<%BANNER%>

The Status of Recreation Services at the Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC)


PAGE 1

THE STATUS OF RECREA TION SERVICES AT THE ASSOCIATION FOR RETA RDED CITIZENS (ARC) By DORCAS V. SMITH A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN RECREATIONAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by Dorcas V. Smith

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS If He brings it to you He can bring you through it Throughout life, one is bound to encounter numerous challenges and there are those people that are placed into our lives to help us in overcom ing these challenges. Thus, I am thankful for the people that were pl aced into my path of higher education. The members of my committee have both challenged and supported me while guiding me on this journey. I acknowledge and thank each of them. I thank Dr. Robert Beland, for his support, guidance, and inspiring words throughout the years. It is because of his devotion to special popul ations that I am better able to understand the need for recreation for everyone. Dr. Chris Stopkas, passion for individuals with developmental disabilities has inspired me in unimagina ble ways. I thank her for her support and sharing her passion with me. I thank Dr. St ephen Anderson, for challenging me to think outside of the box. It is because of him that I have earned a better respect and understanding of what therapeutic recreation stands for. I am grateful to all of them for their encouragement through both writing of this thesis and my academic program. Appreciation is also extended to my pare nts for instilling love and the drive to succeed in me. Thanks go to my siblings and fri ends for their everlasting support. I thank Dr. Cari Autry for not allowing me to give up. I thank Dr. Bertha Cato for her wise words and endless lessons throughout my journey. I thank Dr. John Confer for his statistical guidance. I AM BLESSED!

PAGE 4

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................vi ABSTRACT.........................................................................................................................x CHAPTER 1 STUDY BACKGROUND............................................................................................1 Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC)...................................................................1 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................2 Purpose of the Study.....................................................................................................5 Significance of the Study..............................................................................................6 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.............................................................................................7 Mental Retardation.......................................................................................................7 Legislation....................................................................................................................9 Leisure Education of Individuals with Mental Retardation........................................14 SelfDetermination for Individuals with Mental Retardation....................................18 Typical Leisure Patterns of People with Mental Retardation.....................................20 Preferred Leisure Patterns of People with Mental Retardation..................................21 Social Integration........................................................................................................23 Constraints to Leisure.................................................................................................25 3 METHODS.................................................................................................................29 Sample........................................................................................................................30 Research Design.........................................................................................................30 4 RESULTS OF THE STUDY......................................................................................32 Data AnalysisFrequency Tables...............................................................................33 Recreation Personnel...........................................................................................33 Programming Practices........................................................................................35 Constraints to Leisure..........................................................................................38 iv

PAGE 5

Data Analysis-Crosstabulations..................................................................................42 Employed Activity Director................................................................................42 Leisure Education................................................................................................50 Level of Integrated Recreation and Independent Decision-Making....................56 5 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, and RECOMMENDATIONS...........................63 Recreation Personnel..................................................................................................64 Programming Practices...............................................................................................66 Constraints to Leisure.................................................................................................67 Conclusion..................................................................................................................68 Recommendations.......................................................................................................70 APPENDIX A SAMPLE OF COVER LETTER................................................................................71 B COPY OF FOLLOW-UP LETTER............................................................................72 C COPY OF SURVEY INSTRUMENT........................................................................74 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................78 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................82 v

PAGE 6

LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Employ Activity Director/ Recreation Therapist...................................................33 4-2 Educational Level of Activity Director/ Recreation Therapist..............................34 4-3 College Major........................................................................................................34 4-4 Certification Status.................................................................................................35 4-5 Independent-Decision Making...............................................................................35 4-6 Independent-Decision Making...............................................................................36 4-7 Integrated Recreation.............................................................................................36 4-8 Integrated Recreation.............................................................................................36 4-9 Lei Ed Program......................................................................................................36 4-10 Formal Lei Ed........................................................................................................37 4-11 Informal Lei Ed......................................................................................................37 4-12 Leisure Awareness.................................................................................................38 4-13 Leisure Skills.........................................................................................................38 4-14 Leisure Resources..................................................................................................38 4-15 Leisure Decision-Making.......................................................................................38 4-16 Financial Constraints.............................................................................................39 4-17 Financial Constraints.............................................................................................39 4-18 Transportation Constraints.....................................................................................39 4-19 Transportation Constraints.....................................................................................39 4-20 Community Attitude Constraints...........................................................................40 vi

PAGE 7

4-21 Community Attitude Constraints...........................................................................40 4-22 Staff Supervision Constraints................................................................................40 4-23 Staff Supervision Constraints................................................................................40 4-24 Recreation Knowledge Constraints........................................................................41 4-25 Recreation Knowledge Constraints........................................................................41 4-26 Skills Constraints...................................................................................................41 4-27 Skills Constraints...................................................................................................41 4-28 Lei Education by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation............................42 4-29 Freq of Assessed Recreation Interest by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation......................................................................................................43 4-30 Freq of Client Evaluation from Rec by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation......................................................................................................43 4-31 Integrated Recreation by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation................44 4-32 Independent Decision-Making by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation..44 4-33 Assessment Method by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation..................45 4-34 Formal Lei Ed by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation...........................45 4-35 Informal Lei Ed by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation.........................45 4-36 Leisure Awareness by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation....................46 4-37 Leisure Resources by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation.....................46 4-38 Leisure Skills by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation............................46 4-39 Leisure Decision-Making by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation..........47 4-40 Financial Constraints by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation................47 4-41 Transportation Constraints by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation........48 4-42 Community Attitude Constraints by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation48 4-43 Staff Supervision Constraints by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation...49 vii

PAGE 8

4-44 Recreation Knowledge Constraints by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation......................................................................................................49 4-45 Skills Constraints by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation......................50 4-46 Integrated Recreation by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation.........................50 4-47 Independent Decision-Making by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation...........51 4-48 Financial Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation.........................51 4-49 Transportation Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation.................52 4-50 Community Attitude Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation.......52 4-51 Staff Supervision Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation............53 4-52 Recreation Knowledge Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation...53 4-53 Skills Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation...............................54 4-54 Leisure Awareness by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation.............................54 4-55 Leisure Resources by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation..............................54 4-56 Leisure Skills by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation.....................................55 4-57 Leisure Decision-Making by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation..................55 4-58 Freq of Assessed Rec Interest by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation............55 4-59 Freq of Client Evaluation from Rec by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation...56 4-60 Financial Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation...........................56 4-61 Transportation Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation..................57 4-62 Community Attitude Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation........57 4-63 Staff Supervision Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation..............58 4-64 Recreation Knowledge Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation.....58 4-65 Skills Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation.................................59 4-66 Financial Constraints by Independent Decision-Making Crosstabulation.............59 4-67 Transportation Constraints by Independent Decision-Making Crosstabulation....60 viii

PAGE 9

4-68 Community Attitude Constraints by Independent Decision-Making Crosstabulation......................................................................................................60 4-69 Staff Supervision Constraints by Independent Decision-Making Crosstabulation......................................................................................................61 4-70 Recreation Knowledge Constraints by Independent Decision-Making Crosstabulation......................................................................................................61 4-71 Skills Constraints by Independent Decision-Making Crosstabulation..................62 ix

PAGE 10

Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Recreational Studies THE STATUS OF RECREATION SERVICES AT THE ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS (ARC) By Dorcas V. Smith May 2004 Chair: Robert M. Beland Major Department: Recreation, Parks and Tourism Due to the increasing awareness of the benefits of recreation for individuals with mental retardation, agencies throughout the United States have begun providing recreation services for this population. Specifically, the Arc, agencies that provide services for individuals with mental retardation, has made community integrated recreation a focus of their programming. Current literature has proven countless times the benefits of recreation on the quality of life for individuals with developmental disabilities. However, little research has been conducted on the specific recreation services that are provided at the Arc. Therefore, this study was conducted to examine the current status of the recreation services provided by the Arc agencies throughout the United States. A survey instrument was created, tested by a panel of experts, then emailed to 220 of the Arc agencies throughout the nation that were known to have operating websites with email addresses. Of the 220 email addresses, 28 were faulty. Thus, there was an x

PAGE 11

effective sample of 192. Of the effective sample, 38 responses were received, resulting in a response rate of 20%. Of the agencies that responded, only 47% had activities directors/coordinators. The respondents that indicated their agency had an activity director also indicated that at least 60% of them had a bachelors degree. Agencies that employed an activity director had higher rates of leisure education programs offered, independent decision-making, and integrated community recreation. Constraints to leisure had a high frequency rate, whether they employed an activity director or not. Thus, an analysis of the data revealed that while recreation services currently provided at the Arc agencies throughout the United States moderately meet the needs of individuals with mental retardation, Arc agencies need further improvement regarding the employment of recreation personnel to enhance the many benefits of recreation participation. However, areas of constraints should be further researched. xi

PAGE 12

CHAPTER 1 STUDY BACKGROUND Recreation participation is a core dimension to the quality of life for all individuals, including those with disabilities. Through the participation in a wide variety of community recreation and leisure activities, people have the opportunity to experience fun, meet others that are different from them, and develop skills, specifically those related to interacting with others. Despite this, though, recreation for individuals with mental retardation is given a low priority. Rider, Iannella, and Duncan (1993), expressed that when planning for and participating in recreation and leisure services, community planners frequently overlook individuals with disabilities. Further, 64% of the participants with disabilities in a study done by Kaye (1997) responded that they were not participating in the community as much as they would like. This is a direct result of the limited segregated recreation options that are being offered to individuals with disabilities. There is minimal individualized community participation because of the support and assistance that possibly may be required. Thus, individuals with disabilities generally participate in large group outings, regardless of the level of support that they personally require. However, the importance of individuals with disabilities understanding their rights to self-determination, leisure education, and community recreation and leisure is fundamental to them acquiring a highquality of living. Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC) The mission of the Association for Retarded Citizens (Arc) is to promote, for all people with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities, the opportunity to 1

PAGE 13

2 choose and realize their goals of where and how they learn, live, work and access leisure activities. The Arc also acts to reduce the incidence and limit the consequences of mental retardation and other developmental disabilities through education, awareness, research, advocacy and the support of families, friends and community. The Arc aims to ensure that all Americans with mental retardation and related developmental disabilities have services such as early intervention, health care, free appropriate public education, and support for their families to grow, develop, and live in communities throughout the nation. Statement of the Problem Despite living in small group homes within the community, it is fairly common for individuals with severe disabilities to have minimal contact with the non-disabled community around them. In most cases, they eat at home, ride a bus to school or work, attend a school or workshop for people with disabilities, return home on the same bus from which they left, and spend the rest of the evening isolated from the normal community which surrounds their residence, all in an environment with people with similar disabilities (Salzberg & Langford, 1981). Researchers have described the process of integrating individuals with disabilities into recreation activities as one that (a) provides the opportunity for them to experience participation and enjoyment similar to that of their peers without disabilities, (b) allows them to develop their skills and confidence, (c) permits their participation in community activities of their choice, and (d) encourages them to develop self-confidence and dignity (Hutchison & Lord, 1979). Previous studies have shown that people with disabilities living in small group homes participate in mainly home-based solitary or family oriented recreation and only a small percentage of them have friends that they recreate with outside educational settings

PAGE 14

3 Leisure services should be designed to stimulate interaction between individuals with and without mental retardation in integrated community environments (Dattilo & Schleien, 1994). Literature also suggests that many deinstitutionalized adults with disabilities spend most of their leisure time inside their own residence in passive activities such as watching television and they lack friends and contacts with non-disabled people in their community (Salzberg & Langford, 1981). This shortage of social networking within the community is made more difficult for people with disabilities because they tend to lack the skills necessary to interacting and developing personal relationships with coworkers, peers, neighbors, and other adults in the community. Because individuals with disabilities are living in the community, it is often assumed that these individuals with mental retardation have the skills to live and work in community settings, which is not always the case. This imposed segregation is somewhat due to an ignorance of leisure resources within the community. Researchers have found that many residents in all types of community living facilities rarely participate in basic leisure activities of the larger society such as engaging in hobbies, visiting friends, attending sporting events, clubs, or community centers (Hayden, Lakin, Hill, Bruininks, & Copher, 1992). While, there are special recreation programs that are specifically for individuals with mental retardation that attempt community integration, such as Special Olympics, they tend to be very valuable for children (Salzberg & Langford, 1981), but not very age appropriate for the development of normalized leisure patterns in adults with mental retardation. Individuals with mental retardation should be encouraged by recreation programmers to gain leisure skills that are appropriate for their age and comparable to those of their peers. A wide repertoire of age

PAGE 15

4 appropriate leisure skills that are based in the community will successfully integrate individuals with mental retardation into the community (Dattilo & Schleien, 1994). The majority of research concerning the leisure and recreational pursuits of people with mental retardation has dealt with their typical leisure patterns and not their preferred leisure activities. Few studies have examined the recreation patterns of people with intellectual disabilities and compared them to their ideal recreational activities, that is, the recreational pursuits respondents would choose given no restrictions (Sparrow & Mayne, 1990). This is an important area of study because people with intellectual disabilities often have very limited choices regarding recreational activities. There is a clear need for further research regarding the choice of participants with mental retardation in social and recreational activities, especially in relation to the activities of people with mental retardation in older age groups. Results of a study by Neumayer and Bleasdale (1996), showed that lifestyle conditions and preferences of people with intellectual disabilities were not being fully addressed in relation to the principles and values of certain programming philosophies adopted by different service provider organizations. Despite research demonstrating that community and social integration is a valid component of life satisfaction, numerous studies have indicated that individuals with developmental disabilities rarely have the opportunities to interact with individuals without developmental disabilities. Newton and Horner (1993) suggested this may be due to the lack of friends, few social activities, and loneliness that are among the most common issues for people with disabilities. The social network of people with disabilities can be increased by participation in integrated community recreation (Modell,

PAGE 16

5 1997). Although, studies have shown that creating friendships with people without disabilities is important to the life satisfaction of individuals with disabilities, it is often difficult to find and retain these integrated friendships (Bostwick & Foss, 1981). By participating in inclusive recreation, people with and without mental retardation have the opportunity to mingle with each other. Thus, creating bonds between the groups. Inclusive recreation and leisure can serve as an ideal medium for promoting friendships between individuals with and without disabilities (Modell, 1997, p.3). Purpose of the Study The purposes of this research are: 1. To determine the current status of recreation available in non-institutional settings for individuals with mental retardation. 2. To determine the status of recreation opportunities for individuals residing in non-institutional settings to participate. 3. To determine the extent of which individuals with mental retardation residing in non-institutional settings participate in recreation within the community. 4. To determine the degree of recreation integration between individuals with and without mental retardation. 5. To determine the degree of independence that individuals with mental retardation residing in non-institutional settings have regarding recreation choices. The research questions are: 6. What types of recreation activities are provided for individuals with mental retardation residing in non-institutional settings? 7. What are the recreation programming practices of activity directors in non-institutional settings? 8. What types of constraints inhibit integrated recreation participation for individuals with mental retardation living in non-institutional settings? 9. Are individuals residing in non-institutional settings participating in recreation activities with individuals without mental retardation?

PAGE 17

6 10. How much independence do individuals with mental retardation residing in non-institutional settings have regarding recreation choices? Significance of the Study There is a need to study the status of recreation services on the quality of life for individuals with mental retardation living in noninstitutionalized settings (group homes, foster homes). Sparrow and Mayne (1995) investigated the typical and ideal recreation patterns of individuals with mental retardation, what participants would like to engage in if given the opportunity, and what barriers prevented them from doing so. It was discovered that subjects participated in home-based recreation more so than community based recreation, but reported the desire to participate more in all categories of activities. Transportation, lack of availability, no opportunity, skills, financial reasons, and attitudinal barriers were reported by at least half of the subjects as barriers, with the highest rated barrier being lack of opportunity to participate in ideal recreation. Some ways to reverse this immense lack of opportunity for ideal leisure would be to educate clients on the various leisure opportunities throughout the community, assess the clients for individual leisure preferences, and develop programs that target these areas of recreation and leisure. Therefore, examining the current recreation programming practices of noninstitutionalized settings throughout the United States will enhance the understanding and need for increased person-centered programming that is directly beneficial to all aspects of client quality of life.

