Accessibility Evaluation Report

Paramio-Salcines, J. L., Kitchin, P. J., & Downs, P. (2018). “Promoting accessibility for disabled and older fans to European stadia: A holistic journey-sequence approach (HOPES).” In Managing Sport Business (pp. 530-560). Routledge, New York.

Paramio-Salcines, Juan & Buraimo, Babatunde. (2011). Promoting Accessibility for fans with disabilities to European stadia and arenas. An holistic journey sequence approach. Routledge, New York.

Scior, K., et al. (2020). “Intellectual disability stigma and initiatives to challenge it and promote inclusion around the globe.” Journal of policy and practice in intellectual disabilities, 17(2), 165-175.

Simplican, S. C., Leader, G., Kosciulek, J., & Leahy, M. (2015). “Defining social inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: An ecological model of social networks and community participation.” Research in developmental disabilities, 38, 18-29.

Spaaij, R., Magee, J., & Jeanes, R. (2014). Sport and social exclusion in global society. Routledge, New York.

Spyhalski, M. C. (2019). Program evaluation of the impact of sensory room activities on student readiness in Muskegon County. Education. 3. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/ot_education/3

Stephenson, J., & Carter, M. (2011). “The use of multisensory environments in schools for students with severe disabilities: Perceptions from teachers.” Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 23(4), 339-357.

Tétreault, S., Blais-Michaud, S., Marier Deschênes, P., Beaupré, P., Gascon, H., Boucher, N., & Carrière, M. (2014). “How to support families of children with disabilities? An exploratory study of social support services.” Child & Family Social Work, 19 (3), 272-281.

UNICEF Armenia (2022). Case Study: Building an Ecosystem to Support Assistive Technology Access in Armenia

Wilson, N. J., Jaques, H., Johnson, A., & Brotherton, M. L. (2017). “From social exclusion to supported inclusion: Adults with intellectual disability discuss their lived experiences of a structured social group.” Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 30 (5), 847-858

Grady, J. M. (2006). Toward an understanding of the needs of sport spectators with disabilities. The Florida State University.

Grandisson, M., Tétreault, S., & Freeman, A. R. (2012). “Enabling integration in sports for adolescents with intellectual disabilities.” Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 25 (3), 217-230.

Hagiliassis, N., et al. (2014). “Measuring social inclusion of people with intellectual disability in Australia: Initial evidence about a new tool.” Australian Society for Intellectual Disability.

Hall, H. R. (2012). “Families of children with autism: Behaviors of children, community support and coping.” Issues in comprehensive pediatric nursing, 35 (2), 111-132.

Hedlund Lindberg, M., Samuelsson, M., Perseius, K. I., & Björkdahl, A. (2019). “The experiences of patients in using sensory rooms in psychiatric inpatient care.” International journal of mental health nursing 28 (4), 930-939.

Hepperlen, R. A., Biggs, J., Mwandileya, W., Rabaey, P., Ngulube, E., & Hearst, M. O. (2021). “Using community-based interventions to reduce public stigma of children with disabilities: A feasibility study.” Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 34 (6), 1499-1510.

Hneider, M., & Suich, H. (2021). “Measuring disability inclusion: feasibility of using existing multidimensional poverty data in South Africa.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (9), 4431.

Kalimullin, A. M., Kuvaldina, E. A., & Koinova-Zoellner, J. (2016). “Adolescents’ Self-Regulation Development via the Sensory Room System.” International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11 (5), 663-671.

Lau, J. T. F., & Cheung, C. K. (1999). “Discriminatory attitudes to people with intellectual disability or mental health difficulty.” International Social Work, 42 (4), 431-444.

Luther, E. H., Canham, D. L., & Cureton, V. Y. (2005). “Coping and social support for parents of children with autism.” The Journal of School Nursing, 21 (1), 40-47.

McConkey, R., Peng, C., Merritt, M., & Shellard, A. (2019). “The meaning of social inclusion to players with and without intellectual disability in unified sports teams.” Inclusion, 7 (4), 234-243.

Joint Program Armenia Equal Participation - Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office (1 January –30 June 2007) Stronger Services for Equal Participation and Inclusive Development. United Nations Development Program and UNICEF

Nagel, M. S., Grady, J. M., & Graham, P. J. “Understanding the Needs of Spectators with Disabilities Attending Sporting Events.” Journal of Venue and Entertainment Management, 4(2).

Aasen, G., & Nærland, T. (2014). “Enhancing activity by means of tactile symbols: A study of a heterogeneous group of pupils with congenital blindness, intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder.” Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 18 (1), 61–75.

Abbott, S., & McConkey, R. (2006). “The barriers to social inclusion as perceived by people with intellectual disabilities.” Journal of intellectual disabilities, 10 (3), 275-287.

Albrecht, J., Elmose-Østerlund, K., Klenk, C., & Nagel, S. (2019). “Sports clubs as a medium for integrating people with disabilities.” European Journal for Sport and Society, 16 (2), 88-110.

AlHarahsheh, S., et al. (2022). Making sports accessible for all: The time to act is now. Doha, Qatar: World Innovation Summit for Health, 2022

Asunta, P., Rintala, P., Pochstein, F., Lyyra, N., & McConkey, R. (2021). “The Development and Initial Validation of a Short, Self-Report Measure on Social Inclusion for People with Intellectual Disabilities: A Transnational Study.” International journal of environmental research and public health, 18 (5), 2540.

Bailey, R. (2005). “Evaluating the relationship between physical education, sport and social inclusion.” Educational review, 57 (1), 71-90.

Bigby, C., Anderson, S., & Cameron, N. (2018). Designing effective support for community participation for people with intellectual disabilities.

Borade, N., Ingle, A., & Nagarkar, A. (2021). “Lived experiences of people with mobility-related disability using assistive devices.” Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 16(7), 730-734.

Carnemolla, P., Robinson, S., & Lay, K. (2021). “Towards inclusive cities and social sustainability: A scoping review of initiatives to support the inclusion of people with intellectual disability in civic and social activities.” City, Culture and Society, 25, 100398.

Chen, C. H., & Shu, B. C. (2012). “The process of perceiving stigmatization: Perspectives from Taiwanese young people with intellectual disability.” Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 25 (3), 240-251.

Crabtree, S. A. (2007). “Family responses to the social inclusion of children with developmental disabilities in the United Arab Emirates.” Disability & Society, 22 (1), 49-62.

