would upload a new creative project

to his website. Over the course of a few months he built a large online following as

people were eager to look at what new projects had been uploaded. The feedback and

momentum of Behance encouraged Davis to keep going, finding new creative projects

from around the world. But, behind the scenes, Davis was not working alone. He had

created a network of almost 1,000 creative professionals who had committed to a group

called MSCED (Make Something Cool Every Day). Their collective accountability made it

easy for Davis to maintain and grow his network.

This is where the role of the change agent or knowledgeable expert is critical. The expert

should look to establish a system of accountability for inclusion, particularly shared among

people in decision making positions.

On an individual level it is worth considering why it is that some people find it easy to

assume responsibility and others do not. This has to do with what psychologists call

locus of control. This is:

“the extent to which individuals believe that they can control events that affect them”4.

Individuals with a high internal locus of control believe that events result primarily from

their own behavior and actions. Those with a high external locus of control believe

that powerful others, fate, or chance primarily determine results.

If leaders in sport who have a high external locus of control, it is unlikely that they will take

responsibility for finding opportunities for participation of people with disability in the first

instance.

It’s all too easy to see reasons why things don’t work. This is also tied to beliefs around

the medical and social model of disability. People that have a high external locus of

control can use medical model beliefs as a reason to abdicate responsibility for inclusion.

4 Taken  from  Wikipedia  definition

34

“oh, he’s in a wheelchair, he can’t play football”

or

“she can’t play softball, she is blind”

Conversely, someone with an internal locus of control looks within themselves to

search for solutions. They take responsibility. Again, this can be equated with someone

who adopts a social model belief system.

They believe that it is the environment that disadvantages someone and, because they

have a high internal locus of control, they take responsibility for creating inclusive

settings.

If we look more closely at the relationship between locus of control and the belief systems

around the social and medical model then, ideally, we are looking for a person that has

an internal locus of control and a belief system that is centered around the social model.

But a person that has an internal locus of control and a medical model belief system may

also be able to promote inclusion. This is similar to the person that has an external locus

of control and a social model belief system. Both these people could benefit from

training, albeit a different kind of training.

Consider the model below:  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

35

The training that you might give a person with an internal locus of control and medical

model belief system should focus around the disadvantages that are imposed on a

person with a disability. These could be to do with teaching style, the rules being used or

the equipment. Because their fundamental belief system is one that is geared toward

impairment and what the person cannot do because of impairment, then training must

focus on other things.

With the person that has an external locus of control and a social model belief system the

training would be different. Remember that here, the issue is the person is not taking

responsibility - they have an external locus of control. But, they do believe that the

disadvantages imposed on a person with a disability are the result of factors other than

impairment. So the training should focus on how the person is going to take responsibility

for their actions.

For the person that has an external locus of control and a medical model belief system

the challenge is much greater. Certainly, these are the people that feel it is not their job

to provide opportunities for people with disability, particularly as you need to know all

about impairment to do so!

Fiona Reid is the education Manager for Disability Sport Wales. Fiona talked about the

challenge of bringing different people from the sport sector together and giving them the

framework and tools that would empower them to take responsibility for inclusion, even

when it wasn’t perceived to be their job.

“we wanted to put the education program together in quite a modulised way so that it

became very flexible - as we had a group of individuals coming together with a particular

role in sport - so that they (the participants) can understand how they can contribute to

inclusion – rather than going away and using the excuse of ‘it’s not part of my job’” Fiona Reid

 

Accessibil ity

Dr Lynn Anderson is a nationally recognized expert in the fields of outdoor, therapeutic

and inclusive recreation and has been behind the development of a unique user-friendly

database of inclusive New York recreational facilities. In addition, more than 1,400

outdoor recreation practitioners nationwide have been trained in ways to enhance the

quality of life for individuals with all types of disabilities through “Inclusion U” an

36

innovative program established by Anderson through ongoing funding from the New

York State Developmental Disabilities Planning Council.