PAGE 18

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Mental Retardation The origin of mental retardation is described as either organic or non-organic. Organic refers to known medical causes, whereas, non-organic refers to unknown or familial or environmental causes. It is generally estimated that three out of four cases of mental retardation are non-organic in nature (Zigler & Hodapp, 1986). However, organic cases of mental retardation are on the rise because of the abuse of drugs and alcohol and the higher rates of traumatic brain injury. Subsequently, for many years, mental retardation was negatively viewed as an incurable disability that afforded little potential for growth from individuals with this disability. Today, through increased knowledge and research, society views individuals with mental retardation with potential. Much of this change in attitude has been due to research and creative new programs that have demonstrated significant accomplishments by individuals with mental retardation in all aspects of life, including recreation, academic settings, integrated living, and vocational placement (Bullock & Mahon, 2000). The American Association on Mental Retardations (1992) revision of the definition of mental retardation has also helped to eliminate the stigma that was formerly associated with being mentally retarded. Mental retardation refers to substantial limitations in present functioning. It is characterized by significantly subaverage intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with related limitations in two or more of the following applicable adaptive skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social skills, 7

PAGE 19

8 community use, selfdirection, health and safety, functional academics, leisure and work. Mental retardation manifests before age 18 (Bullock & Mahon, 2000 p.160-161). The phrase significantly subaverage intellectual functioning refers to an IQ score of 70 or below on an individually administered intelligence test such as the Stanford-Binet-Revised (Carter, Van Andel & Robb, 1995). Mental retardation is no longer diagnosed using a single IQ test score, as was common in the past, but instead today, is diagnosed using a combination of IQ and behavior. The most noteworthy difference between the former and current definition of mental retardation is that the current definition states that the diagnosis of mental retardation must include at least two deficits in adaptive skill areas. The former definition based diagnoses solely on intellectual functioning. Before the 1992 revised definition of mental retardation, there were four levels of mental retardation. These levels were based on the intellectual functioning of the individual were mild, moderate, severe, and profound. A diagnosis of mild required an IQ score of 50 to 70 and a profound diagnosis ranging from 20 to 25 and below. Nevertheless, along with the new definition of mental retardation, came a new classification system that consisted of only two levels: mild and severe. In comparison, these two new levels were suggestive of mental retardation being determined by the environment because they were based on the adaptive skills of the individual (Bullock & Mahon, 2000). Bullock and Mahon (2000), proposed four levels of functioning that were based on the levels of support that an individual with mental retardation would require, along with adaptive skills. No Support, the first level, implies that the individual is selfsufficient or can request help independently. The second level, Minimal Support, suggest that an individual with mental retardation requires help occasionally or support in areas

PAGE 20

9 of transportation, physical health, home living, and employment. Substantial/Extensive Support, the third level, implies the individual with mental retardation needs regular, ongoing support that includes assistance, instructions, and supervision with a specific adaptive skill area. Lastly, the most severe level of functioning, Pervasive/Consistent Support, is required when the individual with mental retardation needs constant care all day, everyday. This level of support may also lend itself to maintenance of the lifesupport systems of the individual. Legislation As a result of the deinstitutionalization process of the 1960s, a large number of people with mental illnesses, mental retardation, and physical disabilities were sent into the community to become normalized. This concept of normalization came about from Nirje in the late 1960s and has served as the cornerstone of service delivery for people with disabilities internationally (Howe-Murphy & Charboneau, 1987). The basic premise behind the normalization movement was that most individuals with mental retardation could occupy a more prominent place in society and more broadly fulfill their role as citizens, were they not unnecessarily restricted to the abnormal patterns and limitations imposed by life in those large state institutions (Salzberg & Langford, 1981). Thus, individuals with mental retardation, mental illnesses, and physical disabilities were placed in small group and foster homes to become normalized. But, despite the potential for a more normal pattern of living in communitybased residential facilities, this idea of normalization was not guaranteed to individuals with mental retardation. Evidence from numerous studies have suggested that people moving from large institutions into smaller community living arrangements still experience group treatment and isolation that is common in institutional settings (Hayden, Soulen, Schleien, &

PAGE 21

10 Tabourne, 1996). When compared to large institutions, it would seem that small group homes would encourage the development of extensive daily living selfcare skills and use of services and agencies throughout the community. However, it would be a mistake to assume that a small group home is necessarily non-institutional in its structure, procedures, or behavior outcomes for residents because small group homes can indeed be highly institutionalized (Salzberg & Langford, 1981). Due to the various issues that arose from the deinstitutionalization movement, the government subsequently set forth five federal laws, and their amendments, that would provide the basis for legal protection against discrimination for individuals with disabilities. The laws were as follows: The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, the Developmental Disabilities and Bill of Rights Act Amendment of 1987, the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals for Disabilities Act of 1988, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is noteworthy because this law specifically addresses discrimination against people with disabilities (Bullock & Mahon, 2000). This law refers to various areas of discrimination that individuals with disabilities encounter. The section of the law that is said to be the most significant is the nondiscrimination under federally funded programs. This section states: no otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States shall, solely by reason of his/ her handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance (Bullock & Mahon, 2000, p.69). This would apply to all federally funded programs such as state institutions, educational systems, healthcare agencies, and so on. This law would

PAGE 22

11 later go on to add several amendments that included recreation and therapeutic recreation as core concepts to the lives of individuals with mental retardation. A fairly recent amendment, The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, stated that The law now recognizes that disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way diminishes the right of individuals to live independently, enjoy self-determination, make choices, contribute to society, pursue meaningful careers, and enjoy full inclusion and integration in the economic, political, social, cultural, and educational mainstream of America. These laws signify the fundamental principle that individuals with disabilities, regardless of the nature or severity of disability, should have, and are now legally entitled to, the same opportunities as their non disabled peers to experience and enjoy work, recreation and leisure, and other life experiences in our society (Modell, 1997). In 1975, a landmark legislation for individuals with disabilities, The Education for All Handicapped Children Act, was passed. This law gave the assurance that eligible persons with disabilities would be provided with appropriate educational services in the least restrictive environment (Modell, 1997) and that the rights of children and youth with disabilities would be protected. The philosophy behind least restrictive environments infers that individuals with disabilities should be able to work, recreate, and be educated in an environment that is comparable to their peers without disabilities. Similar to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Education for all Handicapped Children also made amendments to this law to cater to the changing needs of individuals with disabilities in the education system. Amendments included expanding incentives for preschool education, early intervention, transition programs, lowering the age eligibility for special education programs to age three, and establishing the Handicapped Infants and

PAGE 23

12 Toddlers Program that addresses the early intervention needs of children from birth to age three (Bullock & Mahon, 2000). In 1990, the Education for all Handicapped Children Act was to undergo significant changes. The name was to be changed to The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (IDEA) and specifically addressed the provision of inclusive leisure services in the least restrictive environment for individuals with disabilities. Many of the services that were available under the old law were expanded and new programs were implemented. In 1997, this law underwent numerous changes that were geared at strengthening academic expectations and accountability for children with disabilities. IDEA 1997 aimed to improve considerably the communication among parents, general education teachers, and special education teachers. It should ensure the general education teachers involvement in the planning and assessing of children with disabilities. And it should lead to high expectations and significantly improved student achievement for children with disabilities(Bullock & Mahon, 2000, p.77). The Developmental Disabilities and Bill of Rights Act Amendment of 1987 was originally the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act of 1963, but was amended in 1987. This law was not limited to individuals with disabilities, but instead included other disabling conditions as well. This act established the Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD) that in turns plans and coordinates activities related to individuals with developmental disabilities. Services that are provided under this law must aim at providing opportunities and assistance for individuals with developmental disabilities that enable them to reach their

PAGE 24

13 maximum potential elevated productivity, independence, and integration into the community (Bullock & Mahon, 2000). Established in 1988, the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals for Disabilities Act of 1988, became the first federal legislation that was geared at increasing the availability of technology services, devices, and promoting the access of financing for individuals with disabilities. The three core purposes of this legislation is to (Bullock & Mahon, 2000): 1. To provide financial assistance to states to aid in developing and implementing a consumer-responsive program of technology-related assistance for individuals of all ages with disabilities. 2. To identify federal policies that advocate payment for assistive technology and those that delay such payment and to do away with improper barriers to such payment. 3. And, to increase the ability of the federal government to provide the states with technical assistance, training, information, public awareness programs, and financing for model demonstration and innovation projects. As technology becomes increasingly common in our society, it is important that individuals with disabilities have the opportunity to access the needed information. With laws in place like the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals for Disabilities Act of 1988, people with disabilities and our society will benefit. Subsequently, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 was later passed. The ADA of 1990 clearly mandated for the elimination of discrimination of individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public service, public accommodations and services operated by private entities, and telecommunications. The act prohibits denying individuals with disabilities the opportunity to participate in a program, service, or providing a service that is not equal or that is different or separate from that given to others (Orlin, 1995, p.233). The ADA mandates equality in all

PAGE 25

14 aspects of employment. This includes, but is not limited to, recruitment, hiring, training, promoting, performance evaluations, and termination. If individuals with disabilities meet the requirements, such as education and experience, to fill the position, then employers must make reasonable accommodations for the potential employee. All state and local government entities that provide programs, services, and activities must be accessible to all individuals with disabilities under the ADA of 1990. Discrimination of any form on public transportation is strictly prohibited. Public transit includes fixed route systems, subways, demand responsive systems, and para-transit systems (Bullock & Mahon, 2000). Individuals with disabilities should also be able to access public accommodations that are for profit or not for profit that provide services, facilities, or goods. Modified participation for people with disabilities must be a choice, not a requirement (Orlin, 1995, p.237). All individuals with disabilities, not those with just communication disorders, must be provided with telecommunication relay services all day, everyday, with no restrictions length or number of call made (Bullock & Mahon, 2000). Leisure Education of Individuals with Mental Retardation Similar to quality of life, there are many definitions of what leisure education really is. In 1979, Mundy and Odum provided the initial framework to conceptualizing this idea. Simply put, leisure education consists of developing knowledge, skills, and attitudes for optimal leisure functioning. This is accomplished through the development of affective, cognitive, and psychomotor skills that are key to various recreation activity involvement. Leisure education provides knowledge of leisure opportunities and the equipment, supplies, and other information needed to access these experiences; development of an understanding and appreciation of leisure and its role in acquiring a

PAGE 26

15 quality of life; and provides opportunities to explore and experience a variety of leisure activities that may establish appropriate leisure behaviors (Carter, Van Andel, & Robb, 1995). It must also be understood that leisure education programs aid in creating a healthy leisure lifestyle. Meaning, appropriate leisure programs provide individuals with disabilities a wide range of leisure options. These options, in turn, allow the individual to find personal meaning and satisfaction. This lack of options could be due, in part, to limitations in the following areas: social contact with people without mental retardation, consumer skills, community mobility, and information regarding recreation opportunities, (Schloss, Smith, & Kiehl, 1986). Schloss, Smith, & Kiehl (1986), monitored a program to test the notion that the lack of choices for people with mental retardation was a direct result of the lack information concerning recreation. This examination was based around a program known as the Rec Club for people with mild to moderate retardation. The goals of the Rec Club were for the participants to move progressively toward independence, develop age appropriate skills, participate in mainstream recreation, and take risks that are warranted by potential benefits. Taking risks that are warranted by potential benefits was a goal that many agencies were not willing to test. Nevertheless, the Rec Club felt that taking risks in a controlled manner were important to adjusting to adulthood and being able to make better decisions in the future. Activities were chosen through a series of steps. First, the participants would evaluate the leisure opportunities available in the community and a pre test is given. Second, once activities were selected, organizers would ensure, through various teaching methods, that participants had the necessary skills to participate in the chosen activity. Thirdly, deficits in skills not overcome through the use of prosthetics, training, and identified as requiring prompts,

PAGE 27

16 become the focal point of the intervention. The participant then has the opportunity to practice the skill under the close supervision of the organizer until the skill can be executed independently. The organizers and other participants give positive feedback. Lastly, a posttest is given to conclude the intervention. Results from the Rec Club have been highly promising. Participants have been able to independently use bus routes throughout the area, utilize various recreation facilities, including restaurants and shopping malls. Major accomplishments for the Rec Club have been participants organizing formal meeting without direct supervision and participants parent being more willing to allow their child with mental retardation to enter the community unsupervised. Thus, it is fair to say that leisure education programs offer potential solutions to the challenges faced by people with mental retardation (Dattilo & Schleien, 1994). Leisure education programs have resulted in participants gaining leisure skills that, subsequently, increase leisure involvement for youth with mental retardation (Hoge, Dattilo, & Williams, 1999). But despite the importance of leisure education, the opportunity for leisure development is limited because vocational rehabilitation services do not view leisure education as their primary responsibility and have relatively low priority. In the past, recreation for mentally retarded persons was viewed as means of preventing disruptive behavior in residential institutions, and as an interim measure to prevent physical and psychological debilitation when structured programs of education and training were unavailable (Luckey & Shapiro, 1974). However since then, the constructive and creative use of leisure by individuals with mental retardation is becoming accepted as an essential part of training programs that prepare these individuals for life and work in the community. Some researchers feel that leisure professionals

PAGE 28

17 should go beyond including instructions in leisure skills services for individuals with mental retardation, but should also adopt a more comprehensive strategy geared toward promoting an awareness of self, an appreciation of leisure, selfdetermination and decision-making that is relative to leisure, knowledge and utilization of leisure resources, as well as development of skills in the areas of social interaction and recreation activities (Dattilo & Murphy, 1991). Bullock and Mahon (2000), attempted to do just that with the leisure education conceptual model. The model consists of three domains which are: 1) Awareness, 2) Skill learning and Rehearsal, and 3) Self-determination. The ultimate goal of this leisure education model is personal satisfaction. The awareness domain has three components: leisure awareness, self-awareness, and awareness of resources. The focus of leisure awareness is aiding the individual in understanding the leisure principle. This could involve helping the individual understand differentiate between what is leisure and what is not. The self-awareness domain seeks to help the individual become aware of the types of leisure that they would prefer. Lastly, awareness of resources, helps the individual identify personal resources and resources in the community that will enable the person to participate in their leisure of choice. The skills and rehearsal domain also consists of three components. They are: 1) leisure activity skills, 2) community skills, and 3) social/communication skills. These components are key to facilitating the leisure goals of an individual. In order to participate in leisure, some level of skill is needed. If an individual does not have the skill required to participate in the activity, then this component suggests removing this barrier by teaching the necessary skills. Community skills allow the individual to participate in community-based programs. Lastly, social/communication skills aid in community inclusion for individuals with disabilities.

PAGE 29

18 Social skills are important in helping individuals recognize appropriate behaviors. The last domain, self-determination, is also divided into three concepts: 1) decisionmaking, 2) leisure planning, and 3) independent leisure initiation. Individuals have often been taught skills, but not how to make decisions. If this were to be emphasized as well, individuals would experience a greater sense of empowerment. Leisure planning refers to individuals independently deciding how they would like to spend their leisure time. This allows the individual to feel self-actualized, thus increasing self-determination. Lastly, independent leisure initiation helps the individual in areas of self-control or selfregulation. This component can be useful in facilitating person-centered outcomes for individuals with disabilities (Bullock & Mahon, 2000). SelfDetermination for Individuals with Mental Retardation The idea of quality of life has the same components for people with disabilities as for people without disabilities. Although the concept of quality of life is ambiguous, at best, in 1971, the Board of Directors of the American Institute for Research attempted to discover a clear definition of this notion in regards to Americans. However after surveying 3000 Americans, no clear definition of quality of life for Americans was discovered. Nevertheless, five components of quality of life were discovered that needed to be considered when defining quality of life (Flanagan, 1982). These five elements in conceptualizing quality of life were: 1. Physical and material wellbeing. Money and financial security are needed to ascertain good food, home, possessions, and expectations of these for the future. Also, possessing physical and mental health along with effective treatment of health problems, are critical factors. 2. Personal development and fulfillment. This component includes acquiring desired knowledge, the ability to problem solve, selfdetermination, and graduating from an educational institution. Also, the acquisition of worthwhile work in a job or

PAGE 30

19 home and the opportunity to express oneself through music, art, writing, etc., are associated with this component. 3. Participation in social, civic, and community activities. This includes membership in church, club, or other organizations and the opportunity to vote and keep informed through media. 4. Participation in recreational activities such as attending parties, attending or participating in sporting events, and participating in hunting, fishing, camping, etc. 5. Relationships with others. Relationships that involve love, companionship, sexual satisfaction, and communication that lead to friendships, having a boyfriend or girlfriend, or marriage are important factors within this component (Modell, 1997, p.10-11). Along with these components, researchers later agreed that quality of life was dependent on the individual and their life experiences. Leisure professionals who provide services for people with mental retardation should offer the opportunity for self-determined and responsible decisions that reflect the individuals need to expand, explore, and realize their potential. Practitioners and family members must maintain a delicate balance between facilitating self-determined leisure participation and encouraging development of culturally normative age-appropriate leisure behaviors for people with mental retardation (Dattilo & Schleien, 1994). For persons with disabilities, personal choice is often a neglected area of concern (Storey, 1993). This is striking being that a key component to self-determined behavior is freedom of choice. A study done by Rogers, Hawkins, & Eklund (1998) attempted to examine the leisure of older adults with intellectual disabilities. There were 29 subjects that participated in in-depth, unstructured interviews that reported to being suitable for this population. Topics that were included in the interviews were the meaning of leisure in later life, leisure participation barriers in different settings, and factors related to leisure pattern involvement and the participants perceptions of the meaning of these patterns.

