project unify year 6 final evaluation report 2013 – …...6 ii. evaluation design a. overview the...
TRANSCRIPT
Project UNIFY Year 6 Final Evaluation Report 2013 – 2014 Holly Jacobs Caroline Martin Avery Albert Lauren Summerill Gary N. Siperstein Center for Social Development and Education University of Massachusetts Boston
2
Table of Contents I. Description of Project UNIFY .................................................................................................. 3 II. Evaluation Design .................................................................................................................... 6
A. Overview .................................................................................................................................. 6 B. Participants, Methods, Procedures ......................................................................................... 7
III. Project UNIFY in the Schools: Year 6 .................................................................................... 12 A. Implementation of Project UNIFY in Schools ........................................................................ 15
1. Project UNIFY Activities ......................................................................................................... 15
2. Planning, Implementation, and Support ............................................................................... 17
3. Communication ..................................................................................................................... 20
4. Future Growth and Development ......................................................................................... 21
B. Unified Youth Leadership Clubs............................................................................................. 22 C. At-Risk Urban Schools ............................................................................................................ 26
1. Scope and Implementation in At-Risk Urban Schools ........................................................... 27
2. Challenges in Implementing Project UNIFY in At-Risk Urban Schools ................................... 28
D. Summary of Project UNIFY in the Schools: Year 6 ................................................................. 33 IV. Value and Impact of Project UNIFY ...................................................................................... 35
A. Value to and Impact on the School ....................................................................................... 35 B. Value to and Impact on Students without Disabilities .......................................................... 39
1. Project UNIFY’s Impact on Students’ Self-Reported Interactions with their Peers with
Disabilities .............................................................................................................................. 41
2. Perceptions of School Social Inclusion and Attitudes toward Classroom Inclusion .............. 43
3. Students’ Positive Experiences as a Result of Participation in Project UNIFY ....................... 51
4. Summary of Value to Students without Disabilities .............................................................. 53
C. Value to Students with Disabilities ........................................................................................ 54 1. School Descriptions................................................................................................................ 55 2. The School Experiences of Students with Disabilities ........................................................... 58 3. Project UNIFY Experiences of Students with Disabilities ....................................................... 62 4. Summary ................................................................................................................................ 65
V. Conclusions and Recommendations..................................................................................... 67 VI. Implications and Future Directions ...................................................................................... 72 Appendix A: State-level data tables and demographics Appendix B: Control Trial of Project UNIFY selection procedures Appendix C: Student Experience Survey selection procedures and survey instruments Appendix D: Model Project UNIFY program criteria Appendix E: Special Olympics Year 6 guidelines Appendix F: School factor rationale Appendix G: High School Transition Survey
3
I. Description of Project UNIFY
For the past six years, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), as part of the National Youth Activation
Demonstration, has funded Special Olympics International (SOI) to allocate funds to State Special
Olympics (SO) Programs for Project UNIFY, a school-based program which brings youth with and without
intellectual disabilities (ID) together through sports and awareness activities. The specific objectives of
Project UNIFY are: 1) to create school communities of acceptance where students with ID feel welcome
and are routinely included in, and feel a part of, all school activities, opportunities, and functions; 2) to
communicate the value of Special Olympics as a community partner that offers programming to schools
that benefits all students; and 3) to promote positive attitudes among students without disabilities
toward their peers with ID. Project UNIFY’s stated purpose is to activate youth to develop school
communities where all young people are agents of change—fostering respect, dignity and advocacy for
people with ID by utilizing the existing programs of Special Olympics, as well as new, student-led
initiatives. For years, SOI has recognized the role that youth play in achieving long-term societal goals of
acceptance and inclusion. Project UNIFY is built upon the premise that in order to have the greatest
impact, the change process needs to start with young people. SOI views youth as “powerful and
effective advocates … open-minded to new things” and as having “the courage of conviction to step up
and defend their beliefs.”1 For this reason, SOI considers young people to be some of the most powerful
and effective advocates for social inclusion and acceptance. In keeping with this belief, Project UNIFY
aims to foster youth leadership, providing youth with opportunities to have a voice and to take on
active, leading roles in their schools and beyond.
Project UNIFY has been planned and implemented at three levels since the program was first launched
in 2008—the national level, including collaborations with national education organizations and the
formation of a National Education Leaders Network (NELN) as well as a national Youth Activation
Committee (YAC) of youth leaders; the state level, made up of the State SO Programs and state-level
Education Leaders Networks (ELNs) and YACs; and the school level, made up of the individual schools
within states. Since its inception, Project UNIFY at the school level has incorporated a number of
different SO initiatives, which can be implemented in various combinations to advance the goal of
creating school communities of acceptance and inclusion. The initiatives that make up Project UNIFY
school-level programming are grouped under three main components:
1) Inclusive Sports—opportunities which combine individuals with intellectual disabilities (athletes) and
individuals without intellectual disabilities (partners) on sports teams for training and competition
and/or skill development;
2) Youth Leadership and Advocacy—opportunities for youth with and without intellectual disabilities to
become agents of change by providing direction and helping lead the implementation of Project UNIFY
in their schools, community and state; and
1 Special Olympics International, “Get Your Friends or School Involved,” http://www.specialolympics.org/Sections/What_We_Do/Project_Unify/Youth_and_Schools.aspx.
4
3) Whole School Engagement—opportunities for the entire student body to participate in and/or be a
part of Project UNIFY.
In Year 6, as in past years, SOI acknowledged there are two types of schools implementing Project
UNIFY: those just beginning Project UNIFY (“Emerging Project UNIFY” schools – Category 2) and those
that have reached a point where they are able to implement more comprehensive Project UNIFY
programming (“Project UNIFY” schools – Category 1). A Category 1 school implements initiatives that
address each of the three main components of Project UNIFY (Inclusive Sports, Youth Leadership and
Advocacy, Whole School Engagement), while a Category 2 school implements the Inclusive Sports
component and one of the other two components. Along with defined Category 1 and 2 designations,
SOI has provided increasingly prescribed school-level guidelines for State SO Programs over the last two
years regarding what types of activities should be carried out in the schools to maximize the impact of
the program on the students involved (see Appendix E for information on SOI’s Year 6 guidelines). This
has provided both State SO Programs and schools with a clearer picture of how to combine initiatives to
create robust Project UNIFY programs.
To gather information about Project UNIFY in the spirit of continuous improvement, SOI has partnered
with the Center for Social Development and Education (CSDE) at the University of Massachusetts Boston
for the purpose of evaluating the program. For each of the past six years, CSDE has conducted an
extensive evaluation of Project UNIFY at the State SO Program, school, and student levels, focused on
understanding what Project UNIFY looks like in practice and how it impacts those involved. The
evaluation has been critical, as the results have contributed to the ongoing refinement and
enhancement of Project UNIFY. Each year, the evaluation has produced findings that have helped guide
the developmental course of Project UNIFY by aiding SOI in the continued development and adjustment
of goals, guidelines, and tools. Evaluation results over the years have continued to show that providing
students without disabilities with opportunities for participation in Project UNIFY programming,
especially well-rounded programming drawn from all three components, has the greatest impact in
terms of what students take away from the experience and the interactions they have with their fellow
students with disabilities. Specifically, past evaluations have documented that students without
disabilities who were involved in a Whole School Engagement activity, an Inclusive Sports activity, and
had the opportunity to take on an inclusive leadership role, took more away from their experience than
those students who participated in only the Whole School Engagement component. It is clear that
Project UNIFY has the greatest impact on and value to students when they are engaged in all aspects of
the program, including multiple whole school activities. Therefore, it is best to view Project UNIFY not as
just its individual parts (i.e., one component versus two components, or any specific component
individually) but as the combination and sum of these parts (see Figure 1).
5
Figure 1. Diagram of the relationship between Project UNIFY components
It is the unification of the separate Project UNIFY components that is central to the program’s mission
and has the greatest impact on schools and students. As SOI continues to refine and clarify guidelines for
implementing programming, a better elucidation as to how each component builds on the other, and
the different roles each component contributes to the overall impact and value, should be central to the
evolution of Project UNIFY in the coming years. As such, beyond describing Project UNIFY and the level
of programming being implemented across the country, the Year 6 evaluation took a focused look at the
value and impact of Project UNIFY in schools with strong Project UNIFY programs, aimed to document
how the majority of schools fulfill the Youth Leadership and Engagement component, and also began
the Control Trial of Project UNIFY to definitively document the value and impact of Project UNIFY when
all three components are implemented in a coordinated, unified way. The Year 6 evaluation both
complements and supplements additional Special Olympics Project UNIFY research objectives that
examine school environments and social inclusion in schools.
Youth Leadership and Advocacy
Project UNIFY
Inclusive Sports
Whole School Engagement
6
II. Evaluation Design
A. Overview
The Year 6 evaluation of Project UNIFY had several objectives, including an examination of how Project
UNIFY was implemented in all schools, with an emphasis on assessing the differences in Project UNIFY
programming taking place across schools. This included a more focused look than past years at the
challenges, successes and implementation strategies in at-risk schools in urban areas, schools in the first
year of Project UNIFY implementation, and Category 1 schools. In addition, building on what was
learned in previous years, a continued emphasis was also placed on documenting the value of Project
UNIFY to schools and students. This objective was expanded in Year 6 to better assess the reach and
impact of Project UNIFY in schools by surveying students in schools with strong Project UNIFY programs,
and the evaluation continued to capture the voice of students with disabilities participating in Project
UNIFY. In addition, the evaluation took an in-depth look at inclusive youth leadership in Inclusive Clubs
(Unified Youth Leadership Clubs) and began to examine the lasting impact of Project UNIFY on
graduating seniors (see Appendix G). Using these objectives as a guide, the Year 6 evaluation was
designed to address the following questions:
1. What was the scope of Project UNIFY programming in schools?
How many schools implemented all three components in Year 6?
What activities were most commonly carried out?
How was Project UNIFY implemented in schools in their first year of programming?
How is this different than schools who have been implementing the program for
several years?
What do Unified Youth Leadership Clubs look like?
What does the implementation of Project UNIFY look like in at-risk schools in urban
areas?
What are the challenges for the liaison in implementing the program in these
schools?
What are the challenges for the State Program in implementing the program in
these schools?
2. What is the value and impact of Project UNIFY?
What is the impact of Project UNIFY on participating students without disabilities?
How does Project UNIFY influence their perceptions of social inclusion in the
school and their attitudes toward classroom inclusion?
What do students report about their personal growth and development as a
result of participating in Project UNIFY?
What is the impact of Project UNIFY on participating students with disabilities?
What are the school and social experiences of these students in Project UNIFY
schools?
7
What is the impact of Project UNIFY on schools?
What are the liaisons’ perceptions of the value of Project UNIFY?
What does penetration of programming look like across schools?
What does social inclusion look like across schools?
What is the long-term impact of Project UNIFY on participating students with and
without disabilities?
What are the perceptions of graduating seniors?
How does Project UNIFY impact students’ choices and plans for their future
(e.g., career, education)?
The evaluation methodology utilized in Year 6 retained many of the features of previous evaluations in
that once again information was collected about Project UNIFY from multiple sources. In Year 6, this
included State SO Program staff, school liaisons2, other school staff, students with and without
disabilities, and parents. The evaluation methodology included a mix of qualitative and quantitative data
collection such as large-scale surveys, site visits, and one-on-one and group interviews. This multi-
method, multi-source design aimed to document the value and benefit of Project UNIFY for all
constituents, particularly students and schools. The following methods section will describe the
participants, instruments employed, and the evaluation procedures.
B. Participants, Methods, Procedures3
State SO Program Staff
Project UNIFY State Staff Survey
In Year 6, 45 State SO Programs applied for and received Project UNIFY funding (AZ, AR, CO, CT, DE, DC,
FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, NoCal,
OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SoCal, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WI, WY). One staff member from each of the State SO
Programs, identified as the person most knowledgeable about Project UNIFY activities in the state,
participated in the evaluation. Data were received from all 45 State SO Programs.
The evaluation for State SO Program Staff consisted of an online survey in the spring of 2014, after most
Project UNIFY programming had been completed and/or planned. An online survey link for the Project
UNIFY State Staff Survey was emailed in late April 2014, and SO staff were given until the beginning of
June 2014 to complete the survey. Reminder emails were sent to respondents during the field period.
The purpose of the Project UNIFY State Staff Survey was to assess how State Programs support and
communicate with the Project UNIFY schools in their state. The 93-item online survey, adapted and
expanded from the instrument used in Year 5, collected information about the management of Project
2 The liaison is the person responsible for the implementation of Project UNIFY activities that take place in the school. 3 For a table of how many respondents participated in each evaluation activity in Year 6, please see Appendix A: Table A1
8
UNIFY at the state level, communication with schools and other State Program staff, work with youth
and the educational community, and questions about the sustainability of programming.
Phone Interviews
In addition to surveying State SO staff, three State SO Programs (District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, and
Michigan) took part in an initiative to better understand Project UNIFY programming in at-risk, urban
settings. Two staff members from each Program were interviewed over the phone about challenges at-
risk urban schools face in implementing Project UNIFY and challenges the State SO Program has in
recruiting and supporting such schools.
Liaisons
Project UNIFY Liaison Survey
School liaisons were identified for the Project UNIFY Liaison Survey with the assistance of State SO
Programs. State Programs were asked to provide a complete list of participating schools in their state,
along with contact information for each of the designated school liaisons. SOI submitted these lists to
the evaluation team in late February 2014. Contact information was provided to the evaluation team for
2,545 schools.4 Of the 2,545 schools initially contacted to participate in the evaluation, 1,509 liaisons
satisfactorily completed the survey (59% response rate). While this is the largest number of liaisons to
ever respond to the survey the response rate for this evaluation activity has consistently been below
two thirds (66%) of liaisons. See Appendix A: Table A2 for liaison response rate by state and see
Appendix A: Table A3 for liaison demographic information.
An online survey link for the Project UNIFY Liaison Survey was emailed to liaisons in early April 2014 and
liaisons were given until the beginning of June 2014 to complete the survey. Bi-weekly, and later weekly
reminder emails were sent out to respondents during the field period. State SO Programs were also
given bi-weekly updates alerting them of the response rates for the liaisons in their state. State
Programs were encouraged to follow up with liaisons who had yet to complete the survey.
The purpose of the Project UNIFY Liaison Survey was to assess the scope of Project UNIFY at the school
level. The 122-item online survey was used to collect information about the initiatives that took place
during the 2013-2014 school year as part of Project UNIFY, the people involved in program planning and
implementation, collaboration with the State SO Program, the value of Project UNIFY to the school and
students, and questions about the future growth of Project UNIFY programming in the school. This
survey was adapted and expanded from that administered in Year 5.
In-Person Interviews
During May 2014, site visits were conducted at 14 schools participating in a more extensive portion of
the Year 6 evaluation. Three of the 14 schools implemented Project UNIFY in Year 6 and were randomly
4 The list used for Southern California was incomplete due to missing liaison contact information.
9
selected from a list of model Project UNIFY programs in Colorado, Michigan, and North Carolina5 (see
Appendix D for information about model programming). Liaisons at these three schools participated in
in-person interviews designed to gather more information about successful Project UNIFY programs,
how they were implemented, and how they impacted students and the school. The remaining 11
schools visited are taking part in the Control Trial of Project UNIFY6 (see Appendix B for information
about the school selection procedures for the Control Trial of Project UNIFY). Liaisons from these 11
schools participated in in-person interviews to collect teacher perspectives on inclusion and student
experiences. This information will be used to contextualize student interview data also collected during
the site visits (see Section IV.C).
Phone Interviews
State SO Program staff in the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania and Michigan identified at-risk urban
schools implementing Project UNIFY in Year 6. Liaisons at four at-risk urban schools (2 middle, 2 high) in
DC, Philadelphia, Detroit and Lansing participated in phone interviews between late May 2014 and early
July 2014, depending on the availability of the liaison. The purpose of these interviews was to gain a
better understanding of the unique challenges at-risk urban schools face in implementing Project UNIFY.
School Staff
In-Person Interviews
Sixty-eight school staff members, consisting of administrators, special and general education teachers,
athletic staff, and counseling/guidance staff, were interviewed in-person at the 14 high schools that
participated in the May 2014 site visits. The purpose of these interviews was to gather information
about students’ experiences, inclusive school practices, and the impact and value of Project UNIFY (in
the three Project UNIFY schools).
Phone Interviews
Two additional school staff members were interviewed during the data collection period. The first was
the principal of one of the schools involved in the Control Trial of Project UNIFY. This school was not able
to participate in the site visit due to staff turnover and unknown staffing changes during the site visit
period, so a phone interview was conducted. The purpose of this phone interview was to gather
information about students’ experiences and inclusive school practices. The second phone interview
was conducted with the principal from one of the four schools involved in the at-risk urban schools
initiative. The purpose of this interview was to contextualize information gathered from the liaison at
the school.
5 Colorado, Michigan, and North Carolina are the State Programs participating in the Control Trial of Project UNIFY, set to begin in Year 7. 6 There are 12 schools participating in the Control Trial of Project UNIFY, however one school was not able to accommodate a site visit during the travel period, therefore 11 schools were visited in May 2014.
10
Students
Student Experience Survey
The Student Experience Survey was administered in 23 schools (7 elementary/middle schools, 16 high
schools), from 8 states (AZ, CO, IL, MI, NC, OK, RI, SC; see Appendix C for information about the student
survey procedures). These 8 states were chosen based on a high proportion of their schools having
model Project UNIFY programs (see Appendix D for further information about model Project UNIFY
programming). The 23 schools were chosen randomly from the list of schools that met this model
Project UNIFY program criteria in Year 5. All schools had participated in Project UNIFY prior to Year 6.
A total of 3,945 students participated in the survey (see Appendix C for student selection procedures).
After data collection, and upon further examination of the schools and the samples, one school was
dropped from data analysis due to an inability to verify the level of implementation at the school, one
school was dropped because the Project UNIFY liaison did not complete the Project UNIFY Liaison
Survey, one school was dropped because Project UNIFY did not happen at the school in Year 6, and one
additional school was dropped because the sample was not representative. Data from 3,197 students
across 19 schools (14 high schools and 5 middle schools) were analyzed. Twenty eight percent (28%) of
the students were in the middle schools and 72% were in the high schools.7 Males and females were
equally represented across the entire sample (48% and 52%, respectively), and the majority of the
students were white (63%), followed by Hispanic/Latino (23%) and Black/African American (19%). See
Appendix A: Table A4 for additional student demographic information.
The 34-item paper and pencil Scantron® survey was administered by school personnel during selected
class periods. The goal of the Student Experience Survey was to assess student-level Project UNIFY
factors, including information about inclusion, student attitudes towards peers with disabilities,
participation in Project UNIFY, and personal growth and development from such participation (see
Appendix C for information about instruments used as part of the Student Experience Survey).
High School Transition Survey
An online link for the High School Transition Survey was emailed to several groups of senior high school
Project UNIFY participants: seniors from the 23 schools that completed the Student Experience Survey;
seniors participating in the National Youth Activation Committee; and several seniors from the May
2014 site visits. A total of 30 high school seniors completed the survey, including 19 students without
disabilities and 11 students with disabilities.
The 56-item online survey assessed students’ level of involvement in Project UNIFY, their social
interactions during high school, as well as future plans and career goals. Students from high schools in
14 states responded to the survey. The majority of students (70%) were 18 years old, and there were
twice as many female respondents as males (63% and 37%, respectively). For an explanation of the
findings of the High School Transition Survey, please see Appendix G.
7 One high school contained grades 7-12.
11
In-Person Interviews
Seventy-nine students with a disability and 64 students without a disability were interviewed in-person
at the 14 high schools that participated in the May 2014 site visits. The purpose of these interviews was
to gather information about their school experience, inclusion, and Project UNIFY participation (in the
three Project UNIFY schools). Where possible, telephone interviews were conducted with parents of
students with disabilities to contextualize what was learned from their children during the site visits.
12
III. Project UNIFY in the Schools: Year 6
To examine the school-level implementation of Project UNIFY, the evaluation again relied on the reports
of the school liaisons. This included an examination of the extent to which schools implemented
programming that aligned with SOI’s guidelines (see Appendix E), as well as a documentation of the
specific initiatives that took place in each school. Since liaisons are the most intimately involved in
Project UNIFY implementation at the school level, the information they provide has been key to fully
understanding the breadth of Project UNIFY as it occurs across all schools.
When considering the implementation of Project UNIFY across schools there was, as expected, variation
in how schools implemented the program. It has become more evident over the years, as Project UNIFY
and its evaluation have matured, that individual school factors and characteristics influence
programming. The Year 6 evaluation examined several of these factors, such as school level
(elementary, middle, or high), whether the school implemented all three components (Category 1), or
whether the school was new to Project UNIFY.8 The following sections will take an in-depth look at
Project UNIFY programming (e.g., implementation, youth leadership, operational processes, and future
growth), including whether and how these individual school factors and characteristics come into play.
This information not only provides a broad picture of how Project UNIFY was implemented nationally in
Year 6, but also how schools build and design their programming to fit their unique needs, and how
Project UNIFY has grown and developed over the course of the last six years.
Overall, information was available on 1,509 schools9 participating in Project UNIFY in Year 6. As
described previously (see Section I), the Year 6 guidelines provided to State Programs house Project
UNIFY activities within three core components:
1) Inclusive Sports—Unified Sports10, Young Athletes, or Special Olympics/Unified Sports Day;
2) Youth Leadership and Advocacy11—Unified Youth Leadership Club, Youth Leadership Training, Special
Olympics Youth Summit, or Youth Activation Committee (YAC); and
3) Whole School Engagement—the R-Word Campaign/Spread the Word to End the Word Day/Project
UNIFY Rally, Get Into It, Fans in the Stands/Unified Sports Pep Rally, or Fundraising
See Table 1 for the percentage of schools implementing each Project UNIFY component.
8 For information on the rationale behind selecting these factors, including how they were defined and analyzed, see Appendix F. 9 The Liaison Survey was sent to 2,545 schools, which represents a 59% response rate. 10 Unified Sports includes Unified PE. 11 Though not a Project UNIFY activity in and of itself, schools where Project UNIFY activities were planned and/or implemented mainly by students were also considered to have the Youth Leadership and Advocacy component.
13
Table 1. Percentage of schools implementing each Project UNIFY component
Project UNIFY Component All Schools
n=1,509
Whole School Engagement 79%
Inclusive Sports 70%
Youth Leadership and Advocacy 63%
In addition to grouping activities and initiatives into the three components, the ways in which liaisons
were expected to incorporate activities from these three areas differed for Category 1 and Category 2
schools. Category 1 schools were expected to incorporate activities from each of the three components
while Category 2 schools were expected to incorporate the Inclusive Sports component and one of the
other two components. There was continued emphasis in Year 6 for liaisons to strive for Category 1
status and incorporate activities from all three components. Considering the total sample of 1,509
schools for which data were available in Year 6, just under half (43%) met the Category 1 criteria, and a
fifth of schools (19%) met the Category 2 criteria, leaving just over a third of schools (38%) that did not
meet criteria for either category. This looks somewhat different than the categorization of schools from
Year 5, where 44% of schools were Category 1, 40% of schools were Category 2, and 16% were “no
category designation.” It is important to note in Year 6 that meeting the criteria for Category 1 or 2
status was more difficult than in past years, which is likely why a large proportion of schools could not
be categorized. Namely, in order to meet the criteria for either category the Inclusive Sports component
had to be implemented, which shifted many schools that would have been considered at least Category
2 in the past to “no category designation” in Year 6. In fact, 36% of “no category designation” schools
(208 of 571 schools) implemented the Youth Leadership and Advocacy and Whole School Engagement
components, but not the Inclusive Sports component (i.e., they implemented two of the three
components and would have been considered a Category 2 school in the past). See Figure 2 for more
information on the components implemented in “no category designation” schools.
It should be noted that category designations and criteria were created to enable SOI to quantify the
activities of new schools joining Project UNIFY and track their progress toward full implementation of
the program. Category 2 status has always required a minimum standard of activities and components
and a maximum time frame of three years, at which point a school must be fully implementing Project
UNIFY and all of its components (a Category 1 school). This system allowed the most flexibility within the
prescribed guidelines to ensure all schools had a starting point for implementing programming, while
also setting parameters to help move schools forward over time. However, this system does not quite
meet the needs of new and emerging schools, which represent nearly a quarter (22%) of schools in Year
6, as the data have shown that more established Project UNIFY schools implement more activities and
components compared to new Project UNIFY schools. As such, a temporal-based category system may
be more appropriate in meeting the needs of the most schools, particularly schools new to Project
UNIFY.
