Summary of the Evidence Related to LiveWorkPlay’s
Theory of Social Change
The body of research in the area of social inclusion related to intellectual disability agrees
that there is a lack of research in the area and a lack of consistency on defining and measuring
the concept of social inclusion. That being said, the existing empirical research does suggest
and agree that the primary indicator (of what studies are defining as social inclusion for
people with intellectual disabilities) is the existence of diverse reciprocal personal
relationships. Others indicators of social inclusion that also come up in the literature include
the fulfilment and diversity of valued social roles and the perceptions of people with
intellectual disabilities by non-disabled citizens as competent and contributing to
community.
The research also seems to agree on certain factors that decrease the likelihood of people
with intellectual disabilities to experience social inclusion and these factors include:
Living in congregated settings with 3 or more people with disabilities
Studies have found that on many personal health indicators there are no significant
differences between people living in congregated settings as compared to people living in non
congregated settings with 3 people or less. However, there were significant positive
differences in overall life satisfaction, person choice and control, and opportunities
participate in ordinary community activities and opportunities to develop unpaid reciprocal
personal relationships for people living in non-congregated settings. These studies also
concluded that congregated settings were far more expensive then supporting individuals in
non-congregated settings.
Participating in congregated vocational settings (sheltered workshops, employment
training programs/day programs, congregated work programs with other others with
disabilities)
Multiple studies show that people with intellectual achieve better employment outcomes if
they do not participate in sheltered workshops prior to enrolling in supported employment.
Multiple studies have shown that even for people with significant disabilities higher levels of
satisfaction and success occurred when participating in non-congregated activities related to
employment and or day-time activities.
Participating in congregated recreational programs and day programs for only people
with disabilities
Multiple studies have reported that even for people with significant disabilities the results
demonstrated increased levels of satisfaction and success were experienced when
participating in non-congregated activities related to recreation and leisure. One study looked
at Special Olympics surveying individuals with intellectual disabilities, family members,
professionals and volunteer coaches. Individuals with intellectual disabilities reported largely
how they enjoyed the experience. One thing to keep in mind with this result is the conclusion
of another study that suggests that when individuals have only segregated experiences (has
been schooled with, lives with and works with other people with disabilities) they may not be
able to express a preference for anything other than what is already known to them.
Other results from the study of Special Olympics include:
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
v)
Family members only criticisms were related to practical challenges, including
scheduling, lack or poor communication of organizers,
80% of professionals that were surveyed indicated that Special Olympics was over
all a good thing for physical health and socialization,
20% of professionals indicated it has not modernized and continues to segregate
people and continues to perpetuate unhelpful stereotypes reinforcing negative
attitudes which are a major barrier to acceptance and social inclusion
When the coaches were surveyed about their experiences the majority found it to
be a rewarding experience.
When volunteer coaches were asked to rate the competency of people they were
coaching the study found that the longer a coach spent with Special Olympics the
more and more they viewed the people they were coaching as incompetent.
Participating in congregated educational programs
Multiple studies have shown that students participating in segregated education classrooms
and programs do not experience the same level of successful outcomes as children with
intellectual disabilities who have been integrated into the classroom and mainstream
education programs. There are also several studies that show how all students benefits from
inclusive environments. Children with intellectual disabilities benefited from being in classes
with non-disabled peers, and children without disabilities benefitted from including children
with intellectual disabilities in the classroom.
Other Conclusions Related to Social Inclusion Outcomes
Several studies also support the notion that being present in the community cannot be inferred
as included in the community. It is not enough that congregated programs or initiatives take
place in the community. The research indicates that even though these initiatives are often
held at local community centres, schools, or other community venues, this does not contribute
to people with intellectual disabilities being socially included. Existence of interaction and
development of relationships are a key factor to social inclusion.
Studies also suggest that we can not devalue relationships between people with intellectual
disabilities but also cannot assume if someone is in a congregated living situation,
day/vocational program, recreation activity that they have friends there. If people’s
relationships with people without disabilities increase, we cannot assume they no longer want
or value relationships with other people with disabilities. Lack of having an intimate partner
impacts the loneliness and emotional satisfaction of people with disabilities. If somebody has
a lot of community activities and relationships, but no intimate partner, they may feel less
included.