In 2011 Anderson, along with colleagues Laurie Penney McGee and Vicki Wilkins,

released the Inclusivity Assessment Tool (IAT)5. The IAT is used by certified Assessors to

gather descriptive information about recreation opportunities that is then shared on a

searchable online recreation resource database. The database is a valuable resource for

any person with a disability planning recreation activities in and around New York. Similar

systems of data gathering and dissemination could be set up, thus significantly improving

the access information available for people with disability.

The Finnish Sports Association of Persons with Disabilities has conducted extensive audits

and reviews on the accessibility of sports facilities and collected sport specific accessibility

information that resulted in the publication of a guidebook in 2013. As part of this work

Niina Kilpela and Aija Saari developed a framework for the conduct of access reviews

(Kilpela & Saari, 2013). This framework is different in the respect that it considers the

broader aspects of accessibility, beyond purely physical access. Through a review of

existing resources in this area they found that most resources focused on construction

guidelines and instruction in sport specific facilities, such as bowling alleys or swimming

pools. They failed to provide a framework and cater for the needs of professionals with a

disability or consider the differences in local sport specific environments. Guidelines and

resources tended to focus on national legislation not the specific local contexts in which

sports operate.

The criterion for their framework consists of four accessibility categories: (1) accessibility

of moving (mobility impairments), (2) accessibility of seeing (visual impairments), (3)

accessibility of hearing (hearing impairments) and (4) comprehensibility (easy

understanding) of the environment (intellectual disabilities, vision impairments, elderly,

small children). These aspects intersect with the viewpoints of an athlete/participant,

coach/leader/professional and spectator.

5 The Online Database for Inclusive Recreation can be seen here - http://acs7.cortland.edu/irrc/

37

This framework provides sport with a more comprehensive starting point to assess the

broader accessibility requirements in a sport setting.

As the framework shows, access is more than physical. Creating accessible environments

in sport has significant ripple effects on attitudes and perceptions of regular participants

and professionals. Essentially, the more accessible a facility becomes - the more people

with disability show up - the more exposure and interaction people without disability have

to people with disability – the more attitudes improve and evolve over time. These

knock-on effects of improved access are significant, even when small changes are made –

even changes that have minimal or no cost.              

Tact ile map for people with vision impairment at Pajulaht i Sports Inst itute

Sound and smell AACs at Keskuspuisto College

38

Lynn Anderson has looked at the impact of training in accessibility and universal design as

part of Inclusion U, a one-day training program that teaches people to be Inclusivity

Assessors.

“I know that throughout our work with Inclusion U, when participants increased their

knowledge of inclusion (including the built environment and universal design), they also

increased their positive attitudes toward inclusion. I conducted pre and post knowledge

and attitude scales on over 3,000 participants and there was a significant change in both

areas as a result of the training.” Dr Lynn Anderson

It is clear that making changes to the physical environment has multiple benefits beyond

those immediate improvements in physical access. In Australia, national programs such as

Sports CONNECT have prompted national and state sports organisations to implement

access audits as part of their regular planning processes. It is unclear, however, how

widespread this practice has become and even if the conduct of formal audits are within

the capabilities of local clubs who rely on volunteers who are time poor. In addition,

formal access audits can be quite daunting and threatening for local clubs who might fear

being involved in what is perceived as a drawn out process that could have negative, and

costly, outcomes.

Perhaps one implementation tool that could benefit local clubs would be through an

Inclusion Checklist. Checklists are simple and quick to use, would help engrain positive

habits and raise the level of awareness around the needs of people with disability.

Atul Gawande’s book, The Checklist Manifesto, (Gawande, 2010) makes a clear distinction

between two types of failure in the modern world – failures of ignorance, where we do

not know enough – and failures of ineptitude, failures we make because we don’t make

use of what we know. Gawande shows what checklists can do and what they can’t. He

demonstrates through real case studies and stories the power of a simple checklist and

how they can be used to improve what we do in a variety of fields. Perhaps the most

impressive example is a simple surgical checklist adopted by the World Health

Organisation that is being used in more than 20 countries.