PAGE 31

20 The most central theme that arose from the results of this study was the perceived lack of self-determination regarding leisure choices by participants. Subjects and care providers, both indicated that leisure choices were controlled by care providers, and not the subject them self. However, the majority of the subjects favored more freedom and internal control in leisure. To the older adults in this study, retirement was not looked upon favorably because it was seen as a time of loss and boredom. This was such because work was the primary outlet for socialization. Participants in this study equated retirement to diversionary activities throughout the day rather than leisure that held personal value and meaning. The researchers of this study felt that the practice of infantilization was evident in the lack of choices regarding leisure for participants in this study. Infantilization refers to viewing people with disabilities as children (Hockey & James, 1993), instead of individuals with unique needs. When individuals with mental retardation do not have opportunities for self-determination, they do not have the opportunities to express their individualism or fully experience leisure (Rogers, Hawkins, & Eklund, 1998). Typical Leisure Patterns of People with Mental Retardation Over the years, many studies have been done that looked at the leisure patterns that are typical of populations with mental retardation. These studies have demonstrated similar results in their leisure patterns and repertoires. People with mental retardation tend to not spend their discretionary time participating in recreation that is based in the community, but instead, spend their free time inside of their homes (Hoge & Datillo, 1995). When in fact, being apart of the community positively effects the life quality of individuals with disabilities (Mahon, Mactavish, Bockstael, ODell & Siegenthaler, 2000). Group home residents often report that residents get the opportunity to vote on

PAGE 32

21 which activities that they would participate in as a group. This seems very selfdetermining, but if a resident does not wish to engage in that particular activity, there are few other options available because of limited transportation and staffing (Rogers, Hawkins, & Eklund, 1998). Thus, the resident is left with passive leisure options and little or no interaction with others. Hoge and Datillo (1995) conducted a study that compared the recreation patterns of adults with and without mental retardation. This was significant since at the time of this study, no other studies were reported that compared these two groups. There were 100 participants with mental retardation and 100 participants without mental retardation. A structured, in-depth interview was utilized to determine the recreation patterns of both groups. Results from this study indicated similarities and differences between the two groups. Some major similarities were engaging in activities that required resources, similar top rated activities, and similar current participation rate in team sports. Major differences that resulted from this study were: adults without mental retardation reported participating in overall recreation activities more than adults with mental retardation and adults with mental retardation did not engage in as many different recreation activities as adults without mental retardation. Thus, this implies that people without mental retardation have more leisure options, which could result in greater recreation participation from this group. Preferred Leisure Patterns of People with Mental Retardation In the past, people with disabilities have rarely been given the opportunity to choose the events that effect their quality of life. Thus, very few studies had been reported that examined the recreation patterns of people with intellectual disabilities and

PAGE 33

22 compared them to recreational pursuits that respondents would choose given no restrictions (Sparrow & Mayne, 1990). Dattilo and Rusch (1985) conducted a study that compared subjects with severe disabilities behavior during participation in a chosen activity to behavior in the same activity without the opportunity for choice. There were four participants ranging from ages 8-12. Due to the severe disabilities of the participants, researchers used videotaping, electronic switch manipulations, and observation methods to obtain results. For purposes of this study, electronic switch manipulations referred to moving the electronic switch 45 degrees from the starting position, which activated the television program. Participants in the study underwent three conditions of contingent participation 1, noncontingent participation, and contingent participation 2, respectively. During contingent 1 and 2, subjects were given the choice to watch the television program as much as they liked by activating the electronic switch. In noncontingent participation, the subjects were involved in the same activity, but at scheduled times, the power to the television was disconnected. Thus, preventing participants to further watch if they desire. Results from this study indicated that during contingent participation 1 and 2, electronic manipulations increased. Whereas, during noncontingent participation, there were immediate drops in the frequency of electronic manipulations. Participants mean attending scores were also higher during the contingent participations. This supports the concept that once the participants had no control over the activity they lost interest and participated less. Indicating that expressing choices are central to increasing leisure participation, spontaneous verbal request, decreases in problem behaviors and social avoidance behaviors (Newton, Ard, & Horner, 1993).

PAGE 34

23 Sparrow and Mayne (1990) investigated the recreation patterns of 40 adults with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities. Participants were asked closed questions about what activities that they currently participated in, would like to participate in, and what they felt prevented them from doing so. Questions were simplified and or repeated as needed if the subject failed to answer or not understand. Care was taken to avoid influencing with gestures or comments. Results showed that subjects recreated most often alone and at home. A noteworthy outcome was the tendency of the subjects to report a desire to increase their participation in all activity categories. The largest constraint (65%) that subjects reported as hindering their recreation participation was not having the opportunity to participate. Social Integration Although there are many definitions of social integration, this concept generally means a process that brings people with and without disabilities together in a shared physical setting where meaningful social interaction takes place (Mahon, Mactavish, Bockstael, ODell, & Siegenthaler, 2000). Studies indicate that there appears to be an overall low rate of social interaction between people with and without disabilities (Taylor, Asher, & Williams, 1987). This is tremendous being that true social integration in contingent upon interactions and relationships between individuals with and without intellectual disabilities (Wolfensberger & Thomas, 1983). The significance of this is that integrated friendships provide an important network of social support for everyone, not just individuals with disabilities. Intimacy, a sense of belonging, and interdependency are important needs related to the life satisfaction that friendships can help foster (Hawkins, May, & Rogers, 1996, p.74).

PAGE 35

24 In 1996, Hayden, Soulen, Schleien, and Tabourne published a study that compared the recreation integration of adults with mental retardation who moved into the community to those individuals with mental retardation that remained at the institution. Subjects were diagnosed with severe or profound mental retardation. This study utilized various instruments to obtain data. An interview survey was developed that addressed information about the quality of life for each of the participants. Sections of the survey included questions regarding recreation and recreation integration. The Inventory for Client and Agency Planning (ICAP) was also used to provide descriptions of diagnostic status, functional limitations, demographic variables, and mobility assistance required (Hayden, Soulen, Schleien, & Tabourne, 1996). Although, results from this study indicated that subjects that moved into the community had increased their recreation activity involvement, they still engaged in a high amount of leisure activities that were very sedentary. In addition to these findings, both groups engaged primarily in recreation activities with friends who were also disabled or with staff, regardless of where they lived (Hayden, Soulen, Schleien, and Tabourne, 1996). Thus, indicating that although individuals with mental retardation are integrated into the community, this does not necessarily conclude that they will have increased interactions with individuals that are without mental retardation. There is an inability of people with mental retardation to interact with people without mental retardation because of specialized services (e.g. transportation) and preference for passive leisure that is done at home. Nevertheless, social deficits for people with mental retardation can be reduced by leisure within the community. Social networks of individuals with disabilities can be increased by participation in inclusive community recreation and leisure activities, thus

PAGE 36

25 enhancing their quality of life. However, adequate programs and policies that facilitate participation and the development of social networks in community recreation and leisure activities must be established in order to improve the overall quality of life of individuals with disabilities (Modell, 1997). Schleien (1993) suggested two basic approaches to facilitating social integration in leisure and recreation programs. If utilized in recreation programming, both of these approaches can help in developing relationships based on individual need. The aim of the first approach is to place individuals with disabilities into present programs for individuals without disabilities. This placement would provide the opportunity for individuals with and without disabilities to form social relationships. Existing community recreation and leisure programs designed originally for individuals without disabilities are far more beneficial than segregated programs that are usually isolated from the community and the non disabled population (Modell, 1997, p.46). The second approach involves including non-disabled individuals into segregated recreation programs for individuals with disabilities, such as the Unified Sports, which are a part of the Special Olympics (Modell, 1997). This form of reverse integration would also provide the opportunity for social interaction between individuals with and without disabilities. Constraints to Leisure Numerous studies have shown that individuals with mental retardation often encounter barriers to their leisure participation within the community. Thus, they typically participate in leisure that can be done within their homes (Beart, Hawkins, Stenfert-Kroese, Smithson, & Toolsa, 2001). However, those individuals with mental retardation with assess to the community still experienced lack of leisure opportunities, negative public perceptions and attitudes, and resource restrictions.

PAGE 37

26 Thus, being that cost, transport, and support are often encountered barriers, Beart, Hawkins, Stenfert-Kroese, Smithson, and Toolsa (2001) decided that further examination regarding leisure constraints would play a key role in future service provision for individuals with mental retardation. Subjects (n=29) from five establishments with experience in providing a wide variety of social backgrounds for individuals with mental retardation were chosen to participate in this study. The subjects had to have moderate levels of comprehension and communication skills. The subjects were asked questions regarding their current leisure actives and preferred leisure activities. The answers to these questions were then placed into categories of home-based or community-based. Then the activities were further assigned to two categories: 1) requirement of money and, 2) requirement of transportation. Results from this investigation indicated that support and transportation were indeed barriers to community participation for individuals with mental retardation. Over half of the current leisure activities and preferred leisure required transportation. Thus, providing information on available transportation is central to alleviating this constraint. Money was discovered to be less of a barrier. Researchers in this study suggested that this could be due to the subjects lack of awareness of money because many of the activities were arranged by people other than the subjects themselves. It was also found in this study that the subjects participated in more community-based than home-based leisure. This was in direct contrast to other studies that suggested that individuals with mental retardation generally participated in solitary leisure. However, in this study it was discovered that the community-based leisure participation occurred mainly with other people with mental retardation. Thus, it was still segregated leisure. The final finding of this study revealed that individuals

PAGE 38

27 living in large institutions participated in a similar number of activities as those individuals with mental retardation living in small institutions. Messent, Cooke, and Long (1999), conducted a study of the primary and secondary barriers that individuals with mental retardation typically encountered when attempting to participate in active leisure living in residential homes and a social education center. The subjects (n=24), with mild to moderate mental retardation, were first administered a physiological and level of obesity assessment. Thus, it was discovered early in the study that the participants were below the minimum level of physical activity necessary to avoid health risks associated with physical inactivity (Messent, Cooke, & Long, 1999). Researchers in this study did not have structured questions, but instead simply asked the subjects to talk about their lives around a set theme. The themes were current daily activities, activities that they did and did not enjoy and why, beliefs and attitudes regarding health in relation to physical activity, and experiences during an exercise program. Residential managers and caregivers were then asked questions regarding staff responsibility in general and specifically leisure, leisure opportunities, integration, power, choice, support, exercise, and physical activity. Results of this study found that staff ratios (20:1) were significant barriers to leisure opportunities. Thus, staff were seldom able to provide support for activities beyond the residence, even for those residents that wished to be physically active. Limited funds and unclear roles among managers and caregivers were also found to cause tension over the appropriateness of specific leisure opportunities. Availability and accessibility of leisure services were also noted as barriers to participation because of the lack of appropriate opportunities. Lastly, this investigation found that despite the high attendance rate of the exercise program by the

PAGE 39

28 residents with mental retardation, the staff were unable to support the community-based opportunities because of the barriers discovered during this investigation. Thus, unclear guidelines for residential provision, finances, staffing, participant income, and limited community leisure options were found to be significant constraints to individuals with mental retardation participating in active leisure.

PAGE 40

CHAPTER 3 METHODS The purpose of this study was to investigate how the quality of life for individuals with mental retardation living in a non-institutional setting is impacted by the status of recreational services in the Arc agencies throughout the United States. This was accomplished by examining the current recreation services that are provided to clients of the Arc that involve participation within the community and while at the Arc, individual assessment procedures, and the leisure education of the Arc participants. The Arc was chosen for this investigation because this agency is recognized as the foremost partner with families and people with mental retardation to support and enhance their quality of life through specific policy advocacy programming that benefit these groups. This agency also educates individuals with mental retardation, families, policymakers, service providers, and others on the best practices and issues that impact individuals with mental retardation and their families. The Arc aims to ensure that individuals with mental retardation and their families have the environment and opportunity to live their lives in the comunity. Currently, there is insufficient information on the extent of community recreation participation of individuals with mental retardation throughout the United States. Research that documents the status of recreation of individuals with mental retardation living in noninstitutional settings is almost scarce. Little research is available on the recreation assessment processes, programs offering, and providers of recreation services in noninstitutionalized settings throughout the United States. Therefore, this 29

PAGE 41

30 investigation is significant due to its exploratory nature in the realm of the impact of the provision of a wide variety recreation for noninstitutionalized individuals with mental retardation. This chapter describes the procedures that were utilized in this study. This includes the sampling procedures, the research design, and the identification of the survey instrument, validity, and reliability. A description of the statistical procedures employed in data collection, analysis, and evaluation is also included in this chapter. Sample The sample consisted of 220 local Associations for Retarded Citizens (The Arc) throughout the United States that had registered operating websites with the national Arc. The national headquarters of the Arc confirmed the accuracy of the national website listing. The questionnaire was administered through electronic mail to activity directors at the designated Arc agencies that have access to Internet services. If that particular Arc did not have a recreation director on staff, then the Executive Director was asked to complete the survey. Activity directors were chosen as the target participants because they tend to give more reliable information concerning recreation programs for individuals with mental retardation at the Arc. Research Design The survey instrument that was utilized in this investigation was developed by the researcher and reviewed by a panel of experts in the field of recreation and individuals with developmental disabilities. The survey instrument consisted of 12 questions that targeted various aspects of the recreation services of Arc. The questionnaire was then pilot tested at the local Arc in Gainesville, FL, in order to refine the instrument. The respondent was a director of recreation services at the Arc.

PAGE 42

31 Questions were added, deleted, and/or reworded after analysis of the pilot test. Following the pilot test modifications, the researcher sent out the survey instrument and conducted the investigation of the impact of the provision of ideal recreation services on the quality of life for individuals with mental retardation throughout the United States within the Arc agencies.

PAGE 43

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS OF THE STUDY The purpose of this study was to determine the status of recreation within the Arcs agencies throughout the United States. The study was conducted by means of an electronic mail questionnaire to each of the Arc agencies that had operating websites with valid email addresses, which consisted of 220 agencies. The goal of the survey was to determine current information on how recreation is being implemented, and by whom, in the Arc agencies throughout the United States. Therefore, the survey instrument addressed recreation personnel, programming practices, assessment procedures, and constraints to leisure. From the proposed sample of 220 Arc agencies that were emailed the questionnaire, 28 of the email addresses were faulty. Thus, leaving an effective sample of 192 Arc agencies. Only 19 agency responses were received after the initial emailed survey. Thus, a reminder letter was emailed to the non-responding email addresses. After the emailed reminder letter with an attached second emailed questionnaire, 19 more responses were received. Resulting in an effective sample of 38, a response rate of 20%. Of the Arc agencies with operating websites, 154 did not respond. Therefore, of the 676 Arc agencies throughout the nation, 38 participated in this survey of recreation at the Arc. Thus, the results of this study can only be inferred to 6% of the 676 Arc agencies within the United States. The results were organized according to the five sections of the questionnaire utilizing frequencies tables and crosstabulations. The first section was the cover letter, 32

PAGE 44

33 which requested that an activity director/coordinator, or executive director if no activity director was present, respond to the survey. The data were reported in the following four sections: Recreation Personnel, Recreation Programming Practices, Constraints to Leisure, and Agency Assessment Methods. Of the 38 responses received, some respondents failed to complete every question of the questionnaire, resulting in missing responses. Thus, the number of responses for each question varied according to how the individual respondent answered the question. Data AnalysisFrequency Tables Recreation Personnel The recreation personnel frequency section inquired about the individual completing the survey. The questions asked whether there was an activity director employed, educational background, and certification status. According to the table 4-1, 47% of the respondents indicated that they did not employ an activity director/ recreation therapist. Whereas, 53% of the respondents indicated that they did employ an activity director/ recreation therapist within their agency. Table 4-1. Employ Activity Director/ Recreation Therapist n % No 18 47 Yes 20 53 Total 38 100 Of the agencies that employed an activity director/ recreation therapist in table 4-2, 60% had a Bachelors degree, 25% had a Masters degree, 10% had a High School Diploma, and 5% had an Associate of Arts degree.

