Organizations for All: Indicators of the Inclusive Organization

by Monetta Bailey and Jill Wagar

Improving quality for life for persons with developmental disabilities is a goal of both community capacity and community inclusion initiatives. With the deinstitutionalization movement which started in the mid-1900s, the emphasis has increasingly been on ensuring that participation in the community is meaningful and in turn improves the quality of life of persons with developmental disabilities. Progression in the movement from normalization to integration and finally inclusion can be seen through the active and meaningful participation of persons with developmental disabilities in community programs, organizations and institutions, as well as through the services that are available to them.

From normalization to inclusion

Organizational policies are crucial to the process of bridging the gap between an inclusive society and providing the opportunity for persons with disabilities to have meaningful participation in society, thus paving the way from normalization and integration to inclusion. The extent to which organizations are accommodating to persons of various abilities determines just how inclusive the society is overall (Renzaglia, A., Karvonen, M., Drasgow, E. & Stoxen, C.C., 2003). Services for individuals with developmental disabilities have historically been based on available options rather than on programs created to meet the unique needs, desires, and situation of each individual. Originally, normalization focused on first defining what is
normal, as determined by society. The goal was then to assimilate the individual into the ideals of normal, rather than on changing programs, organizations, and institutions to accommodate those with developmental disabilities (Jackson, 1999; Culham & Nind, 2003; Renzaglia et al., 2003).

Fuelled by the beliefs that underlie normalization, integration is defined as being physically present in locations that are frequented by the general public. Successful integration therefore can be measured by the reduction of physical segregation. However, on its own, integration is not a sufficient indicator of community capacity, as mere physical presence fails to take into account quality of life issues (Northway, 1997; Cummins & Lau, 2003; Renzaglia et al., 2003). Following from normalization and integration, inclusion is defined as a process of actively incorporating persons into a society. Successful
inclusion involves ensuring that environments in society are accessible to persons of various abilities and providing them with adequate opportunities for participation. This includes both the physical presence of persons with developmental disabilities in programs, institutions, and organizations, as well as having their involvement be mutually meaningful, respectable, and satisfying to both the individual and society (Renzaglia et al., 2003). Based on the premise that in order for society to be inclusive, organizations should promote meaningful participation, the following organizational-level indicators help identify inclusive organizations, programs, and institutions.

Mission statement of inclusion

Organizations must first demonstrate their commitment to inclusion by articulating it in their mission statement. Having a mission and philosophy which reflect inclusive values and promote an inclusive approach to program management is essential. For example, there should be a statement that welcomes a variety of individuals, which demonstrates a commitment to laws and polices which safeguard the rights of persons with developmental disabilities (Miller, K., Frisoli, A., Smythe, A. & Schleien, S., 2003; Wehman, 2003; Brown, 1997).

Staff training in inclusion

Second, there should be emphasis placed on ensuring that the staff are well trained in areas pertinent to persons with developmental disabilities. This includes knowledge of the various disabilities as well as sensitivity training. Staff training should emphasize methods to successfully include citizens into the community. It is therefore important that training be continuous in order to keep staff familiar with new ideas and techniques in inclusion (Miller et al., 2003; Brown, 1997).Program goals that emphasize inclusionProgram goals should also reflect a focus on inclusion. For example, the availability of opportunities for participation, skill development, and socialization should be stressed over competition and high-level performance. This creates a positive and safe environment for the involvement of persons with various abilities, as participation that is evaluated based solely on competition undermines the contributions of those who compete at lower levels. In addition, programs should be flexible and allow for modification and partial participation in order to accommodate those with different needs and allow them to participate and compete at different levels. Another requirement is to have adaptable equipment to cater to various needs, as well as flexible rules and the use of innovative problem-solving techniques (Miller et al., 2003; Brown, 1997; Jasman, T., Storey, K. & Certo, N., 2000).

Teaching techniques geared toward inclusion

The use of techniques which are geared toward inclusion is also advocated. These techniques include using teaching and facilitation strategies which accommodate persons with various levels of functioning. Examples may include cooperative learning, and companionship training. These activities are more welcoming to a wider variety of individuals and emphasize cooperation rather than competition. Task analysis helps to ensure that the individual receives the supports needed in the activity as well as to identify the skills that are needed to perform (Miller et al., 2003).Inclusive programmingAge and ability-appropriate programming should be established which aim at maximizing the contribution of persons with developmental
disabilities while not devaluing them. Activities should not only be in line with the individual’s interest in order to increase their
contribution, but they should also provide opportunities for life-long learning and personal challenges, where individuals can develop and improve their skills. Allowing persons to take risk in their activities can serve to increase self esteem (Miller et al., 2003).

Physical accessibility

Matters concerning accessibility include not only physical accessibility but also factors such as accessible scheduling and
programming. This is especially true where persons with disabilities rely on others to transport them. Ensuring that programs are offered at various times should help accommodate caregivers’ schedules as well (Miller et al., 2003; Wehman, 2003; Wolf-Branigin, M., LeRoy, B. & Miller, J., 2001; Renzaglia et al., 2003).Renzaglia et al. (2003) use the term “universal design” to denote a building or structure that accommodates the needs of a variety of individuals. However, they argue that the term can be viewed more broadly than an environmental consideration so as to include universally designed programs at schools, businesses and other types of organizations. Environmental considerations such as physical design signal an
organization that is inclusive. In addition, organizations must consider whether persons are asked to adapt to existing models, both physical and programming models, or whether these models can accommodate individuals with different needs. Also, the program materials used should be selected with the intention of modification to fit various purposes and needs, for example, making reading material available in large print and/or plain language (Renzaglia et al., 2003).Conclusion
The above highlights some indicators that can identify inclusive organizations. While it is important that organizations communicate acceptance of a diverse population, the emphasis is on ensuring that organizations and programs are accessible, both physically and otherwise, to individuals of various abilities. Only then can a community claim to be inclusive of persons with developmental disabilities.

Key points

• Based on the ideas of normalization and integration, inclusion goes beyond mere physical presence to encompass meaningful participation.
• In order for individuals to have the capacity to participate in their society, organizations must provide opportunities for inclusion.
• Inclusive organizations reflect: a mission statement of inclusion; staff training on inclusion; program goals that emphasize inclusion; teaching techniques geared toward inclusion; inclusive programming; and physical accessibility.

Implications for practice

• Inclusive organizations are a vital link between a society that is inclusive and improving the community capacity and quality of life of persons with developmental disabilities.

References

Culham, A. & Nind, M. (2003). Deconstructing normalization: Clearing the way for inclusion. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability 28(1), 65-78.

Hvinden, B. (2004).Nordic disability policies in a changing Europe: Is there still a distinct Nordic model? Social Policy and Administration 38(2), 170-189

Lord, J. & Hutchison, P. (2003). Individualized support and funding: Building blocks for capacity building and inclusion. Disability and Society 18(1), 71-86.

Morris, J. (2004). Independent living and community care: A disempowering framework. Disability and Society 19(5): 427-442.

Persons with Developmental Disabilities Alberta Provincial Board. Community Capacity Initiative. Retrieved May 15, 2005, from http://www.pdd.org/initiatives/cci/default.shtml.

Renzaglia, A., Karvonen, M., Drasgow, E. & Stoxen, C. (2003). Promoting a lifetime of inclusion. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities 18(3), 140-149.

Schwartz, C. & Armony-Sivan, R. (2001). Students’ attitudes to the inclusion of people with disabilities in the community. Disability and Society 16(3), 403-413

Vash, C. (2001). Disability attitudes for all latitudes. Journal of Rehabilitation January/February/March, 38-42.