KNR 273: Recreation Inclusion

1. KNR 273: Recreation Inclusion Sylvester, Voelkl, & Ellis, 2001

2. What is Inclusion? • Inclusion is the act of engaging people with disabilities in all our daily activities • at school, • at work, • at home, • and in the community • Inclusion Network • Focus of KNR 270

3. What is Inclusion? • Inclusive leisure experiences encourage and enhance opportunities for people of varying abilities to participate and interact in life’s activities together with dignity. • Inclusion enhances individual’s potential for full and active participation in leisure activities and experiences. • NRPA Statement on Inclusion, 1999

4. What is Inclusion? • Recreation inclusion refers to empowering persons who have disabling conditions to become valued and active members of their communities. Persons with disabilities should have the same chances for quality of life as persons without disabilities. • Sylvester, Voelkl, & Ellis, 2001

5. Who’s Responsible for Inclusion? • Some argue that general recreation professionals are responsible for inclusion NOT therapeutic recreation specialists • Austin, 1999 • Bullock & Mahon, 2000 • Smith, Austin, & Kennedy, 2001

6. Who’s Responsible for Inclusion? • Others argue that SUCCESSFUL inclusion depends on general recreation professionals and therapeutic recreation specialists working together. • Germ & Schleien, 1997 • Klitzing, 2002

7. Sylvester, Voelkl, & Ellis • In our view, recreation inclusion is the most important and difficult challenge facing therapeutic recreation. • Rehabilitation should be measured not by sheer functionality alone, but by the quality of life that it facilitates. • Professional practices must be developed that result in successful inclusion of PWD in leisure programs and activities that reflect their needs and interests. (P. 232)

8. Inclusion & TR Settings • In traditional agencies • Community reintegration • Discharge plan, transition plan, programs • In community-based care • Shorter stays • Not cured, but coping with disabilities • In community agencies

9. Selected Approaches • Zero-exclusion • Programs planned to include everyone • Reverse mainstreaming • Specialized programs structured to include people without disabilities • Integration of generic recreation programs

10. Community Reintegration • Community Integration Program • Armstrong & Lauzen, 1994 • Modules • Community environment (safety, emergency preparation, survival skills) • Cultural activity (theatre, library, sports) • Community activity (mall, grocery store) • Transportation (bus, taxi, personal travel) • Physical activity (w/c sports, aquatics) • Independent activity (client’s choice)

11. Community Development • Bold approach • Not treat/rehabilitate “citizens” but rehabilitate communities to make them more accommodating • Focus is on community building • Promoting relationships & interdependence between citizens with and without disabilities

12. Community Development (Cont.) • 2 components of community building • Community development • Prepare citizens to make decisions & take action to improve own QofL • Community organization • Dealing directly with injustice • Educating the community, lobbying, advocating, protesting • Role that often exceeds tradition boundaries of TR programming

13. Therapeutic Recreation Intervention: An Ecological Perspective • Howe-Murphy & Charboneau, 1987 • Ecological perspective • Interdependence • Social systems theory • Generic model or way of thinking about scope of practice • Importance of environment/context

14. Therapeutic Recreation Intervention: An Ecological Perspective • Therapeutic recreation is a planned process of intervention directed toward specific environmental or individual change. • Goals • Maximize quality of life • Enhance leisure functioning of the individual • Promote acceptance of persons with disabilities within the community • (pp. 9-10)

15. Therapeutic Recreation Intervention: An Ecological Perspective • 4 global goals • Maximize individual capabilities for growth and creative adaptation • Increase the supportive properties of the environment • Minimize the effects of individual limitations • Reduce or eliminate environmental blocks & obstacles to growth and development

16. Therapeutic Recreation Intervention: An Ecological Perspective • Goals directed toward individuals • Increase mastery in a social world • Increase self-esteem • Develop coping strategies • Increase social interaction skills • Increase confidence and ability to assume control

17. Therapeutic Recreation Intervention: An Ecological Perspective • Goals directed toward environment • Increase range of leisure services and opportunities available • Educate identified groups in the community • Reduce architectural barriers • Design physical environments to support individual independence and human interaction

18. Therapeutic Recreation Intervention: An Ecological Perspective • Goals directed toward interactive process • Connect people to resources • Assist in integrating persons with and without disabilities • Maximize impact of interactions based upon values of equality, mutual respect, and normalization

19. Therapeutic Recreation Intervention: An Ecological Perspective • Service providers are seen as change agents • We not only stimulate the development of individuals but we intervene within the community as a whole

20. TR Models & Inclusion • Problems • Direct services • Importance of changing the consumer • Connected with traditional health care settings • Basically nonexistent

21. TR Inclusion Model Inclusive Recreation Selected TR Direct Services TR Indirect Services Client Outcomes: Quality of Life Fun & Enjoyment Belonging & Community Self-Determination

22. This I Believe – Nancy Navar • Different models of therapeutic recreation practice enable different clients with different needs in different settings to benefit from a model that has meaning in that context. Just as different schools of thought exist in other professions (e.g., psychology), various schools of thought can coexist within the profession of therapeutic recreation.