PAGE 45

34 Table 4-2. Educational Level of Activity Director/ Recreation Therapist n % HS 2 10 AA 1 5 BS 12 60 MS 5 25 Total 20 100 NA 18 *If applicable Of the activity director/ recreation therapist that attended college in table 4-3, 33% indicated that they majored in Recreation, 13% majored in Sociology, 13% majored in Psychology, 13% majored in Liberal Arts, and 13% majored in Education. However, of the activity director/ recreation therapist that attended college, 3 did not indicate a college major. Table 4-3. College Major n % Recreation 5 33 Sociology 2 13 Psychology 2 13 Human Services 1 7 Liberal Arts 2 13 Education 2 13 Business Adm. 1 7 Total 15 100 Missing 3 *If applicable Of the agencies that employed activity director/ recreation therapist in table 4-4, 40% held certifications, but were unspecified. Of the activity director/ recreation therapist, 20% were Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialist, and another 20% had experience that they indicated was equivalent to being certified. Of the activity director/ recreation therapist, 50% (10 of 20) did not indicate their certification status.

PAGE 46

35 Table 4-4. Certification Status n % CTRS 2 20 Other/ Unspecified 4 40 Equivalent Experience 2 20 Director of Services 1 10 Certified Inclusion Specialist1 10 Total 10100 Missing 10 *If applicable Programming Practices The programming practices section of the questionnaire i nquired about the recreation programming and recreation opportun ities for clients of the Arc. The questions asked level of clie nt decision-makings and integrated recreation, and leisure education. Based on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 from ta ble 4-5, with 1 being very dependent and 5 being very independent, 28% of the respondent s indicated that clie nts of the Arc were independent in their leisure decision-making. Whereas, 19% indicated that clients of the Arc were dependent leisure decision-makers. The most indicated response (44%) was neither very dependent or very independent Of the respondents, 6 did not indicate a level of independent decision-making. Table 4-5. Indepe ndent-Decision Making n % Very Dependent 1 3 Dependent 6 19 Neither 14 44 Independent 9 28 Very Independent 2 6 Total 32 100 Missing 6

PAGE 47

36 Table 4-6. Independent-Decision Making Mean 3.2 Mode 3 On table 4-7, of the respondents, 30% indicated that clients of the Arc were likely to have reasonable opportunities for community recreation with people without mental retardation, based on a Likert scale of 1 to 5. In contrast, 21% of the respondents indicated that clients of the Arc were unlikely to have such opportunities. The neither response (33%) was indicated most by respondents. Table 4-7. Integrated Recreation n % Unlikely 7 21 Neither 11 33 Likely 10 30 Very Likely 5 15 Total 33 100 Missing 5 Table 4-8. Integrated Recreation Mean 3.4 Mode 3 Of the respondents in table 4-9, 63% indicated that their agency offered leisure education programs for clients. Table 4-9. Lei Ed Program. n % No 14 37 Yes 24 63 Total 38 100 Of the respondents that indicated that their agency offered leisure education Programs in table 4-10, 52% indicated that their agency did not offer formal leisure education for its clients. Whereas, 48% of the respondents did provide formal leisure education programs.

PAGE 48

37 Table 4-10. Formal Lei Ed n % No 13 52 Yes 12 48 Total 25 100 Missing 2 *If applicable. Of the respondents that indicated that their agency offered leisure education programs in table 4-11, 82% indicated that their agency provided informal leisure education programs. Table 4-11. Informal Lei Ed. n % No 4 18 Yes 18 82 Total 22 100 Missing 2 *If applicable. Of the respondents that indicated that their agency provided leisure education programs, 50 % included leisure awareness components (table 4-12), 58% included leisure skill development (table 4-13) components, 54% included leisure resources (table 4-14) components, and 46% included leisure decision-making (table 4-15) components. In contrast, of the respondents that indicated that their agency provided leisure education programs, 50% indicated that their agency did not include leisure awareness (table 4-12) components, 42% did not include leisure skill development (table 4-13) components, 46% did not include leisure resources (table 4-14) components, and 54% did not include leisure decision-making (table 4-15) components.

PAGE 49

38 Table 4-12. Leisure Awareness n % No 12 50 Yes 12 50 Total 24 100 NA 14 If applicable Table 4-13. Leisure Skills n % No 10 42 Yes 14 58 Total 24 100 NA 14 If applicable Table 4-14. Leisure Resources n % No 11 46 Yes 13 54 Total 24 100 NA 14 If applicable Table 4-15. Leisure Decision-Making n % No 13 54 Yes 11 46 Total 24 100 NA 14 *If applicable. Constraints to Leisure The frequency responses to constraints to leisure inquired about the level of the effect of various factors on the Arcs client community recreation participation. Of the respondents in table 4-16, 39% indicated most that financial constraints often had an effect on clients of the Arc participation in community recreation. Of subjects that indicated that finances played a role on community recreation participation, 29% indicated a neutral role. Financial constraints very much effected 19% of the

PAGE 50

39 subjects community recreation participation. In contrast, only 3% indicated that financial constrained the Arcs clients from community recreation participation. Table 4-16. Financial Constraints n % Not at All 1 3 Rarely 3 10 Neutral 9 29 Often 12 39 Very Much 6 19 Total 31 100 Missing 7 Table 4-17. Financial Constraints Mean 3.6 Mode 4 Of the respondents in table 4-18, 52% indicated that transportation was very much a constraint to clients community recreation participation. To a lesser degree, 26% indicated that transportation was often a barrier to participating in community recreation. In contrast, only 3% indicated that transportation constrained the Arcs clients from community recreation participation. Table 4-18. Transportation Constraints n % Not at All 1 3 Neutral 6 19 Often 8 26 Very Much 16 52 Total 31 100.0 Missing 7 Table 4-19. Transportation Constraints Mean 4.2 Mode 5 Of the respondents in table 4-20, 50% indicated that community attitudes rarely acted as a barrier to clients of the Arc from participating in community recreation.

PAGE 51

40 Whereas, only 3% of the respondents indicated that community attitudes prevented clients from participating in recreation within the community. Table 4-20. Community Attitude Constraints Not at All 3 10 Rarely 15 50 Neutral 9 30 Often 2 7 Very Much 1 3 Total 30 100 Missing 8 Table 4-21. Community Attitude Constraints Mean 2.4 Mode 2 Of the respondents in table 4-22, 23% indicated that staff supervision rarely played a role in preventing clients from participating in recreation within the community. In contrast, 20% indicated that lack of staffing was a barrier to clients participation in community recreation. Table 4-22. Staff Supervision Constraints n % Not at All 7 23 Rarely 7 23 Neutral 5 17 Often 5 17 Very Much 6 20 Total 30 100 Missing 8 Table 4-23. Staff Supervision Constraints Mean 2.9 Mode 1

PAGE 52

41 Of the respondents in tables 4.24, 29% indicated that lack of recreation knowledge often inhibited the Arcs clients from participating in community recreation. Only 16% indicated that recreation knowledge did not prevent clients from participating in recreation within the community. Table 4-24. Recreation Knowledge Constraints n % Not at All 5 16 Rarely 6 19 Neutral 9 29 Often 9 29 Very Much 2 6 Total 31 100 Missing 7 Table 4-25. Recreation Knowledge Constraints Mean 2.9 Mode 3 Of the respondents in table 4-26, 26% indicated that skills were a neutral contributor to clients participation in community recreation. 23% indicated that skills did not inhibit community recreation participation. However, 19% responded that lack of skills often prevented clients of the Arc from participating in community recreation. Table 4-26. Skills Constraints n % Not at All 7 23 Rarely 7 23 Neutral 8 26 Often 6 19 Very Much 3 10 Total 31 100 Missing 7 Table 4-27. Skills Constraints Mean 2.9 Mode 3

PAGE 53

42 Data Analysis-Crosstabulations The second part of the data analysis looked at the effect of specific dependent variables on specific independent variables. The independent variables were employed activity director, leisure education, and level of independent decision-making and integrated recreation. The dependent variables were potential constraints to recreation, leisure education, agency assessment methods, integrated recreation, and level of decision-making. Employed Activity Director Of the respondents that did not employ an activity director in table 4-28, 56% did not offer leisure education programs for the clients. Whereas, of the respondents that employed an activity director, 80% offered leisure education programs. Table 4-28. Lei Education by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation Activity Director Lei Education No Yes No 56 20 Yes 44 80 Total 100% 100% In table 4-29, of the respondents that did not employ an activity director, 33% did not assess the recreation interest of their clients. Whereas, 42% of those that employed an activity director assessed the recreation interest of their clients annually.

PAGE 54

43 Table 4-29. Freq of Assessed Recreation Interest by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation Activity Director No Yes Assessed Recreation Interest Not at All 33 0 Weekly 11 5 Monthly 11 16 Quarterly 0 16 Annually 39 42 Other/ Combination 6 11 Ongoing/ As needed 0 11 Total 100% 100% In table 4-30, of the respondents that did not employ an activity director, 44% did not evaluate their clients after recreation programs. Whereas, 70% of the agencies that employed an activity director annually evaluated their clients after recreation. Table 4-30. Freq of Client Evaluation from Rec by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation Activity Director No Yes Client Evaluation from Rec Not at All 44 5 Weekly 0 5 Monthly 6 10 Quarterly 11 5 Annually 22 70 Other 6 0 Ongoing/ As needed 6 5 Semi Annually 6 0 Total 100% 100% Of the respondents that that did not employ an activity director in table 4-31, 29% indicated that their clients were unlikely to participate in recreation with people with mental retardation. Whereas, 37% of the agencies that employed an activity director, indicated that their clients were likely to participate in integrated recreation programs.

PAGE 55

44 Table 4-31. Integrated Recreation by Em ployed Activity Director Crosstabulation Activity Director No Yes Integrated Recreation Unlikely 29 16 Neither 50 21 Likely 21 37 Very Likely 0 26 Total 100% 100% In Table 4-32, of the respondents that di d not employ an activity director, 29% indicated that their clients were dependent in their deci sion-making regarding leisure choices. Whereas, 33% of the agencies that employed an activity director indicated that their clients were independent in the leisure preferences. Table 4-32. Independent Decision-Making by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation Activity Director No Yes Independent Decision-Making Very Dependent 7 0 Dependent 29 11 Neither 43 44 Independent 21 33 Very Independent 0 11 Total 100% 100% In table 4-33, of the responde nts that did employ an activ ity director, 56% indicated that the utilized the interview method of assessment when assessing their clients recreation. Of the agencies that employed an activity director, 47% used a combination of methods to assess their clients.

PAGE 56

45 Table 4-33. Assessment Method by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation Activity Director No Yes Assessment Method Interview (formal, informal) 56 21 Activity Checklist 6 26 Other 6 5 NA 33 0 Combination 0 47 Total 100% 100% In table 4-34, 67% of the agencies that did not employ an activity director did not offer formal leisure education programs. Whereas, 56% of the agencies that did employ an activity director did offer formal leisure education programs. Table 4-34. Formal Lei Ed by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation Activity Director No Yes Formal Lei Education No 67 44 Yes 33 56 Total 100% 100% In table 4-35, 100% of the agencies that did not employ an activity director did offer informal leisure education programs. Similarly, 75% of the agencies that did employ an activity director also offered informal leisure education programs to their clients. Table 4-35. Informal Lei Ed by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation Activity Director No Yes Informal Lei Education No 0 25 Yes 100 75 Total 100% 100% Of the agencies that did not employ an activity director in table 4-36, 50% of them did not and 50% of them did include the leisure awareness component in their leisure education classes. Similarly, of the agencies that did employ an activity director, 50% of

PAGE 57

46 them did not include leisure awareness as apart of their leisure education programming, whereas, 50% of them did. Table 4-36. Leisure Awareness by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation Activity Director No Yes Leisure Awareness No 50 50 Yes 50 50 Total 100% 100% In table 4-37, of the agencies that did not employ an activity director, 63% did include leisure resources as apart of their leisure education classes. However, of the agencies that did employ an activity director, 50% of them did not include leisure resources as apart of their leisure education programming, whereas, 50% of them did. Table 4-37. Leisure Resources by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation. Activity Director No Yes Leisure Resources No 38 50 Yes 63 50 Total 100% 100% Of the agencies that did not employ an activity director in table 4-38, 63% did include leisure skills training as apart of their leisure education classes. Also, 56% of the agencies that did employ an activity director included leisure skills training in their leisure education classes. Table 4-38. Leisure Skills by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation Activity Director No Yes Leisure Skills No 38 44 Yes 63 56 Total 100% 100%

PAGE 58

47 In table 4-39, of the agencies that did not employ an activity director, 63% did not include leisure decision-making training as apart of their leisure education classes. However, of the agencies that did employ an activity director, 50% of them did include leisure decision-making as apart of their leisure education programming, whereas, 50% of them did not. Table 4-39. Leisure Decision-Making by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation Activity Director No Yes Leisure Decision-Making No 63 50 Yes 38 50 Total 100% 100% In table 4-40, 43% of the agencies that did not employ an activity director indicated that their client often had financial constraints to t heir leisure. Whereas, only 35% of the agencies that did employ activity directors often experienced financial constraints. Table 4-40. Financial Constraints by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation Activity Director No Yes Financial Constraints Not at All 7 0 Rarely 14 6 Neutral 29 29 Often 43 35 Very Much 7 29 Total 100% 100% In table 4-41, 57% of the agencies that did not employ an activity director experienced transportation constraints very much to their leisure. Whereas, only 47% of the agencies that did employ an activity director experienced transportation barriers very much.

PAGE 59

48 Table 4-41. Transportation Constraints by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation Activity Director No Yes Transportation Constraints Not at All 7 0 Neutral 21 18 Often 14 35 Very Much 57 47 Total 100% 100% In table 4-42, 43% of the agencies that did not employ an activity director rarely experienced community attitudes as a constraints to their clients leisure. However, 56% of the agencies that employed activity directors rarely experienced community attitude as leisure constraints. Table 4-42. Community Attitude Constraints by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation Activity Director No Yes Community Attitude Constraints Not at All 7 13 Rarely 43 56 Neutral 36 25 Often 7 6 Very Much 7 0 Total 100% 100% Of the agencies that did not employ an activity director in table 4-43, 31% indicated that lack staff supervision was a barrier to their clients leisure. In contrast, 35% of the agencies that did employ an activity director rarely experienced staff supervision as a constraint.

PAGE 60

49 Table 4-43. Staff Supervision Constraints by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation Activity Director No Yes Staff Supervision Constraints Not at All 15 29 Rarely 8 35 Neutral 23 12 Often 23 12 Very Much 31 12 Total 100% 100% Of the agencies that did not employ an activity director in table 4-44, 21% rarely experienced recreation knowledge as constraint to their clients leisure. In contrast, 41% of the agencies that employ an activity director indicated that recreation knowledge was a constraint to their clients leisure. Table 4-44. Recreation Knowledge Constraints by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation Activity Director No Yes Recreation Knowledge Constraints Not at All 14 18 Rarely 21 18 Neutral 43 18 Often 14 41 Very Much 7 6 Total 100% 100% Of the agencies that did not employ an activity director in table 4-45, 21% indicated that skills were not a constraint to their clients leisure. Similarly, agencies that did employ an activity director also did not experience skills as a leisure constraint.

PAGE 61

50 Table 4-45. Skills Constraints by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation Activity Director No Yes Skills Constraints Not at All 21 24 Rarely 21 24 Neutral 29 24 Often 14 24 Very Much 14 6 Total 100% 100% Leisure Education Of the agencies that did not offer leisure education programs in table 4-46, 18% indicated that their clients were unlikely to participate in recreation with individuals without mental retardation. Whereas, 36% those agencies that offered leisure education programming, indicated that their clients were likely to participate in integrated recreation. Table 4-46. Integrated Recreation by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation Lei Education No Yes Integrated Recreation Unlikely 18 23 Neither 45 27 Likely 18 36 Very Likely 18 14 Total 100% 100% In table 4-47, 27% of the agencies that did not provide leisure education programs indicated that their clients were dependent in regarding their decisions. In contrast, 33% of the agencies that provided leisure education programs indicated that their clients were independent decision-makers.

