Research update: the inclusion landscape: park professionals can break down common inclusion barriers with practical considerations.

In 2000, DePauw and Doll-Tepper challenged professionals in the recreation and physical activity arenas to view inclusive leisure services for individuals with disabilities as a way of life. Since the Americans with Disabilities Act was written into law, park and recreation professionals have increasingly been encouraged to view the provision of inclusive services as everybody's responsibility, not just the responsibility of those with disability-based backgrounds. In this spirit, recreation options for patrons with disabilities have opened up and social, emotional, physical and cognitive benefits to all have been recognized.

Benefits to Inclusion

While the concept of inclusion (formerly know as mainstreaming or integrating) has been around for several decades, examinations of the benefits of participation in inclusive recreation for individuals with disabilities is in its infancy. However, during the past ten years, researchers have found social, emotional, physical and cognitive benefits experienced by all who participate in recreation, regardless of disability. Including those with disabilities in recreation experiences increases self-determined behaviors (Devine, Malley, Sheldon, Dattilo & Gast, 1997), develops friendships (Schleien, Fahnestock, Green & Rynders, 1990) and provides an opportunity to practice learned skills (Modell, 1997). For participants with disabilities in particular, inclusive recreation environments build important life skills (e.g., age appropriate social skills), and improves physical functioning such as cardiovascular endurance (Green & DeCoux, 1994).

Another unique benefit of inclusive recreation participation is that inclusive recreation environments are a forum to dispel myths and challenge stereotypes about the limitations of those with disabilities (Devine, 2004; Devine & Wilhite, 2000). Researchers such as Wilhite, Devine and Goldenberg (1999) found that in a social, non-competitive environment, positive meanings of disability emerged between youth with and without disabilities.

In addition to noting behaviors that "reflected acceptance, reciprocity in friendships and equal treatment" (p.42, 1999), and positive language referencing disability were indicators of positive associations of disability resulting from interactions in inclusive settings. Roberts (2005) reported that children without disabilities expressed more positive impressions of their peers with disabilities after a play experience.

In the early years of inclusive programming, there was a concern by some (e.g., parents, participants and staff) that the benefits of participation for youth without disabilities in recreation activities would be negatively impacted by including those who did have disabilities. Studies examining inclusive recreation contexts have found this belief to be unsubstantiated.

For instance, Schleien and colleagues (1994) identified improved communication, physical fitness and social skills for youth with and without disabilities as the result of participation in inclusive leisure programs. In their study on inclusive physical education classes, Obrusnikova, Valkova and Block (2003) found no significant difference in sport skill or knowledge acquisition between members of a class that included a student who used a wheelchair and those in a class that had no students with a physical disability.

Eleftheriou (2005) reported that golfers without disabilities enjoyed playing golf on an accessible course and were pleased to be able to play with their friends with disabilities. Vine and O'Brien (in review) found that inclusive participation in a residential camp environment provided youth with and without disabilities the opportunity to develop a host of problem-solving skills as well as an appreciation for each others' similarities and differences.

Barriers to Inclusion

While progress has been made toward providing inclusive recreation services since the passage of the ADA, obstacles and concerns about the spirit of inclusion remain. The spirit of inclusion means more than physical integration, rather, it demands a deeper level of understanding and philosophical commitment. We must look beyond providing physical accessibility and program accommodations to addressing stigma, stereotypes and social acceptance.

West (1984) led the front on research that examined stigma as a barrier to recreation participation by individuals with disabilities. He found that when individuals were perceived to be stigmatized, they were less likely to pursue recreation engagement. Bendini and Henderson (1994) investigated the perceptions of social acceptance of women with disabilities in inclusive recreational settings and found similar results.

Although physical and financial restraints were often part of the equation for these women, respondents repeatedly expressed social and psychological comforts as key to the success of any inclusion program. Additionally, "the emotional toll" of being in negative public situations and the experience of "pity" were identified as affecting attitudes towards leisure (p. 26, Bendini & Henderson, 1994).