Skills and Competencies of People with Intellectual Disabilities
Another theme that came up over and over through the literature is that the skills of people
with more significant disabilities cannot be cited as a major barrier to experiencing social
inclusion. Research does agree that when individuals use non-traditional forms of
communication, require extensive personal care supports, have behavioural support needs,
and/or have a lack of community experience and opportunities all make it more difficult and
complicated to experience social inclusion. The research makes it clear that it is the type of
support these individuals receive that is the key to successful social inclusion. Staff and
families need training on how to provide the best and right support that will lead to outcomes
of social inclusion.
The Role of Family, Paid Staff, and Human Services Systems
Multiple studies suggest that the roles of family and support staff play are key in outcomes or
lack of outcomes related to social inclusion. There is the opportunity to be either a catalyst or
barrier for people with intellectual disabilities to experience social inclusion. Some research
studies agree that the biggest barrier to social inclusion is the practices of human services
staff and systems. Usually out of good intentions of keeping people safe, protecting from
failure or rejection, or lack of resources all contribute to barriers to social inclusion.
Predictors of change of attitudes and perceptions held by people without disabilities
about people with intellectual disabilities
One study examined if it is the quantity of interactions between people with and without
disabilities or the quality of relationships that predict attitudinal and perceptual change of
people without disabilities. The study concluded it is the quality of social interactions that
predict attitudinal and perceptual change not the quantity of interactions.
Experience of Social Inclusion of People without Disabilities
One author of a literature review points out one factor that is often not included in the
research on social inclusion is the experience of people without disabilities. The idea and
expectation that everyone experiences social inclusion everywhere in the community is not
the reality and that people without disabilities experience social inclusion in some part of the
community and some aspects of our lives, and are rejected or not included in others.
Also, the author of this same literature review points out that when people without disabilities
are asked about where they experience the highest levels of social inclusion the majority say
they derive highest feelings of belonging in private spheres of their lives rather than from
activities, membership and participation in public community venues.
Personal Safety and Freedom from Abuse
Researchers agree that the rates of abuse experienced by people with intellectual disabilities
are higher in institutional and congregated settings than in mainstream community settings.
Studies suggest we can reduce risks of abuse experienced by people with intellectual
disabilities by reducing isolation.
Cost of Supports Congregated vs Community-Based Supports in Ordinary Community
There is no evidence to suggest that community supports/life in community is more
expensive than supporting people to live in institutional and or congregated support
situations.
Implications of Evidence on LiveWorkPlay
Evidence in congregated vs non-congregated supports in areas of living, employment and
community participation all support the strategies and activities we are engaged in in hopes of
impacting levels of social inclusion in the lives of people we support.
We thought these results were interesting, that yes we support people who are involved in
Special Olympics but we also know that some of these people it has been there only
experience, we have seen people who have tried other things and have not returned to Special
Olympics and as a result have increased and diversified social relationships in comparison to
what they experience
Finding ways to help people with intellectual disabilities to develop and maintain friendships
(of their choosing) with others with intellectual disabilities and people without disabilities is
the key to success.
We also need to be mindful in our support that it is the quality of social interactions that
predict attitudinal and perceptual change not the quantity of interactions.
Finding ways to share with people we are supporting that we all experience various levels of
social inclusion in different areas of our lives, so they have a more genuine and realistic
understanding of the "normal" experience and expectations of social inclusion.
We need to support opportunities for social inclusion in both private and public spheres, but
not minimize the importance of helping people develop quality relationships to enjoy private
experiences which include activities and shared experiences in people's homes and lives.
We need to also look at the barriers of developing intimate, romantic relationships and find
strategies to minimize barriers to help people who want a romantic partner to experience
some success.
We need integrate into our communication of outcomes to policy makers, funders, thought
partners, and others that the outcomes and costs of supporting people to be of the community
are better and less expensive that congregated supports.