PAGE 62

51 Table 4-47. Independent Decision-Making by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation Lei Education No Yes Independent Decision-Making Very Dependent 0 5 Dependent 27 14 Neither 55 38 Independent 18 33 Very Independent 0 10 Total 100% 100% In table 4-48, of the agencies that did not offer leisure education programs, 45% indicated that their clients experienced neutral effects of financial constraints on their leisure. Of the agencies that did offer leisure education programs, 50% indicated that their clients recreation participation was often effected by financial constraints. Table 4-48. Financial Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation Lei Education No Yes Financial Constraints Not at All 9 0 Rarely 18 5 Neutral 45 20 Often 18 50 Very Much 9 25 Total 100% 100% In table 4-49, of the agencies that did not offer leisure education programs, 36% indicated that transportation constraints very much effected their clients leisure participation. Similarly, 60% of the agencies that offered leisure education programs indicated that their clients experienced transportation constraints as well.

PAGE 63

52 Table 4-49. Transportation Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation Lei Education No Yes Transportation Constraints Not at All 9 0 Neutral 18 20 Often 36 20 Very Much 36 60 Total 100% 100% In table 4-50, of the agencies that did not offer leisure education programs, 55% indicated that their clients rarely experienced community attitudinal constraints. Similarly, 47% of the agencies that did offer leisure education programs also indicated that their clients rarely experienced community attitude constraints to their leisure. Table 4-50. Community Attitude Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation Lei Education No Yes Community Attitude Constraints Not at All 9 11 Rarely 55 47 Neutral 18 37 Often 9 5 Very Much 9 0 Total 100% 100% In table 4-51, 40% of the agencies that did not offer leisure education programs indicated that their clients did not experience staff supervision constraints to their leisure. Whereas, 25% of the agencies that did offer leisure education programs indicated that their clients experienced staff supervision constraints very much.

PAGE 64

53 Table 4-51. Staff Supervision Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation Lei Education No Yes Staff Supervision Constraints Not at All 40 15 Rarely 30 20 Neutral 10 20 Often 10 20 Very Much 10 25 Total 100% 100% In table 4-52, 27% of the agencies that did not offer leisure education programs indicated that their clients did not experience recreation knowledge constraints. Whereas, 35% of the agencies that did offer leisure education programs indicated that their clients often experienced recreation knowledge constraints to their leisure. Table 4-52. Recreation Knowledge Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation Lei Education No Yes Recreation Knowledge Constraints Not at All 27 10 Rarely 27 15 Neutral 27 30 Often 18 35 Very Much 0 10 Total 100% 100% Of the agencies that did not offer leisure education programs in table 4-53, 36% indicated that their clients did not experience skills constraints to their leisure. In contrast, 30% of the agencies that did offer leisure education programming indicated that their clients often experienced skills constraints.

PAGE 65

54 Table 4-53. Skills Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation Lei Education No Yes Skills Constraints Not at All 36 15 Rarely 27 20 Neutral 18 30 Often 0 30 Very Much 18 5 Total 100% 100% In table 4-54, of the agencies that did offer leisure education, 50% indicated that they included the leisure awareness component to their leisure education programs. In contrast, 50% of the agencies indicated that they did not include leisure awareness programs. Table 4-54. Leisure Awareness by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation Lei Education Yes Leisure Awareness No 50 Yes 50 Total 100% Of the agencies that offered leisure education programs in table 4-55, over half (54%) indicated that they included leisure resources education when educating their clients on leisure. Whereas, 46% indicting that they did not. Table 4-55. Leisure Resources by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation Lei Education Yes Leisure Resources No 46 Yes 54 Total 100% Of the agencies that offered leisure education programs in table 4-56, 58% indicated that they leisure skills education in their leisure training. Whereas, 42% did not include this component in their leisure education programming.

PAGE 66

55 Table 4-56. Leisure Skills by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation Lei Education Yes Leisure Skills No 42 Yes 58 Total 100% In table 4-57, 54% of the agencies that offered leisure education programs did not offer training on leisure decision-making. Whereas, 46% of the agencies did include this component into their leisure education programs. Table 4-57. Leisure Decision-Making by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation Lei Education Yes Leisure Decision-Making No 54 Yes 46 Total 100% In table 4-58, 43% of the agencies that did not offer leisure education programs did not assess the recreation interests of their clients at all. Whereas, 43% of the agencies that did offer leisure education programs assessed their clients recreation interests annually. Table 4-58. Freq of Assessed Rec Interest by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation. Lei Education No Yes Assessed Rec Interest Not at All 43 0 Weekly 7 9 Monthly 0 22 Quarterly 7 9 Annually 36 43 Other/ Combination 0 13 Ongoing/ As needed 7 4 Total 100% 100%

PAGE 67

56 Of the agencies that did not offer leisure education programs in table 4-59, 43% did not evaluate their client after participation in recreation programs. Whereas, those agencies that did offer a leisure education program, 54% evaluated their clients after participating recreation programming on an annual basis. Table 4-59. Freq of Client Evaluation from Rec by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation Lei Education No Yes Client Evaluation from Rec Not at All 43 13 Weekly 0 4 Monthly 7 8 Quarterly 7 8 Annually 36 54 Other 0 4 Ongoing/ As needed 7 4 Semi Annually 0 4 Total 100% 100% Level of Integrated Recreation and Independent Decision-Making Of the agencies that indicated that their clients were unlikely to participate in integrated recreation in table 4-60, 50% responded that their clients often encountered financial constraints to their recreation. Similarly, 40% of the agencies that indicated that their clients were likely to participate in integrated recreation, responded that their clients often experienced financial constraints. Table 4-60. Financial Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation Integrated Recreation Unlikely Neither Likely Very Likely Financial Constraints Not at All 0 11 0 0 Rarely 0 22 10 0 Neutral 33 22 20 60 Often 50 44 40 20 Very Much 17 0 30 20 Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

PAGE 68

57 In table 4-61, 100% of the agencies that indicated that their clients were unlikely to participate in integrated recreation, responded that transportation was very much a constraint to their clients leisure participation. Also, 50% of the agencies that indicated that their clients were likely to participate in integrated leisure responded that their clients leisure was very much constrained by transportation. Table 4-61. Transportation Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation Integrated Recreation Unlikely Neither Likely Very Likely Transportation Constraints Not at All 0 0 10 0 Neutral 0 22 30 20 Often 0 44 10 60 Very Much 100 33 50 20 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Of the agencies that indicated that their clients were unlikely to participate in integrated recreation in table 4-62, 67% responded that community attitudes rarely constrained their clients. Similarly, 40% of the agencies that indicated that their clients were very likely to participate in integrated recreation, responded that community attitude was rarely a constraint to their clients leisure. Table 4-62. Community Attitude Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation. Integrated Recreation Unlikely Neither Likely Very Likely Community Attitude Constraints Not at All 0 11 11 20 Rarely 67 44 44 40 Neutral 33 33 22 40 Often 0 11 11 0 Very Much 0 0 11 0 100% 100% 100% 100% In table 4-63, 67% of the agencies that responded that their clients were unlikely to participate in integrated recreation, indicated that staff supervision was very much so a

PAGE 69

58 constraint to their clients leisure. In contrast, 30% of the agencies that responded that their clients were likely to participate in integrated recreation, indicated that staff supervision was rarely a barrier to their clients participation. Table 4-63. Staff Supervision Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation. Integrated Recreation Unlikely Neither Likely Very Likely Staff Supervision Constraints Not at All 0 25 20 40 Rarely 17 25 30 20 Neutral 0 25 10 40 Often 17 25 20 0 Very Much 67 0 20 0 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% In table 4-64, 50% of the agencies that indicated that their clients were unlikely to participate in integrated recreation, responded that recreation knowledge was often a constraint to their clients leisure participation. In contrast, 40% of the agencies that indicated that their clients were very likely to participate in integrated recreation, responded that recreation knowledge was not a constraint at all to their clients recreation participation. Table 4-64. Recreation Knowledge Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation Integrated Recreation Unlikely Neither Likely Very Likely Recreation Knowledge Constraints Not at All 0 11 20 40 Rarely 17 22 30 0 Neutral 33 33 20 40 Often 50 22 20 20 Very Much 0 11 10 0 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% In table 4-65, 33% of the agencies that indicated that their clients were unlikely to participate in integrated recreation responded that their clients leisure was often effected

PAGE 70

59 by skills constraints. Whereas, 60% of those agencies that indicated that integrated recreation was very likely for their clients, did not experience skills as a constraint. Table 4-65. Skills Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation Integrated Recreation Unlikely Neither Likely Very Likely Skills Constraints Not at All 17 22 0 60 Rarely 17 33 30 0 Neutral 17 33 30 20 Often 33 11 20 20 Very Much 17 0 20 0 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% In table 4-66, 33% of the agencies that indicate that their clients were dependent decision-makers, indicated that their clients often encountered financial constraints to leisure. In addition, 75% of the agencies that responded that their clients were independent decision-makers, indicated that their clients also often experienced financial constraints to leisure. Table 4-66. Financial Constraints by Independent Decision-Making Crosstabulation. Independent Decision-Making Very Dep Dep Neither Indep Very Indep Financial Constraints Not at All 0 17 0 0 0 Rarely 0 33 8 0 0 Neutral 100 17 31 25 50 Often 0 33 31 75 0 Very Much 0 0 31 0 50 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Of the agencies that indicated that their clients were very dependent decision-makers in table 4-67, 100% of the respondents indicated that their clients experienced transportation constraints very much. Of the respondents that indicated that their clients were independent decision-makers, 75% indicated that their clients were very much constrained by transportation.

PAGE 71

60 Table 4-67. Transportation Constraints by Independent Decision-Making Crosstabulation Independent Decision-Making Very Dep Dep Neither Indep Very Indep Transportation Constraints Not at All 0 0 8 0 0 Neutral 0 50 15 0 50 Often 0 33 31 25 0 Very Much 100 17 46 75 50 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Of the agencies that indicated that their clients were dependent decision-makers in table 4-68, 67% indicated that their clients rarely experienced community attitudes as a constraint. Similarly, of the agencies that indicated that their clients were very independent decision-makers, 50% indicated that their clients rarely experienced community attitudes as a barrier to leisure. Table 4-68. Community Attitude Constraints by Independent Decision-Making Crosstabulation Independent Decision-Making Very Dep Dep Neither Indep Very Indep Community Attitude Constraints Not at All 0 0 8 25 0 Rarely 0 67 50 38 50 Neutral 100 33 33 13 50 Often 0 0 0 25 0 Very Much 0 0 8 0 0 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Of the agencies that indicated that their clients were dependent decision-makers in table 4-69, 33% indicated that their clients rarely encountered staff supervision constraints. Those agencies that indicated that their clients were very independent

PAGE 72

61 decision-makers, responded that 50% of their clients rarely had staff supervision constraints. Table 4-69. Staff Supervision Constraints by Independent Decision-Making Crosstabulation Independent Decision-Making Very Dep Dep Neither Indep Very Indep Staff Supervision Constraints Not at All 0 17 25 25 0 Rarely 0 33 17 25 50 Neutral 0 33 17 0 50 Often 0 17 8 38 0 Very Much 100 0 33 13 0 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Of the agencies that responded that their clients were dependent decision-makers in table 4-70, indicated that 33% of their clients often experience recreation knowledge constraints. Of the agencies that indicated that their clients were independent decision-makers, 38% indicated that their clients were rarely constrained by recreation knowledge. Table 4-70. Recreation Knowledge Constraints by Independent Decision-Making Crosstabulation Independent Decision-Making Very Dep Dep Neither Indep Very Indep Rec Knowledge Not at All 100 0 23 13 0 Rarely 0 17 15 38 0 Neutral 0 50 15 25 100 Often 0 33 38 13 0 Very Much 0 0 8 13 0 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Of the agencies that indicated that their clients were dependent decision-makers in table 4-71, 50% responded that their clients often encountered skills constraints to recreation. Whereas, of the agencies that responded that their clients were independent decision-makers, 50% indicated that their clients rarely experienced skills constraints.

PAGE 73

62 Table 4-71. Skills Constraints by Independent Decision-Making Crosstabulation. Independent Decision-Making Very Dep Dep Neither Indep Very Indep Skills Constraints Not at All 0 17 31 0 50 Rarely 0 17 15 50 0 Neutral 100 17 15 38 50 Often 0 50 15 13 0 Very Much 0 0 23 0 0 Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

PAGE 74

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS The purpose of this study was to compile information on the status of recreation services within the Arc agencies throughout the United States. In addition, this study aimed at determining the types of constraints that may have an impact on the degree of self-determination and community integration of individuals with mental retardation that are members within these agencies. However, little research has been conducted on the recreation services, if any, that are provided by the Arc. This study examined the educational and certification background of recreation personnel employed at the Arcs throughout the nation, the type of programs that the Arcs recreation personnel were providing for their clients with mental retardation, and the effects of constraints on recreation programming and participation. This study received responses from 38 out of 192 Arcs with operating websites throughout the United States. The total number of Arcs within the United States is 676. Thus, the survey response rate obtained represented 20% of the Arcs with operating websites, but only 6% of the total population of the Arc agencies within the United States. The survey was addressed to Activity Directors or the person that best fit that description. Addressed sections of the survey were recreation personnel background, degree of recreation integration, level of independent decision-making, leisure education, constraints, and frequency of agency assessments and evaluations. Therefore, compiling data on the current recreation services provided at the Arc throughout the United States will aid in efforts to improve the adequacy of recreation services provided currently. 63

PAGE 75

64 Recreation Personnel Respondents indicated that 47% of the sampled agencies employed activity directors/ coordinators. Of these activity directors, 60% had a Bachelors of Science degree, 25% had a Masters degree, and 10% only had a high school diploma. Out of the employed activity directors with college degrees, only 33% majored in recreation. Sociology, psychology, liberal arts, and education were each indicated by 13% of the employed activity directors sampled. Only 20% of the surveyed sample were Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialists, with the remaining majority of the sample (40%) obtaining another unlisted form of certification. Of those surveyed agencies that employed activity directors/coordinators, the majority of aforementioned activity directors had educational backgrounds in recreation or another social science. However, although this may seem promising, less than half of the Arc agencies surveyed employed an activity director/coordinator. Of the agencies that did not employ an activity director, 56% did not offer leisure education for their clients. Of those not employing an activity director, only 33% offered formal leisure education and 100% informal leisure education. Of the agencies that offered leisure education, 56% offered formal leisure education, 75% offered informal leisure education, 50% included the leisure awareness component, 50% included the leisure resources component, 56% included the leisure skills component, and 50% included the leisure decision-making component. This indicates that those Arc agencies that employ an activity director are more likely to provide leisure education programming for their clients. Those agencies that employed an activity director were also more likely to annually assess the recreation interests (42%) and perform annual client recreation evaluations (70%), whereas 33% of agencies with no activity director did not assess

PAGE 76

65 recreation interests of their clients at all. In addition, 44% of the agencies with no activity director, did not evaluate clients after recreation participation. The Arc agencies that indicated that they employed an activity director also indicated that their clients were likely (37%) and very likely (26%), to participate in integrated recreation with people without mental retardation. Whereas, agencies with no activity director indicated that their clients were unlikely (29%) and neither (50%) to have the opportunity to recreate in an integrated environment. Only 11% of the agencies with employed activity directors indicated that their clients were dependent decision-makers. In contrast, agencies with no activity director, 29% indicated that their clients were dependent decision-makers. This supports the idea that activity directors provide better opportunities for individuals with mental retardation to increase self-determination and opportunities for recreation that is not limited to others with mental retardation. Agencies that employed an activity director indicated at 29% that their clients experienced financial constraints very much, 35% indicated that transportation is often a barrier to leisure, 41% reported that recreation knowledge often effected their clients leisure, and 24% indicated that skills was often a constraint to their clients full recreation experience. Conversely, only 7% of the agencies with no activity director reported financial constraints effecting their clients recreation very much, 14% indicated that transportation was often a constraint, 14% reported that recreation knowledge was a barrier to their clients leisure, and 14% indicating that skills was often a constraint that effected their clients leisure. Despite agencies with no activity director reporting overall lower percentages, this could be due to those agencies failing to provide as wide a variety of recreation programming for their clients as an agency that employed an activity