14
In addition to the Inclusive Sports requirement, Inclusive Clubs qualified as part of the Youth Leadership
and Advocacy component only if they contained youth leadership elements (i.e., Unified Youth
Leadership Club).12 The Year 6 evaluation was able to determine which Inclusive Clubs contained youth
leadership elements or had a youth leadership focus, which differed from past years where liaisons
answered questions about “Partner’s Club” but the data collected did not allow for confirmation that
the Partner’s Club included a youth leadership element. Thus, in Year 6, in addition to Youth Leadership
Training, Special Olympics Youth Summit, YAC, or Project UNIFY activities planned and/or implemented
mainly by students, only schools with a Unified Youth Leadership Club met the Youth Leadership and
Advocacy component criteria. See Figure 2 for a breakdown of implementation within the different
components, and see Appendix A: Table A5 for the percentage of schools in each category in each State
Program. For more information about Unified Youth Leadership Clubs, see Section III.B.
Figure 2. Percentage of schools classified as Category 1 and Category 2
As expected, more schools that have been implementing Project UNIFY for at least three years
(Established schools) met Category 1 status compared to New schools (55% and 40%, respectively).13
Though only half of Established schools were Category 1, it is evident that over time schools do add to
their programming (most commonly Inclusive Clubs and/or Unified Youth Leadership Clubs, Unified
Sports, Fans in the Stands, Fundraising, Youth Summit, and YAC), becoming more robust and working
toward implementing all three components. Furthermore, twice as many high schools and middle
schools were Category 1 schools than elementary schools (54%, 47%, and 23%, respectively),
highlighting how much of an impact the developmental level of students has on what is implemented.
Given the age and developmental level of students in elementary schools this finding is not surprising
12 At times this report presents information on Inclusive Clubs in general (clubs with both students with and without disabilities as members) and specifically about Unified Youth Leadership Clubs (a type of Inclusive Club with a focus on youth leadership), as this club qualifies as part of the Youth Leadership and Advocacy component. 13 22% (332) of the overall sample of 1,509 liaisons were verified as New schools in Year 6, and 30% (458) were verified as Established (having three or more years of Liaison Survey data). The remaining 48% of schools were not included in analyses comparing New and Established schools because they either could not be verified as New, or they did not have enough data to be considered Established.
43%
19%
38%
Category 1 Category 2 No Category Designation
36%
44%
20%
2 components: Youth Leadership and Advocacy and WholeSchool Engagement
1 component: Inclusive Sports or Youth Leadership andAdvocacy or Whole School Engagement
No Project UNIFY components
15
since activities in the Youth Leadership and Advocacy component are more easily adaptable at the upper
grade levels, and teachers (and State SO Program staff) may be more familiar with leadership activities
for older age groups. Thus, elementary schools are less likely to meet Category 1 status, as currently
defined, than schools with older student participants.
A. Implementation of Project UNIFY in Schools
1. Project UNIFY Activities
When examining Project UNIFY programming in terms of the activities implemented across all 1,509
schools, schools implemented an average of four (out of a possible 12) Project UNIFY activities in Year 6.
The most common activities, as in past years, were Unified Sports, the R-Word Campaign, and Inclusive
Clubs/Unified Youth Leadership Clubs. Interestingly, implementing these three activities is the way in
which the majority of schools implement all three components. See Appendix A: Table A6 for the
percentage of schools in each State Program that implemented each activity.
As in past years, elementary, middle, and high schools implemented different Project UNIFY activities, as
did Category 1 and 2 schools. For instance, Young Athletes is a program specifically for children age 2-7;
therefore, it is unsurprising this was the most implemented activity at the elementary school level.
Furthermore, given the developmental level of students in elementary schools compared to middle and
high schools, more middle and high schools implemented the core Project UNIFY activities, such as
Unified Sports (42% elementary; 65% middle; 69% high), R-Word Campaign (42% elementary; 66%
middle; 66% high), and Unified Youth Leadership Club (25% elementary; 49% middle; 51% high). It is
important to keep in mind that some activities are more adaptable at certain grade levels, and that the
school itself (e.g., its student body, staff, inclusive practices, etc.), may influence what activities are
implemented based on what fits best within the school. See Table 2 for more information about Project
UNIFY activities among school levels.
16
Table 2. Percentage of schools that implemented each Project UNIFY activity by school level
Project UNIFY Activity All Schools
n=1,509 Elementary
n=448 Middle n=260
High n=707
Unified Sports 59% 42% 65% 69%
R-Word Campaign 59% 42% 66% 66%
Unified Youth Leadership Club (Inclusive Clubs)
42% (59%)
25% (48%)
49% (70%)
51% (64%)
Fundraising 40% 27% 39% 44%
Fans in the Stand/Unified Sports Pep Rally 38% 21% 35% 51%
Get Into It Educational Resources 29% 24% 21% 25%
Special Olympics/Unified Sports Day 25% 32% 42% 25%
Young Athletes Participants 19% 48% 5% 7%
Young Athletes Volunteers 19% 33% 10% 12%
Youth Leadership Training 18% 7% 14% 37%
Special Olympics Youth Summit 16% 4% 15% 25%
Youth Activation Committee 14% 4% 8% 21%
Category 1 and 2 schools also implemented different activities. As expected, Category 1 schools
implemented all Project UNIFY activities (except Young Athletes) at a higher rate than Category 2
schools. Unified Sports, R-Word Campaign, and Inclusive Clubs were again the most implemented of all
activities across both categories. See Table 3 for more information about Project UNIFY activities among
the category designations. Slightly more than a third of schools (38%) did not meet criteria for either
category. In general, these schools implemented Project UNIFY activities to a lesser extent than
Category 1 or 2 schools. Importantly, many schools that would have been considered at least Category 2
in the past did not meet the criteria because the Inclusive Sports component was newly required for
meeting both Category 1 and 2 designations in Year 6. As Project UNIFY moves into Year 7, and program
guidelines become more explicit and well-rounded, it will be important for schools to be fully supported
in achieving these increased expectations and incorporating new requirements (such as Inclusive
Sports).
17
Table 3. Percentage of schools that implemented each Project UNIFY activity, by Category
Project UNIFY Activity All Schools
n=1,509 Category 1
n=654 Category 2
n=284
No Category Designation
n=571
Unified Sports 59% 92% 75% 13%
R-Word Campaign 59% 79% 45% 43%
Unified Youth Leadership Club (Inclusive Clubs)
42% (59%)
69% (80%)
13% (44%)
25% (42%)
Fundraising 40% 57% 29% 25%
Fans in the Stands/Unified Sports Pep Rally 38% 55% 34% 20%
Get Into It Educational Resources 29% 39% 28% 19%
Special Olympics/Unified Sports Day 25% 32% 24% 18%
Young Athletes Participants 19% 18% 42% 10%
Young Athletes Volunteers 19% 21% 30% 11%
Youth Leadership Training 18% 31% 2% 10%
Special Olympics Youth Summit 16% 29% 1% 8%
Youth Activation Committee 14% 25% 1% 6%
One area in which schools could be more supported is youth leadership training. Of note is the low
participation across schools in the youth leadership training activities (Youth Leadership Training, Special
Olympics Youth Summit, and Youth Activation Committee). These activities are designed to develop the
knowledge, skills, and disposition needed for students to be effective advocates and leaders, however
less than 20% of schools overall implemented each of these activities in Year 6. Given the nature of
these particular activities, which differ from the other more program-based activities, it is
understandable that fewer schools would implement a formalized youth leadership training program.
However, if students with and without disabilities are to become true leaders, SOI will need to further
assist State SO Programs and schools in offering and sustaining formal leadership training.
2. Planning, Implementation, and Support
To examine how Project UNIFY was carried out in schools, including the various parties involved in
planning and implementation, the evaluation once again relied on the reports of liaisons. In addition to
providing information about the breadth of Project UNIFY as it occurred across all schools, liaisons were
also in the best position to fully represent how Project UNIFY programming took place within schools.
Most liaisons (86%) indicated that they received help planning and/or implementing Project UNIFY. This
represents an increase from Year 5 where three-quarters of liaisons (75%) reported receiving help with
Project UNIFY. In Year 6, as in past years, liaisons who received assistance frequently reported that it
came from special education teachers (71%), which is not surprising given that the majority of liaisons
are special educators themselves. It is important to note that half (51%) of liaisons who received help
18
reported the assistance came from general education teachers, which remains similar to findings in Year
5 (45%), but does indicate a positive trend toward more involvement from the general education
community. This is encouraging given that past recommendations have highlighted the need for more
involvement from this group.
In addition to the help coming from teachers, nearly three-quarters (71%) of liaisons reported assistance
with Project UNIFY also frequently came from students. Consistent with past years, over two thirds
(69%) of liaisons reported help from students without disabilities and, encouragingly, half of liaisons
(49%) reported help from students with disabilities. See Table 4 for more information about assistance
with planning and implementing Project UNIFY. Interestingly, the amount of help that liaisons reported
from students differed depending on school level. Liaisons in high schools and middle schools were
markedly more likely than liaisons in elementary schools to report help from both students with (58%,
57%, and 31%, respectively) and without disabilities (81%, 76%, and 43%, respectively), which again
reflects the link between developmental level and student involvement since the Youth Leadership and
Advocacy activities are more easily adapted in middle and high schools. It should be noted that in Year 6
the first resource designed specifically for elementary schools was released. The resource, the Special
Olympics Club UNIFY toolkit, is designed to assist elementary school liaisons in introducing elementary
school students to Special Olympics and engage them in leadership, service learning, and building an
atmosphere of respect and trust.14 While the resource may not yet be widely used, it is a step in the
right direction for fostering inclusive youth leadership that is understood by all students.
Table 4. Percentage of liaisons who received help from the school community
School Community Member Planning and/or Implementing
n = 1,292
Special education teachers 71%
Students without disabilities 69%
Students with disabilities 49%
General education teachers 51%
School administrators 43%
Special Olympics staff 35%
Physical Education teachers 34%
Parents 25%
Adaptive PE teachers 18%
Above and beyond students assisting liaisons with planning and implementing Project UNIFY, one of the
goals of the program is to foster youth leaders, provide youth leadership opportunities, and allow
students to take responsibility for parts of the program. In Year 6, of the liaisons that reported receiving
help from students, the majority (58%) indicated that their school had Project UNIFY activities planned
14 For more information about Special Olympics Club UNIFY, please visit: http://www.specialolympics.org/educators/
19
and/or implemented mainly by the students (i.e., students took the lead in, or took primary
responsibility for the activity). Overall, the most common activity either planned or implemented mainly
by students was the R-Word Campaign. It is encouraging how many liaisons reported help from students
with and without disabilities in Year 6, including how many liaisons indicated students took the lead in
or took primary responsibility for Project UNIFY activities at their school (for more information about
students taking on leadership roles in Project UNIFY, please see Section III.B).
Not only did liaisons report direct help from the school community to plan and implement Project
UNIFY, but they also reported on the perceived support coming from the school community, where the
majority felt their school community was “very supportive.” However, they did perceive differences in
the level of support provided by different school personnel. For instance, many liaisons felt that school
administrators and special education teachers were “very supportive” (71% and 73%, respectively),
while only half (50%) viewed general education teachers as “very supportive.” It has become
increasingly evident through Special Olympics research objectives that supplement the annual
evaluation15 that more involvement from the school community is beneficial, especially in schools with
formalized Leadership Teams. As data from the Year 6 Project UNIFY Liaison Survey clearly indicate,
having assistance and support from more school staff, especially general education teachers, is
warranted, and SOI can support schools in achieving increased involvement by helping to form
Leadership Teams.
While having the help and support of the school community is important in implementing Project UNIFY,
liaisons also view other resources, such as time and funding, as necessary to implement the program. In
terms of the time available in schools to implement Project UNIFY, which is a resource dependent on
individual school factors, about half of liaisons felt they had as much time as they wanted (48%) and the
other half felt they had less time than they wanted (52%). As might be expected, liaisons from New and
Established schools differed in this respect. In terms of the time available in schools to implement
Project UNIFY, over half (53%) of liaisons from Established schools felt they had as much time as they
wanted, while only 39% of liaisons from New Project UNIFY schools felt the same. Given that time is an
entirely school-based resource, it is difficult to speculate which factor(s) influenced this difference.
However, it seems likely that as Project UNIFY becomes more ingrained in schools over the course of
several years, liaisons and school community members learn how to integrate programming into the
school and streamline the process, thus making the limited time they do have more productive.
Funding, unlike time, is at the discretion of each State Program. Some Programs maintain a purely
financial relationship with their schools, while others offer direct funds, in-kind funding, or other
services (e.g., transportation or uniforms). Interestingly, given the variation in whether and how
Programs fund schools, 40% of liaisons reported receiving funding or other resources from their State
SO Program. Of the liaisons who received funding or other resources, the majority (75%) were satisfied,
while those who indicated the funding or resources were less than they wanted (25%), reported they
15 Special Olympics work with the National School Climate Center, as well as the Lessons from the Field site visit report (http://media.specialolympics.org/soi/files/resources/Project_Unify/Social-InclusionLessons-FromtheField.pdf).
20
could use additional funding for transportation/travel expenses and equipment/materials (e.g., balls,
uniforms, shirts, etc.). Of note, a slightly greater percentage of Established schools reported receiving
funding or resources compared to New Project UNIFY schools (45% and 35%, respectively). However,
even more interesting is that New schools, though fewer reported receiving funding or resources from
the State SO Program, were more satisfied than Established schools (82% and 69%, respectively) with
the level of funding that they did receive (i.e., reported they received as much or more funding than
they wanted). This may be the result of fewer New schools implementing all three components in Year 6
compared to Established schools (40% and 55%, respectively), which could translate to less of a need for
funding when first beginning the program, thus any funding received is viewed as sufficient.
3. Communication
In an attempt to further the understanding of communication between and within stakeholders,
specifically school to State Program and school to school, the Year 6 evaluation expanded to capture the
nature, frequency, and methods of communication. It appears about half of liaisons communicated
regularly (i.e., at least once a month or more)16 with their State SO Program regarding state-level Project
UNIFY activities (44%) and about other Project UNIFY schools in their state (48%). Communication
between schools and Programs took many forms, including online resources (68%), trainings (53%; e.g.,
conferences, workshops, webinars, and conference calls), and/or site visits (41%) from the State
Program, with the majority of participating liaisons (between 85%-97%) reporting these to be helpful.
While some of these numbers could be viewed as less than desirable, it is important to note that
individual State Program factors, such as the number of Project UNIFY schools in the state and the
number of staff responsible for Project UNIFY within the State Program, could affect a Program’s ability
to conduct site visits and provide training opportunities.
Not unexpectedly, several differences in the communication between schools and their State Program
emerged among the differing types of schools. For example, liaisons from Category 1 schools more
frequently reported that their State Program offered trainings than did liaisons from Category 2 schools
(66% and 48%, respectively). Of those liaisons that reported trainings were offered, significantly more
liaisons from Category 1 schools reported participating in the trainings than did liaisons from Category 2
schools (59% and 41%, respectively). Furthermore, regarding site visits conducted by State Programs, a
greater percentage of liaisons from New schools (53%) reported having someone from their State SO
Program conduct a site visit at their school than did liaisons at Established schools (39%). This is
understandable, and perhaps even expected, as some State Programs may conduct site visits to New
schools in order to help establish their new relationship, demonstrate support for the school, and
facilitate the beginning of the Project UNIFY program.
In addition to communication with their State SO Program, liaisons also reported on their direct
communication with other Project UNIFY schools in their state, with 44% of liaisons overall reporting
16 State Programs are required to report to Special Olympics Project UNIFY at the national level on a monthly basis about schools in their state.
21
this type of communication. This type of communication was, in part, based on school level as well as
certain characteristics of the Project UNIFY program. For example, there was much more
communication among Project UNIFY high schools (54%) and middle schools (49%) than elementary
schools (28%). Furthermore, less than half of New schools (40%) and less than half of Category 2 schools
(40%) communicated with other Project UNIFY schools. Overall, communication with other Project
UNIFY schools did not happen as frequently as communication with State Programs.
4. Future Growth and Development
One of the advantages of Project UNIFY is its flexibility within the prescribed set of guidelines, which
allows liaisons to adapt the program year after year to best fit their school (i.e., adding, modifying, or
discontinuing activities). Thus, the Year 6 evaluation took a focused look at the future of Project UNIFY
programming across schools, with liaisons reporting how they plan to grow and develop their Project
UNIFY program and the strategies they plan to use. Overall, liaisons indicated they plan to make changes
to many of the activities over the next year. It appears, however, that liaisons do not plan to change the
sports activities at their schools as much as the other activities they offered. This may be because the
sports activities have more specific guidelines for implementation and certain requirements for
competition, which may make them less flexible and less amenable to change. It may also be that
because sports programming is typically very ingrained in school culture, sports programs such as
Unified Sports and Traditional SO Sports also become very ingrained in a school’s culture once
implemented. See Table 5 for an overview of the activities liaisons plan to do again next year, including
whether they plan to make any modifications.
Table 5. Percentage of schools in which liaisons plan to keep or modify Project UNIFY activities next year
Project UNIFY Activity n17 Do it the
Same Way Do it with Changes
Unified Sports 855 58% 37%
R-Word Campaign 862 39% 55%
Unified Youth Leadership Club 604 47% 45%
Fundraising 581 47% 46%
Fans in the Stands 558 52% 41%
Get Into It Educational Resources 428 36% 49%
Special Olympics/Unified Sports Day 359 57% 34%
Young Athletes Participants 280 57% 34%
Young Athletes Volunteers 264 54% 37%
Perhaps unsurprisingly, liaisons from New schools plan to modify their Project UNIFY activities in the
upcoming year more so than liaisons from Established schools. Across all activities, an average of 11%
17 This is representative of only those schools that indicated the activity was offered in Year 6.
22
more liaisons from New schools plan to change activities than liaisons from Established schools. In
looking at how liaisons overall planned to modify Project UNIFY for the upcoming school year, it is
interesting to note that regardless of the activity or component, liaisons had many of the same plans for
how to modify their program, almost all of which involved expansion, growth, and increased awareness.
See Table 6 for how liaisons plan to modify their programming for the upcoming year, grouped by
component.
Table 6. Liaisons’ plans to modify Project UNIFY programming in the upcoming year
Unsurprisingly, an overwhelming majority of liaisons thought their school would participate in Project
UNIFY again next year (96%), which shows how well-received Project UNIFY is in schools. Though very
few, those who thought it unlikely their school would continue Project UNIFY cited liaison turnover or
lack of support (e.g., from school administration, school staff, or Special Olympics) as the most common
reasons their school would not be able to sustain Project UNIFY. Liaison turnover, though an
impediment to some schools, is not seen as a barrier in most schools. In fact, Year 6 saw the highest
number of liaisons reporting their school would likely continue Project UNIFY without their direct
involvement (68% Year 6; 59% Year 5; 51% Year 4). Also promising, over the last two years half of
schools have felt Project UNIFY would continue without support from Special Olympics (53% Year 6; 49%
Year 5). Clearly, as Project UNIFY continues to become established and integrated within schools,
schools are viewing their program as more stable and less reliant on outside factors as part of its success
and sustainability.
B. Unified Youth Leadership Clubs
Project UNIFY is built on the premise that in order to have the greatest impact, change must start with
youth. To that end, Project UNIFY is designed to engage youth as leaders, to give those with and without
Inclusive Sports
Adding new sports
Increased training and competition opportunities
Greater awareness and promotion of the team and sporting events
Improved planning and organization Youth Leadership and Advocacy
Adding new clubs
Planning and implementing more activities
Increased awareness and involvement
Increased student leadership opportunities
Improved planning and organization Whole School Engagement
Adding more activities
Increased student leadership opportunities
Expanded school-wide collaboration
Greater student involvement in planning and participating
Increased awareness of events Increased involvement of community (e.g., parents and other schools)
23
disabilities a voice and to provide youth with opportunities to become advocates for themselves and
their peers. For the past four years, the evaluation of Project UNIFY has documented the participation of
students in Project UNIFY activities, revealing a wide range of involvement from a peripheral awareness
of Project UNIFY activities, to participation in events, to the full-fledged leadership that is the hallmark
of ideal Project UNIFY programming. Learning more about how inclusive student leadership is
incorporated into Project UNIFY programming in schools generated the exploratory research that took
place as part of the Year 5 evaluation, which sought to better understand high levels of student
involvement and leadership in the school. To build off of that, and set the stage for the level and quality
of youth leadership prescribed as part of the Control Trial of Project UNIFY, the Year 6 evaluation took a
focused look at youth leadership within the most popular activity of the Youth Leadership and Advocacy
component—Unified Youth Leadership Clubs. As the most popular Project UNIFY activity within that
component, Unified Youth Leadership Clubs are the way in which the majority of Project UNIFY schools
implementing the Youth Leadership and Advocacy component (67%) fulfill that requirement.
In order to gain a better understanding of what takes place in these clubs, the Year 6 evaluation
introduced a section in the Year 6 Project UNIFY Liaison Survey concerning Inclusive Clubs, which asked
questions about Inclusive Clubs in general as well as more specific questions about Unified Youth
Leadership Clubs. The term “Inclusive Clubs” was selected in order to encompass all clubs that may be
implemented as part of Project UNIFY, and was defined as those “clubs that include both students with
AND without special needs as equal status partners in their activities.” Over half (59%) of Project UNIFY
schools in Year 6 had one or more Inclusive Clubs, ranging from one to 10 Inclusive Clubs per school with
the average number of clubs being three. In order to determine which clubs were Unified Youth
Leadership Clubs (i.e., had youth leadership elements and thus qualified as part of the Youth Leadership
and Advocacy component), liaisons were asked to categorize their club(s) as being either a Planning Club
(5%), Social Club (44%) or Planning and Social Club (51%).18 Liaisons who reported their school had a
Planning Club or a Planning and Social Club were considered to have a Unified Youth Leadership Club.19
Just under half of schools (42%) had at least one Unified Youth Leadership Club. Data gathered as part of
the Project UNIFY Liaison Survey paints a picture of how these clubs were structured and how they
operated. For the first time the evaluation was able to document how these clubs were run, when and
how they met, and who was involved and in what ways.
Just over half (55%) of Unified Youth Leadership Clubs were facilitated by the school’s Project UNIFY
liaison and the rest mainly by another general education or special education teacher. Unified Youth
Leadership Clubs tended to have regularly scheduled meetings (86%), with over a third of liaisons (38%)
reporting that they met once a week or more and another half (55%) reporting they met 1-3 times per
month. These meetings most often took place after school (52%), during non-academic class time (29%),
18 Planning Club was defined as a club that primarily involves students with and without special needs planning and organizing inclusive events together in the school. Social Club was defined as a club that primarily involves students with and without special needs participating in social activities together. Planning and Social Club was defined as a club that serves the above two purposes equally, focusing on both social opportunities and planning and organizing inclusive events for the school. 19 Liaisons that reported having more than one Unified Youth Leadership Club at their school were asked to select the club they
knew the most about. Liaisons were instructed to focus on this club for all remaining questions. As such, there may have been other Unified Youth Leadership Clubs in schools for which the Year 6 evaluation was not able to gather data.
24
or during lunch (26%). In terms of student involvement, liaisons reported an average of 44 student
members. However, liaisons reported far fewer students actually attending meetings, with an average of
23 students without disabilities and 9 students with disabilities at a typical meeting. Interestingly, while
students were involved in many aspects of the club, the adult facilitators were most often the ones who
took a leading role in organizing and facilitating club meetings. The majority of liaisons reported that the
adult facilitator scheduled club meetings (79%), set the agenda for the meetings (63%), and facilitated
the discussions (51%). While not as frequently reported, students without disabilities also played a role
in organizing and facilitating club meetings. In a quarter of schools (24%), students without disabilities
were responsible for setting the meeting agendas, and in over a third of schools (35%) they were
responsible for facilitating the discussions. See Figure 3 for who most often schedules meetings, sets the
agenda, and facilitates discussions. It is clear that adults took on most of the responsibility for meeting
logistics, with some of this responsibility falling on students without disabilities, and none of this
responsibility falling on students with disabilities.
Figure 3. Parties responsible for most often organizing club meetings20
While the adult facilitators appeared to have a larger role concerning organizing and facilitating club
meetings in most schools, many students with and without disabilities were involved in other aspects of
the club, such as proposing ideas and planning and organizing the activities. In fact, two thirds (65%) of
liaisons reported that students with disabilities and three quarters (77%) of liaisons reported that
students without disabilities proposed activities during meetings. In addition, a third (34%) of liaisons
reported that students with disabilities and half of liaisons (53%) reported that students without
disabilities were frequently involved21 in planning and organizing the activities. See Figure 4 for more
information about student involvement in planning and organizing club activities. It is interesting that
liaisons saw students with disabilities as most involved in coming up with ideas for activities rather than
planning and implementing the activities. However, this difference likely has a lot to do with the severity
of the disability of students involved, which varies widely from school to school.
