Experiential Assignment

Fifth Edition

INCLUSIVE AND

SPECIAL RECREATION Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities

Ralph W. Smith The Pennsylvania State University

David R. Austin Indiana University

Dan W. Kennedy The Pennsylvania State University

Youngkhill Lee Indiana University

Peggy Hutchison Brock University

B Higher Education Boston Burr Ridge, IL Dubuque, IA Madison, WI New York San Francisco St. Louis

Bangkok Bogota Caracas Kuala Lumpur Lisbon London Madrid Mexico City Milan Montreal New Delhi Santiago Seoul Singapore Sydney Taipei Toronto

The McGraw'HiII Companies ,:,'"

• Higher Education

INCLUSIVE AND SPECIAL RECREATION: OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

Published by McGraw-Hill, a business unit of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1221 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10020. Copyright © 2005, 2001, 1998, 1994, 1989, 1985, 1981, 1977, 1973, 1969, 1965, 1961, 1956, 1951, 1948, by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a database or retrieval system, without the prior written consent of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., including, but not limited to, in any network or other electronic storage or transmission, or broadcast for distance learning.

Some ancillaries, including electronic and print components, may not be available to customers outside the United States.

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

l234567890FG~GR0987654

ISBN 0 07 284387 X

Publisher: Nicholas Barrett Sponsoring editor: Nicholas Barrett Director of development: Kate Engelberg Developmental editor: Melissa Mashburn Senior marketing manager: Pamela S. Cooper Media producer: Lance Gerhart Project manager: Jean R. Starr Senior production supervisor: Carol A. Bielski Designer: Marianna Kingakis Media project manager: Kathleen Boylan Manager, Photo research: Brian Pecko Cover image: © Corbis Typeface: 10/12 Times Roman Compositor: Interactive Composition Corporation Printer: Quebecor World Fairfield Inc.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Inclusive and special recreation: opportunities for persons with disabilities / Ralph W. Smith ... [et al.]. - 5th ed.

p.cm. Rev. ed. of: Inclusive and special recreation / Ralph W. Smith, David R. Austin, Dan W. Kennedy. 4th ed. c2001. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN Q-07-284387-X (alk. paper) 1. People with disabilities-Recreation-United States. 2. People with disabilities-

Recreation-United States-Planning. 3. Recreation-Law and legislation-United States. 4. Inclusive education-United States. I. Smith, Ralph W. II. Smith, Ralph W. Inclusive and special recreation. GV183.5.S55 2005

790.1 ,96--dc22 2004049359

www.mhhe.com

(Courtesy of Courage Center, Golden Valley, MN)

C HAP T E R

INTRODUCTION TO

INCLUSIVE AND SPECIAL

RECREATION

CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Inclusive and Special Recreation 5

occurred in our cities and industries at the turn of the nineteenth century. Their founders shared a similar belief-they were concerned with the quality of life and believed that through the "proper" use of leisure, it could be achieved. (p. 2)

Like Gray, Sessoms and Stevenson (1981) observed that the organized parks and recreation movement has deviated from its original mission. They added,

With both adult education and social work establishing their turf, recreation services did the same. Although some recreation specialists were concerned with the therapeutic or socially rehabilitative activities or with teaching and developing leisure skills and attitudes, the recreation profession set as its primary con- cerns the management of recreational environ- ments and the offering of free-time activities. Outdoor recreation and sports programs be- came its program focus. (pp. 2,3)

Although having its roots in socially purpose- ful programs for disadvantaged individuals, the recreation profession appears to have moved away from its initial focus. As community recreation has grown, it has broadened its scope to "recreation for all." However, as Carter and Kelley (1981) have suggested, the idea of recreation for all may have in reality become "recreation for the norm." As community recreation and parks departments have attempted to spread their resources to meet every- one's recreational needs, concern for people who have been socially disadvantaged by society has been lost as a central feature of public recreation and parks.

WHY THE PAST LACK OF LEISURE

SERVICES FOR PEOPLE WITH

DISABILITIES?

As might be anticipated, there have been pleas for a return to an extensive concern for leisure ser- vices to people who have been underserved. For example, early in the 1970s, Kraus (1971) wrote of the need for recreation and parks administrators to

Adult education, recreation, and social group work all have a common heritage. Each is a product of the social welfare refonus that

------------=---------

O rganized recreation in North America grewout of social concern for persons attempt- ing to cope with a rapidly changing world created by the Industrial Revolution. Most authorities cite the establishment of a sand play area for disadvan- taged children in Boston in 1885 as the beginning of the recreation movement in America. This play area became known as the Boston Sand Gardens. The provision of wholesome recreation was also a central part of the settlement-house movement established to ease the transition to urban living for thousands of persons immigrating to the cities of America during the Industrial Revolution. Settle- menthouses, such as Jane Addams's Hull House in Chicago, provided playgrounds for children and recreational opportunities for adults to help them adapt to an urban life characterized by overcrowd- ing and poor living conditions.

The beginnings of organized recreation thus evolved from a humanistic concern for the welfare of those who found themselves with few resources in inhospitable circumstances. Wholesome recre- ation was viewed as necessary for those disadvan- taged individuals who had special needs.

As community recreation grew, it began to lose its focus on meeting the needs of those who were disadvantaged. More affluent sections of cities began to demand and receive community recreation services. Community recreation steadily moved away from its historical roots of serving the disad- vantaged to the cause of "recreation for all." Recre- ation began to be perceived not as a social instru- ment but as an end in itself, an experience all should enjoy.