PAGE 77

66 director likely would. Thus, activity directors have more experience with recreation programming and the barriers that can hinder these experiences. Agencies with and without activity directors, indicated similar percentages reporting that community attitudes were rarely a barrier to their clients leisure experiences. This is likely due to the increases in public awareness about individuals with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities. Programming Practices Of the agencies that reported their clients level of independent decision-making, 28% indicated an independent level. Similarly, of the agencies reporting on integrated recreation, 30% indicated that their clients were likely to experience recreation that included those individuals with and without mental retardation. Of the agencies that were sampled, 63% indicated that they offered leisure education programs to their clients, with 48% offering formal leisure education and 82% offering informal leisure education programs. Of those Arc agencies that included leisure education in their recreation programming for their clients, 50% included leisure awareness, 58% included leisure skills, 54% included leisure resources, and 46% included leisure decision-making. Also, according to agencies that offered leisure education programs, 43% assessed their clients annually on recreation interest and 54% annually evaluated their clients after recreation programs. This indicates that leisure education is occurring within the majority of Arc agencies surveyed, however, leisure decision-making (self-determination), which studies have proven to be an important component to the quality of life for individuals with mental retardation, received the lowest response rate. Despite this slightly low result on self-determination training, the aforementioned results suggest that agencies providing leisure education are assessing

PAGE 78

67 clients to discover recreation preferences and evaluating recreation programs to better provide services for their clients. Of the agencies that reported that they offered leisure education programs for their clients, 36% indicated that their clients were likely to participate in integrated recreation opportunities. Whereas, of those agencies not offering any leisure education, only 18% reported that their clients likely had the opportunity for integrated leisure. Of the agencies not offering leisure education, 27% also reported their clients being dependent decision-makers, whereas only 15% of the Arc agencies providing leisure education reported their clients being dependent in their leisure decision-making. This illustrates the positive effectiveness of leisure education programs on individuals with mental retardation self-determination and opportunities for recreating with diverse groups. Constraints to Leisure Of the constraints that often effected the recreation of individuals with mental retardation, the Arc agencies sampled indicated that 39% of them experienced financial constraints often, 52% encountered transportation constraints very often, 29% experiencing recreation knowledge constraints very often, 50% reported to rarely experiencing community attitude constraints, 23% indicated that rarely encountering staff constraints, and lastly, 23% not experiencing skills constraints at all. Of the agencies that offered leisure education programs, 50% experienced financial constraints very often, 60% also encountered transportation constraints very often, 35% reported dealing with recreation knowledge constraints often, and 30% often experienced skills constraints. Those agencies that did not provide leisure education services did not experience these constraints to the same degree as those agencies providing leisure education programming. This could be a result of the agencies with no leisure education

PAGE 79

68 programs, not programming to meet the leisure needs of their clients with mental retardation. Thus, no recreation programming, would suggest no, or very little, constraints to recreation. However, those Arc agencies providing, or not, leisure education indicated similar responses regarding community attitude and staff supervision constraints. Those agencies that had clients that were unlikely to participate in integrated recreation indicated that their clients often experienced financial constraints, very often had transportation constraints, encountered recreation knowledge constraints often, and were often constrained by skills. Similarly, those agencies that consisted of clients that were very likely to participate in integrated recreation, although indicating lower percentages, still experienced noteworthy constraints in these areas, as well. Of those agencies that consisted of clients that were very independent decision-makers, they still experienced financial and transportation constraints to the same degree as those agencies with clients whom are dependent in their decision-making. However, those agencies with independent decision-making clients, had noticeably lower rates of recreation knowledge and skills constraints than those agencies with dependent decision-making clients. Conclusion The findings of this study indicate that Arc agencies throughout the United States still has some ways to go regarding the provision of certain aspects regarding recreation for its clients. As research has proven numerous times, recreation is a key component to the quality of life for individuals with mental retardation, not just individuals without mental retardation. Data from this study indicated that less than half of the surveyed Arc agencies throughout the United States have employed recreation staff. However, those

PAGE 80

69 agencies with activity directors indicated an educational background of Bachelors of Science degree, with most having majored in recreation and some form of certification. Nevertheless, when compared to those agencies that did not employ recreation personnel, the agencies lacking designated recreation personnel proved to lacking in all areas investigated by this study. This implies a greater need for Arc agencies throughout the United States to actively employ more recreation personnel so that their clients can receive the full benefits of quality recreation. This study reflects the idea that by employing an activity director, clients of the Arc are more likely to participate in recreation that is integrated and make more self-determined choices regarding leisure participation. This was further evidenced by data that indicated clients of agencies that did not employ an activity director had fewer opportunities for integrated recreation and were more dependent regarding decision-making abilities. Data from this study confirms that the Arc agencies with activity directors are more likely to provide leisure education programs than those Arc agencies with no activity director available. Agencies with leisure education programs also suggested that their clients had better opportunities for integrated recreation and independent decision-making skills. However, despite many of the positive results regarding the benefits of employing an activity director and providing leisure education programs, all of the agencies sampled still experienced a significant degree of inhibited recreation programming because of constraints. The most indicated constraints to clients leisure were financial and transportation. Once again, research has already shown that these two constraints act as

PAGE 81

70 significant barriers to all individuals with disabilities. Recreation knowledge and skills were indicated as constraints as well, but these are constraints that can possible be improved with increased leisure education programming. Community attitudes and staff supervision, were the least indicated constraint by all of the Arc agencies sampled. This is evidence of the improved legislation, education, and respect for individuals with developmental disabilities. Recommendations The results of this study provide several recommendations that can be made to assist the Arc agencies and recreation professionals in their service delivery to individuals with mental retardation. 1. Further research should to be conducted on the recreation that is utilized in the Arc agencies throughout the United States and should include improved implementation and survey tools. 2. Further research should be conducted on the efficacy of recreation programs currently in use within the Arc agencies throughout the United States. 3. Further research should be conducted on the relationship between self-determination and recreation provision within the Arc agencies throughout the United States. 4. Further research should be conducted on the constraints that the Arc agencies throughout the United States encounter regarding the provision recreation services. 5. Further research should be conducted on the use of recreation in non-institutional settings.

PAGE 82

APPENDIX A SAMPLE OF COVER LETTER We would like the recreation director to fill out this survey. If there is no recreation director, then we would like the Director of the ARC or a suitable representative to complete the survey.-I am a graduate student in the Department of Recreation, Parks, and Tourism at the University of Florida, conducting research on the status of recreation services provided by ARC throughout the nation, under the supervision of Dr. Robert Beland. The purpose of this study is to determine the types of recreation that individuals with mental retardation in non-institutional settings are participating in within the home setting and within the community. The results of this study may help recreation programmers better understand how recreation is a key component to healthy quality of life and allow them to design recreation services accordingly. I am asking that you participate in this survey because of your extensive knowledge concerning ARCs recreation services. Since the survey is designed for ease-of-use, it should take no more than 15-20 minutes to complete. You do not have to answer any question that you do not wish to answer. There are no anticipated risks, compensation, or other direct benefits to you as a participant in this interview. You are free to withdraw your consent to participate and may discontinue your participation in the survey at any time without consequence. If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me by email at pinkjimi@ufl.edu or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Robert Beland, by email at rbeland@hhp.ufl.edu or by phone at (352) 3924042 x 1222. Questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant rights may be directed to the UFIRB office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611; phone: (352) 392-0433. By agreeing to participate in this study, you give me permission to report your responses anonymously in the final manuscript to be submitted to my faculty supervisor as part of my course work. If you agree to participate in this study, please complete the survey at www2.hhp.ufl.edu/RPT/belandsurvey.htm by October 15, 2003. Thank you for your participation. 71

PAGE 83

APPENDIX B COPY OF FOLLOW-UP LETTER We would like the recreation director to fill out this survey. If there is no recreation director, then we would like the Director of the ARC or a suitable representative to complete the survey.-This letter is in reference to the current survey we are conducting that examines the national status of recreation services at ARCs. This is a reminder letter asking for your cooperation with this survey. ARCs throughout the nation have received a questionnaire, such as this, in the past few weeks. If you have already submitted your survey, thank you for your reply. If not, please do so as soon as possible. It is very important that you submit your completed questionnaire if the results are to accurately represent the recreation services provided by ARC. It would be greatly appreciated if you could take a few minutes to read the initial letter below. Then go to www2.hhp.ufl.edu/RPT/belandsurvey.htm to complete the survey. Your cooperation with this project is vitally important. I am a graduate student in the Department of Recreation, Parks, and Tourism at the University of Florida, conducting research on the status of recreation services provided by ARC throughout the nation, under the supervision of Dr. Robert Beland. The purpose of this study is to determine the types of recreation that individuals with mental retardation in non-institutional settings are participating in within the home setting and within the community. The results of this study may help Recreation Programmers better understand how recreation is a key component to healthy quality of life and allow them to design recreation services accordingly. I am asking that you participate in this survey because of your extensive knowledge concerning ARCs recreation services. Since the survey is designed for ease-of-use, it should take no more than 10 -15 minutes to complete. You do not have to answer any question that you do not wish to answer. There are no anticipated risks, compensation, or other direct benefits to you as a participant in this interview. You are free to withdraw your consent to participate and may discontinue your participation in the survey at any time without consequence. If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me by email at pinkjimi@ufl.edu or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Robert Beland, by email at rbeland@hhp.ufl.edu or by phone at (352) 3924042 x 1222. Questions or 72

PAGE 84

73 concerns about your rights as a research participant rights may be directed to the UFIRB office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611; phone: (352) 392-0433. By agreeing to participate in this study, you give me permission to report your responses anonymously in the final manuscript to be submitted to my faculty supervisor as part of my course work. If you agree to participate in this study, please complete the survey at www2.hhp.ufl.edu/RPT/belandsurvey.htm by October 15, 2003 Once again, thank you for your participation. Dorcas V. Smith

PAGE 85

APPENDIX C COPY OF SURVEY INSTRUMENT ARC Survey Questions 1. Does your agency employ an Activity Director/ Coordinator or Recreation Therapist for recreation services? ___Yes ___No [If no, please skip to question 4] 2. If Yes, what is the educational background of the Activity Director/ Coordinator or Recreation Therapist? [Please indicate highest degree] __ High School __Associates Degree __Bachelors Degree __Masters Degree __Doctorate Major: ____________________________________ 3. If applicable, what is the certification status of the Activity Director/ Coordinator? __Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialist (CTRS) __Certified Park and Recreation Professional (CPRP) __Certified Activity Director __Other(s) (please specify)_________________________ 4. To what extent do you think your clients have reasonable opportunities for community recreation activities with people without mental retardation? 1 2 3 4 5 Unlikely to have opportunities Very likely to have opportunities 5. To what extent do you think your clients are independent in their leisure decision-making? 1 2 3 4 5 Dependent Independent 74

PAGE 86

75 6. In box 1, please indicate which of these activities ARC clients participate in. In box 2, please indicate which of the previously selected activities require that clients pay a fee to participate and in box 3 if there is a fee, what is it? 1 2 3 Exercise/ Aerobics/ Health clubs Movies/ theater Sport EventsSpectator Sports EventsParticipant Outdoor recreation (Camping, Picnics, Hiking, etc.) Bowling Zoos/ Museums Dances/ Socials Water Activities (pools, beaches, etc.) Parks Performing Arts Theme Parks (Disney World, Universal Studios, etc.) Knitting Salon/ Spas Reading Watching TV/ Videos/ DVDs Writing/ Journaling Cooking Cards/ Board games Bingo Video games Arts/ Craft Talking with others Puzzles Music Gardening Photography Prayer/ Meditation, etc. Yard games (Frisbee, basketball, etc.) Chat/ Surf the net Community events (festivals, art shows, etc.) Other Do you offer any leisure education programs for your clients? ___Yes ___No If yes, please check all that apply:

PAGE 87

76 Formal/ structured (classes) ____ Informal/ unstructured (calendar/ brochures) ___ 8. Which of the following apply to the leisure education classes? Leisure Awareness ____ Leisure Skill Development ____ Leisure Resources ____ Leisure Decision-Making ____ 9. Rate the following factors, from 1 to 5, with 1 having no effect, as to their effect on your clients participation in community recreation activities i.e. To what extent do these factors create obstacles and barriers for clients from participating in community recreation activities? ________________________________________________________________ 1 2 3 4 5 Not at all Neutral Very Much Factors Financial resources 1 2 3 4 5 Transportation 1 2 3 4 5 Community attitudes 1 2 3 4 5 Staff supervision 1 2 3 4 5 Knowledge of recreation resources in the community 1 2 3 4 5 Leisure skills needed to participate in recreation 1 2 3 4 5 10. How often are ARC clients assessed as to their recreation interests? [Please check one] Not at all___ Weekly ___ Monthly___ Quarterly___ Annually___ Other___ 11. If an assessment is conducted, what method(s) is used? [Please check all that apply] Interview (formal, informal)___ Activity checklist___ Other___ 12. How often are ARC clients evaluated as to the outcomes of the recreation programs? [Please check one] Not at all___ Weekly ___

PAGE 88

77 Monthly___ Quarterly___ Annually___ Other___

PAGE 89

LIST OF REFERENCES American Association on Mental Retardation.(1992).Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of support. Washington, D.C.: Author. Association for Retarded Citizens. (Last accessed April 1, 2004) http://www.thearc.org/ Beart, S., Hawkins, D., StenfertKroese, B., Smithson, P., & Tolosa, I.(2001). Barriers to accessing leisure opportunities for people with learning disabilities. British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 133-138. Bostwick, D., & Foss, G.(1981).Obtaining consumer input: Two strategies for indentifying and ranking problems of mentally retarded young adults. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 16, 207-212. Bullock, C. & Mahon, M.(2000).Introduction to recreation services for people with disabilities: A person-centered approach (2nd ed.).Champaing, IL: Sagamore Publishing. Brasile, F., Skalko, T., & Burlingame, J.(1998).Perspectives in recreational therapy: Issues of a dynamic profession. Ravendale, WA: Idyll Arbor. Carter, M., Van Andel, G., & Robb, G.(1995).Therapeutic recreation: A practical approach.Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. Dattilo, J., & Murphy, W.D.(1991).Leisure education program planning: A systematic approach. State College, PA: Venture. Dattio, J. & Rusch, F.(1985).Effects of choice on leisure participation for persons with severe handicaps. The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 10(4), 194-199. Dattilo, J., & Schleien, S.(1994).Understanding leisure services for individuals with mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 32(1), 53-59. de Zaldo, G.F.(1999).The social integration of individuals with disabilities. Bilingual Review, 24(1), 3-19. Flanagan, J.(1982). Measurement of quality of life: Current state of the art. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 63, 53-59. 78

PAGE 90

79 Hawkins, B.A., May, M.E., & Rogers, N.B.(1996). Therapeutic activity intervention with the elderly: Foundations and practices. State College, PA: Venture. Hawkins, B.A., Peng, J., Hsieh, C., & Eklund, S.J.(1999).Leisure constraints :A replication and extension of construct development. Leisure Sciences, 21, 179-192. Hayden, M.F., Lakin, K.C., Hill, B.K., Bruininks, R.H., & Copher, J.I.(1992). Social and leisure integration of people with mental retardation in foster homes and small group homes. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27(3), 187-199. Hayden, M.F., Soulen, T., Schleien, S.J., Tabourne, C.E.S.(1996). A matched, comparative study of the recreation integration of adults with mental retardation who moved into the community and those who remained at the institution. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 30(1), p 41-63. Hockey, J. & James A.(1993).Growing up and growing old: Aging and dependency in the life course.Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, CA. Hoge, G., Dattilo, J.(1995).Recreation participation patterns of adults with and without mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, Vol 30(4), p 283-298. Hoge, G., Dattilo, J., Williams, R.(1999).Effects of leisure education on perceived freedom in leisure of adolescents with mental retardation. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 33(4), p 320-332. Howe-Murphy, R., & Charboneau, B. G. (1987). Therapeutic recreations intervention: An ecological perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc. Hutchison, P., & Lord, J.(1979).Recreation integration: Issues and alternatives in leisure services and community involvement.Ottawa, Ontario: Leisurability. Kaye, S.(1997). Disability watch: The status of people with disabilities in the United States.Volcano, CA: Volcano Press, Inc. Luckey, R.E., & Shapiro, I.G.(1974).Recreation: An essential aspect of habilitative programming. Mental Retardation, 12(5), p 33-35. Mahon, M.J., Mactavish, J., Bockstael, E., ODell, I., & Siegenthaler, K.L. (2000). Social integration, leisure and individuals with intellectual disability. Parks & Recreation, 35(4), 25-34. Messent, P.R., Cookes, C.B., & Long, J. (1999). Primary and secondary barriers to physically active healthy lifestyles for adults with learning disabilities. Disability and Rehabilitation, 21(9), 409-419. Modell, Scott J.(1997).An examination of inclusive recreation and leisure participation for children with trainable mental retardation. Florida State University.