Craig, D., & Bigby, C. (2015). “’She’s been involved in everything as far as can see’: Supporting the active participation of people with intellectual disability in community groups.” Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 40 (1), 12-25.

El Akoum, M., Moors, N., Thompson, D., Moignard, R., & Bates, K. (2022). “Road to Success: Lessons from the Qatar Foundation Ability Friendly Program.” BMJ Innovations, bmjinnov-2021.

Contributors to the Report

This independent evaluation study was led by a core technical team in the Impact and Advisory Services Unit of the Strategy and Impact Directorate at Qatar Foundation (QF).

Directorate Advisor

Hanieh Khataee

Strategy and Impact Director

Lead Evaluator

Jessica Duplessis

Manager of Impact and Advisory Services

With additional external support from:

Quantitative Statistical Data Analyst

Khansa Chemnad

Data Analyst, MSc, Data Science and Engineering, HBKU

Qualitative Data Conductor and Analyst

Mariam Alisi

Qualitative Data Analyst, Faculty Lecturer, University of Doha for Science and Technology

Associate Lead Evaluator

Shaikha Al Wadaani

Impact Analyst

To ensure effective representation, quality, and integrity in the exercise, the team consulted several disability community experts and advocates across Qatar Foundation. We would like to acknowledge the involvement and expertise of the following individuals:

• Sensory Souk, including Alison Saraf and Raana Smith, for their time, advice, and support carrying out the survey in the Sensory Room at Education City Stadium

• QF’s Pre-University Education Division, including Mark Hughes and Daniel Harrison, for connecting us with parents of children with autism to participate in key informant interviews.

• Education City community disability advocates and experts, Dr. Joselia Neves and Sabika Sabhan from Hamad Bin Khalifa University and Nihal Mohammed Al-Saleh from Earthna, who provided support and advice on ensuring the evaluation study was appropriate, inclusive, and relevant to people with disabilities in the community.

• QF's Communications Directorate, including Nardine Gerges, Asma H. Al-Binali, and Nora M. Qnaibi, for their valued support to the Education City-wide survey.

Executive Summary

This report presents the results of the first comprehensive evaluation study on accessibility in Qatar Foundation (QF), following on efforts to increase accessibility and inclusion alongside QF’s investment for the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™. The study, conducted by QF's Strategy and Impact Directorate, provides valuable insights into the community of people with disabilities in Education City, including students, and can aid in an understanding of how people with disabilities experience QF facilities and services in Education City and how they feel overall. It contains recommendations for action and can be used as a baseline against which to reveal progress.

Education City has become a hub in which people with disabilities participate in events, programs, and facilities in a context offering them a sense of belonging and inclusion. This evaluation study found that people with disabilities and their families find Education City to be a relatively accessible place that caters to the needs of a diverse population. In surveys and interviews, people with disabilities reported that Education City encourages independence and a sense of normality and enables an environment in which people can form social bonds with friends and family. People with disabilities who frequently attend Education City offerings feel a strong sense of community.

Yet, there is room for improvement. Survey findings indicate that two fifths of people with disabilities consider that access to community facilities in Education City is inadequate, and more remains to be done to eliminate physical barriers. One quarter of people with disabilities consider that access to disability support services in Education City is inadequate. Our survey found that

when people with disabilities have adequate access to disability support services, they feel welcomed and valued in the community.

QF took the opportunity of the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ to update infrastructure and facilities and create services, especially for people with disabilities. One flagship intervention, the Sensory Room at Education City Stadium, was a particularly ambitious and dedicated endeavor to give football fans with sensory needs a space to enjoy matches at the stadium. We surveyed parents and caregivers of children who used the Sensory Room, and we found widespread satisfaction among them. Many survey respondents told us that the room helped strengthen family cohesion, and many shared that when adapted facilities are not available, “it excludes people we love” (because people with special needs stay home) and children “lose out on great opportunities.” The example of the Sensory Room in Education City Stadium shows the positive outcomes that can occur when accessible design is employed.

We also surveyed people with disabilities and others to understand their awareness of the changes we made in Education City, to make it more accessible ahead of the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™. The results were insightful, in that people with disabilities perceived the changes and experienced them differently than did the broader community.

QF aspires to become an inclusive community. To attain this goal, it is essential that people with disabilities are able to feel connected in the community in the same way as other people.

Executive Summary

This evaluation study offers five recommendations for addressing accessibility challenges and capitalizing on Education City's strengths and the success QF has achieved in relation to accessibility in the Education City community. These measures will help QF become an organization that supports progress and development at an equitable level for the entire community and can serve as an inspiration throughout Qatar and beyond.

Recommendation 1

Apply the principles of accessible design to ensure that all Education City facilities and services are fully accessible to people with disabilities. This entails developing a plan of action based on a vision of disability inclusion for Education City, with clear measures of its application, milestones to show how disability inclusion can be considered throughout a program lifecycle, and indicators against which to monitor progress. The plan of action would address barriers to access and help make events, programs, and services usable for all people in the Education City community. It would require developing organizational policy guidelines on accessibility principles and practices and applying them systematically.

Recommendation 2

Make Education City stigma-free. That includes promoting the voices of people with all types of disabilities in an inclusive fashion, ensuring children, youth, and adults can feel at home in Education City. We need to understand who feels stigmatized and

why, and identify ways of making everyone in our community feel comfortable, especially people with special needs. A first step would be to make sure our communications are clear as to which events, programs, and facilities are accessible.

Recommendation 3

Strengthen systems to better respond to the needs of people with disabilities. People with disabilities and their families are more resilient and have a greater sense of belonging and connectedness when the services they rely on are tailored to their needs. Building capacity of teachers, staff, volunteers, and other stakeholders, and raising awareness and supporting community groups in prioritizing the needs of people with disabilities, can help reduce stigma and strengthen social inclusion across the systems that serve people. We should leverage the Education City community to champion inclusion for people with disabilities and support scaling up accessibility across Qatar.

Recommendation 4

Use data to drive change and apply a robust and methodological approach to data collection, monitoring and reporting on QF’s commitments to accessibility. This includes looking at patterns of program/service utilization and listening to people's feedback on their experiences. It also includes using the data collected to conduct evaluations on the efficacy of accessibility initiatives in Education City and identifying best practices to inform policies.

Recommendation 5

Develop a QF Accessibility Task Force to coordinate actions and guide change that will strengthen Education City’s achievement since the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™. This includes developing a plan of action with the involvement of people with disabilities and establishing a transparent mechanism to track achievement against targets.