Gray (1969), in a classic article titled "The Case for Compensatory Recreation," has written: "Grad- ually the social welfare mission weakened and a philosophy which sees recreation as an end in itself was adopted; this is the common view in public recreation agencies throughout the country" (p. 23).

In a similar vein, Sessoms and Stevenson (1981) have written that

6 PART I Introduction and Overview

take leadership for socially purposeful programs, including those to serve elderly individuals and persons with physical and mental disabilities. From another perspective, in 1980 the Interna- tional City Management Association in its pub- lication Managing Municipal Leisure Services (Lutzin, 1980) called for the development of leisure services for people who have been disad- vantaged. More recently, concerned leaders such as Anderson and Brown (1996); Anderson and Kress (2003); Bullock and Mahon (2000); Dattilo (2002); Schleien, Ray, and Green (1997); and others have emphasized the need for providing services that offer the greatest possible amount of physical and social integration of persons with disabilities.

Yet even today we find that persons with physical or mental disabilities often have been underserved by community public recreation and parks departments. Why is this? Why have many departments that owe their existence to the social welfare motive failed to respond to the needs of people with disabilities?

Perhaps the lack of services for people with disabilities has reflected the history of neglect of society in general for those who have not fit society's norms. During the first half of the 20th century, we systematically excluded indigent peo- ple and persons with physical or mental disabilities from community participation. Indigent old people were sent to "old folks homes" or "county poor farms." Individuals with mental retardation were placed in large institutions located in rural areas. Likewise, individuals with serious problems in mental health were taken away to "insane asy- lums." In short, those who deviated from society's norms were effectively removed from the main- stream of society. In light of this, it is not surpris- ing that, as the recreation movement expanded across the United States and Canada, it lost its dedication to individuals from underserved groups.

Pragmatic Reasons for Lack of Service Surveys of public recreation and parks depart- ments have revealed several reasons for the past

absence of services for people with disabilities. These reasons included insufficient budgets, lack of accessible facilities, lack of skills and knowl- edge necessary to establish a program, lack of adaptive equipment, lack of accessible community transportation, poor attitudes on the part of staff, community resistance, and a lack of awareness of the need for programs for people with disabilities (Austin, Peterson, & Peccarelli, 1978; Devine, 1998).

Probably the greatest blocks to services his- torically were the reported lack of awareness of the need for these programs and the perception that other agencies already provided such programs. These rationalizations allowed administrators of recreation and parks systems to entirely remove themselves from the responsibility of providing recreation for persons with disabilities. Perhaps the broadening of the concept of therapeutic recreation, discussed in the next section, prompted administrators to feel less responsible for the pro- vision of recreation for people with disabilities.

A Broadening Concept of Therapeutic Recreation In the United States during the 1940s and 1950s, there developed recreation services within hospi- tals and institutions serving persons with various physical and mental disabilities. In some in- stances, those who provided these services were known as "hospital recreation workers." They identified themselves primarily with the Hospital Recreation Section of the American Recreation Society. Their approach was that of "recreation for the sake of recreation." They believed that recre- ation existed within their hospitals to promote the general well-being of the patients. Another seg- ment employed in hospitals and institutions identi- fied themselves as "recreation therapists." They formed the National Association of Recreational Therapists. To them, recreation was more than a wholesome activity; it was a tool for treatment and rehabilitation.

These two contrasting groups joined in the 1960s under the banner of a then relatively new

CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Inclusive and Special Recreation 7

term, therapeutic recreation. Therapeutic recre- ation was used as an umbrella term to encompass the perspectives of both the American Recreation Society and the National Association of Recre- ational Therapists. Ultimately, therapeutic recre- ation came to be broadly interpreted as including any recreational service to individuals with mental or physical disabilities, in either the hospital or the community, whether for the purpose of providing treatment or for a recreative experience.

Carter and Kelley (1981) have made a persua- sive case that the broadening of the concept of therapeutic recreation led to difficulty in establish- ing community-based recreation services for per- sons with disabilities. They have written,

This expanded concept of therapeutic recre- ation that included community services has had two major consequences for disabled adults and children, consequences that are not necessarily regarded as positive. First, be- cause most disabled and impaired individuals are now living in a noninstitutional setting or are in the process of being mainstreamed back into community life, they do not need, nor do they have any desire to have, "therapy." Fur- thermore, they have no wish to carry the stigma of being recipients of "therapeutic" recreation services. Therefore, the broadened service delivery perspective that has main- tained a "treatment" image runs counter to the desires of many disabled adults and young people to seek a "normal" range of experi- ences like their nondisabled peers.

Secondly, the therapeutic recreation field claims to be the primary professional group delegated the exclusive responsibility to serve disabled populations. The longer this image is promoted, the more difficult it becomes to convince the community recreation specialist that he must assume responsibility to provide recreation to all persons in his community re- gardless of the extent of their disabilities. (pp. 64, 65)

Carter and Kelley's points seem to be well- founded. Most persons with disabilities who live in the community do not require the therapy usually associated with therapeutic recreation, nor do they

wish to be stigmatized as being recipients of thera- peutic recreation services. Like other citizens, the vast majority of people with disabilities and their families simply want the opportunity to take part in recreation experiences.