20 Percentages do not add up to 100% due to “I don’t know” responses, most likely chosen by liaisons who were not primarily responsible for facilitating the club. 21 Frequently represents a combination of “usually” and “always” response options.
1%
2%
3%
13%
24%
35%
79%
63%
51%
Most often schedules meetings
Most often sets the agenda for meetings
Most often facilitates the discussion at meetings
Adult supervisor Students without disabilities Students with disabilities
25
Figure 4. Involvement in planning and organizing club activities22
Three-quarters (76%) of liaisons reported their Unified Youth Leadership Club planned and organized
school-wide activities in Year 6. Those liaisons reported the most common activities were R-Word
Campaign/Spread the Word to End the Word (49%), pep-rallies (26%), fundraising (19%), and SO/Unified
Sports events (19%). Collaboration between students with and without disabilities also occurred
frequently in these clubs. Of those liaisons who reported their school’s club had both students with and
without disabilities involved at some level in planning and organizing activities (70%), the majority (61%)
reported that these students of differing ability levels collaborated together frequently23 in the planning
and organizing of activities. See Table 7 for an overview of the typical collaborative process, along with
selected liaison descriptions of the process.
Table 7. Student collaborative process themes and examples
Theme Example comments
Voting/democratic decisions
“…the students would all take turns sharing their ideas, and then the students voted on whether to participate in/hold the activity.” “Adult usually starts a conversation or activity with an opening idea/video clip/message. Students then branch off and work collaboratively or a whole group discussion is sparked…A vote is taken to make decisions.”
Forming committees/smalls groups
“The club is made up of committees where everyone's voice is heard equally…” “We have a YAC with subcommittees…There are students with disabilities involved in every subcommittee. For certain activities students with disabilities have taken the central role.”
Elected officials/officers
“Students with and without disabilities hold office positions with our club and perform their individual duties. President, VP, Secretary, Historian, etc.” “Project UNIFY officers consist of a nondisabled and disabled student sharing the office. Together, they run the meetings.”
Leadership depends on student abilities
“The students brainstorm together about activities, and roles are designated based on student interest and capability.” “Typical peers do more of the complex tasks, while students with disabilities take on more of the basic tasks, depending on the severity of their disability.”
22 Percentages do not add up to 100% because liaisons could select more than one answer option. 23 Frequently represents a combination of “usually” and “always” response options.
34%
51%
53%
44%
67%
44%
6%
23%
Frequently involved in planning/organizing
Proposed some/most of the activities
State SO Program Adult supervisor Students without disabilities Students with disabilities
26
The dynamic between the adult facilitators and students (both with and without disabilities) has become
clearer than ever, with students taking on a lot of responsibility in proposing ideas and planning and
organizing events, while the adult facilitator runs the logistics of the club, such as scheduling club
meetings, setting agendas, facilitating discussions, and liaising with the school community to implement
club activities. It is also clear, for the first time, what the leadership responsibilities are among students
in Unified Youth Leadership Clubs and it is evident that these leadership responsibilities are not
necessarily equal among students with and without disabilities. However, this is perhaps expected given
the variation in abilities of students with disabilities and also the varying ways in which collaboration
takes place within clubs and schools.
As inclusive youth leadership is expanded and refined throughout Project UNIFY schools and activities,
the new information gathered in Year 6 about Unified Youth Leadership Clubs, a core activity of Project
UNIFY and the Youth Leadership and Advocacy component, will serve as an important source of
information for how schools can implement and further enhance their club. This information will be
especially useful for schools new to Project UNIFY, as information about the structure and organization
of the clubs can be used as a model from which new schools can begin.
C. At-Risk Urban Schools
Project UNIFY is designed to be adaptable to a wide range of school circumstances. Rather than
mandating a one-size fits all approach, Project UNIFY offers a selection of quality activities from which
liaisons can choose to implement to fit within their schools’ existing resources, infrastructure, and
programming. For many schools, Project UNIFY appears to be an extension of an ongoing relationship
with Special Olympics or of preexisting programming taking place in the school to promote inclusion. In
fact, just over half (54%) of liaisons in Year 6 reported conducting activities and programs to promote
social inclusion before becoming involved in Project UNIFY. In these instances, Project UNIFY was
integrated into existing programming. However, there are many schools that may not seem to be
immediate fits for Project UNIFY programming, such as at-risk schools and those located in urban areas.
Historically, Special Olympics has been less prominent in urban areas, and programming is scarcer in
these locales. Therefore, few at-risk urban schools have experience with Special Olympics programming,
even though these are the schools that may be most in need of such programming.
As such, the Year 5 evaluation specifically examined urban Project UNIFY schools. Much was learned
about the school climate, relationship with Special Olympics, impact of Project UNIFY, and liaisons’ goals
for the program in urban schools. Through monthly logs from liaisons, interviews with State SO
Programs, and supplemental Project UNIFY Liaison Survey data, it was found that Project UNIFY was
well-implemented despite the various challenges liaisons and State Programs reported. However, as this
was the first look at urban Project UNIFY schools, the sample was small (10 schools participating in
monthly logs and Project UNIFY Liaison Survey data from an additional 25 schools in the same areas) and
the data collected only just began to uncover the implementation, impact, successes and challenges in
27
this type of school. The Year 5 examination of urban Project UNIFY schools built an important and
necessary foundation for future efforts to document the program in these locales.
Therefore, the objective of working with at-risk urban schools in Year 6 was twofold. First, to better
understand the scope and implementation of Project UNIFY in these schools, and second to understand
characteristics of these schools and the challenges they faced in implementing the program. Toward
those ends, both quantitative and qualitative methods were utilized. The Year 6 evaluation expanded on
the quantitative methods utilized in Year 5 by examining data from at-risk urban liaisons from the entire
Year 6 sample of 1,509 liaisons, and enhanced the qualitative methods by including the perspectives of
Project UNIFY liaisons and administrators24 in at-risk urban schools as well as State SO Program staff at
the state and local levels. The Year 6 evaluation aimed to further document the unique challenges facing
at-risk schools in urban communities, and in doing so, begin to identify how these schools differ from
Project UNIFY schools overall. Ultimately, assessment tools designed to capture the implementation and
sustainability challenges specific to at-risk urban schools will help Special Olympics be most effective in
its outreach and technical assistance to these schools and will help Project UNIFY be most successful in
reaching and impacting these students.
1. Scope and Implementation in At-Risk Urban Schools
To better understand the scope and implementation of Project UNIFY in at-risk urban schools the
evaluation team used data from the Year 6 Project UNIFY Liaison Survey. The evaluation team first
identified those schools where the liaison indicated 50% or more of the student population received
free or reduced-price lunch (n=556).25 Then, using data from the U.S. Census Bureau,26 these schools
were further identified if they were in a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)27 with a population over
250,000. If schools met all three criteria (i.e., 50% or more of students received free or reduced-price
lunch, school city is located in a MSA, and the city population is over 250,000), they were considered at-
risk urban schools (n=144). Of the 1,509 schools for which data were available in Year 6, 10% were
considered at-risk urban schools.
When examining the Year 6 Project UNIFY Liaison Survey data from the 144 schools identified as at-risk
urban Project UNIFY schools, the scope and implementation of Project UNIFY was unexpectedly quite
similar to the implementation in schools overall. For instance, just over a third (38%) of at-risk urban
schools were Category 1 schools; Unified Sports, the R-Word Campaign, and Inclusive Clubs were the
most implemented activities; these schools implemented an average of four Project UNIFY activities;
and the majority of liaisons were special education teachers (52%). Differences, though small, emerged
in the areas of perceived support and understanding from school community members, funding and
resources, time available to implement Project UNIFY, and the likelihood of continuing the program next
24 One administrator from one at-risk urban school participated in an interview. 25 Free or reduced-price lunch was used as a proxy for at-risk schools in the Liaison Survey. 26 Data retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/population/metro/data/def.html 27 MSAs were targeted to easily exclude extremely suburban and rural areas. For the U.S. Census Bureau definition of an MSA please visit: http://www.census.gov/population/metro/
28
year. While the program itself does not look very different in at-risk urban schools, it appears the
aforementioned areas are more challenging for these schools or unique to these schools.
2. Challenges in Implementing Project UNIFY in At-Risk Urban Schools
To further understand these differences and potential challenges, qualitative data gathered in
interviews with liaisons and State SO Program staff illuminated the Project UNIFY program in at-risk
urban schools and highlighted the unique challenges and issues at-risk urban school liaisons face, as well
as the challenges State Program face in supporting such schools. Special Olympics identified three State
Programs (Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, and Michigan), urban locations within these Programs
(Philadelphia, DC, Lansing, and Detroit), and schools they considered to be at-risk28 in these urban areas
(4 schools total; for more information about the participants, methods, and procedures see Section II.B).
These three State Programs and the four identified schools participated in the qualitative portion of the
evaluation. One objective in interviewing State Program staff and liaisons was to document their views
on what constitutes an at-risk urban school, as a foundation for further examination of this school type
in future evaluations. Most notably, Program staff indicated considerations should be made about the
school but also about the surrounding community. See Table 8 for the characteristics of at-risk urban
schools outlined by State Program staff.
Table 8. State Program-identified characteristics to consider in identifying at-risk urban schools
Interviews with liaisons at the four at-risk urban schools affirmed many of the characteristics outlined by
State Program staff. Liaisons at these schools spoke openly about the challenges the schools faced,
which included student tardiness and absenteeism, low graduation rates, little to no involvement from
families/parents, staff turnover and fluctuations in staffing, high proportions of ELL/ESL29 students who
do not speak English, and violence and bullying. Bullying was mentioned consistently among the liaisons,
and in some cases was thought to be the result of a lack of understanding and acceptance of differences
within student bodies made up of different cultures and backgrounds. Staff turnover was also
28 State Program staff were instructed to think of schools where a high proportion of the student population received free or reduced-price lunch, there was high staff turnover, and there was a high proportion of minority students. 29 English language learners/English as a second language
School Characteristics
Free breakfast program before school
High teacher/school staff turnover
Dropout rate of 40%-60% by the time a student reaches senior year
Not meeting federal or state guidelines for academic/testing standards
Little to no resources
Little to no security Community Characteristics
Majority low-income families/high rate of poverty
High proportion of non-traditional families (e.g., single parent households)
Majority minorities
High crime
Cultural conflicts (e.g., gangs)
29
mentioned by more than one liaison as a challenge, with some administrative positions being filled and
refilled every year and staffing numbers always changing within school departments throughout the
school year.
Challenges for the State Program
In addition to providing insight on the characteristics of the at-risk urban schools in the state, State
Program staff also spoke at length about the challenges they experienced at the state level in
implementing and supporting Project UNIFY in at-risk schools in urban areas. Challenges faced by State
Programs include recruitment of schools, people, and support systems; implementation and
sustainability of programming; and school-based factors out of the Programs’ control (e.g., limited
school resources, turnover, etc.). See Table 9 for more information about State Programs’ perspectives
on challenges.
Table 9. Program perspectives on challenges in implementing Project UNIFY in at-risk urban schools
Challenge Area Example comments
Recruiting schools, manpower to run programs, and support systems for programs
“…With the at-risk schools an after-school program is difficult to establish because you don’t have the parental support a not-at-risk school would have.” “… [Liaisons’] challenge is that they don’t have the support around them to do something like this or to do any program. They’re trying to get the bare minimum done, just the core curriculum.”
Implementation and sustainability of programming
“…We have more difficulty doing [after school games and weekend practices] because we don’t have that transit support…” “…We run all of our sports training during the school day…we get the transportation from [the school district] but they won’t let the regular education students out of the building…there lies a problem because we can get out the Unified Special Olympics athletes but we couldn’t get out the Unified partners.”
School-based challenges (e.g., funding and resources, staff turnover)
“…Urban schools require more funding in general just because they don’t have resources within the school, and in general their families and teachers and volunteers are not willing or possibly able to help with fundraising…you can’t blame them, they’re not sure that they’ll be able to feed their family let alone raise money for Special Olympics.” “…Oftentimes a teacher will be at one building then they’re in shuffle for the next year so there’s no one else left at the old building to pick up where they left off…our teachers are just overtaxed and underpaid.”
Recruitment of Schools, People, and Support Systems
Recruitment of schools, manpower to run programs, and support systems for programs were identified
as challenges by all three State SO Programs. Specifically, urban school districts and at-risk communities
are not as open to Special Olympics and Project UNIFY (and programs of this nature in general) as other
school districts and communities. Program staff noted how much more effort and “pounding the
pavement” it took in these communities to break down the barriers, shift the “old school mentality” of
some special education teachers and programs, and get the school to see Special Olympics as the
30
resource and benefit it is. Once the door was opened, it was hard to find the right person to serve as
liaison. As one Program staff noted, the liaison cannot be a person who is generally interested in the
program, this person has to be genuinely interested in the goals and mission of Project UNIFY. Finding
the right people also extends beyond the liaison, as in many school districts and areas with limited
funding and resources Program staff identified recruiting and maintaining a solid and long-term
volunteer base as helpful in implementing programming and supporting liaisons. Unfortunately, though
not surprising, it was also noted that parental involvement in at-risk urban areas is severely lacking due
to the various life circumstances faced by these families, so parents cannot be counted on to volunteer
(or even transport their children to and from Special Olympics events).
Implementation and Sustainability of Programming
Once the barriers of recruiting schools and people were overcome, State Programs identified several
challenges in implementing and sustaining programming, such as transportation, practice space, and
time for programming. Transportation challenges, mentioned in all State Program interviews, were most
commonly the result of limited-to-no parental base and the fixed and expensive costs of transportation.
Transporting athletes and partners to and from events (some of which were out of state) was a fixed
cost for some school districts and could not be negotiated. Additional expenses were incurred when
students had to be put in cabs or driven home by Special Olympics staff because parents did not pick up
the students. Transportation also came into play for some State Programs that could not find or did not
have space available for Unified Sports at Project UNIFY schools. Even at schools with space that met the
Unified Sports teams’ needs, reserving that space was difficult as many State Programs cited issues with
running Project UNIFY activities after school, leaving them to compete with others in the school for
times within the school day to use the space. Running Project UNIFY only during the school day was
mentioned by several State Program staff as a challenge to implementation and sustainability, but
something with which they had to comply as students would not be able to participate otherwise. With
transportation and lack of parental support being what it is in these communities, and also with limited
resources available within State Programs to pay coaches and teachers supplemental salaries for
working outside normal hours, during school hours was the most feasible time to implement Project
UNIFY programming for all involved.
School-Based Factors
State Programs also identified several school-based challenges they faced, over which they have no
control. The two main challenges in this area identified by staff in all three Programs were funding and
resources at the school level, and turnover (both staff and student). All interviewees commented on the
increasingly reduced resources with which at-risk urban schools have to work. The biggest challenge
noted here was that reduced funding and resources required layoffs or transfers of teachers and
students, which in turn increased class size and Special Education programs. Importantly, the State SO
Programs could not increase their staff numbers to accommodate the decrease in school staff and
increase in students at their Project UNIFY schools. As one State Program commented, over 400
teachers were “dropped from their positions” in the school district during Year 6. Furthermore, staff and
student turnover that does not result from reduced funding and resources is an added challenge. One
Program staff noted how transient the at-risk urban communities are, and that it is not surprising for
31
students to switch schools up to three times in one school year. Moreover, at-risk urban schools are
hard-pressed to find teachers willing to work within their unique structures and challenges. More often
than in other schools teachers at at-risk urban schools are not replaced (or not replaced as timely) if
they leave or retire.
Challenges for the Liaisons
As the person most responsible for and involved with the Project UNIFY program at the schools, the at-
risk urban school liaisons provided an interesting picture of the challenges in implementing the program.
Liaisons spoke at length about challenges with transportation and after school programming, visibility
within the school, limited time, being the only person running the program, parent involvement, and
staff turnover/decreased staff numbers. See Table 10 for more information on liaisons’ perspectives on
challenges.
Transportation and After School Programming
Transportation and getting students to stay after school (also a state-level challenge mentioned by State
Program staff) weighed heavily on what some schools could accomplish with Project UNIFY after school,
if anything. With schools bussing most students in, after school activities were oftentimes limited to
those students who could secure alternate transportation. Many students could not stay after school
even if they wanted to because of after school jobs or needing to care for younger siblings while parents
worked (which also exacerbated transportation issues). One liaison noted that the large population of
ESL/ELL students meant most parents were not licensed to drive a car. Liaisons often drove students
home after activities because parents did not or could not pick up their children. It is important to note
that parents’ inability to provide transportation for the students or assist with activities in other ways
was not seen by liaisons as a lack of support for the program, but rather that these community members
were struggling to get by day-to-day, and weren’t available right after school or on the weekends when
many activities and competitions took place.
Running the Program
At-risk urban school liaisons reported that being the sole person responsible for Project UNIFY in their
school was a challenge, whether it was because no one else wanted to or could help, whether the liaison
felt unsupported by administration, or whether the liaison felt, as a special educator, more removed
from the general education community and students. Two liaisons noted the need for finding those core
supporters in the coming year and more effectively passing on the knowledge to other teachers. One
barrier to that, as mentioned by these liaisons, was staff turnover and decreased staff within
departments. Finding school community members who could help consistently was difficult, whether
these helpers were facing their own time constraints, or were leaving the building for new positions
elsewhere. Liaisons felt strongly that one or two additional people who could put in the same amount of
time as the liaison would ensure the program was run the way it should be run. Importantly, one liaison
highlighted the need for students to take responsibility for recruiting other students to help with the
program. Having students assist more with planning and implementing the program would likely
alleviate some time constraints mentioned by the liaisons, where many liaisons gave up planning
32
periods in order to implement the program. However, finding time to run the program was not the only
time constraint, with many liaisons noting that school scheduling and conflicting schedules made it
difficult to get all interested students together at one time, as did finding activities that could be
implemented on short notice.
Table 10. Liaison perspectives on challenges in implementing Project UNIFY in at-risk urban schools
Challenge Area Example comments
Transportation and after school programming
“…It’s the parents and our ELA students. I mean their parents don’t even have a license…I’m taking two of them home on my own because I know I’m going to have to if I want them to go and some of them are 50/50 if their parents are going to be there.” “[Students with disabilities] were always willing to [stay after school] but it was difficult sometimes to get the other kids.”
Being the only person responsible for the program with limited time available
“I think that’s an overall challenge with Project UNIFY and me being the only person at our school coordinating that and running with Special Olympics. I don’t get as much interaction as I would like with general education students.” “I just didn’t have time to really hype it up any more than that. Trying to get 4 or 5 kids to play bocce every week was difficult.”
Staff turnover/decreased staff numbers
“We would need a whole other teacher or two to be hired in order to fully run the program the way it should and needs to be run.” “…the people who kind of help me out were very limited.”
Despite the myriad state- and school-level challenges facing at-risk urban schools, analysis of Project
UNIFY Liaison Survey data did not find a substantially different program operating within these schools
in Year 6. Furthermore, areas where at-risk urban liaisons did report some differences were
corroborated in interviews with State Programs and other liaisons, demonstrating these are real and
tangible issues facing these schools. Overall, implementing Project UNIFY in at-risk urban schools can be
viewed as both a challenge and an opportunity. The unique situation of these schools may make it more
of a challenge to get the program up and running, but because these schools tend to have a higher
prevalence and degree of problems compared to other Project UNIFY schools, there may be greater
room for improvement and more need than ever for a program like Project UNIFY.
This greater need and opportunity for improvement may be why both State Programs and liaisons from
at-risk urban schools were very positive about the impact of Project UNIFY, citing it provided many
opportunities and benefits for students with disabilities, but most importantly (and most often noted)
were the opportunities and benefits it provided to the school as a whole. See Table 11 for more
information about State Program and liaison perspectives of the value of Project UNIFY in at-risk urban
schools.
33
Table 11. State Program and liaison perspectives of the value of Project UNIFY in at-risk urban schools
Perspective Example comments
State Program
“Special Olympics is like Christmas every day…doesn’t matter if they are special education or general education; staying in a hotel, having meals provided for you, all of that is huge because…they don’t live that life. Our kids struggle just to get to school and a lot of them come just to eat, so it’s a big deal.” “When you talk about student empowerment, when you talk about advocacy, the R-Word Campaign, all of those things that lend themselves to anti-bullying and improved climate and culture within the school I think are the things that make [Project UNIFY] winnable.”
Liaison
“Before full inclusion, a lot of our special education students were in a separate setting…However, Project UNIFY being put in the high school level was just priceless and it was just a remarkable experience to see that impact on how general education and special education students interacted with one another, and making the education experience more enriching, not just for the special education students but for the general education students as well.” “Behavior has improved. Students speaking out for other students has increased…It’s refreshing to know that there’s something in place that will make a child think first before acting negatively. That’s overall, not just for students with disabilities.”
Based on these schools implementing a program that matches other schools’ programs nationally, it is
obvious that Project UNIFY programs in at-risk urban schools can reach the same level of programming
seen across the country. Despite the evidence that Project UNIFY is implemented regardless of the
challenges for the State Programs and liaisons, more understanding is needed as to how these
challenges are overcome so that they do not become setbacks. As such, future evaluations will need to
be purposeful in the evaluation tools and methodology used to collect data from at-risk urban schools so
as to accurately capture the, at times, unique implementation of the program while deepening the
understanding of how Project UNIFY is successful in these schools. It is clear there is a place for Project
UNIFY in at-risk urban schools, their very nature suggesting there is a greater potential for Project UNIFY
to make a difference.
D. Summary of Project UNIFY in the Schools: Year 6
In addition to providing an overview of what Project UNIFY schools looked like in terms of the activities
they implemented and the organization and communication that was necessary for executing the
program, the Year 6 evaluation highlighted areas where schools differed based on specific qualities that
characterize schools (such as their Category 1 or 2 designation, school level (elementary, middle, or
high), or schools in their first year of programming). The Year 6 evaluation also took an in-depth look at
the challenges in implementing Project UNIFY in at-risk urban schools. Information and insight into
programming based on these varying school types provides an opportunity for SOI and State SO
Programs to further their thinking about how they can customize the support they provide to best fit the
needs of these specific types of schools.
34
The number and types of activities implemented by schools remained a focus in Year 6, as Special
Olympics continued to emphasize strong programming comprised of all three components, while also
more clearly defining Category 2 criteria. Schools tended to differ broadly in terms of the activities that
were implemented, with Category 1 schools and high schools implementing activities with the greatest
frequency. This insight into programming at the varying school levels provides an opportunity for SOI
and State Programs to also further their thinking about how Project UNIFY might be characterized not
only by the components included (e.g., in Category 1 and 2 schools), but also by school structures and
student make up. It will also be important to consider factors outside the control of the school or State
Program, such as is common with at-risk urban schools. Clear guidelines and suggestions for achieving
success need to be adaptable to a wide range of circumstances, and further dissemination of already-
existing materials should be a focus.
Additionally, with just over a third of schools overall implementing all three components, SOI and State
Programs need to determine how best to support schools in attaining this level of programming moving
forward. It should be kept in mind the ways in which SOI’s guidelines for Category 1 and 2 schools have
changed over the last few years, with more stringent guidelines requiring programs to become stronger
in order to reach Category 1 or 2 status, and thus perhaps also requiring more support as they work
toward new goals. One way for more schools to reach a category status is to implement the Inclusive
Sports component. Year 6 was the first year that this component was required of schools to meet either
the Category 1 or 2 criteria, and many schools that would have been considered Category 2 in past years
did not meet any category designation in Year 6. Perhaps it is time for evolution from the dual category
designation system of Project UNIFY schools. Rather than a system based on level of implementation, a
more developmental approach where all schools—new, emerging, and established—are continually
encouraged and supported to implement robust Project UNIFY programs that are championed and
implemented by entire school communities. However, as it currently stands, more schools could reach a
category status by implementing youth leadership training opportunities and implementing formal
training for youth leaders and Unified Youth Leadership Club members. Though much progress has been
made over the last two years in creating and disseminating youth leadership resources for a wide variety
of stakeholders, there have been fewer resources and less information about youth leadership training
and creating formalized ways to train youth in the leadership skills and abilities required for becoming
effective change agents.
35
IV. Value and Impact of Project UNIFY
Over the past six years the evaluation has sought to document the value to and impact on those whom
Project UNIFY most directly benefits—schools and students. During the first five years, the evaluation
focused on understanding the fundamental aspects of Project UNIFY—what the activities are, how they
are implemented, how they are connected to one another, and how they come together to impact
schools and students. As a result, a significant knowledge base has been gathered regarding the
interrelatedness of the different Project UNIFY activities and components and how they complement
one another to provide the most wide-spread impact for schools and students. In Year 6, the focus of
the evaluation has shifted slightly in preparation for the Control Trial of Project UNIFY. Not only were
findings from past years confirmed using more rigorous methodologies, but a greater emphasis was
placed on investigating specific Project UNIFY activities to understand their unique roles in impacting
students and schools. This is essential to appreciating the big picture of Project UNIFY and allows for a
more comprehensive understanding of how the Project UNIFY components interrelate and complement
one another, as well as the value of each activity to the overall impact of the program. Moving forward
with this knowledge, future evaluations will be best equipped to examine the effects of implementing all
three Project UNIFY components at once, further investigating the role of students, and uncovering how
to best support schools in implementing high quality, sustainable Project UNIFY programs.
