Community Recreation Activities Research Articles

Rural restructuring and its impact on community recreation opportunities

Access to recreation activities plays an important role in rural community quality of life. Through various types of recreation activities, residents are more likely to create meaningful experiences that enhance their well-being and overall quality of life. However, rural restructuring is challenging the economic and social conditions of communities, thereby impacting community recreation activities. Through a case study of a rural community, this article uses social ecological theory to explore the impact of a pulp and paper mill closure on community recreation opportunities. The findings indicate that the mill's closure negatively impacted community recreation programmes and organization/club participation, and both the family unit and the community's capacity to support recreation. This study highlights specific changes to rural community recreation opportunities and participation as a result of changes to rural family and community life.

The Vision for Inclusion

As immediate past president of the board of directors, I would like to welcome you to the inaugural edition of Inclusion, a new ejournal of the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD), and to share with you my vision for this exciting new venture. Inclusion is a peer-reviewed journal that provides a forum for the presentation and discussion of evidenceand research-based interventions and strategies that promote the full inclusion of people with intellectual and developmental disabilities in society. Inclusion will address the needs of administrators, clinicians, policy makers, and other professionals dedicated to improving the lives of people with intellectual and related developmental disabilities. In this introductory article, I’d like to reiterate some of the points I made in my presidential address about the meaning of inclusion, my vision for an inclusive society, steps to take to realize that vision, and benchmarks and outcomes of inclusion. It was the discussions generated by the focus on AAIDD’s role in promoting inclusion during my presidential year that led to the idea for this ejournal, and I would like to share with you some of my thoughts on what we can, together, achieve through Inclusion.

Presidential Address 2012 Creating Inclusive Communities: Pathways to the Vision

In the words of Shafik Asante (2002), a former leader of New African Voices in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, ‘‘Inclusion entails recognition of our universal ‘oneness’ and interdependence. Inclusion is recognizing that we are ‘‘one’’ even though we are not the ‘‘same’’ (p. 1). Fighting for inclusion involves assuring that support systems are in place to ease the person’s entry into social and civic life. Providing and maintaining support systems are civic responsibilities, not a favor to the less fortunate. We were all born ‘‘in.’’ Society will immediately improve at the point we honor this truth! Inclusion, therefore, really means accepting, embracing, and celebrating the gifts, talents, and differences in all of us as a means of shaping communities that are welcoming places for all people (Asante, 2002). The notion of inclusion has, in one form or another, been a motivating force for reform in the field of intellectual and developmental disabilities throughout the past 30 years. Conceptually, inclusion has evolved from an aspiration linked to place to one tied to participation, choice, and relationships. Probably the earliest expression of the idea of normalization was advanced by Bengt Nirje (1969/ 1994). The notion was further elaborated on in 1972 by Wolf Wolfensberger in his piece on normalization. He used the concept of normalization or social role valorization to criticize, among other things, infantilizing decorations and language and inadequate day activities. As the concept of normalization was refined and honed, it spawned more encompassing aspirations, such as community integration and community membership (Bradley, Ashbaugh, & Blaney, 1994). The notion of community integration was directly related to the movement of people out of institutions and implied a re-entry by those who had been excluded. Likewise, community membership implied joining a fellowship from which one had been alienated. Conceptions that stressed integration and community-based services also influenced public policy, which in turn influenced practice. Phrases such as ‘‘least restrictive environment’’ and ‘‘mainstreaming’’ emerged as part of the landmark right to education legislation. Class action lawsuits brought during the 1970s also echoed these notions, including the Halderman v. Pennhurst (1977) litigation, which found a right to habilitation in the community. These powerful legal ideals had a transformative impact on the delivery of educational as well as residential and day services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. As fewer and fewer children and adults left their communities to receive services and as institutional populations began a precipitous decline, the ideals that emerged to goad the system had less to do with opposition to a dominant norm (e.g., exclusion, extrusion, institutionalization, alienation) and more to do with affirmative notions of equality and the accommodation of differences. No longer was the system exhorted to provide better surroundings and opportunities than those available in the institutions, but to facilitate supports that would allow people with intellectual and developmental disabilities to lead lives available to all other citizens; in other words, to invite in those who had been traditionally locked out of our communities. The basis for judgment is now whether people with disabilities are able to enjoy such shared ‘‘goods’’ as relationships, friendships, home ownership, real jobs, spiritual fulfillment, and exercise of personal choice. These assumptions about what constitutes satisfying life have come to be known as inclusion (Bradley, 2000). The concept is relevant to the whole of society in that all people are unique with unique capacities. Everyone can learn and grow. Everyone has gifts to share and desire opportunities to make contributions. These assumptions do apply to everyone, no matter who they are. With this as a backdrop, the INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES VOLUME 49, NUMBER 5: 360–364 | OCTOBER 2011