The twin concepts of mainstreaming and nor- malization call for helping people who have dis- abilities to take part in the mainstream of society within the most normative and least restrictive en- vironment possible (Pedlar, 1990; Pedlar & Gilbert, 1997). Most persons in our society are not served by therapeutic recreation specialists but by com- munity recreation personnel. It is, then, the respon- sibility of community recreation professionals to provide recreation services for those who have dis- abilities. Carter and Kelley feel that only when the therapeutic recreation profession steps aside and acknowledges that community recreation for per- sons with disabilities is the domain of public recre- ation and parks departments will the full responsi- bility be borne by those who have the obligation to meet the recreational needs of our citizens. It seems possible that by claiming to be primarily responsi- ble for the entire spectrum of recreation for people with disabilities, therapeutic recreation specialists may in the past have allowed community recreation systems to relinquish their rightful duty to serve these individuals. Times, however, are changing. Federal legislation mandates that access to commu- nity recreation services must be offered to people who have disabilities.

A NEW BEGINNING: THE ADA With the passage of Public Law 101-336, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), on July 26, 1990, the United States officially recog- nized the rights of people with disabilities to equal access to all services provided by local, state, and federal government, including recreational ser- vices. The ADA allows full and equal access by persons with disabilities to any place of public ac- commodation, governmental or private. Private recreation entities include restaurants, bars, the- aters, stadiums, auditoriums, convention centers, museums, libraries, parks, amusement parks, zoos,

8 PART I Introduction and Overview

People with disabilities enjoy the same recreation activities as most other people in their communities. (Courtesy of Sports 'n Spokes/Paralyzed Veterans of America)

Source: Anderson, L., & C.B. Kress. Inclusion: Including People with Disabilities in Parks and Recreation Opportunities. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, 2003.

• Public funded services (i.e., local, county, state, federal)

• Not-far-profit agencies (e.g., Easter Seals, Girl Scouts, YMCAs, camps)

• Private for-profit enterprises (e.g., theaters, amusement parks, bowling lanes)

golf courses, gymnasiums, or other places of recreation (Federal Register, 1991; Wehman, 1993). Thus, with the advent of the ADA, full accommodation for persons with disabilities is mandated by law. The ADA provides broad civil rights protections and equality of opportunity for Americans with disabilities in all aspects of their lives, including recreation.

While a number of recreation and leisure ser- vice providers in the United States recognized their moral obligation to serve persons with dis-

TABLE 1.1 ADA Applies to: abilities prior to PL 101-336, many more did not. In this regard, it would probably be conceded that Canadians have been ahead of their American counterparts. The ADA marked a beginning for America-a beginning that included opportunity for full recreation participation for Americans with disabilities.

Because the ADA mandates the elimination of discrimination against people with disabilities in recreation, the nation's consciousness has begun to be altered, resulting in several particularly interest- ing outcomes. For instance, activists in Dade County, Florida, demanded the county's only nude public beach be made accessible so a 150-foot ramp was installed on the "clothing-optional" strip of Haulover Beach (Associated Press, 1995). At the urging of persons with hearing impairments, Walt Disney Company reached an agreement with the Department of Justice to provide interpreters and other assistance for people with hearing impair- ments at its theme parks in the United States. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) also reached an agreement with the Department of Justice in which it relaxed its academic standards

CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Inclusive and Special Recreation 9

for athletes with learning disabilities (Selingo & Naughton, 1998). In what has been perhaps the most publicized happening related to the ADA, the U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon, ruled in favor of professional golfer Casey Martin in his quest to use a golf cart in Professional Golf Asso- ciation (PGA) events because of a disability (i.e., congenital circulatory disorder) that prevents him from walking long distances. The use of golf carts is usually banned in PGA tournaments (Skyzinski, 1998; Tarde, 1998).

Yet, while strides have occurred due to the ADA, many Americans are not aware of the ADA. A Harris Poll revealed that even among persons with disabilities many do not know of the exis- tence of the ADA. The National Organization on Disability and Louis Harris and Associates polled people with disabilities from the ages of 16 and older. Eight years after the passage of the ADA results showed that 54% of those who took part in the survey did not know that the ADA existed (Farrell, 1998).

The ADA defines persons with disabilities as anyone with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activi- ties, has a record of such an impairment, or is re- garded as having such an impairment. Major life activities include: (a) walking, breathing, seeing, hearing, speaking, learning, and working; (b) ac- tivities of daily living (e.g., bathing, dressing, get- ting around the home); and (c) community and home management (e.g., household chores, shop- ping, getting around the community) (Disabilities Statistics Program, 1992).

Leisure and Persons with Disabilities in Canada It has been mentioned that even before the passage of the ADA that Canadians had developed philo- sophical and practical notions of inclusive recre- ation that exceeded those in the United States. Back in the 1970s recreation providers in Canada were being challenged to provide recreation ser- vices for persons with disabilities. McGill (2000)

termed the 1970s "The Being Called to Account Period" for Canadian recreation providers. The unique perspective provided by the Canadians has been reflected in the Canadian publication Journal of Leisurability. This journal has positively influ- enced the delivery of inclusive recreation services in Canada and no doubt has motivated changes in the provision of inclusive recreation in America and throughout the world (Hutchison, 2000).

Numbers of Persons with Disabilities In the United States, persons with disabilities con- stitute the largest minority group (Olkin, 1999). The most recent U.S. Bureau of the Census figures place the number of Americans with disabilities at 49.7 million. This represents 19.3% of the popula- tion or nearly one in five Americans (United States Census 2000, 2003). According to Statistics Canada (2003), 3.6 million Canadians report some level of disability. This is 12.4% of Canada's total population of over 31.5 million people. In both the United States and Canada, the vast majority of these individuals live in the community, as only a small fraction of individuals with disabilities live in institutions (LaPlante, 1992).