It is important to acknowledge that at its core, Project UNIFY is a program designed to impact students.
With the goal of bringing students with and without disabilities together in inclusive school
environments, it is clear that students are the central participants and stakeholders in Project UNIFY
programming. However, students are individual members of school communities, who influence and are
influenced by their schools, so it is just as important to examine the impact of Project UNIFY on schools
as well. Thus, the evaluation in Year 6 reached out to Project UNIFY liaisons and students as a way to
access the perspectives of those who have first-hand experience with Project UNIFY. These school
stakeholders are those best equipped to provide information about the unique ways in which Project
UNIFY had a positive impact on their school, on the changes observed as a result of Project UNIFY
programming, and the value and benefits Project UNIFY provided both to themselves and to their school
communities.
A. Value to and Impact on the School
To explore the value and impact of Project UNIFY on schools, the Year 6 evaluation relied on data from
the 1,509 liaisons who responded to the Project UNIFY Liaison Survey and the 3,197 students from 19
schools who responded to the Student Experience Survey, as well as qualitative interviews with school
staff and students at the three Project UNIFY site visit schools. Data from the Project UNIFY Liaison
Survey provided a clear picture of the value of Project UNIFY to the school from the liaisons’ perspective.
Given liaisons’ level of involvement and commitment to the program, almost all liaisons (93%) viewed
Project UNIFY as valuable for the school, and students with and without disabilities. This positive
perception of the program has remained consistently high across the years. Interestingly, while liaisons
36
most frequently viewed the R-Word Campaign as the activity most valuable to the school as a whole,
they viewed Unified Sports as the activity most valuable to both students with and without disabilities.
This provides interesting information from the liaisons’ perspective about which specific activities they
feel are most valuable to specific groups of students. Moreover, similar to past years, liaisons felt most
strongly that Project UNIFY “made a big difference” in raising awareness about students with disabilities
(72%) and increasing opportunities for students with and without disabilities to work together (70%).
Many also felt Project UNIFY “made a big difference” in creating a more inclusive school environment
(63%) and reducing bullying and teasing (56%). See Figure 5 for how liaisons thought Project UNIFY
impacted their schools.
Figure 5. Value of Project UNIFY to schools, as reported by school liaisons30
While liaisons clearly viewed Project UNIFY as valuable to their school community in many important
ways, such as bringing students together and promoting acceptance, many liaisons do not perceive
Project UNIFY reaching school community members other than the students. As mentioned previously
(see Section III.A.2), general education teachers are less involved in Project UNIFY than special education
teachers, despite liaisons (who are mostly special educators themselves) recognizing their involvement
would be beneficial. In fact, about half of liaisons (48%) felt Project UNIFY provided opportunities for
general and special education teachers to work together. While it is not an explicitly stated goal of
Project UNIFY to involve general education teachers and other school staff members in the program, it
has become apparent through interviews and site visits over the last few years that involvement from
these community stakeholders is important in building a robust and successful Project UNIFY program.
Moreover, because the Year 5 evaluation also noted a small percentage of general education teacher
involvement, SOI has committed to addressing this issue by planning to develop resources that more
explicitly aid schools in promoting Project UNIFY involvement among all community stakeholders,
particularly general education teachers. As such, it is expected that future evaluations will see a positive
shift in the number of general education teachers involved in Project UNIFY, in addition to other
prominent school community members outside of the Special Education department.
30 Liaisons were asked to rate, on six-point scale, whether Project UNIFY made a difference in several dimensions. The category “did not make a difference” encompasses the first two points on the scale (0, 1); “made a difference” encompasses the two points that fall in the middle (2, 3), and “made a big difference” includes the final two end points (4, 5).
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Reducing bullying, teasing, offensive language
Raising awareness about students with disabilities
Increasing opportunities for students to work together
Creating a more inclusive school climate
Made a big difference Made a difference Did not make a difference
37
Qualitative data from liaisons, special education teachers, and students confirmed the positive
perceptions of Project UNIFY that liaisons reported. During the site visits, liaisons and other special
education teachers gave their opinions that Project UNIFY had created a more inclusive and
understanding school environment where students with and without disabilities interacted more than
before Project UNIFY was part of the school. Students with and without disabilities felt similarly, and
talked during the site visits about how it was easier to make friends and people were more connected
since Project UNIFY began. See Table 12 for more information about these stakeholders’ perspectives of
the value of Project UNIFY.
Table 12. The value of Project UNIFY, as reported by liaisons, special education teachers, and students
Perspective Example comments
Liaisons/special education teachers
“I think there’s more interactions happening and they see someone with Autism as not just like a weird person…I do think it has helped with bullying.” “…now that it’s year after year, the freshman that are coming into it, they’re seeing it, so it’s becoming a part of the school’s culture.” “It involves every person. We try to include every single person in the school. And I always make it a point to say that the club is not just including students with abilities and disabilities. It’s race, religion, I mean everybody can come to this club and feel included. It’s about unifying the school as a whole.”
Students with and without disabilities
“I think there’s more awareness.” “I think since the school became a Project UNIFY school it’s become much more inclusive. And I think it’s easier to make friends here now than it was my freshman year. I think Project UNIFY has changed that.” “…we’re all family.”
However, the value of Project UNIFY can only impact a school as far as the program’s messages, goals,
and activities reach within a school. While stakeholders such as liaisons, other special education
teachers, and students provide valuable insight into the value and impact of Project UNIFY within the
school, these perspectives are only part of the story. The value and impact of Project UNIFY for schools
and students is best viewed through the breadth and intensity of programming within schools. Data
from the Student Experience Survey provided insight into the extent to which Project UNIFY can reach
students within a school. Given that the 19 schools selected for this aspect of the evaluation were
chosen based on the strength of their programming (see Appendix C for more information about
selection procedures), this allowed for an examination of exemplary Project UNIFY schools. These
schools were implementing Project UNIFY to the fullest extent possible, with schools implementing an
average of six Project UNIFY activities during the school year (out of a possible 11), and almost all
implementing the core Project UNIFY activities. Moreover, these schools did not just implement the R-
Word Campaign; they implemented an average of three Whole School Engagement activities (out of a
possible four). See Table 13 for more information about Project UNIFY activities across these schools.
38
Table 13. Percentage of schools that implemented each Project UNIFY activity
Project UNIFY Activity Schools
n=19
R-Word Campaign 100%
Unified Sports/Unified PE 89%
Unified Youth Leadership Club31 89%
Fundraising 74%
Fans in the Stand/Unified Sports Pep Rally 63%
Youth Activation Committee 42%
Special Olympics/Unified Sports Day 37%
Young Athletes Volunteers 32%
Youth Leadership Training 21%
Young Athletes Participants 16%
Special Olympics Youth Summit 16%
With the core Project UNIFY activities offered so frequently among these schools, as well as the high
number of whole school activities implemented, students had ample opportunity for participation in the
program. These schools had varying levels of involvement, with participation ranging from a low of 30%
of students to a high of 92%, and 13 out of the 19 schools had half or more of their student body
participate in at least one Project UNIFY activity. Unsurprisingly, the activity that had the most
penetration within schools was the R-Word Campaign (an average of 46% of students across all 19
schools), which aligns with liaisons reporting that this was the most valuable activity for the school as a
whole (see the beginning of this section). It is certainly expected that a whole school activity would have
the greatest student involvement, as this is precisely the goal of the Whole School Engagement
component. Given that activities such as Unified Sports or Unified Youth Leadership Clubs can only
accommodate a relatively small number of participants within schools, whole school activities serve to
provide all students with an equal opportunity to engage in Project UNIFY programming and inclusive
interactions, allowing the impact of Project UNIFY to be the most widespread. Among the 19 model
Project UNIFY programs, just over half (54%) of students participated in the Whole School Engagement
component while the smaller, club- or team-based activities such as Unified Youth Leadership Clubs and
Unified Sports, as expected, involved fewer students (an average of 19% and 17% of students across all
19 schools, respectively). It should be noted, however, that while activities from the Youth Leadership
and Advocacy or Inclusive Sports components involve fewer students within a school, these students are
likely the most involved in the program and therefore it is plausible that these students are the most
instrumental in spreading the messages and goals of Project UNIFY. The Control Trial of Project UNIFY
will allow the evaluation to assess the extent to which students who are highly involved in the program
influence students who are less involved or not involved at all.
31 Given the widespread variability in Inclusive Clubs, students responding to the Student Experience Survey were presented with a more general club description that allowed them to report their involvement in a structure club-type activity with students with and without disabilities.
39
B. Value to and Impact on Students without Disabilities
In addition to exploring the value and impact of Project UNIFY for schools as a whole, it is particularly
important to examine the ways in which the students making up these schools are individually affected
by their participation. Past evaluations have established that Project UNIFY provides students with
positive personal growth experiences, increases the interactions that occur between students with and
without disabilities, and findings specific to Year 5 began to uncover how Project UNIFY impacts
students’ attitudes toward inclusion in the classroom. Moreover, past findings clearly indicate the
importance of participation in multiple Project UNIFY activities and components in providing the
greatest impact for students. It is the interrelationship of all three components that reaches the greatest
number of students in the greatest number of ways. While these findings have certainly been key in
understanding the ways in which Project UNIFY directly impacts students, and they continue to guide
the program as it expands, in Year 6 it has become important to confirm these findings utilizing more
rigorous methodologies, while at the same time exploring the impact of Project UNIFY from new
perspectives. For example, the interconnected nature of the three Project UNIFY components has been
well-established as the most impactful model of programming, but the unique role and value of specific
activities in this regard is not as well understood. Year 6 evaluations serves as an important milestone by
confirming past years’ findings, both exploring new areas of impact and exploring impact from new
perspectives, and most importantly, by setting the stage for the implementation of the Control Trial of
Project UNIFY.
The Year 6 evaluation has three main areas of emphasis in reporting the value and impact of Project
UNIFY for students without disabilities (see Figure 6). First, the evaluation focused on the role of Project
UNIFY in creating more opportunities for students with and without disabilities to socially interact. Past
evaluations have established that students who participate in Project UNIFY to a greater extent report
more interactions with their peers with disabilities. Year 6 sought to enhance these well-established
findings by better understanding how participation in specific Project UNIFY activities impacts the
amount of students that socially interact with their peers with disabilities.
Second, the evaluation has shifted to highlight students’ perceptions and attitudes toward the inclusion
of students with disabilities in their school communities. Project UNIFY aims to activate youth to develop
inclusive school communities that foster respect, dignity, and advocacy for people with disabilities.
Students with highly positive perceptions and attitudes toward inclusion are central to creating these
types of school communities. Therefore, the Year 6 evaluation measured the degree to which
participation in Project UNIFY influences students’ perceptions of school social inclusion (as this is one of
the main goals of Project UNIFY) as well as their attitudes toward inclusion in the classroom. It is
important to note that it is not an objective of Project UNIFY to increase the occurrence of academic
inclusion in the classroom, as this is often influenced by policies mandated by school districts or states.
However, because Project UNIFY does aim to promote positive perceptions of the abilities of students
with disabilities, as well as positive perceptions about social inclusion in the school in general, it is likely
that students who are involved in the program are more accepting of and open to the idea of inclusion
40
in their classroom than those who are not involved. Moreover, understanding the impact of Project
UNIFY on students in a classroom context is important because students spend the majority of the
school day in a classroom setting. Therefore, in addition to examining the impact of Project UNIFY on
students’ perceptions of social inclusion in the school, the evaluation also investigated students’
attitudes toward inclusion in the classroom.
Lastly, the Year 6 evaluation explored the ways in which Project UNIFY provides students with
opportunities for personal and interpersonal growth. Past evaluations have detailed the importance of
student participation in multiple Project UNIFY components as this fosters the most positive
developmental experiences. The Year 6 evaluation sought to confirm and build upon these findings. This
was accomplished first by, again, exploring the personal growth experiences associated with
participation in multiple Project UNIFY components, and second by exploring, for the first time, the
degree to which personal growth is differentially impacted by involvement in specific Project UNIFY
activities.
Figure 6. Areas of student impact assessed in Year 6
By emphasizing these three areas, the Year 6 evaluation serves as a bridge connecting past findings to
future evaluation objectives. Not only were past findings confirmed and expanded, but new areas of
impact were included as building blocks for the Control Trial of Project UNIFY. Over the next few years,
as part of the Control Trial, these new areas of impact will be further explored and expanded to
definitively document the multi-dimensional nature of Project UNIFY’s impact on school communities
and their students.
Project UNIFY Participation
1) Social Interactions between Students with and without Disabilities
2) Perceptions of School Social Inclusion and
Attitudes toward Classroom Inclusion
3) Personal Growth and Development
41
1. Project UNIFY’s Impact on Students’ Self-Reported Interactions with their Peers
with Disabilities
The Year 6 evaluation first explored the value and impact of Project UNIFY for students without
disabilities by focusing on students’ self-reported interactions with their peers with disabilities. Past
evaluations have established that students who participate in Project UNIFY engage more frequently in
social interactions with their peers with disabilities and furthermore, they interact with students with
disabilities in more ways over the course of the year than students who do not participate in Project
UNIFY. Past findings have also established that students involved in more Project UNIFY components
reported interacting with peers with disabilities in more ways than did students who participated in
fewer components. The Year 6 evaluation sought to expand upon past findings that focused on the
benefit of any Project UNIFY involvement for students’ interactions with their peers with disabilities, to
explore the value of involvement in specific Project UNIFY activities. Prior to presenting the Year 6
findings however, it is important to first provide an overview of the nature of students’ participation in
Project UNIFY and the types of social interactions that took place between students with and without
disabilities.
Participation in Project UNIFY
Of the 3,197 students that participated in the Student Experience Survey across the 19 schools, 60% of
students participated in at least one Project UNIFY activity,32 and just over a third (37%) participated in
two or more activities. As has been established at the school level (see Section IV.A), school-wide
initiatives like the R-Word Campaign tended to involve the most students (46%), while smaller, club- or
team- based initiatives such as Unified Youth Leadership Clubs (19%) and Unified Sports (18%) included
fewer students overall. Encouragingly, students from all grades participated in each of the Project UNIFY
components across these schools, and in fact, participation across the grades was equal. For example in
high schools, underclassmen (49%) participated in the Whole School Engagement component at the
same level as upperclassmen (47%). See Table 14 for student participation across all activities.
32 When examining individual participation in Project UNIFY, students were considered to have had the opportunity to participate in an activity only if the liaison reported the activity happened at the school in Year 6.
42
Table 14. Middle and high school students’ participation in Project UNIFY activities
Project UNIFY Activity Percentage of Student Participation
R-Word 46%
Fans in the Stands/Unified Sports Pep Rally 37%
Fundraising 21%
Unified Youth Leadership Club 19%
Unified Sports 18%
SO Sports Day/Unified Sports Day 14%
Traditional SO Sports 12%
Youth Leadership Training 9%
Young Athletes Volunteer33 5%
Social Interactions between Students with and without Disabilities
To assess the self-reported interactions of students without disabilities with their peers with disabilities,
students from the 19 Project UNIFY schools were asked about the visibility of students with disabilities
in the school, as well as any interactions they had with them, both in and out of school. For example,
students were asked whether they talked to students with disabilities, knew them personally, or invited
them to “hang out” after school. The majority of students reported seeing and interacting with their
peers with disabilities during the school day. Over two-thirds (69%) of students without disabilities
reported they saw students with disabilities every day at school, while nearly three-quarters (72%)
indicated they had ever talked to students with disabilities at school. These social interactions occurred
in a variety of locations. Of those who indicated talking to students with disabilities, the most frequent
locations reported were the hallway (74%) and the cafeteria (50%). Moreover, half of students overall
(51%) knew students with disabilities on a deeper level, reporting that they personally knew a student
with a disability who was at their school but not in any of their classes. However, only 17% of students
reported they personally knew students with disabilities in their classes. This finding is not surprising,
given that the opportunity to get to know students with disabilities in the classroom is heavily
dependent on the number of students with disabilities present in the school and how the school
structures academic inclusion. Even with the small number of students who were able to get to know
students with disabilities in their classroom, the findings, overall, point to a considerable level of
inclusion occurring at these schools. However, it is important to remember that these schools represent
19 model Project UNIFY programs and therefore it is not entirely unexpected that students reported
such a high level of social inclusion in the school.
While there appeared to be a substantial amount of social inclusion occurring during the school day,
these types of interactions did not necessarily carry over to interactions that occurred outside of school.
As previously stated, the majority of students reported talking to peers with disabilities in school (72%),
however only 22% of those same students also reported talking to their peers with disabilities from
school when they were outside of school. Similarly, only 7% of students reported talking to students
33 At the middle and high school levels, students are provided the opportunity to volunteer in the Young Athletes Program offered to pre-school and younger elementary aged students.
43
with disabilities in school and also inviting them to “hang out” with friends outside of school. However,
it is necessary to acknowledge that many factors may influence whether students have the opportunity
to interact with their peers with disabilities outside of school. For example, transportation is often an
issue for whether students can spend time together outside of school, especially in more rural
communities.
Findings Regarding Students’ Self -Reported Social Interactions with their Peers with
Disabilities
In order to assess how students’ participation in specific Project UNIFY activities (i.e., Unified Sports,
Unified Youth Leadership Clubs, and whole school activities) impacted their self-reported social
interactions with their peers with disabilities, a set of regression analyses34 were conducted. Students
who were involved in Unified Sports or whole school activities were more likely to see their peers with
disabilities in school every day (.23 < β < .47, all p’s < .01). Furthermore, students who participated in
any of the three core Project UNIFY activities (Unified Sports, Unified Youth Leadership Clubs, or Whole
School Engagement activities) were more likely to talk to their peers with disabilities in school (.31 < β <
.78, all p’s < .01). While outside of school social interactions between students with and without
disabilities were minimal, as was found in past years, Project UNIFY did in fact play a role in the
frequency of these interactions. In Year 6, students who were involved in Unified Sports, Unified Youth
Leadership Clubs, or whole school activities were more likely to talk to students with disabilities outside
of school and were more likely to invite students with disabilities out with their friends (.21 < β < .50, all
p’s < .01).
Findings show that it is not just any one activity providing students with the opportunity to socially
interact with their peers with disabilities, but rather activities from each of the three components afford
students these opportunities. While the analyses may have taken a different approach than in Year 5 by
examining specific Project UNIFY activities rather than overall Project UNIFY involvement, the end result
was the same—participation in Project UNIFY clearly provides students the opportunity to engage with
their peers with disabilities in meaningful ways. While the perspective of students with disabilities about
their social interactions was not captured quantitatively, interviews and site visits to Project UNIFY
schools indicate that students with disabilities also find interactions with their peers without disabilities
to be important and meaningful (see Section IV.C).
2. Perceptions of School Social Inclusion and Attitudes toward Classroom Inclusion
Conceptual Models of School Social Inclusion and Classroom Inclusion
The Year 6 evaluation next explored the value and impact of Project UNIFY to students without
disabilities by focusing on the ways in which involvement in Project UNIFY influenced students’
34 Regression analysis is a statistical technique used to estimate both the strength and direction of the relationships between two variables.
44
perceptions of school social inclusion and their attitudes toward inclusion in the classroom. As
previously mentioned, these two areas were included because of their direct relation to Project UNIFY’s
goals and their direct relation to how students spend their time in school. Before presenting these
findings, it is important to first understand the types of analyses that were conducted, as well as the
reasons why they were selected.
When conducting research with a student population, it is necessary to recognize that students are
individuals making up a multitude of classroom communities, which in turn, make up the entire school
community (see Figure 7). Most traditional data analyses, which have been used in past evaluations,
assume that the findings for each individual student have no relation to one another. That is to say, the
analyses assume that students are completely independent from one another and factors such as their
school environment play no role in their opinions and actions. However, because students are nested
within classrooms and schools, it would be expected that students in the same school are more similar
to one another than students from different schools. It is common practice in the field (Bryk &
Raudenbush, 1992;35 Hox, 200236) to adjust for and model this degree of relatedness between students
through the use of a technique called hierarchical linear modeling (HLM). HLM is able to accomplish this
by taking into account two distinct areas: 1) the difference in opinions and actions among students
within each school, and 2) the overall differences among students across different schools.37 Thus, by
using this technique researchers are able to more accurately capture differences between students and
between schools. However, analyses of this type require a sample of students that truly represents the
school from which they are drawn. The Year 6 evaluation was the first year in which data collection
provided this representation of students within Project UNIFY schools (see Appendix C for more
information about how schools and students were selected to participate), and consequently was the
first year that more rigorous analyses could be included that account for the nesting of students within
their classrooms and school contexts.
Figure 7. The relationship between students, classrooms, and schools
35 Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods, 1992. 36 Hox, J. J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Psychology Press. 37 It is important to note that while HLM accounts for the nesting of students within schools, with a sample of only 19 schools it was not possible to demonstrate overall school-level differences. A larger number of schools is required in order to examine differences in how Project UNIFY influenced schools’ average perceptions of school social inclusion or average attitudes toward classroom inclusion.
School
Classrooms
Students
45
When using modeling techniques such as HLM, it is important to have a conceptual base that informs
and guides the statistical analyses. Thus, prior to conducting the analyses, the evaluation team
constructed two conceptual models built on past evaluation findings, as well as other research findings
within the field. These models present several important and expected relationships. The first model
(see Figure 8) includes three steps used to assess the factors that contribute to school social inclusion.
Figure 8. HLM Conceptual Model of Students’ Perceptions of School Social Inclusion
In the first step, student demographic information is included on its own in predicting school social
inclusion. In the second step, students’ participation in Project UNIFY is included along with student
demographic information in predicting school social inclusion. In the third and final step predicting
school social inclusion, the social interactions between students with and without disabilities are
included along with student participation in Project UNIFY and student demographic information.38 By
entering all the variables in this stepwise fashion, it is possible to assess whether the new variables
entered at each step have an additional impact on the outcome, above and beyond the variables that
have already been included.
Similar to the first model, the second model (see Figure 9) includes three steps used to assess the
factors that contribute to students’ attitudes toward classroom inclusion.
38 Social interactions between students with and without disabilities are included in the final step of the model based on past evaluation findings indicating that Project UNIFY provides opportunities for these social interactions and based on past research in the field indicating that social interactions are important for positive perceptions of social inclusion (Siperstein, G. N., Norins, J., & Mohler, A. (2007). Social acceptance and attitude change. In Handbook of intellectual and developmental disabilities (pp. 133-154). Springer US).
46
Figure 9. HLM Conceptual Model of Students’ Attitudes toward Classroom Inclusion
In the first step, student demographic information is included on its own in predicting students’
attitudes toward classroom inclusion. In the second step, students’ participation in Project UNIFY is
included along with student demographic information in predicting attitudes toward classroom
inclusion. In the third and final step predicting students’ attitudes toward classroom inclusion, the social
interactions between students with and without disabilities are included along with student
participation in Project UNIFY and student demographic information. Just as with the first model, by
entering all the variables in this stepwise fashion it is possible to assess whether the new variables
entered at each step have an additional impact on the outcome, above and beyond the variables that
have already been included.
It should be noted that while there are many merits to HLM, and using this technique in Year 6 provided
a more comprehensive picture of Project UNIFY’s impacts, as with all statistical analyses there were also
limitations. Mainly, the data collected could not account for students’ past participation in Project UNIFY
activities and as such, any influence that past participation may have had on students’ perceptions and
attitudes is not reflected in these findings. Over the next few years, the Control Trial of Project UNIFY
will account for this by including only schools that are beginning Project UNIFY for the first time and
following those schools and their students over time. As such, the Control Trial of Project UNIFY will
expand upon the Year 6 analyses to provide a more precise picture of how Project UNIFY influences
students’ perceptions of school social inclusion and their attitudes toward inclusion in the classroom.
47
Findings for School Social Inclusion and Classroom Inclusion
Project UNIFY’s Impact on School Social Inclusion
To explore the conceptual model of school social inclusion (see page 45), it was important to first
examine the effects of students’ gender, grade, and ethnicity on their perceptions (see Appendix A:
Table A4 for demographic information about these students). The only student characteristic that
influenced students’ perceptions of school social inclusion was ethnicity, where Hispanic students
reported more positive scores than non-Hispanic students (β=.07, p < .05).
The next step in exploring this conceptual model was to examine how Project UNIFY participation
directly influenced students’ perceptions of social inclusion in the school, taking into account how
students’ background characteristics (i.e., demographics) might influence their perceptions. While
students across the 19 schools were generally positive in their perceptions of school social inclusion,
students’ participation in certain Project UNIFY activities significantly impacted these perceptions.