About 15 percent of the world's people live with some form of disability, of whom 2 percent to 4 percent experience significant difficulties in functioning (World Health Organization, 2011). It is estimated that 18,360 people over the age of 5 are living with various types of disabilities in Qatar, of whom 8,225 are aged 5-24 years of age (Qatar Ministry of Development Planning and Statistics, Census 2020). In 2007 Qatar signed the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, emphasizing the country's national-level commitment to guaranteeing the human rights of people with disabilities and their families.

Disability inclusion is about systems change and requires a multisectoral approach. Often it requires making improvements in the built environment and health and educational systems, and changing social norms, in consideration of the identified needs of individuals and their families. It requires engaging people with disabilities in the planning and design of programs for them.

For decades, QF has been working through our schools, community programs, and services across Education City to provide specialized support to children, youth, and families with

specific needs. QF opened Awsaj Academy in 2011 and Renad Academy in 2016 in response to need and in support of creating equity in education in Qatar. We have long championed disability inclusion, and our advocacy through the United Nations in 2007 resulted in the establishment of World Autism Awareness Day, now commemorated annually on 2 April. We launched a global research report with recommendations titled "Autism: A Global Framework for Action" at the World Innovation Summit for Health in 2016, and we supported the Ministry of Public Health in developing a National Autism Plan. We introduced accessible programming within the community, through our sports and recreational programs and social opportunities for children and young people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In 2019 we launched our Ability-Friendly Program providing sports activities for children with specific needs. The program was in response to a campaign by a group of mothers in Qatar calling for more inclusivity for their children with special needs (El Akoum et al, 2022).

QF committed to inclusivity during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ and to making the tournament the "most accessible ever." As we

worked with partners and stakeholders in support of a range of initiatives enabling an environment suitable for all fans, we gained a better understanding of what that commitment meant and its potential impact. For example, the QF Communications Directorate developed an accessibility guide, and QF’s Hamad Bin Khalifa University (HBKU) produced live audio-descriptive commentary of the opening and closing ceremonies and the matches. We built a Sensory Room in Education City Stadium that was designed to accommodate people with ASD and others who may find the stadium too stimulating or overwhelming. The Sensory Room environment included soft lighting, specialized toys and games, and noise-canceling headphones. It was staffed by Sensory Souk, a local company that provides services and equipment for people with ASD, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and other sensory disorders.

People who live with a disability – whether intellectual, physical, or cognitive – face barriers that make it harder for them to acquire information and take part in experiences in the same way as other people. At its core, the concept of accessibility seeks to eliminate barriers by ensuring that the “needs of people with disabilities are specifically considered, and products, services, and facilities are built or modified so that they can be used by people of all abilities” (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022).

Evaluation Scope and Methodology

This section describes the evaluation methodology used to carry out the Education City accessibility study at all stages from the literature review to the evaluation design, including the use of the data collection tools, methodological approaches, and participant selection.

Literature Review

A robust desk review of the literature conducted to the quality standards of academic research formed the basis of an evidencebased measurement framework for the evaluation study. Key indicators developed for the framework are based on similar indicators and approaches used in studies assessed in the literature review.

The review identified three main outcome areas – social inclusion, accessibility, and awareness – that framed the focus of our study.

Social inclusion

The literature indicated the importance of capturing the experience of persons with disabilities in society to enable a socially cohesive environment.

Participants

Accessibility

The research indicated the value and importance of having an inclusive approach to designing and building cities, engaging communities, and allocating resources.

Awareness

The literature examined awareness in two areas: first, people with disabilities' awareness of the resources available to them and tailored to their needs; and second, how the larger community perceives the needs of people with disabilities and the issues they face.

Literature Review

The evaluation was rolled out over three phases.

Study Design

The evaluation study was designed following the literature review and numerous interviews with experts and advocates for people with disabilities and members of the academic community in Qatar.

Data Collection

Participants

Phase I

A user-experience survey conducted in Education City Stadium’s Sensory Room during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ matches.

Phase II

Key informant interviews with parents of QF students who attended World Cup matches, also conducted in the Sensory Room.

Phase III

An Education City-wide survey on people’s experiences and thoughts on accessibility, and their social awareness of accessibility, conducted with the Education City community.

Literature Review Study Design Data Collection

Data were collected using a mixedmethods design and put through a qualitative and quantitative analysis across the three phases of the evaluation study. Participants

Sensory Room survey

The survey contained 15 multiple-choice questions and one openended question to understand people's experience of the Sensory Room and the impact it had on them during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™. The survey was conducted with users of the Sensory Room and their families during five of the eight matches held at Education City Stadium. It was administered on behalf of QF by staff volunteers from Sensory Souk, the local company employed to work in the Sensory Room.

Key informant interviews

Interviews were semi-structured, guided by 16 open-ended questions, to understand people’s thoughts on the quality of Education City services and facilities generally and the Sensory Room specifically. Interview participants were asked what they thought about the Sensory Room in terms of its design and any limitations, their interactions with the accessibility volunteers, their experiences with other programs and events in Education City, and any changes in behavior that they observed. The interviews were conducted online in Arabic, in collaboration with an expert in qualitative data research from the University of Doha for Science and Technology. Interview participants were identified by the Assistant Principal of Awsaj Academy.

Education City-wide accessibility survey

The survey contained 10 close-ended questions and was administered online in both Arabic and English. The survey gathered data on the level of accessibility within Education City, the ease of use of facilities, the overall experience of visiting Education City, the prevalence of stigma, and the benefits and limitations of services for people with disabilities. The survey included one main branching designed to capture answers from people with disabilities, which included Likert scale items to ensure an inclusive range of responses. Survey respondents had the opportunity to write in responses in addition to answering the close-ended questions.

Literature

Sensory Room survey

Education City-wide accessibility survey

Study Design

Data Collection Participants

A total of 651 individuals representing different nationalities, genders, age groups, and disability groups participated in the evaluation study across the three phases. It is possible that participants in the Sensory Room survey and key informant interviews also responded to the Education City-wide survey, but due to anonymity this cannot be confirmed. All participants were from the Education City community, including university students.

According to FIFA, 35 accessibility-category tickets were sold for the matches at Education City Stadium; these tickets included access to the Sensory Room. A total of 13 participants with their parents/caregivers completed the survey. Thirteen survey respondents specified their gender (seven males, four females, two undeclared), age (three under 5 years, four aged 6–14 years, four aged 15–24 years, and two above 25 years), and disability diagnosis (eight with ASD and five with ADHD). Participants specified six different nationalities (Burkina Faso, Canada, Egypt, Mexico, Qatar, and United Kingdom); two did not declare nationalities.