Both in the United States and in Canada, the prevalence of disability is highest among those who are older. Of those age 65 and older, over 40% of both Americans and Canadians have disabilities of some type (Statistics Canada, 2003; United States Census 2000, 2003). With the "baby boomer" generation leading the way, the number of Americans over the age of 65 will swell from about 12% of the population today to 20% by 2030 (Census Brief, 1997). Similar rapid growth is pro- jected for Canada where the "population gain is fastest among the oldest" (Statistics Canada, 2003). Obviously, these projections for rapid growth in the retirement age population mean a large increase in the near future of the total num- bers of persons with disabilities.

In sum, it is clear that there are significant and growing numbers of persons with disabilities in the United States and Canada. These citizens will

10 PART I Introduction and Overview

require that they be provided equal access to recre- ation by public park and recreation agencies, as well as by private sector recreation providers.

WHAT Is THE RELATIONSHIP OF THERAPEUTIC RECREATION TO SPECIAL RECREATION?

The Purpose The purpose of therapeutic recreation has long been debated. To clarify the situation, early in the 1980s the National Therapeutic Recreation Society (NTRS), a branch of the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) , developed the philo- sophical position that "the purpose of therapeutic recreation is to facilitate the development, mainte- nance, and expression of an appropriate leisure lifestyle for individuals with physical, mental, emotional, and social limitations" (National Thera- peutic Recreation Society, 1982).

In a more recent philosophical position state- ment, NTRS (1996) has continued to emphasize core values related to its traditional position of defining therapeutic recreation broadly as the provision of recreation and leisure opportunities for persons with disabilities. A core value expressed in the statement is the right to self-determined leisure for people with disabilities, which can lead to an enhanced quality of life. A further reflection of NTRS's concern for the provision ofleisure oppor- tunities for people with disabilities is NTRS's (1997) Statement on Inclusion that begins: "Diver- sity is a cornerstone of our society and culture and thus should be celebrated. Including people with disabilities in the fabric of society strengthens the community and its individual members" (p.7). Thus, as an NRPA branch, NTRS has traditionally taken a broad perspective of therapeutic recreation as being a field concerned with the rights of persons with disabilities to participate in life-enhancing recreation and leisure experiences.

The NTRS position has remained strikingly similar to that taken by the Hospital Recreation Section of the American Recreation Society (ARS) in the 1950s and early 1960s. At the time,

ARS championed the cause of recreation as a need and right of all individuals, including persons with illnesses and disabilities. Those affiliated with the Hospital Recreation Section of ARS were tied to the recreation movement that stood for "recre- ation for all" and, therefore, viewed therapeutic recreation as the provision of wholesome recre- ation experiences for ill and disabled persons.

In contrast, throughout the 1950s and early 1960s, the National Association of Recreational Therapists (NART) held a treatment-oriented phi- losophy. NART members viewed therapeutic recreation as the provision of recreation as a means to treatment. Those affiliating with NART had lit- tle association with organized recreation but were more closely aligned with the health and rehabili- tation community. Their cause was not recreation; it was health restoration.

Contemporary professional associations have replaced the old ARS and the NART, yet the philo- sophical division between those with a "recreation" orientation and those with a "treatment" orientation continues. Although the National Recreation and Park Association has long since replaced the American Recreation Society, those supporting the NRPAlNTRS position still retain the "recreation for all" philosophy of ARS. The American Thera- peutic Recreation Association (ATRA) seems to have picked up where NART left off.

The forming of ATRA in 1984 may be per- ceived as an attempt by clinically oriented thera- peutic recreation specialists to break away from NRPAlNTRS to form a professional association that would foster the delivery of treatment ser- vices. The expressed concern of ATRA is with the application of intervention strategies using recre- ation to promote independent functioning and to enhance the optimal health and well-being of clients (American Therapeutic Recreation Associ- ation, 1993). This position is shared by a number of therapeutic recreation specialists (e.g., Austin, 1997; Bullock & Mahon, 2000; Carter, Van Andel, & Robb, 2003; Meyer, 1980, 1981) who have ar- gued that the purpose of therapeutic recreation is to use recreation as a purposeful clinical interven- tion to help clients relieve or prevent problems and

CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Inclusive and Special Recreation 11

to assist them in personal growth in an effort to allow achievement of as high a level of health as possible. Although they realize the tremendous benefits to be achieved in recreation, these authors see recreation (as applied in therapeutic recre- ation) as a means to an end, not an end in itself.

A Clinical Perspective of Therapeutic Recreation Carter and Kelley (1981) have warned that any philosophical approach must establish clear boundaries for the field. They draw a distinction between recreation and therapeutic recreation by stating that the primary purpose of recreation services is the provision of recreation experiences for participants. In contrast, it is the view of these experts that the primary purpose of therapeutic recreation is to help individuals achieve optimal health and independence through a desired change.