Determinants of Social Participation—With Friends and Others Who Are Not Family Members—for Youths With Cerebral Palsy

Social participation provides youths with opportunities to develop their self-concept, friendships, and meaning in life. Youths with cerebral palsy (CP) have been reported to participate more in home-based leisure activities and to have fewer social experiences with friends and others than youths without disabilities. The objective of this study was to identify youth, family, and service determinants of the participation of youths with CP in leisure activities with friends and others who are not family members. The study design was a cross-sectional analysis. The participants were 209 youths who were 13 to 21 years old (52% male), had CP, and were classified in Gross Motor Function Classification System (GMFCS) levels I to V as well as their parents. The participants were recruited from 7 children's hospitals in 6 different states. Youths completed the Children's Assessment of Participation and Enjoyment in structured interviews. Parents completed the Coping Inventory, Pediatric Outcomes Data Collection Instrument, Family Environment Scale, Measure of Processes of Care, and demographic and service questionnaires. Researchers determined GMFCS levels. A sequential multiple regression analysis was used to determine the youth, family, and service variables that predicted participation with friends and with others who were not family members. Sports and physical function, communication or speech problems, educational program, and the extent to which the desired community recreational activities were obtained explained 45.8% of the variance in the number of activities engaged in with friends. A higher level of parental education explained 6.3% of the variance in the number of activities engaged in with others who were not family members. Limitations The youths' activity preferences and intensity of participation were not examined. /b> Youth and service characteristics were determinants of participation with friends but not others who were not family members. The findings have implications for the role of physical therapists in promoting sports and physical and communication abilities and enhancing community opportunities to optimize the social participation of youths with CP.

Transition Services for Students with Intellectual Disabilities: A Case Study of a Public School Program on a Community College Campus

Students with intellectual disabilities aged 18–21 are increasingly receiving transition services on college campuses during the last years of public schooling. These students may attend college courses, work in the community, access community recreational activities, and engage in age-appropriate experiences with peers without disabilities. However, there is little research that documents the types of practices included, the perspectives of consumers, or the outcomes of these transition services. Results from this case study depict how one public school program on a community college campus incorporated recommended transition practices and how students with intellectual disabilities and their families perceived these practices.

Including Students with Moderate and Severe Disabilities in Extracurricular and Community Recreation Activities

Including Students with Moderate and Severe Disabilities in Extracurricular and Community Recreation Activities

Including Students With Moderate and Severe Intellectual Disabilities in School Extracurricular and Community Recreation Activities

We conducted an online statewide survey of teachers of students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities to determine the extent to which their students were included in school extracurricular and community recreation activities. For the 252 teacher respondents who indicated that their primary caseload consisted of students with significant intellectual disabilities, we report the numbers of students participating in school and community activities and the primary type of support students required to participate in each activity. Finally, we identify implications for practitioners who want to increase the participation of students with significant disabilities in school and community activities.

Community Inclusion for Children and Youth with Developmental Disabilities

In a pilot project to include children and youth with developmental disabilities in community recreation activities with nondisabled peers, activity coaches from university teacher education and health education programs were trained to use individualized accommodations to help the children participate. We discovered that scheduling difficulties limited the number of participants and that communication and planning assumptions may have limited participation of culturally diverse groups. Children and youth with disabilities, mostly with autistic impairments, participated in swim classes or gymnastics at individualized levels, expressed enjoyment, and improved their recreation skills. The extent to which the children were included in group activities within the classes varied from class to class. We make recommendations for future directions of inclusive recreation programming and for the greater inclusion of culturally diverse families.

Including people with disabilities in community recreation activities

People with disabilities often have more free time than their peers who do not experience a disability. This paper introduces people with disabilities, service providers, advocates and families to the basics of inclusive recreational programs. Characteristics of quality recreational programs include choice, age appropriateness, family involvement, leisure education, partial participation, and social rights.

Architectural barriers to the participation of disabled persons in community recreational activities

In order to ascertain the architectural barriers which separate disabled persons from the use of community recreational facilities a questionnaire was mailed to 229 community recreational agencies in New York City. Replies were received from 70 per cent of the agencies, of which 139 (61 per cent) were usable. These agencies considered their facilities adequate for deaf persons in 79 per cent of the cases. However, only 40 per cent of the agencies considered their facilities adequate for persons in a wheelchair or cerebral palsied persons. The willingness of these agencies to accept different types of disabled persons into their recreational programs paralleled their percepts of the adequacy of their facilities. Severely disabled persons would have a difficult time functioning in the recreation programs of many of these agencies because of architectural barriers. It is suggested that these organizations need help from rehabilitation specialists in evaluating and modifying their physical structures so that disabled persons may have greater freedom to participate in their programs.