Specifically, the more whole school activities in which students were involved, the more positive were
their perceptions of school social inclusion (β=.09, p < .001; see Figure 10).
Figure 10. Relationship between participation in whole school activities and scores on the School Social
Inclusion Scale
The third and final step in testing the conceptual model was to examine all the factors together (i.e.,
student demographic information, student participation in Project UNIFY, and students’ self-reported
interactions with their peers with disabilities) in predicting students’ perceptions of school social
inclusion. By including all the factors together in this final step, it is possible to examine the impact of
each factor on students’ perceptions of school social inclusion while taking into account the influence of
the other factors. Even when controlling for all of these factors, participation in whole school activities
continued to be significant (β=.08, p < .001). Most interestingly, even when accounting for students’
participation in Project UNIFY, students’ social interactions with their peers with disabilities significantly
impacted their perceptions of school social inclusion. Not unexpectedly, the greatest influence on
students’ perceptions of school social inclusion came from the social interactions and experiences that
occurred within the school. Students who reported seeing their peers with disabilities in school every
day (β=.16, p < .001) or talking to their peers with disabilities at school (β= .15, p < .001) were those
more likely to have positive perceptions of school social inclusion. Moreover, students who got to know
their peers with disabilities on a more personal level in school, but outside of the classroom, reported
27
28
29
30
31
32
0 1 2 3Sch
oo
l So
cial
Incl
usi
on
Sc
ale
Sco
re
Number of Whole School Activities
48
more positive perceptions of social inclusion in the school (β= .05, p < .05). Clearly, beyond the
involvement of students in Project UNIFY, the physical inclusion of students with disabilities in the
school and the meaningful social interactions (i.e., talking to students with disabilities at school and
personally knowing them outside of class) that occur between students with and without disabilities at
school are also of critical importance in fostering a school community of understanding, inclusion, and
respect.
The results of the presented HLM analyses provide the first picture of how involvement in Project UNIFY
impacts students’ perceptions of social inclusion in the school. While the findings highlight the
importance of student involvement in whole school activities, it is essential to understand that Unified
Youth Leadership Clubs and Unified Sports also play an important role in positively influencing students’
perceptions of school social inclusion; however, this role is somewhat different. Findings signify that the
effects of Unified Youth Leadership Clubs and Unified Sports are accounted for by other factors that
were included in the model. Mainly, participation in Unified Youth Leadership Clubs or Unified Sports led
to more social interactions between students with and without disabilities, which in turn, led to more
positive perceptions of school social inclusion. That is to say, the influence of Unified Youth Leadership
Clubs and Unified Sports is because of those activities’ influence on students’ social interactions with
their peers with disabilities, which has been demonstrated previously (see page 43).
Interestingly, even when taking into account students’ social interactions with their peers with
disabilities, whole school activities significantly influence students’ perceptions of school social inclusion.
Since whole school activities take place in an environment where the majority of the school is involved,
it is expected that these activities impact the way in which students view the school as a whole. The
finding is also likely due, in part, to the nature of the activities in the Whole School Engagement
component. Some of these activities have educational aspects (e.g., R-Word Campaign or Pep Rally),
affording students the opportunity to learn about diversity and acceptance of differences. Other whole
school activities involve fundraising and opportunities to give back to the community, allowing students
to apply what they have learned in activities such as the R-Word Campaign, and work together in a way
that actively helps members of their school or the larger community. As a result, students who are
involved with their peers with and without disabilities in these types of experiences, especially those
involved in more than one whole school activity, are more likely to experience a positive school culture
of inclusion and in turn, report more positive perceptions of social inclusion within their school.
Moreover, it is likely that students involved in Unified Sports and Unified Youth Leadership Clubs, as
students who are typically passionate about inclusion and acceptance, already have highly positive
perceptions of school social inclusion when they join the activity. As such, these students have less room
for additional growth in terms of their perceptions of school social inclusion than students who are not
as intimately involved in Project UNIFY (i.e., whole school activities only) and who likely begin with less
positive perceptions of school social inclusion. Given that the Year 6 evaluation only captured students’
perceptions of school social inclusion at the end of the school year, it was not possible to assess what, if
any, differences there were between the students involved in the smaller team- or club-based activities
and students who only participated in whole school activities. This is one area that the Control Trial of
49
Project UNIFY will address in the coming years by surveying students involved in Project UNIFY activities
at both the beginning and the end of the school year.
Project UNIFY’s Impact on Attitudes toward Classroom Inclusion
To explore the conceptual model of classroom inclusion (see page 46), a second series of regression
analyses were conducted. Similar to the analyses involving school social inclusion, the first step in
examining students’ attitudes toward classroom inclusion was to explore the impact of their gender,
grade, and ethnicity on these attitudes. The findings showed that females were more positive in their
attitudes toward classroom inclusion than males, while grade and ethnicity did not play a role in
students’ attitudes (β=.12, p < .001).
The next step in this set of analyses was to explore how Project UNIFY participation influenced students’
attitudes toward inclusion in the classroom, taking into account how students’ background
characteristics (i.e., demographics) might influence their attitudes. Similar to the school social inclusion
results, findings showed that whole school activities (such as the R-Word Campaign, Fans in the Stands,
and fundraising) significantly impacted students’ attitudes toward inclusion in the classroom. The
students who participated in more whole school activities were those most likely to report positive
attitudes toward classroom inclusion (β=.09, p < .001; see Figure 11). Unlike with students’ perceptions
of school social inclusion, participation in Unified Youth Leadership Clubs also significantly influenced
students’ attitudes toward inclusion in the classroom (β=.11, p < .05).
Figure 11. Relationship between participation in whole school activities and scores on the Attitudes
toward Classroom Inclusion Scale
The third and final step in testing the conceptual model of classroom inclusion was to examine all the
factors together (i.e., student demographic information, student participation in Project UNIFY, and
students’ self-reported interactions with their peers with disabilities) in predicting students’ attitudes
toward classroom inclusion. By including all the factors together in this final step, it is possible to
examine the impact of each factor on students’ attitudes toward classroom inclusion while taking into
account the influence of the other factors. Even when accounting for all of these factors, both
participation in whole school activities (β=.08, p < .001) and participation in Unified Youth Leadership
Clubs (β=.07, p < .001) continued to be significant. Similar to the findings on students’ perceptions of
school social inclusion, even when taking into account students’ participation in Project UNIFY, the social
27
28
29
30
31
32
0 1 2 3
Att
itu
des
to
war
d
Cla
ssro
om
In
clu
sio
n
Sco
re
Number of Whole School Activities
50
interactions between students with and without disabilities significantly impacted students’ attitudes
toward classroom inclusion. That is to say, social interactions that occurred in school and, more
specifically, in classrooms significantly influenced students’ attitudes (β=.09, p < .01), and they had more
positive attitudes toward classroom inclusion. Furthermore, simply seeing students with disabilities
every day at school was also important and significantly impacted students’ attitudes toward inclusion in
the classroom (β=.11, p < .001). While outside of school social interactions between students with and
without disabilities were minimal (see pages 42-43), those who reported inviting their peers with
disabilities to “hang out” with friends were also more likely to have a positive attitude toward inclusion
in the classroom (β=.13, p < .01). Clearly, in addition to the involvement of students in Project UNIFY, the
physical inclusion of students with disabilities and the social interactions that occur between students
with and without disabilities in a variety of locations (both in and out of school), are important to
building school communities where the students view inclusion in their classroom in a positive light.
The results of the presented HLM analyses build upon past findings regarding students’ attitudes toward
inclusion in the classroom, which showed that students who participated in Project UNIFY, especially in
multiple components, had more positive attitudes toward classroom inclusion. When reflecting on the
Year 6 findings, it is again important to note that while the findings highlight the importance of student
involvement in whole school activities and Unified Youth Leadership Clubs for students’ attitudes
toward classroom inclusion, the non-significant findings for Unified Sports do not indicate that this
activity has no impact on students’ attitudes. Instead, the results again show that the effect of Unified
Sports is accounted for by other factors that were included in the model. Mainly, participation in Unified
Sports leads to more frequent social interactions between students with and without disabilities, which
in turn lead to more positive attitudes.
Given that whole school activities often incorporate educational elements that teach about acceptance
of diversity and serve to expose students to concepts of tolerance and understanding, it was not
unexpected that students who participate in these activities to a greater extent have more positive
attitudes towards inclusion in the classroom. Similarly, the influence of Unified Youth Leadership Clubs
on students’ attitudes toward classroom inclusion was also not surprising given that those involved in
Unified Youth Leadership Clubs often interact with their peers with disabilities in a classroom-like
context, rather than a sports setting. Involvement in Unified Youth Leadership Clubs typically provides
students with opportunities to work together with their peers with disabilities as equals to plan and
implement activities, thus allowing them to gain knowledge of and an appreciation for the skills and
abilities of these students. Moreover, as mentioned previously, students involved in Unified Sports and
Unified Youth Leadership Clubs likely already have highly positive attitudes toward classroom inclusion
when they join the activity and as such, these students may have less room for additional growth than
students who are not as intimately involved in Project UNIFY (i.e., whole school activities only). This will
be furthered explored in the coming years through the Control Trial of Project UNIFY.
51
3. Students’ Positive Experiences as a Result of Participation in Project UNIFY
Beyond exploring how involvement in Project UNIFY impacted students’ perceptions of social inclusion
in the school and their attitudes toward classroom inclusion, like in past evaluations, it was also
important to understand what they personally took away from their involvement in the program.
Generally, Project UNIFY was a positive developmental experience for most students; it provided them
with opportunities to meet new people and learn new things, and to experience personal and
interpersonal development. Specifically, it provided students with the opportunity to develop prosocial
skills, with the majority of students reporting they learned about helping others (89%), changing the
school for the better (81%), and standing up for something they believed was right (87%). Furthermore,
participating in Project UNIFY also afforded students the opportunity to develop leadership skills, as
many students learned about the challenges of being a leader (81%), had the opportunity to be in
charge of a group of peers (68%), and became better at sharing responsibility (84%). Moreover, three-
quarters of students (76%) reported that participation in Project UNIFY had an impact on their plans for
the future. In fact, students generally regarded Project UNIFY as a positive turning point in their lives
(84%). Overall, students involved in Project UNIFY have opportunities to develop skills in a wide range of
areas, and feel they are impacted on a personal level by their involvement in the program.
Past evaluations have established that the greater students’ involvement is in Project UNIFY, the
stronger the impact is on them personally. The Year 6 evaluation sought to replicate these findings with
a more representative sample of students, and in fact confirmed that the more activities students
participated in, the more positive experiences they gained as a result of their involvement (r = .34, p <
.01). Furthermore, the more Project UNIFY components students were involved in, the more positive
gains they reported as a result39 (see Table 15). That is, students who participated in two Project UNIFY
components reported a more positive developmental experience than students who participated in one
component, and students who participated in all three components reported a more positive experience
than students who participated in two. Clearly, the more students are involved in the different activities
and aspects of Project UNIFY, the more they take away from their experience.
Table 15. Mean student experience scores by participation in Project UNIFY components
Project UNIFY Components40 n Youth Experience Scale (YES)
Mean (SD)
One component 837 43.2 (15.1)
Two components 463 48.7 (14.3)
All three components 188 53.5 (12.7)
39 These statistically significant findings are based on the results of a one-way ANOVA (F =59.14, p < .001). Post-hoc comparisons revealed that the difference between all three groups were significant (i.e., one component, two components, and all three components). 40 It is important to remember that not all students included in the analysis had the opportunity to engage in all three components of Project UNIFY as participation was limited to those initiatives that were offered in the school.
52
While most students had a positive developmental experience as a result of their participation in Project
UNIFY, it was clear that the way in which they were involved, including the types of activities they
participated in, was important for the amount of personal growth experienced. In order to truly
understand the unique impact of each individual activity on students’ personal growth and
development, data were analyzed from groups of students who participated in only one Project UNIFY
activity. That is to say that the only Project UNIFY activity these students participated in was Unified
Sports, Unified Youth Leadership Clubs, or one or more whole school activities. Students who were
involved in a Unified Youth Leadership Club only or Unified Sports only reported a greater amount of
personal growth than students who were involved in just whole school activities (see Table 16).41 For
example, nearly all of the students (89%) involved in a Unified Youth Leadership Club only reported that
they made friends with someone with a disability, whereas less than two-thirds (63%) of students
involved in the whole school activities only reported they made friends with someone with a disability.
This demonstrates the way in which activities like Unified Youth Leadership Club or Unified Sports
provide students with the opportunity to work closely with their peers (both with and without
disabilities), providing the opportunity for meaningful interactions and relationships. As such, students
involved in these activities report the greatest level of personal growth.
Table 16. Mean experience scores for students who participated in only one Project UNIFY activity
Project UNIFY Activity n Youth Experiences Survey (YES)
Mean (SD)
Unified Youth Leadership Club only 277 51.5 (12.4)
Unified Sports only 230 48.2 (13.1)
Whole School Engagement component only 699 44.2 (13.9)
It is important to note that while involvement in activities such as Unified Youth Leadership Clubs and
Unified Sports clearly has the greatest impact on students’ experiences of personal growth, these
activities are limited in the number of students they are able to involve (see Section IV.A). In contrast,
whole school activities engage a much larger percentage of the student body, and students involved in
these activities only still experience fairly high levels of personal growth. Moreover, students who are
unable to participate in the small-scale, highly-structured activities like Unified Youth Leadership Clubs
can maximize their experiences by becoming involved in more than one whole school activity. For
students who participated in the Whole School Engagement component only, the positive
developmental experience reported by students was significantly higher for those who participated in
multiple whole school activities (i.e., at least two, or three or more) compared to those who participated
in only one whole school activity (see Table 17).42 Clearly, students who participated in more Project
UNIFY awareness and education activities took away and learned more from the experience than
students who participated in fewer activities of the same nature.
41 These statistically significant findings are based on results of a one-way ANOVA (F =20.88, p < .001). 42 These statistically significant findings are based on results of a one-way ANOVA (F =11.38, p < .001).
53
Table 17. Mean experience scores for students who participated in the whole school activities only
Whole School Engagement Activities n Youth Experiences Survey (YES)
Mean (SD)
One activity 406 42.1 (14.4)
Two activities 218 46.1 (12.9)
Three or more activities 75 49.1 (11.3)
While involvement in multiple Project UNIFY activities (from multiple Project UNIFY components) is
clearly the most beneficial for students in terms of what they take away personally from their
involvement, for students who are only engaged in one activity, involvement in the smaller club-or
team-based activities (i.e., Unified Youth Leadership Clubs and Unified Sports) provides students with
the most meaningful interactions and the best opportunity to experience personal growth as a result of
their involvement.
4. Summary of Value to Students without Disabilities
The Year 6 evaluation has played an essential role in confirming past findings regarding the value and
impact of Project UNIFY for students without disabilities using more rigorous data analyses, while also
exploring new areas of impact that set the stage for the Control Trial of Project UNIFY. Overall, it is clear
that the activities within each of the three Project UNIFY components (Inclusive Sports, Youth
Leadership and Advocacy, and Whole School Engagement) play a role in positively impacting students
without disabilities. Students who participate in Project UNIFY not only have more opportunities for
interactions with their peers with disabilities, but they come away with more positive perceptions of
social inclusion in their school, more positive attitudes toward inclusion in their classrooms, and they
gain a variety of positive personal and interpersonal development experiences.
While students who are involved in multiple activities and components are generally impacted to the
greatest extent, a finding that has been well-established during past evaluations, the Year 6 evaluation
explored and documented for the first time the individual impact and value of specific Project UNIFY
activities. Findings show that whole school activities are important for reaching the greatest number of
students, and also provide the most direct impact on students’ perceptions and attitudes toward
inclusion in the school and classroom settings. However, the smaller team- or club-based activities (i.e.,
Unified Youth Leadership Clubs and Unified Sports) likely provide students with more meaningful
interactions with their peers with disabilities, which allow students to personally gain the most from
their involvement. Like whole school activities, participation in Unified Youth Leadership Clubs and
Unified Sports also influences students’ perceptions of school social inclusion and attitudes toward
classroom inclusion; however, this seems to be due to the increased opportunities for social interactions
with students with disabilities that these activities provide, which in turn impact students’ perceptions
and attitudes. By developing a more thorough understanding of the unique impacts of specific Project
UNIFY activities, it has become clearer than ever that the three Project UNIFY components are most
54
successful when implemented in unison. A quality Project UNIFY program that implements all three
components and works toward involving students in all elements of the program clearly allows for the
greatest impact for the greatest number of students. With inclusive opportunities in schools as
inconsistent as they are, Project UNIFY serves as a vehicle for inclusive opportunities many schools may
not otherwise be able to provide for their students, and helps to foster a school culture where students
without disabilities are accepting of their peers with disabilities both in the classroom and in the school
overall.
C. Value to Students with Disabilities
To consider the value of Project UNIFY to students with disabilities, it is important to understand the
ways in which Project UNIFY plays a part in the day-to-day school lives of these students. To that end,
the Year 6 evaluation incorporated the perspectives of students with disabilities, teachers, parents,
Project UNIFY liaisons, and peers without disabilities. With a focus on the perspectives of students with
disabilities, additional perspectives from those close to the students with disabilities provide a more
comprehensive picture of the experience of students with disabilities in Project UNIFY schools in Year 6.
This exploration into the impact of Project UNIFY on students with disabilities began with the Year 4
evaluation, which revealed that Project UNIFY provides positive experiences and valuable social
opportunities for students with disabilities. These initial findings were supported and expanded upon in
Year 5 with the addition of parent and teacher interviews. Parents and teachers were able to confirm
and provide context for what students with disabilities had to say about their school and social
experiences. The Year 6 evaluation, in addition to including interviews with parents and teachers, also
included group interviews with peers without disabilities. This multi-perspective approach provides the
most complete picture of the experience of students with disabilities in Project UNIFY schools to date. It
is this same approach that will be used in the Control Trial of Project UNIFY in the coming years. The
Control Trial will add yet another layer to looking at the experiences of students with disabilities by
including interviews at multiple time points, across these multiple perspectives. This will create a
window into the shifting experiences of students with disabilities as Project UNIFY is introduced and
implemented in their schools.
Before describing the school and social experiences of students with disabilities in Project UNIFY schools
in Year 6, it is important to understand the context in which Project UNIFY took place. With each school
able to implement Project UNIFY as it best fits the needs of the school, no two Project UNIFY programs
are exactly alike; the school environment, culture, and most importantly the inclusive practices at the
school influence and are influenced by Project UNIFY. Therefore, information about the schools and
their Project UNIFY programming is presented first, followed by student experiences (school, social, and
Project UNIFY) within these school contexts. In total, 16 students with disabilities from three high
schools, as well as eight parents, nine school staff (eight special education teachers and one school
psychologist), and three Project UNIFY liaisons (two special education teachers and one assistant
principal) were interviewed about the school, social and Project UNIFY experiences of these students. In
55
addition, five group interviews were conducted with students without disabilities who were involved in
the Project UNIFY programs at these schools to better capture a sense of the school environment from
those who experience it most directly. While the focus of this section is on the perspectives of students
with disabilities, each of these additional perspectives contributes context and support for what
students with disabilities have to say about their school, social, and Project UNIFY experiences.
1. School Descriptions
Opportunities for inclusion varied at each school depending on the structure of the special education
program, and whether or not students were served in primarily separate classrooms or inclusive
classrooms. Moreover, with Project UNIFY providing schools the flexibility to implement the activities
and components best suited for them, the Project UNIFY programming also varied at each school.
School A
School A is an average-sized high school, with an enrollment of approximately 892 students (NCES,
2011-2012),43 located in a rural setting. Special education teachers described the school culture as
community-oriented and explained that the students at School A grew up together, attending the same
local middle school and elementary school. This seemed to contribute to a strong sense of community at
the school, which these teachers felt was something not typically seen in high schools. They believed
that this strong sense of community contributed to a school environment that was particularly accepting
of students with disabilities, since most of the general education students had known these special
education students for several years. General education students from the focus group confirmed this
sentiment, describing their school as “well-knit” and “like a big family,” and added that this made it very
easy for students to make friends at School A.
The Special Education program at School A consisted of two distinct programs that served students with
different needs. The program that served the lower-functioning students focused on the development
of basic social and life skills. The students in this program were fairly segregated, spending most of their
school day in a self-contained classroom in a substantially separate location within the school. A few of
these students did leave the classroom, however, to deliver coffee to other teachers around the school,
and special education teachers described this as a valuable opportunity for these students to interact
with general education teachers and students. The program that served the higher-functioning students
with disabilities focused on the development of occupational skills. The students in this program spent
part of their day in special education classrooms, which were more centrally located within the school.
Students left the special education classrooms at different times throughout the day to attend electives
with general education students, as well as general education courses with pull-out services.
Furthermore, many upperclassmen in this program had work placements that allowed them to gain job
43 U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. For more information about NCES school data from the 2011-2012 school year, please visit: http://nces.ed.gov/
56
experience and provided them with additional opportunities for interaction with general education
students and teachers, as well as the outside community.
Year 6 was the second year School A implemented Project UNIFY. However, the liaison (a special
education teacher) was familiar with Project UNIFY, having implemented it at a different school prior to
transferring to School A. The liaison felt Project UNIFY was a valuable program, and shortly after starting
at School A recruited students to help form “Club UNIFY”—an inclusive school club where students with
and without disabilities could come together. In Year 6, Club UNIFY met once a month for students to
socialize and plan activities. According to general education students, 50-60 students were regularly
involved in Club UNIFY and the group was so popular that students had to arrive early if they wanted to
get a seat at club meetings. The club led a large R-Word Campaign that was successful in engaging the
whole school. General education students confirmed that Project UNIFY had high penetration within the
school, explaining that because they had such a “diverse group of students” involved, almost every
social group in the school knew about Project UNIFY. Members of “Club UNIFY” also participated in
Unified basketball competitions during the year (though they did not have regularly scheduled team
practices), and went on other group social outings.
School B
School B is a very large high school, with an enrollment of approximately 1,960 (NCES, 2011-2012),44
located in a suburban setting. When asked about the school culture, school staff explained that as a
large comprehensive high school they dealt with the same kinds of student behavioral issues that most
high schools face. However, they had a lot of programming in place, such as PBIS (Positive Behavioral
Intervention and Supports),45 to address these issues and promote respect and kindness within the
school. General education students from the focus groups confirmed that while there was some bullying
at the school, the “administration [took] care of it right away.” Along with the student body having “a lot
of school pride,” the liaison (an Assistant Principal and former special education teacher at the school)
described School B as having always been very inclusion-oriented. General education students added
that while the school could be “cliquey,” it was not hard to make friends, and students were generally
supportive of one another.
The Special Education program at School B served higher functioning students through an inclusion
program and lower-functioning students through a life skills program. The higher-functioning students
attended all classes, both elective and academic, alongside general education peers through co-
teaching. Though the students in the life skills program remained in the same classroom throughout
most of the day, peer-mentors were always present in the room, mixed in among the students with
disabilities, providing a consistent opportunity for interactions in the classroom setting. The students in
the life skills program also left the classroom every day to attend an inclusive PE class, and were given
44 U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. For more information about NCES school data from the 2011-2012 school year, please visit: http://nces.ed.gov/ 45 For more information about PBIS, please visit: https://www.pbis.org/
57
the additional opportunity to participate in an inclusive drama class with general education students.
General education students confirmed that most interaction between students with and without
disabilities occurred in the classroom, but sometimes during lunch (though many special education
students ate at a table together rather than mixing in with the general education students).
Interestingly, the special education classrooms in School B were purposefully unmarked and integrated
throughout the school building in an effort to maximize inclusion via the physical structure of the Special
Education program within the larger school community.
Year 6 was the second year Project UNIFY was implemented in School B. The program grew out of the
school’s involvement in Traditional Special Olympics track and field events hosted at the school for the
last four years. In Year 6, School B had an inclusive school club where students with and without
disabilities came together for social activities. Separately from this, they had a Unified basketball team
that held regular practices and competitions, and an R-Word Campaign spearheaded by a student with
disabilities (with the help of his teachers). Additionally, School B held a Special Olympics Track and Field
event at the school, as they had done in previous years. General education students estimated that half
the student body was aware of Project UNIFY, and that many students were aware of the R-Word
Campaign. One student noted how large the crowds were at their Unified basketball games, explaining
that they sometimes even had a better turnout at these games than they did at their typical school
games.