Likewise, Bullock and Mahon (2000) favor an approach to therapeutic recreation (TR) focused on using recreation experiences to promote inde- pendent functioning and enhance optimal health and well-being. Further, they stipulate that such therapeutic services need to be delivered by Certi- fied Therapeutic Recreation Specialists (CTRSs). They have articulated their philosophy in the fol- lowing statement:

Therapeutic recreation is not any and all recre- ation services for people who have disabilities. Just having a disability does not qualify a per- son to receive therapeutic recreation services. The person with a disability may receive ther- apeutic recreation services, or she simply may receive recreation services (usually called spe- cial or adapted recreation-which usually oc- curs in a segregated community-based set- ting). The determination between recreation and therapeutic recreation is made on the basis of need and mandate for treatment rather than on disability. To call recreation services thera- peutic because they are in a hospital setting is not only inaccurate but also patronizing and stigmatizing to a person who happens to have a disability. (p. 126)

Bullock and Mahon go on to state:

As such, it is not accurate to call a municipal or county recreation program or a girls club program for people with disabilities thera- peutic recreation. Such programs are not therapeutic recreation (treatment) programs- at least not by virtue of their service mandate. They are recreation programs for people with disabilities.... (p. 126)

Austin (1999) has similarly stated that the term "therapeutic recreation" should be reserved to describe the actions of therapeutic recreation specialists who intervene in their clients' lives using purposeful interventions directed through the application of the therapeutic recreation process. The therapeutic recreation process in- volves (1) individual client assessment, (2) indi- vidual program planning, (3) implementation of the program, and (4) evaluation of the effect of the program.

Robb (1980) has expressed a comparable view. He has written,

The position (defining therapeutic recreation as the application of the therapeutic recreation process) seems to be the best approach ... to enhance organizational understanding, elimi- nate encroachment, and spell out jurisdictional boundaries. In my discussion with leaders of the park and recreation field, I believe many would welcome this delimitation. Acceptance of this position would eliminate conflicts within the TR field. Persons currently working with special populations in a service capacity through recreation experiences ... could iden- tify with the general recreation field. Perhaps this identification would provide the impetus and leadership needed for the broader field to accept the responsibility of serving all people. (p.46)

Thus, Robb believes therapeutic recreation should maintain a singularity of purpose by em- ploying the therapeutic recreation process as a means to helping clients. By so restricting thera- peutic recreation, he expects the general field of parks and recreation would react by assuming its

12 PART I Introduction and Overview

rightful responsibility for the provision of recre- ation for people who have disabilities.

Therapeutic Recreation and Inclusive Recreation: A Polarity In the field of therapeutic recreation, two philo- sophical points of view have emerged. One defines therapeutic recreation primarily as the provision of leisure services for those people who have some type of limitation. This position has been adopted by the National Therapeutic Recreation Society, a branch of the National Recreation and Park Asso- ciation. The other view holds that therapeutic recreation should restrict itself to the application of purposeful interventions employing the thera- peutic recreation process, and should, therefore, relinquish the provision of community recreation for people with disabilities to community recre- ation and parks personnel.

At this point, we take the position that a polar- ity does exist. We believe that inclusive recreation (i.e., recreation including persons with disabilities) and therapeutic recreation (i.e., recreation as a clinical intervention directed toward treatment or rehabilitation aims) stand as two separate entities. This book examines inclusive recreation services, not therapeutic recreation. Further, we believe the time has come to embrace new wording to describe the full inclusion of persons with disabilities into the recreation mainstream. We propose inclusive recreation be used because it is a broader term than special recreation and it better reflects equal and joint participation of persons with and without dis- abilities. The term special recreation can continue to be employed to describe special or adapted ac- tivities, such as the Special Olympics and wheel- chair sports, through which specific needs are met.

It is our intent to bring about an appreciation of the importance of inclusive recreation services for persons with disabilities, as well as a knowl- edge of how to develop and deliver such services. We have made a concerted effort to provide a non- clinical textbook that deals with the provision of inclusive recreation and special recreation services to persons with disabilities.

LEADERSHIP WITH PERSONS WHO

HAVE DISABILITIES

Stein and Sessoms' (1977) Recreation and Special Populations has been an important book in the movement to bring recreation services to persons with disabilities. In the view of Stein and Sessoms, professionals from the general recreation and parks field should provide community-based recreation services for people with special needs. They have written,

If such concern (for special populations) is to be converted into new and expanded commu- nity service, it must be accompanied by a growing cadre of professional recreation lead- ers and volunteers who have gained some awareness and understanding of the leisure problems of these disadvantaged people and who are oriented to the possibilities of provid- ing leisure opportunities aimed at resolving their needs. Here, it is important to under- stand, our focus is on present and future recre- ators who are trained for general community service rather than on those leaders who might be considered specialists in working with a specific population. (pp. 15, 16)

Stein and Sessoms go on to state:

Experience has demonstrated that a profes- sional recreator who is effective in working with people in general can be equally effective in working with people from a special popula- tion. The only provisions beyond his profes- sional skills and understanding are 1) that he be properly oriented to any unique psycholog- ical, social, or physical difficulties and possi- ble limitations that may sometimes be faced by persons within a given population; and 2) that he be endowed with the attitudinal ca- pacity to work with such people. Remember, we are discussing the ability to work with people-nothing more! Therefore, we should recognize that such orientation and attitudinal capacity are essential in working with any segment of a general population, whether con- sidered special or not. (p. 16)

Devine (1998) has suggested that existing general recreation staff can be given training to

CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Inclusive and Special Recreation 13

Areas of Competencyenable them to work with participants who have disabilities. She identified training needs of park and recreation staff related to inclusion through a national survey. These include:

1. Disability awareness; 2. Attitude and sensitivity toward people with

disabilities; 3. Program modification strategies, policy and

procedure revision strategies, and updates on ADA regulations. (p. 9)

Thus, authorities have proposed that general community recreation professionals can and should assume responsibility for inclusive recreation op- portunities. But what specific skills and knowledge are needed to work in community recreation with people who have special needs? Perhaps a study covered in the next section will help to answer this important question.