Recently Bendini (2004) drew on West's research to offer a more contemporary explanation of perceived stigma and leisure behavior. Bendini found that individuals with disabilities identified one of three reactions to perceived stigma: one may hide from public scrutiny, one may adopt an attitude of defiant resistance in a desire to prove oneself in the face of criticism, or one may respond in a yielding manner by embracing one's disability and accepting limitations while simultaneously seeking the challenge of recreation participation. Regardless of the person's response, 20 years after West's study, stigma remains a significant barrier to inclusive recreation participation.

Perceived stigma can hinder one's perception of social acceptance and pose as a barrier to inclusive recreation participation (Higgins, 1992). Social acceptance is a sense of group belonging and value--it is a feeling that participation is welcomed and not ridiculed when skills look different from peers without disabilities (Devine & Lashua, 2002). Devine and Dattilo (2000) studied social acceptance perceived by participants with disabilities relative to frequency, satisfaction and intent to participate in future inclusive recreation activities.

They found a significant relationship between frequency of participation, satisfaction with the experience and social acceptance. Specifically, the more a person felt socially accepted by his or her peers, the greater their recreation frequency and higher their level of satisfaction. From this study they concluded that when limited social acceptance is present, active participation in community life is inhibited.

Programming and staff considerations have been cited as barriers to inclusion as well. The results of a national survey of public park and recreation agencies identified five predominant barriers to inclusion (Devine & Kotowski, 1999). The two most frequently cited barriers were lack of financial resources and direct and indirect constraints on staff. Agencies reported that while they predominantly fund inclusive services through general operating budgets, the cost of service provision exceeded available funds. This finding is consistent with an earlier study that cited financial constraints as a concern to successful recreation inclusion (Schleien, Germ, & McAvoy, 1996).

Constraints on staff included a lack of accessible public transportation, inadequate availability of adaptive recreation equipment, and lack of knowledge of how to provide accommodations to these participants. Closely behind constraints on staff as a barrier to inclusion, inadequate preparation of staff was identified as a significant obstacle. Agencies reported that staff members were not adequately trained in behavior modification, in conducting program modifications or facilitation of adaptive equipment.

The Future of Inclusive Recreation Research

Although physical accessibility and attitudinal constraints still exist, it is clear that inclusion is a reality in the landscape of recreation services. A good deal of literature has addressed inclusion from a barriers or constraints paradigm. More studies are needed to investigate best practices from a broad array of recreation environments as well as with specific disability groups.

For instance, what are proven practices when working with children who have severe behavioral disabilities in a day camp setting? In addition, the leisure profession must examine social or cultural issues related to disability; specifically the social structures upon which disabilities are constructed and how these structures influence inclusion. It appears that, although many physical accessibility and attitudinal barriers that once restricted participation in inclusive recreation have been remedied, many more still remain. Full inclusion within our recreational programming is indeed a realistic goal for the future. The question is simply, how do we best reach that ideal?

Mary Ann Devine is an associate professor in the School of Exercise, Leisure and Sport at Kent State University. Her research interests center on issues related to the inclusion of individuals with disabilities in leisure environments. Brie King is a graduate student at Kent State University. She is working toward a master's degree in Therapeutic Recreation.

References

Bedini, L. (2000). Just sit down so we can talk: Perceived stigma and community recreation pursuits of people with disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 34, 67-78.

Bedini, L. & Henderson, K. (1994). Women with disabilities and the challenges to Leisure service providers. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 12(1), 17-34.

Bu[tock, C. C., & Mahon, M. J. (1997). Introduction to recreation services for people with disabilities: A person-centered approach. Champaign, IL: Sagamore.

Dattilo, 3. (2002). Inclusive leisure services: Responding ta the rights of people with disabilities. (2nd ed.). State College, PA:Venture.

DePauw, K. P. & Doll-Tepper, G. (2000). Toward progressive inclusion and acceptance: Myth or reality? The inclusion debate and bandwagon discourse. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 17, 135-143.