Key informant interviews

A total of 10 interviews were conducted with mothers/guardians of children who attended at least one match in the Sensory Room at Education City Stadium. Among the guardians, eight were mothers, one was a sister, and one was a teacher. The following data are from interviews with the mothers and sister; each accompanied one child in the Sensory Room. All the children are students at QF schools: eight students were from Awsaj Academy, and one was from Renad Academy; eight were male, one was female, ranging in age from 5 to 15 years old (one student was 5 years old, seven were aged 6–14 years, and one was 15 years old). Students were diagnosed with ASD/ADHD (four students), Down syndrome (two students), and learning or speech difficulties (three students). All the students and their mothers/guardians were Qatari; all the mothers/guardians belonged to community support groups led by other mothers.

The survey reached QF staff, students, families, community members, and volunteers; a total of 626 people responded to the survey. Among the respondents, 15 indicated that they had a disability, 202 indicated that they knew someone with a disability, and the remaining 486 indicated that they had no disability and did not know anyone with a disability.

Among the respondents, 15 indicated that they had a disability, 202 indicated that they knew someone with a disability, and the remaining 486 indicated that they had no disability and did not know anyone with a disability.

Evaluation Findings

This section discusses the results of the qualitative and quantitative analysis of data from the Sensory Room survey, key informant interviews, and the Education City-wide accessibility survey.

Sensory Room Survey Results

The survey results indicated the value of providing accessible environments in support of people with a range of disabilities, including sensory disorders, while participating in mega-events in particular, such as the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ and community events in general.

Key Informant Interviews Results

Findings show how accessible design promotes social cohesion and inclusion of the disability community. 100%

of survey participants reported it was very important to attend community/sporting events as a family. Yet, only half of them (seven) reported they had attended football matches and/or other sporting and community events as a family.

46%

of survey participants’ families reported they would attend such an event without the person with sensory needs in their family if they couldn’t be sure the space catered to their sensory needs or was appropriate for them given their sensitivities.

11/13

participants said it was important to have sensory-supporting tools )soft lighting and chairs, specialized toys and games, weighted blankets, noise-canceling headphones, etc.( while attending community/sports events with people with disabilities. They also said it was important to have a sensory room in the venue when purchasing World Cup tickets.

77% 46%

of participants previously attended a community/ sporting event.

of them had never had access to a sensory room in a stadium.

Sensory Room Survey Results

Additional qualitative data captured how respondents described the impact of not having sensory facilities or other assistive devices in stadiums.

Key Informant Interviews Results

If there are no facilities, then families of people with disabilities might not attend stadium events with the whole family. If there is a person with a disability or sensory disability in the family, then they might leave this person home. They might opt to split up the family rather than risk a situation that would be unpleasant or challenging for the family member with a disability.

The children risk getting overstimulated so it will not be a fun experience.

Education City-Wide Survey Results

The lack of facilities excludes people we love.

Not attending the events due to the lack of facilities makes the children with disabilities feel sad.

Their children lose out on great opportunities.

The family has to find an alternative activity which will support the individual’s needs.

Sensory Room Survey Results

Key Informant Interviews Results

Parents/guardians described how their children responded to being in the Sensory Room at Education City Stadium during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™. They reported observing immediate positive outcomes and impact on their children, both during the Sensory Room experience and afterwards.

Education City-Wide Survey Results

Accessibility means independence

The Sensory Room made children feel empowered and gave them an opportunity to experience their independence in an accessible environment that catered to their needs. Such experiences are critical for children’s developmental trajectory and help them develop a sense of independence.

Cultivating social skills

Children were able to engage with their peers and bond with them (if they chose to) in an enriching environment through play, conversation, and the shared experience.

Children feel a personal sense of belonging

The Sensory Room allowed children to feel safe and happy while participating in an enriching experience. They felt a personal sense of belonging in an integrated environment.

Families can be together

The Sensory Room enabled families to experience something together as a unit. The experience created a sense of family cohesion by enabling a shared experience that was accessible to and adapted for all family members, including those with a disability.

Strengthening social cohesion

The Sensory Room experience is an example of how considerations of accessible design can achieve social harmony and cohesion in families of people with disabilities.

Communication promotes social awareness

QF’s efforts to communicate its accessibility initiatives allowed the disability community to know of and participate in the array of activities and services available to them. This mass communication advanced social awareness and helped raise awareness of the importance of inclusion and equity across the broader community.

The results underlined the importance of creating opportunities and experiences that cultivate and nurture individuals from a young age. It also highlighted the value of spaces and services that are adapted for children with disabilities.

Sensory Room

Survey Results

Key Informant Interviews Results

Education City-Wide Survey Results

The Education City-wide accessibility survey was the main survey activity assessed as part of this evaluation study. This section of the report presents results and findings from the descriptive statistics and comparative analysis of the accessibility survey.

The data indicate that people with disabilities generally appreciated Education City, felt comfortable and safe there, and felt encouraged to visit more frequently. Additional correlations of data captured from the disability community and the larger community provided crucial insights into understanding the level of awareness of the particular needs of people with a disability, as distinct from the needs of others, in the Education City community.

Education City-Wide Survey Results

Distribution and Demographics

The data collected through the survey helped us identify and understand the respondents’ main reasons for visiting Education City and the target audience for the activities they seek to participate in.

Main Reasons for Visiting Education City

Most respondents visited Education City facilities like Oxygen Park and the Recreation Center, among other spaces (40 percent). Respondents were able to select one or more options or ‘All of the above,’ as applicable.

Education City Target Audiences for Activities

Most participants sought activities for children, families, and the general public (83 percent).

40% Facility visit Park, Recreation Center, etc.

32% Schools and universities

29% Events

23% families

11% Programs

29% All of the above

20% general public

40% children

13% adults

4% university students

Education City-Wide Survey Results

Frequency of Attendance of Events at Education City

Frequency of Registrations for Programs at Education City

People attending activities in Education City more often attended events (29 percent) than programs (11 percent). (Events are characterized as one-time public events, whereas programs are characterized as recurring activities.)

29%

11%

The survey results indicated that a significant percentage of respondents attended events at Education City “sometimes” or “often” (69 percent).

69%

of people attending activities in Education City attended events. of people attending activities in Education City attended programs. of respondents attended events at Education City “sometimes” or “often”.