TABLE 1.2

Cluster

Attitudes Facility design and accessibility Orientation to recreation for

persons with disabilities Leadership and supervision Mainstreaming Program design Aids, appliances, safety procedures Trends and issues Leisure education Professionalism Resources and services Advocacy and legislation Training Equipment and supplies Characteristics of persons with

disabilities Funding sources

Mean Score

4.26 4.17

4.15 4.09 3.94 3.92 3.89 3.84 3.80 3.79 3.75 3.75 3.73 3.69

3.50 3.26

Competencies Needed to Work with Persons Who Have Disabilities Austin and Powell (1980) conducted an investiga- tion to determine what competencies entry-level general community recreation professionals should possess to enable them to serve participants with disabilities. They first found 142 colleges and uni- versities in the United States and Canada that offered a course in recreation for special popula- tions for general recreation and parks students. Instructors of the relevant course at 62 of the insti- tutions of higher education, along with 27 adminis- trators of community-based recreation programs for persons with special needs, participated in a competency identification study. These instructors and administrators identified 86 competencies they felt were necessary for entry-level recreation per- sonnel to work with people who have disabilities.

The 86 competencies identified by Austin and Powell were organized according to clusters of similar competencies. The highest-ranked cluster dealt with competencies related to attitudes (rated 4.26 on a 5-point scale). Other high-ranking areas of competence were facility design and accessibil-

Source: D. R. Austin and L. G. Powell. Competencies needed by community recreators to serve special populations. In D. R. Austin,

Ed., Directions in Health. Physical Education, and Recreation; Therapeutic Recreation Curriculum: Philosophy, Strategy, and Concerns (Bloomington: Indiana University School of Health, Physical

Education and Recreation, 1980), p. 34.

ity (4.17), orientation to recreation for persons with disabilities (4.15), leadership and supervision (4.09), and mainstrearning (3.94). The rankings for all 16 clusters of competencies are shown in Table 1.2.

To present the nature of specific competen- cies, a representative sample was listed under each of the highest ranked clusters. First, under the attitudes cluster are competencies such as the following:

• Understands how positive attitudes toward persons with disabilities may be developed within recreational programs

• Demonstrates awareness of personal attitudes toward persons with disabilities

• Understands various societal attitudes toward persons with disabilities

14 PART I Introduction and Overview

Under the cluster onfacility design and acces- sibility are competencies such as the following:

• Understands the frustrations experienced in an inaccessible environment

• Describes physical barriers to accessibility and how they can be eliminated

• Identifies resources available on the design of barrier-free recreational environments

Representative of the cluster on orientation to recreation for persons with disabilities are compe- tencies dealing with philosophical understandings, including the following:

• Develops a personal/professional philosophy of recreation for persons with disabilities in community settings

• States a rationale for the provision of community recreation for persons with disabilities

• Knows role of recreation services for persons with disabilities in the community recreation department

The leadership and supervision cluster contains competencies such as the following:

T\HLE 1.3

Abbreviation

ABs ADA ADL AT CPRA

IDEA

NCA NRPA

NTRS

Reg Neg

TABs TDDorTTY

Stands for:

Able~bodied people Americans with Disabilities Act Activities of daily living Assistive technology Canadian Park and Recreation

Association Individuals with Disabilities

Education Act National Center on Accessibility National Recreation and Park

Association National Therapeutic Recreation

Society U.S. Access Board Regulatory

Negotiation advisory committee

Temporarily able-bodied Telecommunications· device

individuals with hearing impairments

• Recognizes the importance of considering individual needs and interests during program leadership

• Knows principles of instruction useful for executing recreation activities for special populations

• Knows how to facilitate integrated recreational groups (create an atmosphere conducive to mainstreaming)

The mainstreaming cluster contains the following competencies, among others:

• Understands concepts of mainstreaming • Understands concepts of normalization • Describes approaches to mainstreaming in

community recreation

The competencies identified by Austin and Powell's (1980) experts constitute a listing of

basic skills and knowledge necessary for entry- level professionals assuming positions in recre- ation and parks departments. This information, coupled with that provided by others such as Anderson and Brown (1996); Anderson and Kress (2003); Dattilo (1994); Project INCLUDE (1998); and Schleien, et al. (1997) could serve as a basic foundation for preservice and in-service training of community recreation professionals.

Comment on Leadership Responsibility in Community Recreation Public recreation and parks agencies must return to their professional heritage of concern with recreation for persons who have been underserved. As the suppliers of public recreation and parks ser- vices, they have the responsibility to offer recre- ation services for persons with disabilities, since it

CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Inclusive and Special Recreation 15

• The pursuit of leisure is a condition necessary for human dignity and well-being. • Leisure is a part of a healthy lifestyle and a productive life. • Every individual is entitled to the opportunity to express unique interests and pursue, develop and improve

talents and abilities. • People are entitled to opportunities and services in the most inclusive setting. • The right to choose from the full array of recreation opportunities offered in diverse settings and

environments and requiring different levels of competency should be provided.

Taken from the NTRS Position Statement on Inclusion, approved by the NTRS Board of Directors, October 29, 1997.

is their duty to serve the recreational needs of their jurisdictions at large. But it is particularly impor- tant that public recreation and parks agencies reach out to underserved segments of the popula- tion, including persons with physical or mental disabilities and older persons.