A series of Inclusion Checklists, based on the sport specific framework developed in

Finland, could have a transformative effect on awareness and be a proactive tool that has

the potential to embed new habits at the local level. An example Inclusion Checklist –

39

based on the category of Moving in the model can be seen in Appendix 1. These could

be used as starting points for inclusion and are not intended to replace or be a formal

audit. Rather, they are intended to pose a series of relevant self-assessment questions to

prompt people to take small steps toward inclusion and raise the level of awareness

around accessibility.

Activity Adaptation and Development  Throughout the course of this study tour there were many examples of how practitioners

had adapted or modified existing practices to cater for the needs of people with

disability. The tasks of adapting and modifying practices was very much embedded into

the training and roles of practitioners – from the 100 adapted physical activity specialists

in Finland, to the sport development officers in Wales and the staff of New Jersey All

People Equal. These adaptations to existing activities help regular providers find the

balance that is necessary to maximize individual potential for people with disability yet

retain the integrity of the activity in a group setting.

In Wales, as part of the UK Disability Inclusion Training package, they use a model of

adaptation called STEPS. STEPS is an acronym for:

Space – change the space in which the activity is taking place (where is it happening)

Task – change the nature of the activity (physical actions)

Equipment – consider the type of equipment being used (e.g., size and colour)

People – Who is involved and how do they interact?

Speed – the pace of the activity

This model of adaptation has been used in the UK for some time and was first developed

by Ken Black at the Youth Sport Trust in the mid 1990’s. Models such as STEPS are easy

to remember and apply to any given situation. When applied it makes the activity harder

or easier, depending on the adaptation. It gives regular sport providers a mind-map for

inclusion and an easy tool to use, regardless of the activity or sport.

In Australia a similar model called TREE is used within many sports training and education

programs. TREE is also an acronym that stands for:

Teaching style

Rules and Regulations

40

Equipment

Environment

The purpose of TREE is the same as STEPS – giving regular providers a useful tool to

begin the process of making sports activities more inclusive. Models such as STEPS and

TREE apply where existing activities are not wholly suitable, or can be improved, for

people with disability.

“Adaptation tools based on simple acronyms help teachers, coaches, volunteers and other sports practitioners to adapt and modify activity in order to ensure that everyone is

as fully included as possible. Adaptation tools, such as STEP or TREE, provide practitioners with a ready-made plan enabling them to differentiate most activities for most abilities and in this way support those who are still developing their skills whilst

challenging others with more advanced competencies.

The acronym concept can be adapted to suit specific circumstances; for example, by expression in another language or through the use of words that have more relevance or

significance in each locality.” Ken Black

Other activities have been created as inclusive activities from the ground up. Activities

such as Inclusive Zone Basketball and Table Cricket have been highly successful in the UK.

Fundamentally, these type of activities are based on principles of Universal Design.

Universal Design involves designing products and spaces so that they can be used by the

widest range of people possible (UniversalDesign.com). It evolved from Accessible

Design principles targeting people with disability but goes further to allow for even

greater human diversity. Universal Design principles are a good starting point for the

design of inclusive sports.

As an example, Inclusive Zone Basketball is a 4 a-side game, developed to enable players

who cannot participate in a full game of basketball to enjoy playing the game. The zones

used enable players to be matched in their abilities within these zones. The small-sided

teams and adapted playing area enable girls and boys, with and without disability, to

participate in a fun game of basketball. Similarly, Table Cricket was first developed in

1990 by Doug Williamson as part of the Project Adapted at Nottingham Trent University.

Table Cricket is played by a diverse group of people but was specifically developed for

young people with high support needs.