School C
School C is also a very large high school, with an enrollment of approximately 1,622 (NCES, 2011-2012),46
located in a small urban setting. When asked about the school culture, special education teachers at
School C expressed that while there were some instances of bullying, they had a strong system in place
for handling these types of issues. Bullying was noted as being more of a concern with the higher-
functioning students because these students fit in more with their general education peers and yet
stood out for their social and behavioral problems. One teacher explained that other students can be
unkind and not very understanding of differences “unless it’s obvious to them that they have a
disability.” Overall, these teachers described their school as being “progressive thinking” and
“embracing of diversity” compared to schools in surrounding towns, and felt that this was, in part, a
result of their proximity to a large university. General education students contributed that their school
had a positive atmosphere and that it was “easy to make friends” there.
The Special Education program at School C served students with mild, moderate, and severe disabilities
in three different classrooms, all located together in a remote hallway of the school. General education
students confirmed that students with disabilities were “confined in this one area” and that the Special
Education hallway was “usually deserted.” Some students with disabilities did attend an adaptive PE
class, and higher-functioning students attended electives, such as art, shop, and health, with their
46 U.S. Department of Education. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. For more information about NCES school data from the 2011-2012 school year, please visit: http://nces.ed.gov/
58
general education peers. Overall, however, special education students did not have many opportunities
to interact with general education students in a classroom setting; only a few of the students with mild
disabilities took any general education classes. General education students confirmed that interaction
between students with and without disabilities occurred mostly during electives, and added that at
lunch students with disabilities sat at their own table (though students without disabilities would
sometimes go over to say “hello” to them). One special education teacher explained that the current
Special Education program was actually an improvement from the way the program was set up a few
years ago, when some special education students were taught in a portable classroom outside of the
main school building, completely isolated from the rest of the student body.
Year 6 was the third year Project UNIFY was implemented at School C, and the program grew out of
their pre-existing relationship with Special Olympics. The school has continued to be heavily involved in
Traditional Special Olympics in addition to their Project UNIFY involvement. School C had a particularly
strong Unified Sports program in Year 6, with several different Unified teams including bowling, bocce,
basketball, and soccer, as well as an active inclusive school club where students with and without
disabilities came together for social activities. They also had a Polar Plunge fundraising event that was
planned and implemented mainly by the school liaison and other fellow special education teachers at
the school. Additionally, students from School C attended the Special Olympics State Games this past
winter and competed in more than 10 different events, and were planning to attend the 2014 Summer
Games as well. According to general education students, not many students around the school were
aware of Project UNIFY, but the number of students who were aware “gets bigger every year.”
2. The School Experiences of Students with Disabilities
In order to gain insight into the daily lives of students with disabilities at the three schools described
above, students with disabilities from each of the schools were interviewed. These students represented
a wide range of school experiences, varying based on the school environment and structure of the
special education program at each school, as well as the individual special education placement of each
student. Their experiences with classroom inclusion differed vastly from spending nearly the entire day
in a self-contained classroom, to spending the entire day in the same classrooms as their general
education peers. Students also had different opportunities for social interaction outside of the
classroom, such as in the hallways and cafeteria. Despite these differences in opportunities for inclusion,
students across all three schools generally had very similar, positive things to say about their school
experiences.
All but one of the six students interviewed from School A were a part of the occupational program,
which served higher-functioning students. These students spoke about going to classes and “hanging
out” with friends both in class and during free time at school. When describing the structure of his day,
one student said “I get off the bus and I hang out with friends, then I go to class, and then I go to weight
training and hang out with them.” Some of these students attended general education courses with pull-
out services, and all of them had at least one elective class with their peers without disabilities. Two
students were in a computer class, one in an art class, and another in an apparel class. These students
59
had the opportunity to interact with their peers in the hallways in between classes as well as in the
cafeteria. The one student not in the occupational program spent most of the day in the self-contained
classroom, but also occasionally left the classroom to attend electives such as PE and art, and was
involved in the self-contained classroom’s coffee delivery program, which provided an additional
opportunity for peer interaction during the school day.
Compared to the students with disabilities at School A, the five students interviewed from School C had
slightly fewer opportunities for peer interaction during the school day. Three of these students were in
the classroom for moderate disabilities and spent nearly the entire school day (aside from an adaptive
PE course with general education students) in this self-contained classroom set apart from the rest of
the school. The two students interviewed from the classroom for mild disabilities had more
opportunities for peer interactions in the classroom since they attended electives such as photography,
auto shop, and health with general education students. Only one of these students attended an
academic class with general education peers.
Students at School B had the most opportunities to interact with peers throughout the school day, as
there were general education peers in all of their classes, either as peer mentors or fellow students in an
inclusion classroom. Of the five students who were interviewed from School C, two were a part of the
life skills program for lower-functioning students and three were a part of the program for higher-
functioning students. Students in the life skills program were in constant contact with their general
education peers through peer mentoring and inclusive PE and drama classes. One of the students in the
life skills program also had two internships that provided him with opportunities to develop job skills
and interact with people in the community. The two students in the high-functioning program described
going to different classes around the school throughout the school day, which was corroborated by the
special education teachers, who explained these students attended entirely co-taught or general
education courses with modifications to meet their needs. Some of these modifications included
adapted tests and projects, as well as modified workloads and extended time accommodations.
Across the three schools, the majority of the students with disabilities reported they were happy at
school and that they thought teachers at school liked them. The majority of students also reported that
other students at school were friendly to them and liked them the way they were. 47 Overall, students
with disabilities seemed to feel a sense of belonging at their school, and these findings are indicative of a
positive school experience for students with disabilities at these Project UNIFY high schools. Consistently
apparent across schools was how important the social interactions were to the school experiences of
these students with disabilities. The majority of students (9 out of the 15 who responded to this
question) noted seeing or socializing with their peers as their favorite part of the school day. An
additional four students noted their favorite thing about school was going on school trips. These field
trips, often to Unified Sports competitions, provided an opportunity to get out of the classroom and do
something out of the ordinary, but more importantly to do something social in meeting and interacting
47 Students were asked to respond “No, not true,” “A little true,” or “Very true” to the statements “people at this school are friendly to me” and “other students here like me the way I am.”
60
with new people. Special education teachers and parents confirmed this, making it clear that students
with disabilities highly valued their social experiences at school. See Table 18 for more information
about student, teacher, and parent perspectives of what students with disabilities enjoyed about school.
Table 18. Student, teacher, and parent reports about what students liked about school
Perspective Example comments
Students
“Going on fieldtrips, hanging out with friends, getting awards for doing a good job.” “Eating lunch with my friends.” “Going to Special Olympics and getting to know other people that go to different schools.” “Being here with my friends”
Teachers
“…there is so much academic work we have to do here, that aside from the social part, it’s so over her head… it’s more doing the social things that she does that allows people to get to know her.” “She seems pretty active with her peers… and she has friends here… She hugs them in the hallway, she eats lunch with them.”
Parents
“She adores school. In fact, she hates the weekends now. She wants to be at school more than she wants to be at home... And the reason I think is they really use their peer mentors, so she gets to be in a school setting with peers.” “He enjoys being in class, being with others, he loves [school]”
In-School Friendships
In keeping with the consensus that many of the students with disabilities enjoyed school for its social
opportunities and interactions, overall, students reported very positive social experiences at school. The
majority of students (13 out of 16) reported other students at school were friendly to them, with a few
students (3 students) reporting other students were sometimes friendly to them, or that some students
were friendly and others were not. There was strong consensus among the students on what it meant to
be “friendly,” with most students describing this as other students saying “hello,” smiling at them, and
talking to them in the hallways. Confirming this, special education teachers mentioned how often the
special education students received “hellos” and high fives when walking through the hallways. Given
this generally friendly atmosphere, most students indicated bullying was not an issue, though they did
report sometimes seeing students pick on or tease each other. In fact, one student remarked that he
thought bullying had decreased at his school since starting the R-Word Campaign the previous year.
Student responses reflected teacher perceptions of bullying, which were that it did exist in these schools
but was not an overwhelming problem. One teacher explained that bullying was almost never aimed at
students with disabilities, and another indicated it was sometimes a problem for higher-functioning
special education students because physically they fit in with the general education students, but
socially and behaviorally they stood out.
61
In terms of friendships, every student reported having friends at school. However, the concept of
friendship varied from student to student. While one student used the same description for being
friendly and being a friend (stating that friends are people who say “hello” in the hallway), other
students listed the qualities that make someone a friend, or described friendship by the things they did
with friends or things they had in common with friends (see Table 19). The different concepts each
student provided for friendship are likely representative of their different levels of cognitive
development. Developmental research on friendship has shown that the way people experience
friendship varies across the lifespan. For instance, when typical kindergarten-aged children are asked
what it means to be a friend the most common response is someone with whom they play; adolescents’
most common responses are about engaging in social activities together, “hanging out,” and sharing
thoughts and feelings with each other; and young adults tend to talk about mutual support and respect
(Hartup & Stevens, 199948). The concepts of equity and reciprocity are common to friendship definitions
across development. However, these qualities are sometimes missing in the friendships of people with
disabilities because they do not always participate as equals in their relationships (Kersh, Corona, &
Siperstein, 201349). It is important to note that while the students’ conceptions of friendship varied
tremendously from what a typical young child might say to what a typical young adult might say,
friendships by any definition are valuable to these students. The friendships of students who saw friends
as people who said “hello” or played with them are no less meaningful than the friendships of students
with more complex perceptions of this relationship. Special education teachers verified that all of their
students had friends at school, and while some tended to socialize only with other special education
students, others were friends with a mix of students across the general and special education programs.
One teacher spoke about how her students really admired their peers without disabilities, and despite
not quite having equal status in these relationships, students with disabilities perceived these peers as
friends, and these social interactions were very meaningful for them.
Table 19. Student conceptions of friendship
Example comments
“They’re outgoing like me. We hang out and talk.” “They stick up for you, They let you know if something’s wrong. Even when you’re down, they’ll check on you.” “They say nice things to you, and they don’t bully you, and they don’t get mad over little things.” “They make you more happy.” “My friends like playing” “Someone who agrees with you on things. You can trust them. They’re honest.” “A friend is nice to you, loyal to you, respects you.”
48 Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1999). Friendships and adaptation across the life span. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 76-79. 49 Kersh, J., Corona, L., & Siperstein, G. (2013). Social well-being and friendship of people with Intellectual Disability. The Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology and Disability.
62
Despite the general sentiment that positive social experiences and friendships existed at school for
these students, there was very little out of school interaction between students with disabilities and the
peers they considered friends. This is consistent with the reported interactions of students without
disabilities, very few of whom reported spending time with students with disabilities outside of school
(see Section IV.B). Overall, most students with disabilities spent their time outside of school watching
TV, playing video games, going on the computer, listening to music, and doing things with their families.
Only three students reported “hanging out” with friends, and one student indicated he “sometimes
[hung out] with friends” on the weekends (after further interviewer prompting). For most of these
students school was the only place where they got to interact with peers, either with or without
disabilities. The fact that most students did not report social interactions outside of school highlights
how important school is as a social network and provider of social opportunities in the lives of students
with disabilities. Project UNIFY was utilized by each of these schools to provide these important
opportunities. Parents confirmed that their children did not have many opportunities to interact with
their peers outside of school, and spent most of their time after school watching TV or going on the
computer, and spent a lot of time with their families on the weekends. Some parents expressed that
their children were not invited to do things with peers outside of school. Other parents felt that their
children were simply not very social, with one parent stating that her child was “very reserved” and
another stating that his child “just prefers to do things on his own after school.” One parent spoke about
how her daughter would probably enjoy “more peer attraction” outside of school, but she worried
about being able to protect her from potentially negative experiences. See Table 20 for parent
perspectives about their children’s social worlds.
Table 20. Parent perspectives on their children’s social lives outside of school
Example comments
“He thinks he’s super popular at school, so he feels successful, but he still doesn’t get invited to go do things with his peers [outside of school].” “He likes to play video games, he likes to play soccer, swimming, he loves swimming…but he doesn’t really hang out with anybody from school.” “Outside of organized activities, just social things…It’s not a natural thing that goes on…he doesn’t say that he wants to have anybody over, or go to anybody’s house.”
3. Project UNIFY Experiences of Students with Disabilities
For most of the students with disabilities, Project UNIFY played an important role in providing
extracurricular opportunities beyond what was normally afforded during the school day. Generally,
extracurricular activities provide important social opportunities and a sense of group membership and
belonging for high school students (Wallace, Ye, & Chhuon, 201250). Very few students with disabilities
reported involvement in any activities outside of Project UNIFY, and Project UNIFY was the only
extracurricular activity for 11 of these 16 students. An additional two students participated in Project
50 Wallace, T. L., Ye, F., & Chhuon, V. (2012). Subdimensions of adolescent belonging in high school. Applied Developmental Science, 16(3), 122-139.
63
UNIFY as well as Traditional Special Olympics events, and the remaining three students each participated
in one other club or activity outside of Project UNIFY (Eagle Scouts, Beta Club, and Water Polo). Students
spoke at length about the wide range of experiences Project UNIFY offered, including meeting new
people and “hanging out” with friends, going on trips, playing in competitions, supporting their
teammates, and feeling a sense of accomplishment. One student highlighted his role as a Global
Messenger and his leadership responsibilities as part of that Special Olympics program.51 Overall,
students had a lot to say about the extracurricular opportunities provided by Project UNIFY (see Table
21).
Table 21. Students’ favorite things about Project UNIFY
Example comments
“Meeting new friends.” “Feeling achievement, working as a team, and playing the game.” “We put a ban on the r-word, we made t-shirts… We made a video to get the word out… And ever since then I haven’t heard anybody use the word.” “Being able to be the supporter and being able to play.” “I like being a Global Messenger and getting the word out. We do things for other people. We help with different things, like disabilities and special needs. And I tell people ‘don’t pick on them’…”
Project UNIFY also played an important role in providing opportunities for social interactions and
friendships for students with disabilities. The majority of students (12 out of 15) reported making friends
through their participation in Project UNIFY. Two students noted that they did meet a lot of nice people
but did not consider these students to be friends, and the remaining student reported she didn’t make
new friends but rather became closer with the friends she already had. Many students reported seeing
and interacting with the friends they met through Project UNIFY in the hallways at school, and a few
reported eating lunch with these friends as well. Every student met new people and had a positive social
experience in being involved, and almost every student became friends with the people they met.
Clearly, Project UNIFY expanded the social lives of these students with disabilities.
However, when it came to out of school interactions, the majority of students reported that they did not
see their Project UNIFY friends outside of school. For the most part, friendships made through Project
UNIFY did not extend outside of school, which is consistent with reports from students without
disabilities (see Section IV.B). Despite the friendships formed through Project UNIFY not extending
beyond school, they are still incredibly valuable to students with disabilities and contribute immensely
to their positive experiences at school. Teachers confirmed this, reporting that Project UNIFY had given
these students recognition within their schools, such as general education students approaching them in
the hallways to congratulate them on how well they played in a recent Unified Sports game. See Table
51 For more information about Special Olympics Global Messengers, please see: http://www.specialolympics.org/uploadedFiles/SO%20-%20Athlete%20Leadership%20Programs.pdf
64
22 for student and teacher perspectives on the positive social experiences related to Project UNIFY
participation.
Table 22. Student and teacher perspectives on positive social experiences related to Project UNIFY
Perspective Example comments
Students
“It’s an awesome feeling to know that your friends are there to support you.” “I made better friends... I see them around school and chat with them more.” “It’s a good club to be in. They’re nice and caring. They check up on me and cheer me up when I’m feeling down.”
Teachers
“She was never a shy girl to begin with, but I think this just gave her more people to associate with. And our club has grown and it keeps getting bigger, so she’s starting to notice that there are people that she just sees their face, and she’ll walk right up to them and be like, “Hey! I remember you from the club meeting!” “We’ve got students coming in there that he would not normally see throughout the day. But since the club, now when he sees them, they’ll acknowledge him. He doesn’t feel as separate.” “I think when she started playing, [she] finally felt a part of something. She felt like she belonged.”
In addition to the social benefits associated with involvement in Project UNIFY, many students reported
learning new things through their participation in Project UNIFY activities. Some students spoke about
gaining athletic skills and learning about teamwork, others talked about not using the R-word, and a few
students spoke about learning to be themselves. Teachers and parents confirmed that they saw positive
changes and personal growth in many of these students as a result of their involvement in Project
UNIFY. Teachers spoke about how students gained confidence, self-esteem, and social skills. One
teacher noticed huge changes in two of her students with behavioral problems since they began
participating in Project UNIFY, because it provided them with motivation to improve. Parents agreed
that their children had gained social skills and confidence, and a few parents also noted that their
children had become better self-advocates. One father explained that after having such a positive
experience participating in Unified Soccer, his son wanted to play other sports with his general
education peers as well, and took the initiative to go speak to the water polo coach at his school, and
after attending practices for a year, made the team. See Table 23 for student, teacher, and parent
perspectives on what students learned/gained by being involved in Project UNIFY.
65
Table 23. Student, teacher, and parent perspectives on students’ personal growth from Project UNIFY
Perspective Example comments
Students
“I learned a lot. I learned that respect is everything, loyalty and friendship and unity…I put my heart out in every speech I do, because everybody needs a friend out there that can motivate them to do better…Everybody’s got different traits. Everybody’s got different skill sets.” “You’re not as different as you think you are.” “Be yourself. Don’t let anybody drag you down.”
Teachers
“…it really gives them something to look forward to, it gives them a sense of pride and accomplishment because there are spectators there for them.” “The fact that she joined the basketball team was huge…That was a huge risk for her…but she hung right in there and kept going…There were times early on where it seemed like she wasn’t going to be able to do it, it’s hard. She did it though and it was a real benefit to her self-esteem.” “…coming here and doing Special Olympics, and the track events and basketball, it has just changed him, it’s given him such a positive outlook on things…It gives him a sense of tomorrow, you know, looking forward to that kind of stuff where they might not have that much to look forward to at home or outside of school.”
Parents
“He’s improved his social skills…His worldview of ‘this is what I can do and this is how I have to do it’ has been expanded beyond the limitations of the educational program that he’s in. He looks for ways that he can meet society at his level and his way, rather than hiding from his peers that are not special needs. There’s nothing good enough I can say about this program. It’s a necessity.” “It changed her life. It was unbelievable. She has more courage, more strength.” “I’ve seen other attempts to break down this barrier…I think the whole school from the top down has adopted this kind of model. It’s something that I’d like to see replicated in school after school. It’s benefited my son and made him hard to handle, in that I have to constantly be asking myself if I’m holding him back, rather than if he’s capable of doing the things that he wants to do.”
4. Summary
Through this qualitative look at the experiences of students with disabilities in Project UNIFY schools, it
is clear that Project UNIFY played an important role in the school and social experiences of students with
disabilities. Project UNIFY provided valuable opportunities for peer interaction, which enhanced the
social lives of students across all three schools. While all students reported having positive social
experiences at school, some students’ experiences were limited by the structure of the special
education program at their school and the degree to which they were included in classrooms with their
general education peers. Project UNIFY helped to fill this gap at the schools that were less academically
inclusive by providing a rare opportunity for students to meet and interact with general education
peers. Even for students attending the more academically inclusive school, the social opportunities
provided by Project UNIFY were unique, as students were typically not involved in any other
extracurricular activities that would allow them to interact with other students outside of the classroom
66
setting. The positive social experiences of students participating in Project UNIFY carried into the rest of
the school day, as almost all students made new friends through Project UNIFY and reported seeing and
talking to their new friends in the halls and during lunch at school.
While Project UNIFY enhanced the social experiences of students with disabilities at school, the
friendships made through Project UNIFY did not seem to extend beyond the school day. However, this
should not undermine the value of the friendships, positive social experiences, and personal growth that
were brought about by Project UNIFY. Project UNIFY expanded the social networks of students with
disabilities and gave them increased recognition among their school peers. This reflects and supports
the findings reported previously (see Section IV.B), which revealed that Project UNIFY indirectly
impacted the attitudes of students without disabilities by increasing their interactions with students
with disabilities. The data collected through these interviews with school staff, Project UNIFY liaisons,
parents, and students with and without disabilities provide support for the finding that Project UNIFY is
a platform with which to increase interactions between students with and without disabilities, and
additionally suggests that increased interactions lead not only to more positive attitudes among
students without disabilities, but, in turn, to more positive school experiences for students with
disabilities.
67
V. Conclusions and Recommendations
From an initial evaluation of 493 schools in 36 State Programs in Year 1, to an evaluation of 1,509
schools in 45 State Programs in Year 6, Special Olympics Project UNIFY has seen great growth and
expansion over the last six years at the national, state, and school levels. Coupled with this expansion
has been a concerted effort at refining programming and guidelines to provide quality standards to
State Programs and schools. As that refinement came together in Year 6, the evaluation utilized more
rigorous methodology and analyses, yielding the most comprehensive picture of Project UNIFY to date.
Not only did the evaluation confirm much of what has been found in the past, but also enhanced and
expanded on past objectives with an eye to the future goals and objectives of Special Olympics Project
UNIFY. In setting the stage for the Control Trial of Project UNIFY, the Year 6 evaluation demonstrated
the value of robust Project UNIFY programs that implement and involve students in all three
components—Inclusive Sports, Youth Leadership and Advocacy, and Whole School Engagement—as well
as the unique impacts that individual Project UNIFY activities and components have on participating
students. As such, the Year 6 evaluation has enhanced the understanding of how Project UNIFY’s
individual activities and components interrelate to form the most impactful program for schools and
students.
Given the results of the Year 6 evaluation, it is clear that Project UNIFY continues to impact and have
value for schools and students by providing opportunities for social inclusion and for raising awareness
about students with disabilities. At the crux of Project UNIFY, and at the heart of the program’s mission,
is the creation of school communities that support tolerance and acceptance where students with and
without disabilities come together as advocates for, and are the driving force behind, changing
perceptions and attitudes. As a program, Project UNIFY’s three components provide schools and
students with the activities, tools, and experiences they need to effect this change. It is the unique
opportunities afforded by each activity, in combination with one another, that allows for maximum
impact. Specifically, schools that implement only the Whole School Engagement component may
demonstrate a positive impact on students’ perceptions of school social inclusion and attitudes toward
classroom inclusion, but may not have as strong an impact on students’ personal growth and social
interactions. On the other hand, while schools that implement only the Inclusive Sports or Youth
Leadership and Advocacy component may have a strong impact on students’ personal growth and
interactions, without the Whole School Engagement component the impact on students’ perceptions
and attitudes would be limited to a small group of students within the school. Moreover, students that
are involved in more components, especially students involved in all three, personally take more away
from their experiences than students involved in fewer components. It is clear from these findings that it
is the combination of the separate Project UNIFY components that is paramount to Project UNIFY
realizing its full potential as a leader in social inclusion, and in impacting the schools and students for the
long-term.
As SOI embarks on the seventh year of Project UNIFY, with a focus on expanding and strengthening the
program within and across schools nationwide, the following recommendations are offered as support
68
for the enhanced understanding and application of quality programming and its sustainability. This
requires Project UNIFY to maximize the experiences, insights, knowledge and skills of all staff, youth and
adult leaders, and work collaboratively to implement the following recommendations.
Develop technical assistance strategies and professional development opportunities for
State SO Programs that demonstrate the importance of the three -component model of
Project UNIFY and enhances understanding of this effective implementation method.
While it is encouraging that each year increasingly more schools join the Project UNIFY movement, it is
important to acknowledge that since implementing all three components (Category 1 schools) became a
guideline for quality programming in Year 4, there has not been an increase in the proportion of
Category 1 schools (43%-44% for the past three years). Given the Year 6 findings about the importance
of comprehensive Project UNIFY programming that provides varied and unique experiences, in addition
to increasing the number of Project UNIFY schools and the quality of the programming those schools
implement, increasing the number of schools that implement all three components should become a
focus for SOI moving forward. While many new Project UNIFY schools will start with just a few activities
and move toward full implementation of all three components over time, an emphasis can be placed on
increasing the number of schools that implement all three components, even in the emerging stages of
program development. To do so, SOI should develop technical assistance strategies and professional
development opportunities for State SO Programs that demonstrate the importance of the three
component model and enhances their understanding of this effective implementation method. Not only
should SOI develop strategies and opportunities that emphasize the importance of quality Project UNIFY
programming but they should also maintain an open and continuous dialogue with State Programs as
the understanding of this model of implementation expands with the Control Trial of Project UNIFY. The
Control Trial will demonstrate the best practices in implementing all three Project UNIFY components in
a coordinated, integrated way. It is important that SOI develop a means of communicating this
important information to State SO Programs, along with the tools to facilitate this level of
implementation. As State Programs are made aware, they will be in a position to better support schools
to reach this high level of programming, using best practices learned through the Control Trial, which
will increase the number of schools nationwide that see the full impact of Project UNIFY.
Enhance implementation resources and strategies specific to elementary, middle and
high schools and ensure successful dissemination of this information to the appropriate
stakeholders.