Further, we believe that inclusive and special recreation programs should be largely organized and led by general recreation professionals. If such programs are to be an integral part of the organiza- tion's offerings, they should be provided by the regular professional staff. The exception to this would be in programs with therapeutic intent. These are programs directed toward facilitating change through meeting specific objectives. Use of the therapeutic recreation process to effect spe- cific outcomes calls for the knowledge and skills possessed by a professional prepared as a thera- peutic recreation specialist. Therefore, we envi- sion therapeutic recreation specialists working in recreation and parks agencies in programs aimed at therapeutic objectives, with general recreation professionals delivering opportunities for leisure experiences. There appears to be no reason why general recreation professionals and therapeutic recreation specialists should not function together in the cause of providing necessary services for persons with disabilities.

With the passage of the ADA, it is also the law of the land in the United States that recreation

providers allow access to their services by persons with disabilities. The ADA, however, goes beyond governmental recreation agencies to also cover all public recreation accommodations including sport, resort, and commercial recreation enterprises. Therefore, we urge students preparing for careers in any aspect of public or private recreation to ready themselves for the important task of serving persons with disabilities.

Finally, we strongly endorse the concept of in- clusive recreation. Both public and private recre- ation providers must offer inclusive services so that persons with disabilities have access to enjoy recreation experiences as others do. We recognize that special recreation programs designed specifi- cally for persons with disabilities (e.g., wheelchair sports) are at times preferred by some participants. Yet, we believe that every person with a disability has the right to be fully included with others en- joying existing recreation programs and facilities as long as he or she meets the basic requirements (e.g., age, height, and skill) to participate. Persons with disabilities should never be excluded by any recreation provider simply because they are dis- abled. All recreation providers must remove phys- ical and social barriers and make reasonable ac- commodations so that people with disabilities may have free and equal access to recreation. Means must be provided for persons with disabilities and without disabilities to recreate together.

16 PART I Introduction and Overview

SUMMARY

T he organized recreation movement in the UnitedStates grew out of a social welfare concern re- flected by the establishment of the Boston Sand Gardens and recreation programs in settlement houses. Eventu- ally, however, public recreation lost its focus on individ- uals with special needs as a new philosophy developed that viewed recreation as an end in itself, rather than as a means to reach social ends. A similar change occurred in Canada.

It has been suggested that a broadened concept of therapeutic recreation (TR), which viewed TR as en- compassing all recreation for persons with disabilities, further contributed to a perception that public recreation and parks did not have a responsibility for providing

SllGGESTED LEARNING ACTIVITIES

1. Prepare a two- to four-page paper in which you provide support for the idea that organized recreation evolved out of humanistic concerns.

2. In a discussion group, list reasons why communities fail to offer leisure services to people with disabilities. Which reason or reasons do most of the group members consider most prominent?

3. Interview a parks and recreation administrator in your hometown on the subject of community recreation for people with disabilities. Ask why the community offers (or fails to offer) leisure services for people with disabilities. Prepare a two- to three-page report on your interview.

4. Prepare a two- to three-page paper on the relationship between therapeutic recreation and inclusive recreation services. Arrive at your own position regarding the relationship.

5. Prepare a two-page paper in which you agree or disagree with this statement: "Existing general

REFEI~E~CES

American Therapeutic Recreation Association. Recreational Therapy: An Integral Aspect of Comprehensive Healthcare. Hattisburg, MS:

American Therapeutic Recreation Association, 1993.

Anderson, L., & C. Brown. Inclusion: Strategies for Including People with Disabilities in Parks and

services for persons with disabilities, because these services were being provided by those identified as ther- apeutic recreation specialists. This broad view of thera- peutic recreation has been challenged by several authors who have taken the position that inclusive and special recreation services rightfully fall within the domain of general recreation and parks. The Americans with Dis- abilities Act makes it mandatory that all recreation pro- viders (both public and private) make their facilities and programs accessible to persons with disabilities. The final segment of the chapter discussed in-service train- ing needs and necessary competencies for recreation professionals to offer leisure opportunities for those per- sons who have disabilities.

recreation staff can be given training to enable them to work with participants with disabilities."

6. Examine the 16 critical competencies listed in the chapter. Then do a three- to five-page self- assessment paper based on the critical competencies.

7. In class, discuss how you believe general recreation professionals and therapeutic recreation specialists can function together in the provision of community recreation for persons with disabilities.

8. Go to the ADA home page on the Web. Evaluate it for usefulness to students studying inclusive recreation. Report your findings in class.

9. Locate the home page for the Journal of Leisurability on the Web. Review past issues for articles of interest to you. Of the articles you select, choose one to report on in class.

Recreation Opportunities. Bismarck, ND: North Dakota Parks and Recreation Department, 1996.

Anderson, L., & C. C. Kress. Inclusion: Including People with Disabilities in Parks and Recreation Opportunities. State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc., 2003.

CHAPTER 1 Introduction to Inclusive and Special Recreation 17

Associated Press. Nude beach unveils its first wheelchair ramp. The Herald-Times, Bloomington, IN, March 4, 1995, p. A5.

Austin, D. R Therapeutic Recreation Processes and Techniques (4th ed.). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing, 1999.

Austin, D. R, J. A. Peterson, & L. M. Peccarelli. The status of services for special populations in park and recreation departments in the state ofIndiana. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 12(1),50-56,1978.

Austin, D. R, & L. G. Powell. Competencies needed by community recreators to serve special populations. In D. R Austin, Ed. Directions in Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, Therapeutic-Recreation Curriculum: Philosophy, Strategy, and Concepts. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University School of Health, Physical Education, and Recreation, 1980, pp. 33, 34.