PAGE 91

80 Mundy, J., & Odum, L.(1979).Leisure education: Theory and practice. New York: Wiley. Neumayer, R. & Bleasdale, M.(1996).Personal lifestyle preferences of people with an handicap. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disability, 21(2), 91-115. Newton, S., Ard, W., & Horner, R.(1993).Validating predicted activity preferences of individuals with severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26(2), 239-245. Newton, S., & Horner, R.(1993). Using a social guide to improve social relationships of people with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18(1), 36-45. Orlin, Malinda. (1995).The american with disabilities act: Implications for social services. Social Work, 40(2), 233-240. Rider, R., Iannella, M., Duncan, C.(1993).Extracurricular fitness and leisure programming for individuals with disabilities. Palaestra, 9(3), 48-53. Romaniuk, C. & Miltenberger, R.(2001).The influence of preference and choice of activity on problem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 3(3), 152-160. Rogers, N., Hawkins, B., & Eklund, S.(1998).The nature of leisure in the lives of older adults with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 42(2),122-130. Salzberg, C.L. & Langford, C.A.(1981).Community integration of mentally retarded adults through leisure activity. American Association on Mental Deficiency, 19(3), 127-131. Schleien, S.(1993).Access and inclusion in community leisure services. Parks and Recreation, 28(4), 66-72. Schloss, P., Smith, M., & Kiehl, W.(1986).Rec club: A community centered approach to recreational development for adults with mild to moderate retardation. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21(4)282-288. Sparrow, W.A. & Mayne, S.C.(1990).Recreation patterns of adults with intellectual disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal (3), 45-49. Storey, K.(1993). A proposal for assessing integration. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 28(4), 279-287. Taylor, A.R., Asher, S.R., & Williams, G.A. (1987). The social adaptation of main-streamed mildly retarded children. Child Development, 58, 1321-1334.

PAGE 92

81 Williams, R. & Dattilo, J. (1997).Effects of leisure education on self-determination, social interaction, and positive affect of young adults with mental retardation. Therapeutic Recreation Journal 31(4), 244-258. Wolfensberger, W., & Thomas, S. (1983). P.A.S.S.I.N.G.(Program analysis of service systems implementation of normalization goals):Normalization criteria and ratings manual (2ND Ed).Toronto, Ontario: National Institute on Mental Retardation. Zigler, W.G., & Hodapp, R.(1986).Understanding mental retardation. Cambridge, Eng.: Cambridge University Press.

PAGE 93

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Dorcas Vickie Smith is a native of Ft. Lauderdale, FL, and a proud alumnus of the Nova Center for Applied Research and Professional Development in Davie, FL. Ms. Smith received her Bachelor of Science in recreation, parks and tourism degree, with an emphasis in therapeutic recreation, and a minor in gerontology from the prestigious University of Florida in 2002. From there, she entered the Master of Science therapeutic recreation program at the University of Florida. She plans to graduate from this program in 2004. While completing her graduate course work, Ms. Smith works full-time at an assisted living facility for the memory impaired as a Life Enrichment Coordinator and she is also a Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialist (CTRS). At this time, Ms. Smith has no children. However, she does have a wonderful cat named Bailey, who has been a never ending source of support, alongside family, friends, and sorors of Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc. Ms. Smiths ultimate goal is to open an adult day care center that caters to older adults with mental retardation or memory impairment. With her drive to succeed and giving back to the community, she will go well beyond obtaining her goals. If He gives you the vision, He has the provision! 82


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0004862/00001

Material Information

Title: The Status of Recreation Services at the Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC)
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0004862:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0004862/00001

Material Information

Title: The Status of Recreation Services at the Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC)
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0004862:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











THE STATUS OF RECREATION SERVICES AT
THE
ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS (ARC)















By

DORCAS V. SMITH


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE INT RECREATIONAL STUDIES

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004

































Copyright 2004

by

Dorcas V. Smith
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

"IfHe brings it to you ... He can bring you through it "

Throughout life, one is bound to encounter numerous challenges and there are those

people that are placed into our lives to help us in overcoming these challenges. Thus, I

am thankful for the people that were placed into my path of higher education.

The members of my committee have both challenged and supported me while

guiding me on this journey. I acknowledge and thank each of them. I thank Dr. Robert

Beland, for his support, guidance, and inspiring words throughout the years. It is because

of his devotion to special populations that I am better able to understand the need for

recreation for everyone. Dr. Chris Stopka' s, passion for individuals with developmental

disabilities has inspired me in unimaginable ways. I thank her for her support and

sharing her passion with me. I thank Dr. Stephen Anderson, for challenging me to think

"outside of the box." It is because of him that I have earned a better respect and

understanding of what therapeutic recreation stands for. I am grateful to all of them for

their encouragement through both writing of this thesis and my academic program.

Appreciation is also extended to my parents for instilling love and the drive to

succeed in me. Thanks go to my siblings and friends for their everlasting support. I thank

Dr. Cari Autry for not allowing me to give up. I thank Dr. Bertha Cato for her wise words

and endless lessons throughout my journey. I thank Dr. John Confer for his statistical

guidance. I AM BLESSED!






















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page


ACKNOWLEDGMENT S ................. ................. iii........ ....


LIST OF TABLES ................ ..............vi. .......... ....


AB S TRAC T ......_ ................. ............_........x


CHAPTER


1 STUDY BACKGROUND ................. ...............1................


Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC) .............. ...............1.....
Statement of the Problem ................. ...............2................

Purpose of the Study ................. ...............5.......... .....
Significance of the Study ................. ...............6................


2 LITERATURE REVIEW .............. ...............7.....


M ental Retardation .............. ...............7.....

L legislation ................ .. ... .. .. .................. ...............9
Leisure Education of Individuals with Mental Retardation ................. ................ ..14
Self- Determination for Individuals with Mental Retardation............... ..............1

Typical Leisure Patterns of People with Mental Retardation ........._...... .........._.....20
Preferred Leisure Patterns of People with Mental Retardation .........._.... ...............21
Social Integration............... ..............2
Constraints to Leisure ................. ...............25........... ....


3 M ETHODS .............. ...............29....


Sam ple .............. ...............30....
Research Design .............. ...............3 0....


4 RESULTS OF THE STUDY ................. ...............32........... ...


Data Analysis- Frequency Tables ................. ...............33........... ...
Recreation Personnel .............. ...............33....

Programming Practices ................. ...............35.................
Constraints to Leisure ................. ...............38........... ....












Data Analysis-Crosstabulations ................. ...............42.................
Employed Activity Director .............. ...............42....
Leisure Education ............... ... ............. ....... ...... .. ................5
Level of Integrated Recreation and Independent Decision-Making. ................... 56


5 DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, and RECOMMENDATIONS ...........................63


Recreation Personnel .............. ...............64....

Programming Practices ................. ...............66.................
Constraints to Leisure ................. ...............67........... ....
Conclusion ................ ...............68.................
Recommendations............... ............7


APPENDIX


A SAMPLE OF COVER LETTER ................. ...............71........... ...


B COPY OF FOLLOW-UP LETTER ................. ...............72........... ...


C COPY OF SURVEY INSTRUMENT................ ..............7


LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............78........... ....


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............. ...............82....




















LIST OF TABLES


Table pg


4-1 Employ Activity Director/ Recreation Therapist ............ ...... ._ ..............33


4-2 Educational Level of Activity Director/ Recreation Therapist ................... ...........34


4-3 College M aj or ................. ...............34.......... ....

4-4 Certification Status............... ...............35.


4-5 Independent-Decisi on Making ................. ...............35........... ...


4-6 Independent-Decisi on Making ................. ...............36........... ...


4-7 Integrated Recreation ................. ...............36........... ....


4-8 Integrated Recreation ................. ...............36........... ....


4-9 Lei Ed Program. ............. ...............36.....

4-10 Formal Lei Ed .............. ...............37....


4-11 Informal Lei Ed ................. ...............37................


4-12 Leisure Awareness ................. ...............38................


4-13 Leisure Skills .............. ...............38....


4-14 Leisure Resources ................ ...............38................


4-15 Leisure Decision-Making............... ............3

4-16 Financial Constraints .............. ...............39....


4-17 Financial Constraints .............. ...............39....


4-18 Transportation Constraints ................. ...............39........... ....


4-19 Transportation Constraints ................. ...............39........... ....


4-20 Community Attitude Constraints ................ ...............40................










4-21 Community Attitude Constraints ................ ...............40........... ...

4-22 Staff Supervision Constraints .............. ...............40....

4-23 Staff Supervision Constraints .............. ...............40....

4-24 Recre ati on Knowledge C on strai nts ................. ...............41.............

4-25 Recre ati on Knowledge C on strai nts ................. ...............41.............

4-26 Skills Constraints .............. ...............41....

4-27 Skills Constraints .............. ...............41....

4-28 Lei Education by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation ..........................42

4-29 Freq of Assessed Recreation Interest by Employed Activity Director
Crosstabulation .............. ...............43....

4-30 Freq of Client Evaluation from Rec by Employed Activity Director
Crosstabulation .............. ...............43....

4-31 Integrated Recreation by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation ...............44

4-32 Independent Decision-Making by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation..44

4-33 Assessment Method by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation ..................45

4-34 Formal Lei Ed by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation ...........................45

4-35 Informal Lei Ed by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation.........................4

4-36 Leisure Awareness by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation ................... .46

4-37 Leisure Resources by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation. ....................46

4-38 Leisure Skills by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation ............................46

4-39 Leisure Decision-Making by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation. .........47

4-40 Financial Constraints by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation ...............47

4-41 Transportation Constraints by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation........48

4-42 Community Attitude Constraints by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation48

4-43 Staff Supervision Constraints by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation ...49










4-44 Recreation Knowledge Constraints by Employed Activity Director
Crosstabulation .............. ...............49....

4-45 Skills Constraints by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation ......................50

4-46 Integrated Recreation by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation ......................50

4-47 Independent Decision-Making by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation. ..........51

4-48 Financial Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation .........................51

4-49 Transportation Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation. ................52

4-50 Community Attitude Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation .......52

4-51 Staff Supervision Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation ............53

4-52 Recreation Knowledge Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation ...53

4-53 Skills Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation ............... .... ...........54

4-54 Leisure Awareness by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation ...........................54

4-55 Leisure Resources by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation ...........................54

4-56 Leisure Skills by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation .............. ...................55

4-57 Leisure Decision-Making by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation ................55

4-58 Freq of Assessed Rec Interest by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation. ...........55

4-59 Freq of Client Evaluation from Rec by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation...56

4-60 Financial Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation............_...... ........56

4-61 Transportation Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation ................57

4-62 Community Attitude Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation. .......57

4-63 Staff Supervision Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation. .............58

4-64 Re cre ati on Knowl edge C on strai nts by Integrate d Re cre ati on Cro sstabul ati on.....5 8

4-65 Skills Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation............... ............5

4-66 Financial Constraints by Independent Decision-Making Crosstabulation. ............59

4-67 Transportation Constraints by Independent Decision-Making Crosstabulation ....60











4-68 Community Attitude Constraints by Independent Decision-Making
Crosstabulation .............. ...............60....

4-69 Staff Supervision Constraints by Independent Decision-Making
Crosstabulation .............. ...............61....

4-70 Recreation Knowledge Constraints by Independent Decision-Making
Crosstabulation .............. ...............61....

4-71 Skills Constraints by Independent Decision-Making Crosstabulation. ........._......62
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Recreational Studies

THE STATUS OF RECREATION SERVICES AT
THE
ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CITIZENS (ARC)

By

Dorcas V. Smith

May 2004

Chair: Robert M. Beland
Major Department: Recreation, Parks and Tourism

Due to the increasing awareness of the benefits of recreation for individuals with

mental retardation, agencies throughout the United States have begun providing

recreation services for this population. Specifically, the Arc, agencies that provide

services for individuals with mental retardation, has made community integrated

recreation a focus of their programming. Current literature has proven countless times

the benefits of recreation on the quality of life for individuals with developmental

disabilities. However, little research has been conducted on the specific recreation

services that are provided at the Arc. Therefore, this study was conducted to examine the

current status of the recreation services provided by the Arc agencies throughout the

United States.

A survey instrument was created, tested by a panel of experts, then emailed to 220

of the Arc agencies throughout the nation that were known to have operating websites

with email addresses. Of the 220 email addresses, 28 were faulty. Thus, there was an









effective sample of 192. Of the effective sample, 38 responses were received, resulting

in a response rate of 20%. Of the agencies that responded, only 47% had activities

directors/coordinators The respondents that indicated their agency had an activity

director also indicated that at least 60% of them had a bachelor' s degree. Agencies that

employed an activity director had higher rates of leisure education programs offered,

independent decision-making, and integrated community recreation. Constraints to

leisure had a high frequency rate, whether they employed an activity director or not.

Thus, an analysis of the data revealed that while recreation services currently provided at

the Arc agencies throughout the United States moderately meet the needs of individuals

with mental retardation, Arc agencies need further improvement regarding the

employment of recreation personnel to enhance the many benefits of recreation

participation. However, areas of constraints should be further researched.















CHAPTER 1
STUDY BACKGROUND

Recreation participation is a core dimension to the quality of life for all individuals,

including those with disabilities. Through the participation in a wide variety of

community recreation and leisure activities, people have the opportunity to experience

fun, meet others that are different from them, and develop skills, specifically those related

to interacting with others. Despite this, though, recreation for individuals with mental

retardation is given a low priority. Rider, lannella, and Duncan (1993), expressed that

when planning for and participating in recreation and leisure services, community

planners frequently overlook individuals with disabilities. Further, 64% of the

participants with disabilities in a study done by Kaye (1997) responded that they were not

participating in the community as much as they would like. This is a direct result of the

limited segregated recreation options that are being offered to individuals with

disabilities. There is minimal individualized community participation because of the

support and assistance that possibly may be required. Thus, individuals with disabilities

generally participate in large group outings, regardless of the level of support that they

personally require. However, the importance of individuals with disabilities

understanding their rights to self-determination, leisure education, and community

recreation and leisure is fundamental to them acquiring a high- quality of living.

Association for Retarded Citizens (ARC)

The mission of the Association for Retarded Citizens (Arc) is to promote, for all

people with mental retardation and other developmental disabilities, the opportunity to










choose and realize their goals of where and how they learn, live, work and access leisure

activities. The Arc also acts to reduce the incidence and limit the consequences of mental

retardation and other developmental disabilities through education, awareness, research,

advocacy and the support of families, friends and community. The Arc aims to ensure

that all Americans with mental retardation and related developmental disabilities have

services such as early intervention, health care, free appropriate public education, and

support for their families to grow, develop, and live in communities throughout the

nation.

Statement of the Problem

Despite living in small group homes within the community, it is fairly common for

individuals with severe disabilities to have minimal contact with the non-disabled

community around them. In most cases, they eat at home, ride a bus to school or work,

attend a school or workshop for people with disabilities, return home on the same bus

from which they left, and spend the rest of the evening isolated from the normal

community which surrounds their residence, all in an environment with people with

similar disabilities (Salzberg & Langford, 1981). Researchers have described the process

of integrating individuals with disabilities into recreation activities as one that (a)

provides the opportunity for them to experience participation and enj oyment similar to

that of their peers without disabilities, (b) allows them to develop their skills and

confidence, (c) permits their participation in community activities of their choice, and (d)

encourages them to develop self-confidence and dignity (Hutchison & Lord, 1979).

Previous studies have shown that people with disabilities living in small group homes

participate in mainly home-based solitary or family oriented recreation and only a small

percentage of them have friends that they recreate with outside educational settings .









Leisure services should be designed to stimulate interaction between individuals with and

without mental retardation in integrated community environments (Dattilo & Schleien,

1994). Literature also suggests that many deinstitutionalized adults with disabilities spend

most of their leisure time inside their own residence in passive activities such as watching

television and they lack friends and contacts with non-disabled people in their community

(Salzberg & Langford, 1981). This shortage of social networking within the community

is made more difficult for people with disabilities because they tend to lack the skills

necessary to interacting and developing personal relationships with coworkers, peers,

neighbors, and other adults in the community. Because individuals with disabilities are

living in the community, it is often assumed that these individuals with mental retardation

have the skills to live and work in community settings, which is not always the case.