 

41

             

Importantly, both Inclusive Zone Basketball and Table Cricket are supported by their

respective national governing bodies - British Wheelchair Basketball and the English

Cricket Board.

Table Cricket is part of the Sports Ability program, originally developed in the UK but

now being delivered across Europe and in Australia. Sports Ability is an inclusive games

program that has a number of elements, including equipment, activity cards and

instructional DVDs. The range of activities and the quality of the resources has allowed

Sports Ability to grow and flourish, particularly in the UK and Finland, where it is used

through the network of adapted physical activity specialists as a key inclusive tool.

Inclusive Zone Basketball instructional card Table Cricket final at Lords

42

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

There is no single model of inclusion, rather there are hallmarks and habits of inclusion

that, collectively, characterize good practice. The recommendations below apply to

individuals and organisations operating at different levels both within the sport and

disability sectors.

1. That individuals and organisations adopt a model of inclusion based on personal

choice where all options are equally valued.

2. That organisations take steps to identify and redress the disadvantages imposed

on people with disability in the sport and physical activity setting by committing to

short and long term goals that are integrated into the generic planning process of

the organisation.

3. That individuals recognize their role as a change agent rather than a gatekeeper of

inclusive practice.

4. Organisations actively foster and develop networks of like-minded people, across

sport and disability sectors, that operate to a common inclusive agenda.

5. Where possible, organisations develop shared measurement processes across

multiple partners to track and monitor milestones to inclusion.

6. Sports organisations take steps to listen to people with disabilities by forging links

with community groups and inviting appropriate people with disability onto

committees, boards, working groups and teams.

7. Where appropriate, organisations position themselves as backbone organisations

for inclusion in their communities, coordinating a shared approach across partners.

8. Organisations should explore the use of Augmentative and Alternative

Communication aids, particularly symbols, to assist learning, communication and

understanding for people with learning and communication difficulties.

43

9. Training and education programs should include content on the importance of

being prepared and well structured in relation to how this contributes toward and

facilitates inclusion.

10. Individuals and organisations should find the time to discuss and plan for inclusion

as a matter core business.

11. Individuals and organisations take responsibility for inclusion and put in place

systems of accountability across multiple partners.

12. That the self-assessment tool of Inclusion Checklists be developed with partners

based on the sport categories framework.

13. That organisations address accessibility issues as a matter of priority, using the

sports based framework and checklists model to raise the level of understanding

and awareness regarding the importance of access.

14. That organisations use an adaptations model, such as STEP or TREE, to modify

existing practices and programs so they are able to create more inclusive

programs.

15. Where appropriate, organisations consider the tools and resources of Sports

Ability to help foster inclusion in development work.

These recommendations will form the backbone of future articles and presentations. Articles and extracts from this report will be published via the Play by the Rules website, with 15,000 visitors per month, and online magazine that has a grass roots sports readership of over 3,000. Similarly, online ‘episodes’ will be published via The Inclusion club website with an international subscription base of 1,500. Presentations to national and state/territory based organisations will also highlight the major recommendations contained in this report.

44

Bibliography Barker, L., Edwards, R., Gaines, C., Gladney, K., & Holley, F. (1980). An investigation of proportional time spent in various communication activities by college students. Journal of Applied Communication Research , 8, 101-109.

Belsky, S. (2010). Making Ideas Happen: Overcoming the obstacles between vision and reality . London: Penguin.

Bondy, A., & Frost, L. (1994). The Picture Exchange Communication System. Focus on Autistic Behaviour , 9, 1-19.

Chabris, C., & Simons, D. (2010). The Invisible Gorilla. New York: Crown Publishing House.

Claxton, G. (1997). Hare Brain - Tortoise Mind. New York: The Ecco Press.

Darcy, S., Taylor, T., Lock, A., Sherry, R., Downs, P., & Nicholson, R. (2011). Participation and non-participation of people with disability in sport and active recreation. Canberra: Australian Sports Commission.