OFTEN SOMETIMES RARELY

A considerable proportion of respondents rarely registered for programs in Education City (54 percent), and only a small percentage register often (16 percent).

Education City-Wide Survey Results

Survey Respondent

Disability Types

Among survey respondents, 217 people reported that they had a disability or knew someone with a disability. Cognitive disabilities, such as ASD or ADHD, were the most commonly self-reported disabilities. People who self-reported more than one type of disability were classified as having multiple impairments.

217 people among survey respondents reported that they had a disability or knew someone with a disability.

21% motor

57% cognitive

2% visual

17% multiple 3% hearing

These findings highlight the diverse needs and experiences of people with disabilities in our Education City community.

Education City-Wide Survey Results

Thoughts and Experiences on Accessibility, among People with Disabilities

This section of the survey – which seeks insights into the thoughts and experiences of people with disabilities in Education City – is the main branching in the survey. It was open only to respondents with disabilities and respondents who knew someone with a disability.

75% 3%

I Felt Welcomed and Valued in the Community

I Was Treated with Respect and Dignity

85% 2% 13%

AGREE NOT SURE DISAGREE

58% 10%

32% I Was Able to Form Social Connections and Network with Others

We Felt Connected as a Family

Statements here provide insights into how people with disabilities experience social inclusion in Education City. 55% 7% 38%

62%

29% I Felt a Sense of Belonging to the Community

9%

Education City-Wide Survey Results

Statements here provide insights into how survey respondents from the disability community experience

Education City-Wide Survey Results

ALWAYS SOMETIMES NEVER Statements below provide insights into how survey respondents from the disability community experience

Education City-Wide Survey Results

46%

Social Stigma Stopping People with Disability from Participating in Community Events

For the 54 percent of respondents who indicated “not sure” and “yes,” the question was followed up by two write-in questions designed to capture how QF can help reduce and eliminate social stigma in the disability community:

Looking at Social Stigma

This represents respondents’ experiences of social stigma. A minority of respondents (15 percent) stated that stigma prevented them or their loved ones from participating in events in Education City, and a sizable proportion of respondents (39 percent) were unsure how to reply to the question.

Does social stigma surrounding the disability community stop you or someone you know from partaking in community events?

Respondents cited the social pressures and barriers they faced when accessing events, programs, or facilities in Education City.

• Social pressures, perceptions and opinions of others (respondents reported being stared at, and feeling like a burden)

• Social stigma/judgment, and people’s lack of awareness of how children with ASD may behave

• Program/event accessibility/ inaccessibility (locations were inaccessible, handicapped parking was limited, facility features were not advertised)

• Specially designed programs requiring financial registration (not feasible for some respondents)

• Limited inclusivity (activities were inclusive of people with physical disabilities but not people with mental/behavioral disabilities)

• Some respondents felt they were treated as the “face of disabilities” within QF/Education City

• Program limitations (staff conducting programs lacking experience or social skills, exclusionary practices, segregated or inaccessible design)

How can we help to reduce or eliminate the social stigma surrounding the disability community in Education City?

Respondents gave a number of suggestions for activities, which we grouped into three categories, related to education and awareness raising, inclusivity, and human resources.

Education and awareness raising

• Enhance awareness about the measures in place to support the disability community (e.g., where wheelchairs are available, etc.)

• Educate staff on how to interact with people with disabilities

• Reflect more diversity and inclusion in institutional videos and media

Human resources

• Create more jobs and volunteer opportunities for people with disabilities

• Further integrate people with disabilities across the QF value chain

Inclusivity

• Make all activities more inclusive, so as to “normalize” the participation of people of all abilities

• Advocate more on behalf of people with all types of disabilities; champion neurodiversity

• Build capacity for learning support at QF schools (facilities are understaffed)

• Install handicap access at all entrances

• Make facilities accessible and comfortable for users

• Some respondents felt they were treated as the “face of disabilities” within QF/Education City

• Raise social awareness of non-physical disabilities and encourage more acceptance of people with mental/behavioral disabilities

• Deploy technology enablers of people with diverse (including neurodiverse) ability needs

• Embed inclusivity and accessibility in all actions

• Conduct periodic audits of accessibility; be more explicit about inclusivity in communications regarding human resources and career prospects

• Add events on ASD-related topics and tailored to people with special needs due to ASD, i.e., social rehabilitation activities

• Offer activities and opportunities in Education City for independent people with disabilities

To further investigate the 15 percent of survey respondents who answered “yes” to the question on social stigma and participation in community events, we tested additional statistical correlations using multiple variables.

We tested correlations between responses to the question about social stigma and responses to questions on being treated with respect and dignity, being able to form social connections and network with others, feeling connected with the family, feeling a sense of belonging to the community, and feeling welcomed and valued in the community. We found the correlations to be insignificant.

We can see that social stigma in Education City does not always limit people from taking part in activities or make them feel like they don’t belong. It nevertheless remains important to understand why some people feel stigmatized, so we can design effective interventions that will combat stigma to address the needs of the most vulnerable people in our community.

Education City-Wide Survey Results

Social Awareness and Thoughts on Accessibility within the Education City Community

This section represents the end of the survey branching and describes the results of two comparison analyses between the community of people with disabilities and the broader community (people without disabilities). The first analysis, on “Social Awareness within the Education City Community,” compares the levels of social awareness on accessibility in the two communities.

Accessible

We tested the level of social awareness around accessibility and the correlation between how the statement “An activity/event needs to be advertised as accessible” is viewed by the community of people with disabilities compared to the broader community (people without disabilities).

These results suggest that both people with disabilities and people without disabilities similarly perceive that events and activities should be advertised as accessible.

The Importance of an Activity/Event being Advertised as

This describes the results of our comparison analysis of social awareness within the Education City community.

We conducted a chi-square test, which revealed no correlation between the two groups.

Education City-Wide Survey Results

Education City Community Thoughts on Accessibility Initiatives during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™

The second analysis, on “Education City Community Thoughts on Accessibility Initiatives during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™” compares what people in both communities thought about accessible initiatives in Education City during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™.

Education City.

This represents how survey respondents in the two communities felt about whether hosting the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ influenced the infrastructure, facilities, and services provided to people with disabilities.

This suggests that both people with disabilities and people without disabilities similarly perceive that hosting the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ influenced the infrastructure, facilities, and services provided for people with disabilities in Education City.

Hosting the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ influenced the infrastructure, facilities, and services provided to people with disabilities in

Education City-Wide Survey Results

The changes made in Education City during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ provided an equitable experience for people with disabilities.