Bullock, C. c., & M. J. Mahon. Introduction to Recreation Services for Persons with Disabilities: A Person Centered Approach (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing, 2000.

Carter, M. J., & J. D. Kelley. Recreation programming for visually impaired children. In J. D. Kelley, Ed. Recreation Programming for Visually Impaired Children and Youth. New York: American Foundation for the Blind, 1981, pp. 63-79.

Carter, M. J., G. E. Van Andel, & G. M. Robb. Therapeutic Recreation: A Practical Approach (3rd ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc., 2003.

Census Brief, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. Washington, DC: 1997.

Colton, D. Longevity is global sleeping giant. USA Today, 17(129), March 17,1999, pp. 1,2.

Dattilo, J. Inclusive Leisure Services: Responding to the Rights of People with Disabilities (2nd ed.). State College, PA: Venture Publishing, Inc., 2002.

Devine, M. A. Inclusion ... An update: Results of a national survey. NTRS Report, 23(3), 8,9, 1998.

Disability Statistics Program. Disability Statistics Abstract: People with Functional Limitations in the U.S. San Francisco: Disability Statistics Program, University of California, 1992.

Farrell, M. A. Many with disabilities unaware of the ADA. Venice Gondolier, Venice, FL, September 19, 1998, p. 4.

Federal Register, 54(144), July 26, 1991.

Gray, D. E. The case of compensatory recreation. Parks and Recreation, 4(4),23, 24ff, 1969.

Hutchinson, P. The evolution of integration research: Celebrating 25 years of the Journal of Leisurability. Journal of Leisurability, 27(4),32-43,2000.

Kraus, R Recreation and Leisure in Modern Society. New York: Appleton-Century-Croft, 1971.

LaPlante, M. P. Disability Statistics Abstract: How Many Americans Have a Disability? San Francisco: Disability Statistics Programs, University of California, 1992.

Lutzin, P. B. Serving the handicapped and elderly. In S. G. Lutzin, Ed. Managing Municipal Leisure Services. Washington, DC: International City Management Association, 1980, p. 152.

McGill, J. A retrospective: Twenty-five years of practice in the field of leisure and persons with disabilities, Journal of Leisurability. Journal of Leisurability, 27(4),9-31,2000.

Meyer, L. E. Three philosophical positions of therapeutic recreation and their implications for professionalization and NTRS. In Proceedings of the First Annual Post-Doctorate Institute. Bloomington: Indiana University Department of Recreation and Park Administration, 1980, pp. 28-42.

Meyer, L. E. Three philosophical positions of therapeutic recreation and their implication for professionalism and NTRSINRPA. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 15(2),7-16,1981.

National Therapeutic Recreation Society. Philosophical position statement of the National Therapeutic Recreation Society, 1982.

NTRS. Philosophical Position Statement. [Online]. Available: http://www.nrpa.org/branches/ntrs/ philos.htm, 1996.

NTRS. NTRS Position Statement on Inclusion. NTRS Report, 23(1), 7, 1997.

aIkin, R What Psychotherapists Should Know about Disability. New York: The Guilford Press, 1999.

Pedlar, A. Normalization and integration: A look at the Swedish experience. Mental Retardation, 28(5), 275-282, 1990.

Pedlar, A., & A. Gilbert. Normalization and integration:

The Canadian experience. In D. M. Compton, Ed. Issues in Therapeutic Recreation: Toward the New Millennium (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing, 1997, pp. 489-506.

18 PART I Introduction and Overview

Pegels, C. C. Health Care and the Older Citizen. Rockville, MD: Aspen, 1988.

Project INCLUDE. Project INCLUDE Manual and Training Materials. Evanston, IL: National Lekotek Center, 1998.

Robb, G. M. A practitioner's reaction to three philosophical positions of therapeutic recreation and their implications for professionalization and NTRS. In Proceedings of the First Annual Post- Doctorate Institute. Bloomington: Indiana University Department of Recreation and Park Administration, 1980, pp. 43-52.

Schleien, S. J., M. 1. Ray, & F. P. Green. Community Recreation and People with Disabilities: Strategies for Inclusion (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., 1997.

Selingo, J., & J. Naughton. NCAA agrees to loosen its rules for athletes with learning disabilities: The Chronicle of Higher Education, A47, June 5, 1998.

Sessoms, H. G., & 1. L. Stevenson. Leadership & Group Dynamics in Recreation Services. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1981.

Skyzinski, R. Through the green. Golf Journal, 51(2), 4, March/April, 1998.

Statistics Canada. [Online]. Available: http://www.statcan.ca/start.html and http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/89-577- XIE/canada.htm, July 9, 2003.

Statistics Canada. Population Aged 15 and Over with a Disability, by Nature of Disability. [Online]. Available: http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/ People/Healthlhealth 12a.htm, 1991.

Statistics Canada. Population by Age Group. [Online]. Available: http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/ PeoplelPopulation/demo31a.htm, 1998.

Stein,T. A., & H. D. Sessoms. Recreation and Special Populations (2nd ed.). Boston: Holbrook Press, 1977.

Tarde, J. After Casey Martin, what? Golf Digest, 49(4), 46-48, April, 1998.

United States Census 2000, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. Census Bureau. Washington, DC: 2003.

Wehman, P. The ADA Mandate for Social Change. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes, 1993.

Worsnop, R. L. Despite business grumbling, disabilities act here to stay. Sunday Herald-Times, Bloomington, IN, January 19, 1997, p. 61.