Programming for mixed-ability recreation: behavior management is the key when dealing with teenagers of any ability level.

As the community of people with developmental disabilities grows, so must our strategies for embracing differences. Now that children with autism, mental retardation, and a myriad of other developmental disabilities are becoming a bigger part of the mainstream, they are seeking out opportunities to work and play on an equal field with the able-bodied community. Recreation professionals are at the forefront of providing the play part of the equation, and not just because the ADA requires it. Especially in youth programs, people who require accommodations for behaviors are emerging as a major segment of the participant base. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, more than eight percent of children ages 5-21 have a diagnosed disability. So how do we accommodate this population? How do the behavior techniques we've always used apply to someone who may not understand our conduct requirements? How do we balance being unbiased with keeping facilities safe and productive?

Some large municipalities are fortunate enough to have dedicated facilities for youth with disabilities, while others must make accommodations for them in existing youth programs. Behaviors are a concern in either setting. Dealing with them appropriately is an ongoing learning process that requires flexibility and focus. To get the best result for everyone, there must be an understanding of natural consequences for actions. Programming that is age and ability appropriate is also necessary. And how exactly do we measure and accommodate ability level? One approach may not be better than another, as in dealing with any group of young people, but there are common pitfalls that can be avoided to speed and improve the process.

Natural Consequences

A major part of the transition to adulthood is an understanding of cause and effect relationships to people around us. There is a critical time during adolescence, (similar to when we are toddlers), when we struggle between the desire to express our independence of thought and our realization that other people are affected by our actions. Learning any new skill is a bumpy road, and just as the beginning snow skier or roller skater must nurse some bruises and scrapes, so must adolescents learning their way.

In behavior management, we place that bumpy learning curve under the "natural consequences" umbrella. The term may more often he applied to young children, but both disabled and non-disabled adolescents are prime subjects for the technique. For those not familiar with the definition, natural consequences deals with letting someone experience the result of their behavior to better understand why it is inappropriate, provided that the result is not morally or physically harmful. The concept sounds easy: You don't let a 2-year-old use a fork on the wall socket, but let her throw her toys out of the bathtub so she realizes that as a result they stay on the floor out of reach. You let the a-year-old have cookies for lunch, but then he must deal with his stomach ache. But how do we apply this to adolescents with developmental disabilities?

Since a teen with or without a disability is much like a toddler learning what works and what doesn't, it's often better to let him or her experience his OF her own natural consequences rather than manually steer them away from an undesired behavior. In a mixed ability setting, let's say Billy is sticking his tongue out at some non-disabled friends. Rather than take Billy aside to explain why this is gross and inappropriate, we can stand back and see, along with Billy, what the natural consequences are. When the kids he was teasing don't include him in the next activity ,he will begin to see that sticking out his tongue doesn't get him what he wanted. However, this is a mild example.

Let's take a look at Jenna, who in our program, made a habit out of grabbing another participant's arm. Jenna was not causing her friend any pain, but the behavior was irritating. After being asked by the other child to stop several times, Jenna continued, and was rewarded with a pinch on her own arm. Staff at this point became involved in the interaction rather than let it escalate, but Jenna had been given enough illustration that grabbing someone else's arm might induce something she didn't like.

John was a non-disabled participant who liked to tease George, who used a wheelchair. John's assumption that staff was unaware of his behavior, and that George would not defend himself, was an excellent example of natural consequences. When John had pushed George and his chair into the wall three or four times, George exited his chair and brought John to the ground with strength that John had not expected. Again, staff intervened before the tussle became a fight, but John understood what it felt like to be physically moved somewhere he didn't want to be. Harassing someone has the consequences of their retaliation, and for John, experiencing this first-hand proved more effective than being counseled by staff that his bullying of someone in a wheelchair was not nice.

In a final example, Steve liked to drive his wheelchair over a concrete curb rather than use the built-in ramp. Staff explained to him that this was dangerous, but it took his chair flipping over backwards for Steve to overcome his stubbornness and get the point. Though unhurt, Steve was allowed to stay stuck long enough to be uncomfortable, and then staff rescued him. He now uses the ramp every time.