DePauw, K. P., & Doll-Tepper, G. M. (2000). Toward progressive inclusion and acceptance: Myth or reality? The inclusion debate and bandwagon discourse. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly , 17, 135-143.

Design, U. (2014). What is Universal Design? Retrieved from Universal Design: http://universaldesign.com Duckworth, A. L., Kirby, T. A., Tsukayama, E., Berstein, H., & Ericsson, A. K. (2010). Deliberate practice spells success: Why grittier competitors triumph at the National Spelling Bee. Social Psychology and Personality Science , 2, 174-181.

Duckworth, A. L., Matthews, M. D., Kelly, D. R., & Peterson, C. (2007). Grit: Perserverance and passion for long-term goals. . Personality Processes and Individual Differences , 92 (6), 1087-1101.

Duhigg, C. (2012). The power of habit. New York: Random House.

Ericsson, A., Krampe, R., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The roles of deliberate proactice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review , 100 (3), 363-406.

Fullen, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gawande, A. (2010). The Checklist Manifesto. New York: Picador.

Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective Impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review .

Kilpela, N., & Saari, A. (2013). Promotion of accessibility in sports facilities. The Threshold Foundation and Finnish Sports Association for Persons with Disabilities .

Neal, D., Wood, W., & Quinn, J. (2006). Interventions to break and create consumer habits. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing , 25 (1), 90-103.

45

Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The surrender of culture to technology. New York: Alfred Knoph.

Reid, F. (2014). Transforming Lives. Disability Sport Wales Stakeholder Conference. Cardiff.

Simpson, S. (2005). Cracking the corporate culture code: The unwritten ground rules . Sydney: Nania House.

Sirolli, E. (2012). Want to help someone? Shut up and listen! Retrieved from Sirolli Institute: http://siroli.com

Treasure, J. (2014). Julian Treasure. Retrieved from Julian Treasure: http://juliantreasure.com

Turner, S., Merchant, K., Kania, J., & Martin, E. (2012, July 18). Understanding the value of backbone organisations in collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review .

APPENDIX 1: EXAMPLE CHECKLIST INCLUSION ACCESS CHECKLIST

MOVING

FIRST CONTACT INDUCTION ONGOING How do people make contact with our club? What happens in the first month? What are we going to do in the future?

Is there a ramp to the front entrance?

Do we have parking spots marked?

Is there adequate lighting installed?

Are there any trip or slip hazards?

Is there clutter and is everything clean and tidy?

Are signs at the appropriate height and can

people see them?

Where are people likely to go/want to see on their

first visit?

What types of surface do we have leading to and

from the entrance?

How wide are our doorways and exits?

Do we ask potential members if they have any

specific access requirements on our forms, websites?

At sign up/registration days do we use this

checklist to make sure people with disability can get

access?

What areas might the individual need/want to

access?

Have we discussed with staff/volunteers how we assist

people to access our facilities?

Have we taken time to sit down and discuss access

requirements with the individual?

Are we actively making changes to our environment

to improve access?

Are we going the extra mile to make new members

feel welcome and have full access?

Have we done a walk-through with staff/volunteers

prior to any activity involvement?

Have we checked all our equipment to see if we have

adequate, need to modify or if we can use existing

equipment in alternative ways?

It may not be perfect but are all parties clear and

understanding that access is important and improving?

Who can we see to get a formal audit done?

Do we need to have a Disability Action Plan or can

we integrate inclusive strategies into our regular plans?

Do we have partnerships with local disability groups

to provide advice and liaise with?

Have we thought about our own transport for

members – how do people access this?

What about parents/guardians and support workers

– have we thought about their access requirements?

Are we adding to our resources on access and are

these readily available to our members?

Do we continue to provide training for our

coaches/instructors around adapting and modifying

programs for individuals with disabilities?

Do we need to budget for accessible equipment?

When we completed this checklist and by who …