The Year 6 evaluation continued to demonstrate differences in Project UNIFY implementation among
elementary, middle, and high schools. Specifically, elementary schools did not implement Project UNIFY
programming to the same extent as middle and high schools. Considering that almost a third (30%) of
Project UNIFY schools were elementary schools in Year 6, it is important in the coming years that SOI
address this difference and work to ensure that elementary schools are able to implement quality
Project UNIFY programs encompassing all three components. Since this finding was present in previous
evaluations as well, past recommendations have advised SOI on the need to adapt and revise Project
69
UNIFY activities to meet the developmental levels of all students involved and/or create guidelines for
how schools can tailor existing Project UNIFY activities to meet the needs of their students. While one of
the primary and original Project UNIFY educational resources—the on-line Get Into It resources and
activities—was created for and is promoted in four developmental levels (K-2, grades 4-6, grades 7-9
and grades 9-12), the majority of other resources created over the years have not been specific to any
particular grade level, or are appropriate primarily at the high school level. However, based on past
recommendations, SOI introduced the Club UNIFY toolkit in Year 6, designed specifically for elementary
school teachers interested in starting Project UNIFY at their school. As might be expected, the toolkit has
yet to take hold. As such, efforts should be made in Year 7 and beyond to ensure any new resources are
communicated and disseminated to State Programs, which then communicate and disseminate to
schools. This is the only way to be certain that all elementary school stakeholders, particularly the
elementary school liaisons, are aware of and understand how this toolkit can benefit their Project UNIFY
program.
In the same way the Club UNIFY toolkit has been created for elementary schools, middle and high school
liaisons would also benefit from a specific guidebook or toolkit geared toward the age and
developmental level of the students they serve. In fact, the Control Trial of Project UNIFY employs such a
playbook for the high schools involved, which has been well-received among both schools and State SO
Programs. Not only does this playbook provide schools with information about Special Olympics, Project
UNIFY, and the social inclusion movement in high schools more generally, but it also provides step-by-
step guidelines for implementing each of the Project UNIFY components, best-practices on how and
when to implement activities, and directs the user to other available Project UNIFY resources. In
addition to the already-existing school-level resources available (e.g., Get Into It, the Club UNIFY toolkit),
having a resource such as the Control Trial Playbook designed for each level of school would greatly
benefit schools and State Programs in implementing quality Project UNIFY programs, relevant to the
students involved, with greater ease.
Beyond creating playbooks for each school type, an emphasis should be placed on disseminating these
resources effectively. Utilizing the Project UNIFY resources homepage to group the playbooks with other
corresponding resources for each school level will allow students, educators, and Programs to easily and
effectively access the right materials. An additional strategy might be to engage members of the
National Education Leaders Network (NELN) and national partners who can not only disseminate the
playbooks to additional stakeholders beyond schools and Programs, but also contribute their vast
expertise to the content of the playbooks.
Provide more opportunities for youth leadership training and involve more students in
such activities to effectively engage students with and without disabilities as leaders
and change agents in their schools and communities.
Consistent with past years, the Year 6 evaluation found that only about a quarter of schools (28%)
implemented one or more youth leadership training activities (i.e., youth leadership training for
students with ID (such as ALPs/Global Messengers), state- or national-level Youth Summit, or state- or
70
national-level Youth Activation Committee). Beyond the few schools that implement these types of
activities, in the sample of 19 model Project UNIFY schools, very few students (9%) reported
involvement in any type of youth leadership training. Considering one of Project UNIFY’s goals is to
activate youth to become leaders in their schools and communities and advocate for the inclusion and
acceptance of all students, youth leadership training is an essential component of Project UNIFY in
providing students with the knowledge and skills necessary to achieve this goal. This is especially
important considering leadership skills do not come naturally to all students, especially students with
disabilities or younger students (e.g., students in elementary schools), and as such students need to be
supported in developing these skills. In order to foster greater involvement of students in youth
leadership training SOI should develop concrete strategies aimed at increasing not only the training
opportunities, but also the number and types of students involved. One such strategy may be to create a
formal leadership training course for each school type (elementary, middle, and high), which has
structured guidelines, specific training modules, and identified outcomes for both students with and
without disabilities.
Following past recommendations regarding youth leadership, there are now many resources for
implementing youth leadership in Project UNIFY schools. These various resources provide a great
foundation for creating a formal leadership training course or program. In addition to formalizing and
structuring resources, it is critical to widely communicate the availability and benefit of these resources
to the appropriate stakeholders. A playbook designed for each school type (see the previous
recommendation) could aid in effectively disseminating these materials in an accessible, organized way.
Along with organizing and incorporating youth leadership training into playbooks, State SO Programs
could serve as a pathway for schools to access youth leadership training. Moreover, State SO Programs
can also play an important role in helping schools and Project UNIFY liaisons to understand the value of
offering and supporting youth leadership training programs that are available to a broader array of
students, not just those that may emerge as natural leaders. With a strong and formalized youth
leadership training aspect in Project UNIFY schools, not only will students with and without disabilities
have the knowledge and skills necessary to be effective advocates and leaders, but Special Olympics and
Project UNIFY will have taken concrete steps toward the goal of creating youth-led, engaged school
communities of awareness and acceptance for all.
Promote shared leadership in Project UNIFY schools by establishing guidelines and
criteria for the formation of Leadership Teams with in schools that represent and engage
all stakeholders.
The Year 6 evaluation continued to demonstrate that Project UNIFY is heavily rooted in schools’ Special
Education programs. Over half (57%) of Project UNIFY liaisons in Year 6 were special educators, and the
majority of liaisons (71%) reported help and assistance with the program came from fellow special
educators (compared to help from general education teachers in 51% of schools, and from
administrators in 43% of schools). Furthermore, many liaisons and school staff who participated in
interviews in Year 6 noted a disconnection between the special and general education programs at their
school. These liaisons felt and expressed that more collaboration between these groups would not only
71
be beneficial to Project UNIFY programming, but would be welcome and beneficial to the school as a
whole. Help and assistance from only half of the broader school community may be understandable,
and may also represent higher-than-average levels of general education/administrative involvement for
a program that would traditionally be considered as primarily benefitting special education students.
Nonetheless, more inroads can be made, and Project UNIFY is uniquely positioned to emphasize the
benefit such programs can have on entire school communities. As such, in order to reach all school
community members and ensure there is buy-in and understanding of the goals of Project UNIFY,
involving stakeholders beyond Special Education will be most beneficial to all involved.
One way to ensure multiple perspectives are included in shaping the Project UNIFY program at each
school is to create a Leadership Team that includes representatives from the larger school community
(e.g., general education teachers, school counselors, coaches and athletic directors, parents, and
students). Shared leadership, such as that which comes with a Leadership Team, allows for Project
UNIFY to grow and develop within schools without all of the responsibility for the longevity of the
program falling on the liaison or Special Education department alone. It is likely that with more people
taking on responsibility for the program, and championing the program, schools will find it easier to
implement a robust Project UNIFY programs comprised of all three components that effects the most
far-reaching change. A core set of school leaders advancing this work ensures that Project UNIFY is
embedded within the school, integrated within its culture, and that the program will be sustainable into
the school’s future. There are Project UNIFY schools that already employ this type of Leadership Team as
part of their Project UNIFY program, and these schools could serve as an important source of
information on how to design, implement, and sustain a Leadership Team within Project UNIFY schools.
Such information can assist SOI in creating a formal set of Leadership Team guidelines for use nationally.
72
VI. Implications and Future Directions
As Project UNIFY moves into its seventh year and beyond, the evaluation team has recognized some
important areas as possible new directions in the research and evaluation of Project UNIFY. These
suggestions are meant to enhance and expand upon what is known about Project UNIFY from previous
research and evaluation efforts. By continuing to evolve, the evaluation and research can more
effectively assist Project UNIFY in achieving its long-term goals and mission.
Examine whether Project UNIFY activities , and the social interactions that result from
participation in those activities, lead to friendships between students with and without
disabilities.
As the annual evaluation has consistently shown, students involved in Project UNIFY report more social
interactions with their peers with disabilities compared to students not involved in the program.
Moreover, the more involved students are in the program the more types of interactions they report
having. It is clear that Project UNIFY provides opportunities for students with and without disabilities to
interact in meaningful ways. However, students without disabilities report very little social interactions
with peers with disabilities outside of school. While the annual evaluation has clearly begun to
document how Project UNIFY impacts the social interactions of students with and without disabilities,
the true nature of friendships formed as a result of students’ participation have not been fully captured
by the current evaluation efforts. In particular, it has become important to focus on the nature and
quality of friendships formed between students with and without disabilities, the role of reciprocity in
these relationships, and whether these relationships are mutually beneficial. In the coming years, it will
be an important next step for Special Olympics to investigate these issues and to develop a better
understanding of how the program provides students with and without disabilities the opportunity to
form truly meaningful relationships with their peers.
As a first step, the evaluation of Project UNIFY has begun compiling existing theoretical frameworks and
methodologies (e.g., Asher, 1975; Bukowski, 1994; Coie, Dodge, & Kupersmidt, 1990; Moreno, 1934;
Schneider, 2000; Selman, 1975; Siperstein and Bak, 1980; Sullivan, 1937) to draw from in the
development of an assessment tool of the nature and quality of friendships between students with and
without disabilities. These measures and assessments will be phased into the Control Trial of Project
UNIFY, and as such, could serve as a platform for a more in-depth study of friendships formed as a result
of Project UNIFY. Furthermore, by drawing from the recent theories of friendship among students with
and without disabilities (e.g., Kersh, Corona, & Siperstein, 2013), and documenting the various ways
students with and without disabilities interact through participating in Project UNIFY, Special Olympics
will be in a position to document the different aspects of friendship that may evolve from this
participation. Understanding Project UNIFY as a pathway to friendship for students with and without
disabilities will allow Special Olympics to develop the means to more effectively support students,
school leaders, and State SO Programs in promoting quality and lasting friendships among students
involved in Project UNIFY programming.
73
Investigate how students engaged in Project UNIFY activities influence their peers’
socially inclusive attitudes and behaviors.
As the Year 6 evaluation has shown, students involved in all three components of Project UNIFY gain the
most from their involvement in terms of personal growth, attitudes toward classroom inclusion, and
perceptions of their school’s social inclusion. However, even students minimally involved in the
program, such as in just one whole school activity, hold positive attitudes and perceptions of inclusion.
This may be due, in part, to the very nature of Project UNIFY, which is intended to create a school
community that promotes the acceptance and inclusion of students with differences, and communicates
a standard for attitudes and behavior toward students with disabilities. Moreover, when school staff and
the administration clearly support the goals and mission of Project UNIFY and its activities, it signals to
the entire student body that social inclusion is part of the school’s core values. As such, students who
are minimally involved in Project UNIFY, or not involved at all, are likely impacted by the program simply
by being part of a school community that values and promotes social inclusion among all students.
The positive attitudes and perceptions among students who are minimally involved in the program may
also be the result of a “ripple effect,” where the actions of students more involved in the program
influence those less involved or, perhaps, not involved at all. For example, students who only sign a
pledge to stop using the r-word are very minimally involved in Project UNIFY, but by witnessing other
students promoting inclusion and acceptance in the school throughout the school year, or by witnesses
the interactions between students with and without disabilities, the minimally-involved students may
change their attitudes and perceptions as a result of their experience in a socially inclusive school.
The concept of a “ripple effect” in Project UNIFY schools is based on Contact Theory (Allport, 1954;
Williams, 1947) and Extended Contact Theory, which posits that “knowledge that an in-group member
has a close relationship with an outgroup member can lead to more positive intergroup attitudes” (Levy
and Hughes, 2009). While originally concerned with racial in-group and out-group prejudices, more
recent work has theorized that this concept extends to disability in-group and out-group attitudes
(Huger, 2011). For example, Huger argues that “a college student without a disability would be positively
affected by being friends with someone who was friends with an individual with a disability.” Given this
body of research, it seems likely that Project UNIFY programming, which promotes interactions and
relationships between students with and without disabilities, might also impact students who are not
involved with the program but interact with students who are involved.
While the concept of the “ripple effect” and impacts on intergroup relationships has informed past
evaluation objectives, it has never been directly measured. The Year 6 findings about student attitudes
and perceptions provide some merit to this idea, and as such future evaluation efforts should aim to
document how students involved in Project UNIFY influence their peers’ socially inclusive attitudes and
behaviors. The Control Trial of Project UNIFY will begin to assess certain aspects of the “ripple effect” by
measuring students’ attitudes and perceptions before and after exposure to Project UNIFY. By
examining the attitudes and perceptions of students who are not involved or minimally involved in
74
Project UNIFY and comparing them to students in schools without Project UNIFY, any change in attitudes
and perceptions could be attributed to Project UNIFY’s existence at the school and impact on the school
environment. By documenting the “ripple effect,” Special Olympics will be able to demonstrate that
Project UNIFY truly permeates a school’s culture—not just for the students directly involved or most
involved, but for the entire student body.
75
Appendix A
Table A1. Number of participants across Year 6 evaluation activities
Participants Survey In-person Interview Phone Interview
State Staff 45 0 6
Liaison 1,509 14 4
School Staff 0 70 2
Students 3,945 133 0
Students with disabilities -- 69 0
Students without disabilities -- 64 0
Parents 0 0 23
76
Table A2. Project UNIFY Liaison Survey response rate, by State Program
State Program Number of Schools52 Number of
Surveys Completed53 Response Rate
Arkansas 14 14 100% Arizona 151 73 48% Colorado 74 64 87% Connecticut 33 27 82% Delaware 42 29 69% District of Columbia 32 9 28% Florida 5 2 40% Georgia 30 26 87% Hawaii 44 31 71% Iowa 20 14 70% Idaho 51 27 53% Illinois 91 78 86% Indiana 45 5 11% Kansas 8 3 38% Kentucky 18 7 39% Louisiana 101 14 14% Massachusetts 30 18 60% Maryland 109 18 17% Maine 49 32 65% Michigan 26 22 85% Missouri 76 23 30% Montana 6 4 67% North Carolina 210 180 86% North Dakota 4 2 50% Nebraska 65 28 43% New Hampshire 56 40 71% New Jersey 33 17 52% New Mexico 19 9 47% Northern California 76 35 46% Nevada 47 18 38% New York 78 75 96% Ohio 13 13 100% Oklahoma 24 17 71% Oregon 24 21 88% Pennsylvania 44 13 30% Rhode Island 41 37 90% South Carolina 129 105 81% Southern California 36 18 50% Texas 105 90 86% Utah 25 14 56% Virginia 213 142 67% Vermont 28 19 68% Washington 178 37 21% Wisconsin 30 29 97% Wyoming 12 10 83%
ALL 2,545 1,509 59%
52 Number of schools does not take into account duplicate schools, schools that did not do Project UNIFY, and schools that closed/merged. 53 Number of surveys completed takes into account only those liaisons who satisfactorily completed the survey. Partial responses were not counted toward the response rate.
77
Table A3. Liaison demographics
Percent of Liaisons (n=1,509)
Gender Male 22%
Female 78% Average age 42 years old Position within school Special Education Teacher 50% General Education Teacher 10% Administrator 11% Physical Education Teacher 6% Adaptive Physical Education Teacher 5% Average number of hours spent on Project UNIFY (in a typical week) Less than 1 hour 37% 1 to 2 hours 37% 2 to 5 hours 19% 5 to 10 hours 6% Average number of years at school 9 years Average number of years as Project UNIFY liaison 2 years Previously the liaison at another school 10% Previous SO involvement 69% Average number of years involved 10 years
78
Table A4. Student demographics
Middle School High School
n Percent n Percent
Total number of schools 5 14 Total number of students 882 2,315 Gender Male 48% 48% Female 54% 52% Grade 6th 35% 7th 33% 8th 32% 9th 27% 10th 26% 11th 28% 12th 20% Race White 54% 66% Black 21% 17% Hispanic 28% 21%
79
Table A5. Category 1, Category 2, and “no category designation” schools, by State Program
State Program Completed
Surveys Category 1 Category 2
No Category Designation
Arkansas 14 3 (22%) 2 (14%) 9 (64%) Arizona 73 27 (37%) 18 (25%) 28 (38%) Colorado 64 34 (53%) 11 (17%) 19 (30%) Connecticut 27 21 (78%) 3 (11%) 3 (11%) Delaware 29 11 (38%) 3 (10%) 15 (52%) District of Columbia 9 2 (22%) 3 (33%) 4 (45%) Florida 2 -- -- 2 (100%) Georgia 26 11 (42%) 8 (31%) 7 (27%) Hawaii 31 12 (39%) 7 (22%) 12 (39%) Iowa 14 11 (79%) 1 (7%) 2 (14%) Idaho 27 11 (41%) 3 (11%) 13 (48%) Illinois 78 39 (50%) 19 (24%) 20 (26%) Indiana 5 2 (40%) -- 3 (60%) Kansas 3 2 (67%) 1 (33%) -- Kentucky 7 4 (57%) 1 (14%) 2 (29%) Louisiana 14 5 (36%) 5 (36%) 4 (28%) Massachusetts 18 13 (72%) 2 (11%) 3 (17%) Maryland 18 5 (28%) 6 (33%) 7 (39%) Maine 32 19 (59%) 6 (19%) 7 (22%) Michigan 22 19 (86%) 1 (5%) 2 (9%) Missouri 23 13 (57%) 3 (13%) 7 (30%) Montana 4 3 (75%) 1 (25%) -- North Carolina 180 73 (41%) 31 (17%) 76 (42%) North Dakota 2 1 (50%) 1 (50%) -- Nebraska 28 3 (11%) 9 (32%) 16 (57%) New Hampshire 40 28 (70%) 8 (20%) 4 (10%) New Jersey 17 12 (71%) -- 5 (29%) New Mexico 9 4 (45%) 3 (33%) 2 (22%) Northern California 35 8 (23%) 2 (6%) 25 (71%) Nevada 18 5 (28%) 5 (28%) 8 (44%) New York 75 33 (44%) 7 (9%) 35 (47%) Ohio 13 11 (85%) -- 2 (15%) Oklahoma 17 11 (65%) 4 (23%) 2 (12%) Oregon 21 15 (72%) 3 (14%) 3 (14%) Pennsylvania 13 3 (23%) 6 (46%) 4 (31%) Rhode Island 37 26 (70%) 8 (22%) 3 (8%) South Carolina 105 45 (43%) 27 (26%) 33 (31%) Southern California 18 3 (17%) 1 (5%) 14 (78%) Texas 90 51 (57%) 11 (12%) 28 (31%) Utah 14 5 (36%) -- 9 (64%) Virginia 142 16 (11%) 28 (20%) 98 (69%) Vermont 19 4 (21%) 12 (63%) 3 (16%) Washington 37 7 (19%) 9 (24%) 21 (57%) Wisconsin 29 20 (69%) 3 (10%) 6 (21%) Wyoming 10 3 (30%) 2 (20%) 5 (50%)
ALL 1,509 654 (43%) 284 (19%) 571 (38%)
80
Table A6. Percentage of schools implementing each activity as part of their Project UNIFY program, by State Program
State Program Completed
Surveys Unified Sports
R-word Unified Youth
Leadership Club (Inclusive Clubs)
Fundraising Fans in the Stands/ Unified Sports Pep
Rally
Get Into It
SO/Unified Sports Day
Young Athletes
Participants
Young Athletes
Volunteers
Youth Leadership
Training
SO Youth
Summit YAC
Arkansas 14 21% 21% 7% (21%) 43% 29% -- -- 29% 14% 7% -- -- Arizona 73 67% 56% 36% (49%) 36% 18% 19% 16% 23% 8% 16% 6% 14% Colorado 64 72% 59% 45% (70%) 30% 34% 33% 30% 36% 22% 16% 20% 11% Connecticut 27 96% 52% 59% (78%) 56% 56% 44% 15% 11% 15% 56% 48% 19% Delaware 29 38% 100% 41% (59%) 59% 35% 35% 21% 21% 28% 35% 28% 28% District of Columbia 9 78% 67% 22% (33%) 11% 33% 11% 33% 22% 22% -- -- -- Florida 2 50% -- -- (--) -- -- -- 50% 100% 50% -- -- -- Georgia 26 54% 50% 46% (58%) 65% 58% 19% 19% 46% 39% 12% 8% 8% Hawaii 31 58% 58% 36% (58%) 26% 23% 29% 19% 19% 26% 36% 13% 16% Iowa 14 79% 86% 64% (71%) 43% 14% 14% 86% 7% 14% -- 7% 43% Idaho 27 52% 52% 22% (41%) 41% 41% 37% 19% 11% 4% 15% 22% 30% Illinois 78 59% 77% 44% (64%) 37% 35% 37% 24% 53% 46% 15% 30% 15% Indiana 5 40% 80% 20% (40%) 80% 20% 20% 20% 20% -- 20% -- -- Kansas 3 100% 33% 67% (0%) 67% 100% -- 33% -- -- -- 33% -- Kentucky 7 71% 57% 57% (57%) 43% 43% 14% -- -- 14% 29% 14% 29% Louisiana 14 71% 36% 50% (71%) 14% 57% -- 7% 14% 21% 29% -- 7% Massachusetts 18 83% 94% 56% (83%) 61% 61% 17% 28% 6% 17% 22% 22% 17% Maryland 18 94% 39% 44% (67%) 11% -- -- -- -- -- 6% -- -- Maine 32 81% 56% 47% (59%) 53% 59% 25% 9% 9% 16% 6% 3% 9% Michigan 22 86% 91% 73% (82%) 73% 27% 73% 41% 36% 27% 23% 5% 41% Missouri 23 61% 78% 57% (74%) 91% 26% 26% 17% 22% 26% 22% 4% 26% Montana 4 100% 75% 75% (75%) 75% 25% 25% 25% -- -- 25% 25% 75% North Carolina 180 49% 70% 46% (64%) 40% 33% 29% 28% 16% 19% 10% 14% 8% North Dakota 2 100% 100% 50% (50%) 100% -- 50% -- -- -- -- 50% 50% Nebraska 28 21% 25% 21% (43%) 25% 7% 14% 7% 75% 50% -- -- 7% New Hampshire 40 90% 23% 48% (70%) 70% 58% 15% 23% -- 13% 43% 35% 18% New Jersey 17 53% 65% 71% (77%) 35% 41% 53% 35% 6% 24% 41% 47% 12% New Mexico 9 67% 44% 33% (67%) 22% 33% 11% 22% 22% 22% 11% -- -- Northern California 35 26% 37% 40% (51%) 23% 29% 23% 31% 17% 20% 20% 11% 9% Nevada 18 83% 39% 39% (56%) 6% 17% 11% 28% -- -- -- -- -- New York 75 51% 87% 47% (49%) 84% 61% 27% 44% 5% 7% 51% 12% 28% Ohio 13 85% 100% 85% (85%) 31% 62% 46% 31% 23% 31% 8% 15% 23% Oklahoma 17 88% 77% 47% (71%) 65% 47% 41% 6% 29% 24% 18% 12% 24% Oregon 21 81% 76% 57% (71%) 71% 19% 14% 38% 5% 5% 33% 57% 24% Pennsylvania 13 92% 54% 15% (31%) 23% 15% 54% 15% 8% 15% -- 15% 8% Rhode Island 37 97% 70% 60% (68%) 46% 76% 16% 11% 5% 5% 25% 41% 54% South Carolina 105 61% 51% 37% (70%) 41% 52% 51% 29% 24% 26% 12% 16% 11% Southern California 18 39% 44% 22% (33%) 17% 28% 22% 44% 28% -- 11% 6% -- Texas 90 63% 77% 43% (53%) 23% 53% 58% 32% 9% 13% 14% 7% 3% Utah 14 36% 86% 36% (36%) 43% 36% 21% -- -- -- 14% 7% -- Virginia 142 20% 23% 23% (39%) 5% 28% 18% 28% 24% 23% 6% 5% 3% Vermont 19 100% 37% 21% (84%) 74% 16% 16% 16% 5% 5% 5% 11% 5% Washington 37 54% 32% 22% (38%) 22% 27% 3% 22% 8% 8% 14% 14% 11% Wisconsin 29 76% 79% 72% (86%) 52% 45% 55% 21% 10% 14% 3% 59% 21% Wyoming 10 50% 80% 50% (60%) 60% 30% 30% 10% -- -- 30% 20% 10%
ALL 1,509 59% 59% 42% (59%) 40% 38% 29% 25% 19% 19% 18% 16% 14%
81
Appendix B
Selection of States: In the fall of 2013, the evaluation team worked in conjunction with Special Olympics
to select three State Programs for the Control Trial of Project UNIFY. SOI began by creating a list of
potential State Programs, taking into account the size of the Program (number of schools and
penetration within the state); the Program’s commitment to and interest in data, research and
evaluation; state educational standards, policies, and data (e.g., Common Core, Governance,
expenditure per student, average teacher salary, number of Special Education students statewide); and
the location of the state. SOI approached these State Programs to gauge interest in participating in the
Control Trial of Project UNIFY over the next two years. Taking into account the above state-level
information, as well at the Programs’ interest in participating, the three State Programs were selected at
the beginning of 2014: Colorado, Michigan, and North Carolina.
