Defining social inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities: An ecological model of social networks and community participation

Understanding attitudes that may lead to barriers to equality can help enhance social inclusion and quality of life for individuals with intellectual disabilities. The current study examined multidimensional attitudes toward individuals with intellectual disabilities. We expected that those with more knowledge and greater quantity and quality of contact with people with intellectual disabilities would have more positive attitudes toward this social group. Hierarchical multiple regressions revealed that greater knowledge and quantity of contact were unrelated to attitudes. Greater quality of contact, however, was associated with more positive attitudes. These findings add support to previous findings that positive experiences may lead to less intergroup anxiety, less hostility, and less avoidance of outgroups.

Contact and knowledge as predictors of attitudes toward individuals with intellectual disabilities

Objective: Social inclusion is a right as well as a goal for community-based services and supports. Yet, there is a lack of consensus as to what constitutes social inclusion, which means that there is no real way to determine and measure services effectiveness. This paper identified current key components, definitions, and conceptual approaches to social inclusion, and determined gaps in the scope and clarity of existing conceptualizations. Method: We conducted a synthesis review on the social inclusion of persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities. We extracted data relevant to the definition of social inclusion, its key principles and elements, as well as its main challenges. We adopted a narrative approach to synthesize the findings. Results: The main challenges in understanding social inclusion are: social inclusion is at risk of being an ideology and may lead to ineffective and potentially harmful strategies; social inclusion is still mainly defined as the acceptance and achievement of the dominant societal values and lifestyle, which may lead to moralistic judgements; social inclusion is often narrowly defined and measured as productivity and independent living, which is inappropriate for people with more severe disabilities; and social inclusion is often limited to the measure of one’s participation in community-based activities. Conclusion and Implications: Shifting our understanding of social inclusion is essential. It means: adopting a proactive perspective that moves beyond theoretical discourse and leads to the identification of tools to improve social inclusion; abandoning the moralistic perspective that tends to impose the view of the dominant group and leaning toward an approach respectful of individuals’ expectations, choices and needs; defining social inclusion from a developmental perspective where one’s social inclusion improves with increased opportunities to interact with others and participate in activities; and including sense of belonging and well-being in our definition and measure of social inclusion.

Shifting our conceptualization of social inclusion

Background Typically people with intellectual disability have small, highly restricted social networks characterized by interactions with other people with intellectual disabilities, family members, and paid workers. The goal of ‘inclusion’ has been central to policies that have shaped services over the past 30 years. It is an ill defined concept with disagreement about its meaning, the problems it seeks to overcome and how it should be realized.

Method  Ethnographic and action research methods were used to support and collect data on the implementation of a programme, known as the Community Inclusion Framework, in a group home for five adults with severe intellectual disabilities in Victoria, Australia.

Results and Conclusions  A pattern of service delivery based on community presence rather than participation evolved and endured over 16 months. The findings show that most staff attached a different meaning to inclusion from that proposed in the Community Inclusion Framework, disagreed with the proposed meaning or felt these residents were too different for it to be meaningful. This suggests that priority will only be accorded to activities that lead to inclusion if staff are convinced of the veracity of this and given strong and consistent direction and support.

Breaking out of a distinct social space: reflections on supporting community participation for people with severe and profound intellectual disability

BackgroundThe social inclusion of tenants living intwo forms of supported living schemes – those clusteredon one site and those dispersed in neighbourhoods– is contrasted with more traditional provisionfound on the island of Ireland, namely, small grouphomes, residential homes and campus-style settings.MethodsA standard pro forma based on measuresused in past research was completed by the keyworkerfor each tenant or resident. In all, data wereobtained on620persons, representing nearly all tenantsin clustered schemes in Northern Ireland andover40% of those in dispersed schemes.ResultsPeople in either form of supported livingtended to have greater levels of social inclusion asmeasured by their use of community amenities andsocial contacts than did those in small group homesor residential homes, with participants from campusstylesettings having the lowest levels of social inclusion.Moreover, multivariate analyses confirmed thatthe accommodation variable was a significant influencein addition to the social competence of theperson.

https://sid.usal.es/idocs/F8/ART10391/social_inclusion.pdf

Variations in the social inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities in supported living schemes and residential settings

Very little research has been done on social inclusion from the perspective of people with intellectual disabilities, including perceived barriers and remedies. Focus groups were held with 68 persons, mostly tenants in supported living or shared group homes. Qualitative data were obtained using a mix of workshop activities and small group discussions. Four main barriers were identified: lack of necessary knowledge and skills; role of support staff and service mangers; location of house; and community factors such as lack of amenities and attitudes. Participants were able to identify a range of solutions for these barriers. Most of their proposals were in line with the aims of current government policy and good practice.These findings reinforce the contribution individuals could make to the planning of local services for themselves and others.This advocacy has been an essential element in reducing the social isolation of other marginalized groups.

Suzanne Abbott

Papers

The barriers to social inclusion as perceived by people with intellectual disabilities.