Devine, M. A. & Daft[to, 3. (2001). Social acceptance and Leisure lifestyles of people with disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 34, 306-322.

Devine, M. A. & Kotowski L. (1999). Inclusive Leisure services: Results of a national survey of park and recreation departments. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 17, 56-72.

Devine, M. A., Malley, S., Shledon, K., Datillo, 3, & Gast D. L. (1997) Promoting initiation of community Leisure participation for adults with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 32(3), 241-254.

Devine, M. A. & Wilhite, B. (2000). The meaning of disability: Implications for inclusive ie[sure services for youth with and without disabilities. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 18, 35-52).

Eleftheriou, T. (2005). Hole new world. Parks & Recreation, 40(5), 49-52.

Green, F. P., & DeCoux, V. (1994). A procedure for evaluating the effectiveness of a community recreation integration program. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 28, 41-47.

Higgins, P. (1992). Making disability: Exploring the social transformation of human variation. Springfield, IL: CharLes C. Thomas.

Howe-Murphy, R., & Charboneau, B. (1987). Therepeutic recreation intervention: An ecological perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Modell, S. J. (1997). An examination of inclusive recreation and leisure participation for children with trainable mental retardation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Florida State University, Tallahassee.

Obrusnikova, I., Valkova, H., & Block, M. (2003). Impact of inclusion in general physical education on students without disabilities. Adapted Physical Activity Quarterly, 20, 230-245.

Roberts, R. (2005). Boundaries need not apply. Parks and Recreation, 40(8), 49-52.

Sable, 3. R. (1995). Efficacy of physical integration, disability awareness, and adventure programming on adolescents' acceptance of individuals with disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal 29, 206-227.

Schleien, S. J., Fahnestock, M., Green, R., & Rynders, 3. E. (1990). Building positive social networks through environmental interventions in integrated recreation programs. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 24(4), 42-52.

Schleien, S. J., Germ, P. A., McAvoy, L. H. (1996). Inclusive community Leisure services: Recommended professional practices and barriers encountered. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 30, 260-273.

Scholl, K. G., Smith, J. G., & Davison, A. (2005). Agency readiness to provide inclusive recreation and after-school services for children with disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 39, 47-62.

Wachter, C., & McGowan, A. (2002). Inclusion practices of special recreation agencies in Illinois. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 36, 172-185.

West, P.C. (1984). Social stigma and community recreation participation by the physically and mentally handicapped. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 26(1), 40-49.

Wilhite, B., Devine, M.A., & Goldenberg, L. (1999). Self-perceptions of youth with and without disabilities: Imputations for Leisure programs and services. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 33, 15-28.

Wolf Klitzing, S. & Wachter, C. J. (2005). Benchmarks for the delivery of inclusive community recreation services for people with disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 39, 63-77.

Research into Action: Encouraging Best Practices in Inclusion

The body of literature examining benefits of and barriers to inclusion is becoming well established, as is literature on how to best deliver these services. While service delivery should be individualized to meet the needs of participants, recent studies have identified the following prevailing best practices in the field of inclusive recreation:

* Seek to understand constraints and limitations to inclusive recreation participation not only as characteristics of disability, but also pertaining to ways in which programs are designed, buildings are built and staff are trained. Problems, limitations, deficits, boundaries and constraints should be viewed and addressed as the result of a number of causal factors rather than a single factor.

* Determine agency readiness to address potential barriers. Agencies should examine their programs, services, policies and procedures to be prepared for inclusion by:

* evaluating programs and services to determine essential eligibility requirements for participation,

* reviewing policies and procedures to determine if they have the effect of discrimination,

* examining ability, knowledge and skills of staff to conduct inclusive services,

* purchasing needed adapted equipment.

* Create an optimal environment. This involves not only making modifications or adaptations to programs or services, but also addressing issues related to the social aspects of inclusion such as friendship development and social acceptance.

Make changes based on need. Make modifications and adaptations based on the person's strengths and limitations. Viewing any modifications as temporary or transitional as the person's skills develop and improve is useful when evaluating need.