This represents the level of agreement between the two groups of survey respondents on whether changes made in Education City during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ provided an equitable experience for people with disabilities.

We conducted a chi-square test to test for significant differences. The results showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups (x² = 16.61, df = 3, p < 0.001, N=486).

The proportion of respondents from the broader community (people without disabilities) who answered “yes” was significantly higher than that of the community of people with disabilities (62 percent vs. 50 percent), while the proportion of respondents from the disability community who answered “somewhat” was significantly higher than that of the broader community (30 percent vs. 15 percent).

These results suggest that there are significant differences between the perceptions of people with disabilities and those of people without disabilities regarding the changes made in Education City during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ aimed at providing an equitable experience for people with disabilities.

Education City-Wide Survey Results

People with disabilities attending FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ activities in Education City enjoyed a safe, dignified, and integrated experience on an equal basis to everyone else.

This represents the extent to which people with disabilities attending FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ activities in Education City had a safe, dignified, and integrated experience on an equal basis with other people.

The proportion of respondents from the broader community (people without disabilities) who answered “to a great extent” was significantly higher than that of the community of people with disabilities (66 percent vs. 48 percent), while the proportion of respondents from the disability community who answered “to some extent” was significantly higher than that of the broader community (47 percent vs. 26 percent).

Among survey respondents with disabilities, slightly less than half thought that their experience was safe, dignified, and integrated (48 percent answered “to a great extent”), but slightly more than half believed this statement to be partially correct or incorrect (52 percent answered “to a lesser extent,” “to some extent” or “not at all”). It also shows that people without disabilities perceived that people with disabilities had safe, dignified, and integrated experiences at a notably higher rate than people with disabilities actually perceived their experiences.

We conducted a chi-square test to test for significant differences. The results showed a statistically significant difference between the two groups (x² = 19.45, df = 3, p < 0.001, N= 486).

It thus shows how essential it is to obtain feedback from people within the disability community, as other people without that perspective may not be able to accurately assess the level of accessibility.

Discussion and Findings

The study’s major findings supported the central hypothesis of this evaluation: that accessible design of events, programs, and facilities within the Education City community promotes social cohesion and inclusion of people with disabilities. The analysis and testing of survey data presented multiple, significant correlations on distinct levels. The chi-square test was used to analyze the data and to determine correlations and differences between variables of interest.

Education City is inclusive which makes people in the community feel welcome and want to come back again.

Education City is accessible

Social inclusion means increased independence

The Sensory Room strengthened social and family cohesion

The Sensory Room in Education City Stadium was a distinct accessibility initiative pioneered by Qatar during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™

Frequency of attending events (one-time offerings) and programs (recurring activities) significantly correlated with feeling a sense of belonging to the community. Individuals who attend these offerings frequently may feel a stronger connection to the community.

Frequency of attending programs (recurring activities) significantly correlated with being connected as a family and being able to form social connections and network with others.

We found significant correlations between social inclusion and the frequency of attending Education City offerings.

Education City is inclusive

Education City is accessible to the disability community and provides an experience that is inclusive for all. Social inclusion means increased independence

The Sensory Room strengthened social and family cohesion

There were significant correlations between access to disability support services, feeling welcomed and valued in the community, feeling more connected with family, feeling a sense of belonging to the community, and forming social connections and networking with others.

The Sensory Room in Education City Stadium was a distinct accessibility initiative pioneered by Qatar during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™

Overall, individuals who reported having adequate or moderate access to disability support services in Education City were more likely to also report experiencing a higher level of social inclusion Education City’s disability services promote social cohesion at multiple levels, which can have a positive impact on the overall well-being of people with disabilities.

We found significant correlations between accessibility and social inclusion.

Education City is inclusive

Education City is accessible

Social inclusion means increased independence for people with disabilities.

The Sensory Room strengthened social and family cohesion

There were significant correlations between creating a sense of normality/independence for people with disabilities in Education City and feeling connected as a family, forming social connections and networking with others, and feeling a sense of belonging to the community.

The Sensory Room in Education City Stadium was a distinct accessibility initiative pioneered by Qatar during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™

We found significant correlations between creating a sense of normality/independence and social inclusion in Education City.

Education City is inclusive

Education City is accessible

Social inclusion means increased independence

The Sensory Room strengthened social and family cohesion

Survey findings indicated the value of having an accessible space for community events. Findings from key informant interviews attribute the success of people’s experience to the curated space and furnishings specially designed by experts, the hired staff, and trained volunteers. The design considerations that met accessibility needs had a substantive impact on the participating individuals.

The Sensory Room in Education City Stadium was a distinct accessibility initiative pioneered by Qatar during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™

Survey findings indicated that most survey respondents made the decision to attend the Sensory Room because it was included in the accessibility-category tickets they purchased for the matches. In the key informant interviews, parents reported positive behavioral changes in their children due to their Sensory Room experience. As the children felt more comfortable in the safe, curated environment of the Sensory Room, they engaged in activities and watched the matches and were able to participate and express themselves.

Survey findings illustrated that the availability of accessible spaces enables greater family cohesion. Families said that accessible designs provide them respite. When planning family events in accessible spaces, families know that the needs of family members with disabilities will be taken into consideration.

The Sensory Room’s accessible design had an impact on strengthening social and family cohesion.

Parents reported positive behavioral changes in their children due to their Sensory Room experience.

Education City is accessible

Hosting the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ expedited and influenced the development of Education City’s accessibility infrastructure, facilities, and services provided to people with disabilities.

Social inclusion means increased independence

The Sensory Room strengthened social and family cohesion

In interviews, key informants recommended scaling up the Sensory Room and similar initiatives. Survey and key informant interview results indicated that the Sensory Room was very successful during the tournament.

The Sensory Room in Education City Stadium was a distinct accessibility initiative pioneered by Qatar during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™

On the question of “whether the changes made in Education City during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ provided an equitable experience for people with disabilities and whether people with disabilities attending FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ activities in Education City had a safe, dignified, and integrated experience on an equal basis to everyone else,” there was divergence in

how the community of people with disabilities viewed these accessibility initiatives compared to how the broader community (people without disabilities) viewed them. The broader community had a more positive view of accessibility initiatives than did the community of people with disabilities. The community of people with disabilities is calling for increasing and scaling up these initiatives.

The community of people with disabilities is calling for increasing and scaling up these initiatives.