Age Appropriateness

Too often we hear people with disabilities described by their "mental age." This is a poor way to quantify intelligence, and is seldom accurate or fair. While a teenager's language skills or awareness may make them appear to be ms socially adept as a young child, it is unfair to classify all their needs and desires this way. When parents or teachers describe an adolescent as having "the brain of a 4-year-old," this simply isn't true and is an unfair assessment of anything, especially their mind.

We have to remember that while a youth's actions or speech may be similar to a young child, they have had a teenager's life experiences just the same as their non-disabled peers. How they have digested those experiences may be different, but they have had them and we must be aware of it. It's also too easily forgotten that teenagers with developmental disabilities haw: the same raging hormones that other teenagers do.

When programming activities, I try to remember that the average age of participants in my program is 15 years old, whatever their mental axe might be. If I scheduled a Big Bird impersonator to come and tell them about not talking to strangers, I would he the one tarred and feathered. Kids this age enjoy the same sort of thing, whether or not they have a developmental disability. Go-karts, bowling, waterparks, movies, laser tag and trips to the mall are old standbys that are huge hits with teenagers. Programming for teenagers must be just that, whether or not they are diagnosed with a disability. There will be an effort required to make sure everyone can play, but beginning with an appropriate activity at the outset makes the whole experience better.

Ability First

If there were a rule of thumb to use in recreational programming, it would be the ability first concept. We identify people by their ability, not their disability. And while it may seem like the glass half full or half empty argument, it is much deeper. Part of our responsibility as adults interacting with adolescents is to contribute to their development. Whether we do so in a recreational setting, a classroom, or anywhere else is irrelevant. Our responsibility is what it is, and to go forward with our mind on disability is wrong. A participant's ability is always bigger than his or her disability.

With ability in mind, programming can be easy. Rather than brainstorm for activities that seem like they would require little or no accommodation for participants with disabilities, think about what the participants can do. What would they enjoy, what do their non-disabled peers enjoy? Program with their ability and age in mind, not any deficiency you might perceive. The necessary accommodations will show later. Give kids a chance to try anything they want to try at least once, and if at that point it seems unsafe, make new strategies. It's the natural learning process, and doesn't have to be changed because of a disability. Let the child show you their ability level.

We visit a local family fun park on a regular basis that has go-karts, carnival rides and more. The activities are just plain fun. Fun is as constant as physics, so we just have to get our kids on the rides, and the rest happens effortlessly. When we first saw La-Donna, who has cerebral palsy and uses a power wheelchair, we would never have thought of putting her in a go-kart or on a roller coaster. But why not? The only accommodation necessary was a bit of help out of her wheelchair and into the seats. If we had made assumptions that she couldn't participate based on the fact that she used a power wheelchair, where would she have been?

In the mixed-ability setting, it's easy to single out participants with disabilities and reward them differently than the non-disabled kids. We can't do this. There is a fine line between accommodating a disability, which the law requires, and making someone "special," which can become problematic in a group setting. Undesired behaviors should be redirected and desired behaviors should be rewarded, regardless of the participant's ability level.

There was a group of 15 that was taken to an activity, and only one participant, Daniel, had a developmental disability. The group was having trouble following directions to line up, except for Daniel. One staff member jumped on the situation and announced, "Even Daniel lines up better than you guys!" How sad! Any chance of Daniel feeling like part of the group was shredded.

In the earlier example of John, who picked on George, staff could have intervened based on the difference in ability level between the two. If they had, it would have thrown even more focus on the difference. With ability, and not disability in mind, better strategies emerge. While all our participants are unique, no one should be singled out as special, good or bad. If we pay too much attention to the differences, we defeat the purpose of mixed-ability recreation.

Recreation and behavior management has its challenges, and is not a simple effort. Participants with disabilities may add complexity to this challenge, but do they really make it that much more difficult? If we give them a fair chance to recreate, by paying attention to the ability and not the disability, we are doing our job better. Kids learn socially acceptable behavior through a process, in which we as recreators must be participants. When those participants have disabilities, we sometimes feel inclined to intervene. But are we getting in the way of the process by trying to help? Look for opportunities to get out of the way, and let the world teach its lessons. Your participants will be better off.