Selection of Schools: At the beginning of 2014, the three State Programs compiled a list of public high
schools interested in becoming Project UNIFY schools. The Programs contacted these schools to gauge
interest in participating in the Control Trial of Project UNIFY over the next two years, and their
willingness to be randomly selected for starting the program in the fall of 2014 or the fall of 2015.
Interested and willing schools were further vetted by the evaluation team using the following criteria:
school district/location within the state, school size, percentage of minority students, student/teacher
ratio, graduation and dropout rates (for both students with and without disabilities), percentage of
students receiving free or reduced-price lunch, per-pupil expenditure, average teacher salary, inclusion
of students with disabilities in state testing, and the size of Special Education program. By the end of
March 2014, each state had four schools who agreed to participate in the Control Trial of Project UNIFY
and who were representative of their state.
Spring 2014 Site Visits: In April 2014, the evaluation team coordinated in-person site visits with each of
the 12 Control Trial schools. The purpose of the site visits was to determine the level of inclusion in the
school, students’ prior experience with Special Olympics, the communities’ involvement with Special
Olympics, and to confirm public data gathered by the evaluation team during the selection and vetting
process. During the month of May 2014, two members of the evaluation team and a State Program staff
member visited each school to speak with school staff and students with and without disabilities. Site
visits were conducted over the course of one day.
82
Appendix C
Student Experience Survey Selection Procedures
Selection of Schools: In the fall of 2013, the evaluation team used Year 5 Project UNIFY Liaison Survey
data to identify schools with model Project UNIFY programming (i.e., those that implemented all three
components, including Unified Sports, a Partner’s Club, and at least two whole school activities; had
students with and without disabilities involved in the Partner’s Club; had students with and without
disabilities help plan and implement Project UNIFY activities; and the liaison felt it likely the school
would continue Project UNIFY in Year 6; for more information about model Project UNIFY programming
see Appendix D). Working in conjunction with SOI, the evaluation team identified eight State Programs
from which to select model Project UNIFY schools. State Programs were selected based on the
proportion of model Project UNIFY schools in their state, as well as their recent or prolonged
involvement in other Special Olympics research activities. Among these eight State Programs were 91
middle and high schools, from which 30 were selected to participate in the Student Experience Survey.
Seven of the 30 schools were selected because of their past participation in the Student Experience
Survey. The remaining 23 schools were selected in proportion to the number of model schools in the
state. With the assistance of the eight State SO Programs, the 30 schools were contacted to gauge their
willingness and ability to participate in the survey in the spring of 2014. Twenty-three schools
administered the Student Experience Survey between March 2014 and May 2014.
Selection of Students: Based on experiences in Years 4 and 5, student selection procedures were
handled entirely by the evaluation team in Year 6 to ensure random selection procedures were
maintained in selecting representative samples of around 200 students per school. The evaluation team
worked with Project UNIFY liaisons and school principals to obtain a list of all classes offered in the
spring within a required (all 9th-12th graders) year-round academic subject (e.g., English, Social
Studies/History), or all classes taught during one period of the school day (e.g., homeroom, all academic
4th period classes) if the school operated on block or semester scheduling. For each school, using the list
provided by the school, the evaluation team calculated the number of students represented on the list
in each grade, followed by the average class size, which informed the evaluation team how many classes
per grade to select to reach 200 students school-wide (in high schools, around 50 students per grade
were selected; in middle schools 67-100 students per grade were selected depending on whether the
school had two or three grades). In total, 3,945 students participated in the Student Experience Survey
across the 23 schools.
Student Survey Procedures: One week prior to the survey administration date set by the school, the
liaison at each school received a mailing containing an instructional letter to the liaison, passive parental
consent forms (distributed the week prior to the survey), the Student Experience Survey (packaged per
class, along with an instructional letter to the teachers), number two pencils to ensure pens were not
used, and return mailing materials. Students were told to place completed surveys in a large envelope
83
on the teacher’s desk. The teacher was asked to fill out information on the front of the envelope
indicating the name of the teacher, the name of the class, the number of students enrolled in the class,
the number of students who completed the survey based on attendance and parent permission, and any
pertinent notes about the survey distribution and completion. The liaison collected these sealed
envelopes from all of the teachers and mailed them back to the evaluation team using the pre-paid
provided return mailing materials. The surveys were administered to students at the end of the school
year (March – May 2014). On average, the surveys were administered in 10 classrooms per school.
Student Experience Survey Instruments
The end-of-year Student Experience Survey covered many areas including students’ participation in
Project UNIFY (Student Involvement in Project UNIFY Scale) and the experiences they gained from the
program (Youth Experiences Survey), as well as students’ perceptions of school climate and social and
classroom inclusion (Inventory of School Climate, Social Inclusion Scale, Impact of Classroom Inclusion
Scale), and their visibility and interaction with students with disabilities. Descriptions of the individual
scales that made up the survey are provided below.
Student Involvement in Project UNIFY Scale. To assess the involvement of students in Project UNIFY
activities, students were asked to indicate whether or not they participated in any of the Project UNIFY
initiatives (R-Word Campaign, Unified Sports/Unified PE, Traditional Special Olympics Sports, Young
Athletes Program Volunteer, Partners Club, Special Olympics/Unified Sports Day, Fans in the Stands,
Fundraising Activities, Youth Leadership Training) reported to have taken place by the school liaison.54
Although scores could range from 0 – 9 on the Student Involvement in Project UNIFY Scale, the number
and type of initiatives implemented within their schools limited the number of initiatives in which
students had the opportunity to take part. Thus, the range of scores differed by school and was based
on the number of initiatives offered in the school, as reported by the liaison.
Youth Experiences Survey (YES 2.0). To measure the experiences students gained from their
involvement in Project UNIFY initiatives, a revised version of the YES (Hansen, Larson, & Dworkin, 2003;
Hansen & Larson, 2005) was employed, as in Years 3 to 5. In Year 6, the revised version was expanded to
include 26 items from nine subscales of the YES (Identity Exploration, Identity Reflection, Cognitive Skills,
Physical Skills, Diverse Peer Relationships, Prosocial Norms, Group Process Skills, Leadership and
Responsibility, and Social Exclusion) as these items and subscales were most closely related to the
experiences gained from participation in Project UNIFY. Questions were adapted from their original
format to fit the population of students in middle and high school. Examples of questions include “While
doing Project UNIFY activities, did you do things that you didn’t get to do anywhere else?;” “While doing
Project UNIFY activities, did you learn that working together requires some compromising?;” and “While
doing Project UNIFY activities, did you learn that you have things in common with people from different
backgrounds?” Students responded on a 4-point scale, including “Yes, Definitely,” “Quite a Bit,” “A
Little,” and “Not at All.” During analyses only 17 items were included as they aligned best conceptually
54 The school liaison provided an account of the activities that took place in the school via the Project UNIFY Liaison Survey.
84
with the Project UNIFY program. Thus, possible sum scores ranged from 17 to 68, with higher scores
indicating more positive experiences. Coefficient alpha index for internal consistency for the total YES
score was 0.93 for middle school students and 0.96 for high school students.
Attitudes toward Classroom Inclusion Scale. To assess students’ attitudes toward the inclusion of
students with disabilities in classrooms with typically-developing students, the Attitudes toward
Classroom Inclusion Scale was employed. The scale was adapted from the Attitudes toward Persons with
an Intellectual Disability Questionnaire (Rillotta & Nettelbeck, 2007). The adapted scale consisted of 10
items that assessed cognitive aspects of youth attitudes. Youth were asked questions such as “Do you
think having students with special needs in the class creates problems?” and “Do you think students
learn things from students with special needs?” Students responded on a 4-point scale, including “Yes,”
“Probably Yes,” “Probably No,” and “No” with three items reverse coded. The scale was sum-scored,
with possible values ranging from 10 to 40 with higher scores indicating more positive attitudes toward
students with disabilities. Student responses reflected the full range of the scale (10 to 40), with an
average score of 30. The coefficient alpha index for internal consistency was 0.80 for middle school
students and 0.84 for high school students.
Social Inclusion Scale. To assess students’ perceptions about the school environment in terms of the
social inclusion of students with disabilities, the Social Inclusion Scale was employed. This 8-item scale
was modeled after items included in the Positive and Negative Peer Interaction factors of the Inventory
of School Climate – Student Scale (ISC-S; Brand, Felner, Shim, Seitsinger, & Dumas, 2003). Youth were
presented with statements such as, “Students in this school enjoy participating with students with
special needs during school activities” and “Students with special needs are treated the same way as
students without special needs in this school.” Students responded on a 4-point scale, including
“Never,” “Hardly Ever,” “Sometimes,” or “Often.” The scale was sum-scored, with possible values
ranging from 8 to 32, with higher scores indicating more positive perceptions of social inclusion in the
school. Student responses reflected the full range of the scale (8 to 32), with an average score of 24. The
coefficient alpha index for internal consistency was 0.83 for middle school students and 0.82 for high
school students.
Student Interactions. As an expansion from previous years, which focused on students’ behavioral
intentions towards other students with disabilities (i.e., how they would act if they were ever in the
situation presented), the Year 6 evaluation focused on actual social interactions between these students
and their peers with disabilities. To assess the self-reported interactions of youth with their peers with
disabilities, students were asked about the visibility of students with special needs in the school, as well
as any interactions with them. Questions adapted from the “Behavioral Intentions Scale” (Siperstein,
Parker, Norins Bardon, & Widaman, 2007) were used to assess youths’ interactions with their peers with
disabilities in and out of school. Students who indicated they saw students with special needs in school
were asked to indicate all the places they saw them (e.g., in the hallway, cafeteria, classes, Special
Education classroom(s), extracurricular activities, etc.). Additionally, students who indicated that they
talked to a student with special needs at their school were asked about where they talked to them (e.g.,
in the hallway, during free time at school, in the cafeteria, in classes, during extracurricular activities,
85
outside of school, online or on the phone, etc.). Students also reported whether they personally knew
someone who has special needs, and whether they had invited a student from school who has special
needs to go out with them and their friends. Responses were “check all that apply,” with more
responses indicating more visibility of and interactions with students with disabilities.
86
Appendix D
A “model Project UNIFY program” was defined as a school that:
Implemented all three Project UNIFY components (Inclusive Sports, Youth Leadership and
Advocacy, and Whole School Engagement) including Unified Sports, a Unified Youth Leadership
Club and at least two whole-school activities;
Had students with and without disabilities involved in the Unified Youth Leadership Club;
Had students with and without disabilities helping to plan and implement Project UNIFY; and
The liaison felt the program was likely to continue in Year 6.
Project UNIFY Liaison Survey data from Year 5 (2012-2013) were used to analyze which schools met this
“model school” criteria. The evaluation team was interested in using model schools in the Year 6
evaluation to collect and analyze data from top-tier Project UNIFY schools. These criteria were selected
in order to drill down to the schools that were Category 1 (i.e., implemented all three components) did
core Project UNIFY activities (i.e., Unified Sports and Unified Youth Leadership Club), implemented
enough whole school activities to have an impact on students (past evaluations have shown that
students who participate in two whole school activities are more impacted by Project UNIFY than
students who participate in one activity or no Project UNIFY activities), involved students with and
without disabilities in leadership roles (i.e., had students with and without disabilities involved in the
Unified Youth Leadership Club and help plan and implement Project UNIFY activities), and the program
was sustainable (i.e., the liaison felt it likely the program would continue the next year).
In the past, schools with robust Project UNIFY programming used in evaluation activities were
nominated by State SO Programs, and the evaluation team could not ensure that all State Programs
were holding schools to the same standards during the nomination process. By using data collected as
part of the evaluation, the evaluation team was able to certify that all schools were held to and met the
same criteria, and that the Year 6 evaluation was data-driven and informed by past findings.
87
Appendix E
PROJECT UNIFY®
Special Olympics Project UNIFY® is an education-based project that uses sports and education programs to activate young people to develop school communities where all youth are agents of change – fostering respect, dignity and advocacy for people with intellectual disabilities.
PROJECT UNIFY COMPONENTS Inclusive Sports Opportunities which combine individuals with intellectual disabilities (athletes) and individuals without intellectual disabilities (partners) on sports teams for training and competition and/or skill development. Examples: Unified Sports®, Unified Sports® Player Development, Unified Sports® Recreation, Young Athletes™
Youth Leadership and Advocacy Opportunities for youth with and without intellectual disabilities to become agents of change by providing direction and helping lead the implementation of Project UNIFY in their school, community, or state. Inclusive Youth Leadership refers to the partnership developed between partner and athlete that allow both young people to play an equal role in the leadership process. Examples: Partners Clubs, Inclusive Student Council, Best Buddies
Whole School Engagement An activity, event, rally etc. that offers the entire student body the opportunity to participate in and/or be a part of Project UNIFY, including the utilization of education and community resources. Examples: Use of Get into It, Fans in the Stands, School Wide R-word Pledge Drive, Unified Sports Pep Rally, Polar Plunge, service-learning.
PROJECT UNIFY SCHOOL (CATEGORY 1) Category 1 Schools conduct a combination of the three Project UNIFY® components (Unified Sports, Youth Leadership and Advocacy, Whole School Engagement). Through various levels of intensity, the combination of these three components creates the maximum impact within a school.
EMERGING PROJECT UNIFY SCHOOL (CATEGORY 2) A Category 2 school is on its way to becoming a Project UNIFY ® school. Category 2 schools conduct two out of three of the Project UNIFY components (Unified Sports, Youth Leadership and Advocacy, and Whole School Engagement). Unified Sports must be one of the two components conducted. These schools are expected to move to Category 1 status within 3 years.
PARTNERS CLUBS®
A school-based club that teams students with and without intellectual disabilities in sports training and competition, also offering social and recreational opportunities. Partners Clubs often are formed when there is no existing club or youth leadership group in a school where young people with and without ID can work together on Project UNIFY activities. They may also be formed to supplement and add to those existing inclusive group opportunities, keeping in mind that in an optimum scenario, there are multiple inclusive non-academic opportunities in which students with and without ID can collaborate and work on projects together.
UNIFIED SPORTS A Unified Sports team is an inclusive sports program with approximately equal numbers of athletes and partners.
Unified Sports teams should never be comprised solely of people with disabilities. Athletes and partners should be
of similar age and ability in team sports. However, a greater variance in age and ability is allowed in specific sports
such as golf. Refer to Article 1 of the Official Special Olympics Sports Rules for more details regarding age and
ability matching by sport.
88
Appendix F
School Level
As in past evaluations, school level (elementary, middle, high) continued to be a factor explored in Year
6 to better understand how Project UNIFY was implemented across schools. Past evaluations have
shown differences between elementary, middle, and high schools, highlighting the impact that the
developmental level of students can have on the ways that Project UNIFY is implemented in a school.
Thus, the Year 6 evaluation sought to explore these difference again. To do so, five school level
categories were created from Liaison Survey data:
Elementary schools: primarily consisted of those schools containing grades between preschool
and 5th grade, but also included schools with kindergarten through 8th grade combinations.
Middle schools: primarily consisted of those schools containing grades between 5th and 8th
grade, but also included schools with 5th through 9th grade combinations.
High schools: primarily consisted of those schools containing grades between 9th and 12th grade,
but also included 5th through 12th grade combinations and 9th through College combinations.
College: consisted of only those schools where the liaison selected “college” for the grade level.
Other: any school where the grades spanned a wide range (e.g., Kindergarten through 12th
grade, entire school districts, etc.).
Only elementary, middle, and high schools were considered when examining Liaison Survey data by
school level.
Category Designation
As in past evaluations, category designation (i.e., Category 1, Category 2, and “No Category Designation”
schools) continued to be a factor explored in Year 6 to better understand how schools implementing all
three Project UNIFY components differed from schools implementing fewer components. Past
evaluations have shown a difference between Category 1, Category 2, and schools that do not meet
either category. To do so, three category designation variables were created from Project UNIFY Liaison
Survey data using SOI Year 6 guidelines:
Category 1 schools: schools that implemented all three Project UNIFY components (Inclusive
Sports, Youth Leadership and Advocacy, and Whole School Engagement).
Category 2 schools: schools that implemented Inclusive Sports and only one other of the two
remaining components
“No Category Designation” schools: schools that were not Category 1 or 2 (i.e., schools that
implemented one or no Project UNIFY components, or did not implement the Inclusive Sports
component).
For more information about SOI’s Year 6 guidelines see Appendix E.
New and Established Project UNIFY programs
In preparation for the upcoming Control Trial of Project UNIFY, which will consist of entirely new Project
UNIFY schools implementing all three Project UNIFY components in their first year of programming, the
Year 6 evaluation sought to better understand New Project UNIFY schools. What do these schools’
89
programs look like? What support do they receive? How do they plan to grow their program in the
future? Analyzing New Project UNIFY schools, in comparison to Established schools, also provided
another layer to the longitudinal analyses conducted in past years on schools with consecutive years of
data. Past evaluations have shown that schools add components and activities as their program
develops across multiple years, thus looking quite different from schools just starting out. To look at the
differences between New and Established schools, two variables were created from Project UNIFY
Liaison Survey data:
New Project UNIFY schools: those schools where the liaison answered “yes” to the question “Is
this the first year that your school implemented Project UNIFY?” and who were verified as new
in the dataset (i.e., the school did not have any Project UNIFY Liaison Survey data from past
evaluations).
Established Project UNIFY schools: those schools where the liaison answered “no” to the
question “Is this the first year that your school implemented Project UNIFY?” and who were
verified as having three or more years of data from past evaluations.
Schools that had only two years of data, or that could not be verified as being either New or Established
were not included in analyses regarding New and Established programs.
90
Appendix G
As Project UNIFY continues to expand and reach more schools and students, it has become increasingly
important to examine the sustained impact of participation in the program and to determine the lasting
value that participation has after students with and without disabilities transition out of high school. It is
evident that each year for the past six years there has been more students who have participated in
Project UNIFY during all four years of high school and who have been impacted by their involvement in a
way that may affect their future plans. As a first step to examining how Project UNIFY may influence
students beyond high school, SOI identified a small cohort of 30 high school seniors (19 seniors without
disabilities, 11 seniors with disabilities) who participated in Project UNIFY from 25 high schools in 14
states. While the cohort was small and came from a multitude of schools, the findings do provide an
initial picture of Project UNIFY participants—their involvement in the program, their interactions with
fellow students, and their future plans—as they transition out of high school.
Graduating Seniors without Disabilities
To determine how Project UNIFY impacts students without disabilities over the long term, it was first
necessary to examine the nature and extent of their involvement in Project UNIFY during high school.
Overall, the students without disabilities were significantly involved in all aspects of Project UNIFY,
especially the Inclusive Sports and Youth Leadership and Engagement components. About two-thirds
(63%) participated in Unified Sports, and a similar number of students (68%) appeared to attend Unified
Sports games to cheer on athletes with and without disabilities; almost all had experienced a Fans in the
Stands-type event. Additionally, students were heavily involved in their schools’ inclusive clubs, with
everyone participating in one or more clubs, and the majority participating in some form of youth
leadership (e.g., Youth Activation Committee, Youth Summit, etc.). Given that the R-Word campaign is
one of the most popular whole school activities, all but two students from this cohort were involved in
the R-Word Campaign as well. It is interesting to note however, that for many of these students their
involvement in Project UNIFY in high school was preceded by their involvement in Special Olympics. In
some cases, involvement began as early as middle school, and often extended outside of school to
include the weekends.
Involvement in Project UNIFY brought these students into close contact with their peers with disabilities,
and Project UNIFY was the most common place students without disabilities reported interactions
occurring. Along with Project UNIFY, they also interacted in the hallways (83%), in the cafeteria (72%),
and in non-academic classes (53%). While interactions occurred less so in academic classes (16%),
regardless of where interactions took place all of the students without disabilities reported they spent
time and interacted socially with fellow peers with disabilities. Outside of school, social interactions for
many students (56%) occurred during Special Olympics events, and most students (78%) reported
communicating with peers with disabilities using social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter, etc.) when not at
school, but had very little communication with peers with disabilities on the phone, through emailing, or
by texting.
91
Students’ extensive participation in Project UNIFY, and Special Olympics in general, clearly had an
impact on their future plans. Well over half (61%) of students reported that their involvement in Project
UNIFY strongly influenced their thinking about career goals and future employment. For example, eight
of the 19 students were hoping to have a service-oriented career working directly with people with
disabilities (e.g., special education teacher, school physical therapist for children with disabilities,
occupational therapist, art therapist, etc.). See Table 22 for more information on how Project UNIFY and
Special Olympics influenced these students.
Table G1. Students’ perceptions of how Project UNIFY influenced their choices for the future
Example comments
“I always knew I had a connection with children with special needs…Being able to get the chance to figure this out through Project UNIFY helped so much in making my life’s decision.” “I loved working with the disabled population, and Special Olympics just enforced by love and passion for helping others.” “I realized I wanted to help people and that I enjoy working with people with special needs.” “It influenced a lot for me because I notice that I’m very happy when I help other people and that in every organization that I’m in I have big leadership skills, so that’s why I want my Master’s in Organizational Leadership.” “Project UNIFY has helped me to recognize the importance of leadership for all people. I would like to stay involved in some form or another for my whole life.” “Special Olympics has influenced my choices by allowing me to realize I want a career that allows me to continue to work with and for those who have intellectual disabilities. It has made me realize that I also want to continue volunteering, coaching, and being a Unified partner for Special Olympics...” “Special Olympics influenced my entire life and career plan…I know that if I was not involved with any SO teams or Unified clubs, I would be a completely different person…”
For some students their involvement with Project UNIFY helped them realize these career goals for the
first time. For others, Project UNIFY served to reinforce their passion for the field that led them to join
the program, and their participation helped to solidify their respective career goals. Regardless of their
motives for joining, what is clear is that Project UNIFY and Special Olympics provide students without
disabilities opportunities to interact with peers with disabilities in meaningful ways, and in many ways
these interactions have value and impact beyond the school, classroom, or playing field.
Graduating Seniors with Disabilities
To determine how Project UNIFY may impact students with disabilities beyond high school, it was again
necessary to first examine their involvement in Project UNIFY. Overall, the students were most involved
with whole school activities and clubs, with all students with disabilities reporting involvement in the R-
Word Campaign as well as an inclusive club. Students were less involved in youth leadership activities
92
(45%; e.g., Youth Activation Committee, Athlete Leadership Program, Youth Summit, etc.) and only three
students reported participating in Unified Sports. However, almost all students participated in Special
Olympics after school, indicating their involvement in Special Olympics extended outside of Project
UNIFY and into the community.
Involvement in Project UNIFY brought these students into close contact with their peers without
disabilities, and students with disabilities reported the most common places for interaction were Project
UNIFY activities and the cafeteria. Students also reported interactions occurring in the classroom, with
half (5 out of the 10 students who responded) attending academic classes with peers without disabilities
and all but one student attending non-academic classes with peers without disabilities (e.g., PE, music,
study hall, etc.). Regardless of where interactions took place, students with disabilities viewed school as
a “very friendly” place. However, most students reported interacting with peers without disabilities in
Project UNIFY activities. In fact, very few students (20%) reported interactions occurring in non-Project
UNIFY activities at school, which reveals the prominent role Project UNIFY plays in bringing students
with and without disabilities together. For most students, these in-school interactions would not happen
if not for Project UNIFY. Outside of school, social interactions took place at Special Olympics events but
most reported communicating with peers without disabilities through social media (83%; e.g., Facebook,
Twitter, etc.), as well as on the phone and by texting (67% for each).
Project UNIFY appeared to have some influence on students’ future plans, but less than half indicated
participation in the program strongly influenced their decisions about the future (e.g., continuing
education and employment). It is important to note that students with disabilities oftentimes have
fewer options than their peers without disabilities after high school. In fact, for many students with
disabilities the concept of career planning is limited to what is available in the immediate community.
Students from this cohort appeared to be in this situation, as only four students expected to have a job
within a year of graduating high school, and only one student felt college (a vocational/technical school)
“might be” a possibility. Though Project UNIFY did not appear to influence students with disabilities’
long term plans for after high school, they did comment that Project UNIFY influenced them in other
ways, saying it “gave me the confidence to know I can do it myself,” and that Project UNIFY “helped me
get out of my shell.” While these initial findings do not speak to a relationship between students with
disabilities’ involvement in Project UNIFY and their future plans and career goals, the findings do begin
to contribute to what has been found previously—that Project UNIFY provides students with disabilities
the opportunity to get involved in school activities, socialize with their peers, and feel a part of a school
community that is friendly and supportive. The skills and confidence students with disabilities acquire
from participation in Project UNIFY may provide a beginning scaffold for their greater participation in
the community as young adults.