Recommendations

Much has already been done to make Education City an accessible place for all. Yet, there are still some gaps to fill. Key recommendations based on an analysis of the results of this evaluation study are discussed in this section.

All Education City facilities and services need to be accessible to people with disabilities

Apply the principles of accessible design to ensure that all Education City facilities and services are fully accessible to people with disabilities. This includes the following:

Make Education City

stigma-free Strengthen systems

Use data to drive change

Establish a QF Accessibility Task Force

1 2

Employ principles of accessibility when planning events and programs and developing or modifying the built environment (parking, ramps, signage). Develop a plan of action based on a vision of disability inclusion for Education City, with clear measures of its application, milestones throughout a program lifecycle, and indicators against which to monitor progress. Actions would address barriers to access and help make events, programs, and services usable for all people in the Education City community.

3

Develop formal policy guidelines on accessibility principles and practices and apply them systematically.

All Education City facilities and services need to be accessible to people with disabilities

Academic research shows that reducing stigma against people with disabilities requires multifaceted interventions and communication approaches targeting multiple audiences together with advocacy for real inclusion.

Make Education City

stigma-free Strengthen systems

Use data to drive change

Establish a QF Accessibility Task Force

1 2

Promote the voices of people with all types of disabilities in an inclusive way to ensure that children, youth and adults, can feel at home in Education City. A stigma-free Education City and all it entails can support family cohesion.

3 4

Conduct a mapping exercise to understand the knowledge and perceptions of the community of people with disabilities. Learn who feels stigmatized and why, and identify ways of making everyone in our community feel comfortable, especially people with special needs.

Improve accessibility of the built environment to scale up existing services (family bathrooms, adult changing rooms, etc.). Ensure communications are clear as to which events, programs, and facilities are accessible.

By marking an event as accessible, people with special needs will be able to anticipate the type of facilities available to them in a location.

All Education City facilities and services need to be accessible to people with disabilities

Make our community accessible to help respond to the needs of people with disabilities.

Make Education City

stigma-free Strengthen systems

Use data to drive change

Establish a QF Accessibility Task Force

1 2

Identify and support experts and advocates in the Education City community to prioritize how best to design, adjust, and change facilities, events, and programs to make them more accessible. Build the capacity of teachers, staff, volunteers, and other stakeholders by offering specialized training on disability issues. People with disabilities and their families have a greater sense of belonging and connectedness when the services they rely on are tailored to their needs. Capacity building and awareness raising can work to reduce stigma and strengthen social inclusion across the systems that serve people.

3 4

Support community groups in highlighting and prioritizing the needs of people with disabilities in Education City. Leverage the Education City community to champion inclusion for people with disabilities and in support of scaling up accessibility across Qatar. Consider the financial burden. Keep in mind that disability entails a high financial burden. Some families may need additional resources to cover costs of education and recreational activities for people with disabilities.

All Education City facilities and services need to be accessible to people with disabilities

Make better use of data to enhance accessibility.

Make Education City stigma-free Strengthen systems

Use data to drive change

Establish a QF Accessibility Task Force

1 2

Develop and use evidence-based methods to collect data and to inform resource allocations towards meaningful interventions that can be taken to scale, to achieve wider impact. Apply a robust and methodological approach to data collection, monitoring, and reporting on our commitments to accessibility. Develop a robust feedback mechanism. Look at patterns of utilization of Education City’s events, programs, and facilities and listen to the Education City community’s feedback on their experiences.

3 4

Monitor progress by collecting and sharing data within QF and with external stakeholders on a regular basis to monitor progress against commitments. Use data collected to conduct evaluations on the efficacy of accessibility initiatives in Education City. Use data and evidence to identify best practices that can inform policies and be applied to programs and services across Education City and throughout Qatar; share best practices regionally and globally.

5

Use accessibility and disability inclusion as a metric. Include accessibility and disability inclusion as an indicator for all evaluation practices allowing for disability-disaggregated data to inform advocacy or policy action.

All Education City facilities and services need to be accessible to people with disabilities

We should work to ensure Education City can be accessible to everyone.

Make Education City stigma-free Strengthen systems

Use data to drive change

Establish a QF Accessibility Task Force

1 2

Identify subject-matter experts to prioritize the recommendations of this evaluation study and to lead implementation of the recommendations and next steps. Include expertise in areas of progressive education, sustainability, precision health, and social progress. Engage stakeholders including people with disabilities, in the Accessibility Task Force and in building a community of practice.

3 4

Focus on all disabilities, including autism. Ensure a representative focus on addressing the needs of people with disabilities in and around Education City, with a particular emphasis on people with ASD.

5

Capitalize on successes.

Scale up successes and best practices to national, regional, and international levels.

Report progress annually against committments to ensure transparency and accountability.

Conclusion

People with disabilities are part of the QF community. While much has already been done to provide accessible services, more should be done to ensure the needs of people with disabilities are met. Meeting their needs will strengthen cohesion at both family and societal levels.

Some measures have been taken to make events and spaces more accessible. Yet, gaps remain in the availability of accessible programs, and there is a wider range of disability and special needs to consider.

This evaluation study suggests that when QF and stakeholders go the extra mile – as they did with the Sensory Room at Education City Stadium – the results are excellent. The study suggests, however, that other initiatives to support accessibility during the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™ had mixed results when seen from the perspective of the community of people with disabilities. It is therefore essential to engage people with disabilities as active partners in the planning and implementation of accessible places and spaces for inclusion.

To address the needs of people with disabilities and their families, QF should develop a plan of action to evaluate and address the recommendations outlined in this evaluation study report. The plan should be developed by the Accessibility Task Force and will identify

priority areas of intervention, such as promoting accessible design; working to reduce stigma; strengthening systems to better support the community of people with disabilities; and regular data collection, evaluation, and reporting on progress towards results in the medium and long term. Such actions will allow us to demonstrate how and why we have addressed the needs of people with disabilities and all people in the Education City community, and to use this experience to implement policies that can be applied in Qatar beyond Education City.

The community is fortunate to have the resources available through Education City. The next step is to ensure that resources are used to the benefit of everyone in the community, including people with specific needs.

Aasen, G., & Nærland, T. (2014). “Enhancing activity by means of tactile symbols: A study of a heterogeneous group of pupils with congenital blindness, intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder.” Journal of Intellectual Disabilities, 18 (1), 61–75.

Abbott, S., & McConkey, R. (2006). “The barriers to social inclusion as perceived by people with intellectual disabilities.” Journal of intellectual disabilities, 10 (3), 275-287.

Albrecht, J., Elmose-Østerlund, K., Klenk, C., & Nagel, S. (2019). “Sports clubs as a medium for integrating people with disabilities.” European Journal for Sport and Society, 16 (2), 88-110.

AlHarahsheh, S., et al. (2022). Making sports accessible for all: The time to act is now. Doha, Qatar: World Innovation Summit for Health, 2022

Asunta, P., Rintala, P., Pochstein, F., Lyyra, N., & McConkey, R. (2021). “The Development and Initial Validation of a Short, Self-Report Measure on Social Inclusion for People with Intellectual Disabilities: A Transnational Study.” International journal of environmental research and public health, 18 (5), 2540.

Bailey, R. (2005). “Evaluating the relationship between physical education, sport and social inclusion.” Educational review, 57 (1), 71-90.

Bigby, C., Anderson, S., & Cameron, N. (2018). Designing effective support for community participation for people with intellectual disabilities.

Borade, N., Ingle, A., & Nagarkar, A. (2021). “Lived experiences of people with mobility-related disability using assistive devices.” Disability and Rehabilitation: Assistive Technology, 16(7), 730-734.

Carnemolla, P., Robinson, S., & Lay, K. (2021). “Towards inclusive cities and social sustainability: A scoping review of initiatives to support the inclusion of people with intellectual disability in civic and social activities.” City, Culture and Society, 25, 100398.

Chen, C. H., & Shu, B. C. (2012). “The process of perceiving stigmatization: Perspectives from Taiwanese young people with intellectual disability.” Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 25 (3), 240-251.

Crabtree, S. A. (2007). “Family responses to the social inclusion of children with developmental disabilities in the United Arab Emirates.” Disability & Society, 22 (1), 49-62.

Craig, D., & Bigby, C. (2015). “’She’s been involved in everything as far as I can see’: Supporting the active participation of people with intellectual disability in community groups.” Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 40 (1), 12-25.

El Akoum, M., Moors, N., Thompson, D., Moignard, R., & Bates, K. (2022). “Road to Success: Lessons from the Qatar Foundation Ability Friendly Program.” BMJ Innovations, bmjinnov-2021.

Grady, J. M. (2006). Toward an understanding of the needs of sport spectators with disabilities. The Florida State University.

Grandisson, M., Tétreault, S., & Freeman, A. R. (2012). “Enabling integration in sports for adolescents with intellectual disabilities.” Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 25 (3), 217-230.

Hagiliassis, N., et al. (2014). “Measuring social inclusion of people with intellectual disability in Australia: Initial evidence about a new tool.” Australian Society for Intellectual Disability.

Hall, H. R. (2012). “Families of children with autism: Behaviors of children, community support and coping.” Issues in comprehensive pediatric nursing, 35 (2), 111-132.

Hedlund Lindberg, M., Samuelsson, M., Perseius, K. I., & Björkdahl, A. (2019). “The experiences of patients in using sensory rooms in psychiatric inpatient care.” International journal of mental health nursing 28 (4), 930-939.

Hepperlen, R. A., Biggs, J., Mwandileya, W., Rabaey, P., Ngulube, E., & Hearst, M. O. (2021). “Using community-based interventions to reduce public stigma of children with disabilities: A feasibility study.” Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 34 (6), 1499-1510.

Hneider, M., & Suich, H. (2021). “Measuring disability inclusion: feasibility of using existing multidimensional poverty data in South Africa.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18 (9), 4431.

Kalimullin, A. M., Kuvaldina, E. A., & Koinova-Zoellner, J. (2016). “Adolescents’ Self-Regulation Development via the Sensory Room System.” International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11 (5), 663-671.

Lau, J. T. F., & Cheung, C. K. (1999). “Discriminatory attitudes to people with intellectual disability or mental health difficulty.” International Social Work, 42 (4), 431-444.

Luther, E. H., Canham, D. L., & Cureton, V. Y. (2005). “Coping and social support for parents of children with autism.” The Journal of School Nursing, 21 (1), 40-47.

McConkey, R., Peng, C., Merritt, M., & Shellard, A. (2019). “The meaning of social inclusion to players with and without intellectual disability in unified sports teams.” Inclusion, 7 (4), 234-243.

Joint Program Armenia Equal Participation - Multi-Partner Trust Fund Office (1 January –30 June 2007) Stronger Services for Equal Participation and Inclusive Development. United Nations Development Program and UNICEF

Nagel, M. S., Grady, J. M., & Graham, P. J. “Understanding the Needs of Spectators with Disabilities Attending Sporting Events.” Journal of Venue and Entertainment Management, 4(2).

Paramio-Salcines, J. L., Kitchin, P. J., & Downs, P. (2018). “Promoting accessibility for disabled and older fans to European stadia: A holistic journey-sequence approach (HOPES).” In Managing Sport Business (pp. 530-560). Routledge, New York.

Paramio-Salcines, Juan & Buraimo, Babatunde. (2011). Promoting Accessibility for fans with disabilities to European stadia and arenas. An holistic journey sequence approach. Routledge, New York.

Scior, K., et al. (2020). “Intellectual disability stigma and initiatives to challenge it and promote inclusion around the globe.” Journal of policy and practice in intellectual disabilities, 17(2), 165-175.

Simplican, S. C., Leader, G., Kosciulek, J., & Leahy, M. (2015). “Defining social inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: An ecological model of social networks and community participation.” Research in developmental disabilities, 38, 18-29.

Spaaij, R., Magee, J., & Jeanes, R. (2014). Sport and social exclusion in global society. Routledge, New York.

Spyhalski, M. C. (2019). Program evaluation of the impact of sensory room activities on student readiness in Muskegon County. Education. 3. https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/ot_education/3

Stephenson, J., & Carter, M. (2011). “The use of multisensory environments in schools for students with severe disabilities: Perceptions from teachers.” Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 23(4), 339-357.

Tétreault, S., Blais-Michaud, S., Marier Deschênes, P., Beaupré, P., Gascon, H., Boucher, N., & Carrière, M. (2014). “How to support families of children with disabilities? An exploratory study of social support services.” Child & Family Social Work, 19 (3), 272-281.

UNICEF Armenia (2022). Case Study: Building an Ecosystem to Support Assistive Technology Access in Armenia

Wilson, N. J., Jaques, H., Johnson, A., & Brotherton, M. L. (2017). “From social exclusion to supported inclusion: Adults with intellectual disability discuss their lived experiences of a structured social group.” Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 30 (5), 847-858