This imposed segregation is somewhat due to an ignorance of leisure resources within the

community. Researchers have found that many residents in all types of community living

facilities rarely participate in basic leisure activities of the larger society such as engaging

in hobbies, visiting friends, attending sporting events, clubs, or community centers

(Hayden, Lakin, Hill, Bruininks, & Copher, 1992). While, there are special recreation

programs that are specifically for individuals with mental retardation that attempt

community integration, such as Special Olympics, they tend to be very valuable for

children (Salzberg & Langford, 1981), but not very age appropriate for the development

of normalized leisure patterns in adults with mental retardation. Individuals with mental

retardation should be encouraged by recreation programmers to gain leisure skills that are

appropriate for their age and comparable to those of their peers. A wide repertoire of age










appropriate leisure skills that are based in the community will successfully integrate

individuals with mental retardation into the community (Dattilo & Schleien, 1994).

The maj ority of research concerning the leisure and recreational pursuits of people

with mental retardation has dealt with their typical leisure patterns and not their preferred

leisure activities. Few studies have examined the recreation patterns of people with

intellectual disabilities and compared them to their "ideal" recreational activities, that is,

the recreational pursuits respondents would choose given no restrictions (Sparrow &

Mayne, 1990). This is an important area of study because people with intellectual

disabilities often have very limited choices regarding recreational activities. There is a

clear need for further research regarding the choice of participants with mental

retardation in social and recreational activities, especially in relation to the activities of

people with mental retardation in older age groups. Results of a study by Neumayer and

Bleasdale (1996), showed that lifestyle conditions and preferences of people with

intellectual disabilities were not being fully addressed in relation to the principles and

values of certain programming philosophies adopted by different service provider

organizations.

Despite research demonstrating that community and social integration is a valid

component of life satisfaction, numerous studies have indicated that individuals with

developmental disabilities rarely have the opportunities to interact with individuals

without developmental disabilities. Newton and Horner (1993) suggested this may be

due to the lack of friends, few social activities, and loneliness that are among the most

common issues for people with disabilities. The social network of people with

disabilities can be increased by participation in integrated community recreation (Modell,










1997). Although, studies have shown that creating friendships with people without

disabilities is important to the life satisfaction of individuals with disabilities, it is often

difficult to find and retain these integrated friendships (Bostwick & Foss, 1981). By

participating in inclusive recreation, people with and without mental retardation have the

opportunity to mingle with each other. Thus, creating bonds between the groups.

"Inclusive recreation and leisure can serve as an ideal medium for promoting friendships

between individuals with and without disabilities" (Modell, 1997, p.3).

Purpose of the Study

The purposes of this research are:

1. To determine the current status of recreation available in non-institutional settings
for individuals with mental retardation.

2. To determine the status of recreation opportunities for individuals residing in non-
institutional settings to participate.

3. To determine the extent of which individuals with mental retardation residing in
non-institutional settings participate in recreation within the community.

4. To determine the degree of recreation integration between individuals with and
without mental retardation.

5. To determine the degree of independence that individuals with mental retardation
residing in non-institutional settings have regarding recreation choices.

The research questions are:

6. What types of recreation activities are provided for individuals with mental
retardation residing in non-institutional settings?

7. What are the recreation programming practices of activity directors in non-
institutional settings?

8. What types of constraints inhibit integrated recreation participation for individuals
with mental retardation living in non-institutional settings?

9. Are individuals residing in non-institutional settings participating in recreation
activities with individuals without mental retardation?









10. How much independence do individuals with mental retardation residing in non-
institutional settings have regarding recreation choices?

Significance of the Study

There is a need to study the status of recreation services on the quality of life for

individuals with mental retardation living in non- institutionalized settings (group homes,

foster homes). Sparrow and Mayne (1995) investigated the typical and ideal recreation

patterns of individuals with mental retardation, what participants would like to engage in

if given the opportunity, and what barriers prevented them from doing so. It was

discovered that subj ects participated in home-based recreation more so than community

based recreation, but reported the desire to participate more in all categories of activities.

Transportation, lack of availability, no opportunity, skills, financial reasons, and

attitudinal barriers were reported by at least half of the subj ects as barriers, with the

highest rated barrier being lack of opportunity to participate in ideal recreation. Some

ways to reverse this immense lack of opportunity for ideal leisure would be to educate

clients on the various leisure opportunities throughout the community, assess the clients

for individual leisure preferences, and develop programs that target these areas of

recreation and leisure. Therefore, examining the current recreation programming

practices of non- institutionalized settings throughout the United States will enhance the

understanding and need for increased person-centered programming that is directly

beneficial to all aspects of client quality of life.















CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Mental Retardation

The origin of mental retardation is described as either organic or non-organic.

Organic refers to known medical causes, whereas, non-organic refers to unknown or

familial or environmental causes. It is generally estimated that three out of four cases of

mental retardation are non-organic in nature (Zigler & Hodapp, 1986). However, organic

cases of mental retardation are on the rise because of the abuse of drugs and alcohol and

the higher rates of traumatic brain injury.

Subsequently, for many years, mental retardation was negatively viewed as an

incurable disability that afforded little potential for growth from individuals with this

disability. Today, through increased knowledge and research, society views individuals

with mental retardation with potential. Much of this change in attitude has been due to

research and creative new programs that have demonstrated significant accomplishments

by individuals with mental retardation in all aspects of life, including recreation,

academic settings, integrated living, and vocational placement (Bullock & Mahon, 2000).

The American Association on Mental Retardation' s (1992) revision of the definition of

mental retardation has also helped to eliminate the stigma that was formerly associated

with being mentally retarded. "Mental retardation refers to substantial limitations in

present functioning. It is characterized by significantly subaverage intellectual

functioning, existing concurrently with related limitations in two or more of the following

applicable adaptive skill areas: communication, self-care, home living, social skills,









community use, self- direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure and work.

Mental retardation manifests before age 18" (Bullock & Mahon, 2000 p. 160-161). The

phrase significantly subaverage intellectual functioning refers to an IQ score of 70 or

below on an individually administered intelligence test such as the Stanford-Binet-

Revised (Carter, Van Andel & Robb, 1995). Mental retardation is no longer diagnosed

using a single IQ test score, as was common in the past, but instead today, is diagnosed

using a combination of IQ and behavior. The most noteworthy difference between the

former and current definition of mental retardation is that the current definition states that

the diagnosis of mental retardation must include at least two deficits in adaptive skill

areas. The former definition based diagnoses solely on intellectual functioning.

Before the 1992 revised definition of mental retardation, there were four levels of

mental retardation. These levels were based on the intellectual functioning of the

individual were mild, moderate, severe, and profound. A diagnosis of mild required an IQ

score of 50 to 70 and a profound diagnosis ranging from 20 to 25 and below.

Nevertheless, along with the new definition of mental retardation, came a new

classification system that consisted of only two levels: mild and severe. In comparison,

these two new levels were suggestive of mental retardation being determined by the

environment because they were based on the adaptive skills of the individual (Bullock &

Mahon, 2000). Bullock and Mahon (2000), proposed four levels of functioning that were

based on the levels of support that an individual with mental retardation would require,

along with adaptive skills. No Support, the first level, implies that the individual is self-

sufficient or can request help independently. The second level, Minimal Support, suggest

that an individual with mental retardation requires help occasionally or support in areas









of transportation, physical health, home living, and employment. Sub stanti al/Extensive

Support, the third level, implies the individual with mental retardation needs regular,

ongoing support that includes assistance, instructions, and supervision with a specific

adaptive skill area. Lastly, the most severe level of functioning, Pervasive/Consistent

Support, is required when the individual with mental retardation needs constant care all

day, everyday. This level of support may also lend itself to maintenance of the life-

support systems of the individual.

Legislation

As a result of the deinstitutionalization process of the 1960's, a large number of

people with mental illnesses, mental retardation, and physical disabilities were sent into

the community to become normalized. This concept of normalization came about from

Nirj e in the late 1960's and has served as the cornerstone of service delivery for people

with disabilities internationally (Howe-Murphy & Charboneau, 1987). The basic premise

behind the normalization movement was that most individuals with mental retardation

could occupy a more prominent place in society and more broadly fulfill their role as

citizens, were they not unnecessarily restricted to the abnormal patterns and limitations

imposed by life in those large state institutions (Salzberg & Langford, 1981). Thus,

individuals with mental retardation, mental illnesses, and physical disabilities were

placed in small group and foster homes to become "normalized". But, despite the

potential for a more normal pattern of living in community- based residential facilities,

this idea of normalization was not guaranteed to individuals with mental retardation.

Evidence from numerous studies have suggested that people moving from large

institutions into smaller community living arrangements still experience group treatment

and isolation that is common in institutional settings (Hayden, Soulen, Schleien, &









Tabourne, 1996). When compared to large institutions, it would seem that small group

homes would encourage the development of extensive daily living self- care skills and

use of services and agencies throughout the community. However, it would be a mistake

to assume that a small group home is necessarily non-institutional in its structure,

procedures, or behavior outcomes for residents because small group homes can indeed be

highly institutionalized (Salzberg & Langford, 1981).

Due to the various issues that arose from the deinstitutionalization movement, the

government subsequently set forth five federal laws, and their amendments, that would

provide the basis for legal protection against discrimination for individuals with

disabilities. The laws were as follows: The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Education for

All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, the Developmental Disabilities and Bill of Rights

Act Amendment of 1987, the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals for

Disabilities Act of 1988, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is noteworthy because this law specifically

addresses discrimination against people with disabilities (Bullock & Mahon, 2000). This

law refers to various areas of discrimination that individuals with disabilities encounter.

The section of the law that is said to be the most significant is the nondiscrimination

under federally funded programs. This section states: "no otherwise qualified

handicapped individual in the United States shall, solely by reason of his/ her handicap,

be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subj ected to

discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance"

(Bullock & Mahon, 2000, p.69). This would apply to all federally funded programs such

as state institutions, educational systems, healthcare agencies, and so on. This law would









later go on to add several amendments that included recreation and therapeutic recreation

as core concepts to the lives of individuals with mental retardation. A fairly recent

amendment, The Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, stated that "The law now

recognizes that disability is a natural part of the human experience and in no way

diminishes the right of individuals to live independently, enj oy self-determination, make

choices, contribute to society, pursue meaningful careers, and enjoy full inclusion and

integration in the economic, political, social, cultural, and educational mainstream of

America. These laws signify the fundamental principle that individuals with disabilities,

regardless of the nature or severity of disability, should have, and are now legally entitled

to, the same opportunities as their non disabled peers to experience and enj oy work,

recreation and leisure, and other life experiences in our society" (Modell, 1997).

In 1975, a landmark legislation for individuals with disabilities, The Education for

All Handicapped Children Act, was passed. This law gave the assurance that eligible

persons with disabilities would be provided with appropriate educational services in the

"least restrictive environment" (Modell, 1997) and that the rights of children and youth

with disabilities would be protected. The philosophy behind least restrictive

environments infers that individuals with disabilities should be able to work, recreate, and

be educated in an environment that is comparable to their peers without disabilities.

Similar to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Education for all Handicapped Children

also made amendments to this law to cater to the changing needs of individuals with

disabilities in the education system. Amendments included expanding incentives for

preschool education, early intervention, transition programs, lowering the age eligibility

for special education programs to age three, and establishing the Handicapped Infants and









Toddlers Program that addresses the early intervention needs of children from birth to

age three (Bullock & Mahon, 2000). In 1990, the Education for all Handicapped

Children Act was to undergo significant changes. The name was to be changed to The

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (IDEA) and specifically addressed

the provision of inclusive leisure services in the least restrictive environment for

individuals with disabilities. Many of the services that were available under the old law

were expanded and new programs were implemented. In 1997, this law underwent

numerous changes that were geared at strengthening academic expectations and

accountability for children with disabilities. "IDEA 1997 aimed to improve considerably

the communication among parents, general education teachers, and special education

teachers. It should ensure the general education teacher' s involvement in the planning

and assessing of children with disabilities. And it should lead to high expectations and

significantly improved student achievement for children with disabilities"(Bullock &

Mahon, 2000, p.77).

The Developmental Disabilities and Bill of Rights Act Amendment of 1987 was

originally the Mental Retardation Facilities and Community Mental Health Centers

Construction Act of 1963, but was amended in 1987. This law was not limited to

individuals with disabilities, but instead included other disabling conditions as well. This

act established the Administration on Developmental Disabilities (ADD) that in turns

plans and coordinates activities related to individuals with developmental disabilities.

Services that are provided under this law must aim at providing opportunities and

assistance for individuals with developmental disabilities that enable them to reach their









maximum potential elevated productivity, independence, and integration into the

community (Bullock & Mahon, 2000).

Established in 1988, the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals for

Disabilities Act of 1988, became the first federal legislation that was geared at increasing

the availability of technology services, devices, and promoting the access of Einancing for

individuals with disabilities. The three core purposes of this legislation is to (Bullock &

Mahon, 2000):

1. To provide Einancial assistance to states to aid in developing and implementing a
consumer-responsive program of technology-related assistance for individuals of
all ages with disabilities.

2. To identify federal policies that advocate payment for assistive technology and
those that delay such payment and to do away with improper barriers to such
payment.

3. And, to increase the ability of the federal government to provide the states with
technical assistance, training, information, public awareness programs, and
Einancing for model demonstration and innovation proj ects.

As technology becomes increasingly common in our society, it is important that

individuals with disabilities have the opportunity to access the needed information. With

laws in place like the Technology-Related Assistance for Individuals for Disabilities Act

of 1988, people with disabilities and our society will benefit.

Subsequently, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 was later

passed. The ADA of 1990 clearly mandated for the elimination of discrimination of

individuals with disabilities in the areas of employment, public service, public

accommodations and services operated by private entities, and telecommunications.

"The act prohibits denying individuals with disabilities the opportunity to participate in a

program, service, or providing a service that is not equal or that is different or separate

from that given to others" (Orlin, 1995, p.233). The ADA mandates equality in all










aspects of employment. This includes, but is not limited to, recruitment, hiring, training,

promoting, performance evaluations, and termination. If individuals with disabilities

meet the requirements, such as education and experience, to fill the position, then

employers must make reasonable accommodations for the potential employee. All state

and local government entities that provide programs, services, and activities must be

accessible to all individuals with disabilities under the ADA of 1990. Discrimination of

any form on public transportation is strictly prohibited. Public transit includes fixed route

systems, subways, demand responsive systems, and para-transit systems (Bullock &

Mahon, 2000). Individuals with disabilities should also be able to access public

accommodations that are for profit or not for profit that provide services, facilities, or

goods. "Modified participation for people with disabilities must be a choice, not a

requirement" (Orlin, 1995, p.237). All individuals with disabilities, not those with just

communication disorders, must be provided with telecommunication relay services all

day, everyday, with no restrictions length or number of call made (Bullock & Mahon,

2000).

Leisure Education of Individuals with Mental Retardation

Similar to quality of life, there are many definitions of what leisure education really

is. In 1979, Mundy and Odum provided the initial framework to conceptualizing this

idea. Simply put, leisure education consists of developing knowledge, skills, and

attitudes for optimal leisure functioning. This is accomplished through the development

of affective, cognitive, and psychomotor skills that are key to various recreation activity

involvement. Leisure education provides knowledge of leisure opportunities and the

equipment, supplies, and other information needed to access these experiences;

development of an understanding and appreciation of leisure and its role in acquiring a










quality of life; and provides opportunities to explore and experience a variety of leisure

activities that may establish appropriate leisure behaviors (Carter, Van Andel, & Robb,

1995). It must also be understood that leisure education programs aid in creating a

healthy leisure lifestyle. Meaning, appropriate leisure programs provide individuals with

disabilities a wide range of leisure options. These options, in turn, allow the individual to

find personal meaning and satisfaction. This lack of options could be due, in part, to

limitations in the following areas: social contact with people without mental retardation,

consumer skills, community mobility, and information regarding recreation opportunities,

(Schloss, Smith, & Kiehl, 1986). Schloss, Smith, & Kiehl (1986), monitored a program to

test the notion that the lack of choices for people with mental retardation was a direct

result of the lack information concerning recreation. This examination was based around

a program known as the "Rec Club" for people with mild to moderate retardation. The

goals of the Rec Club were for the participants to move progressively toward

independence, develop age appropriate skills, participate in mainstream recreation, and

take risks that are warranted by potential benefits. Taking risks that are warranted by

potential benefits was a goal that many agencies were not willing to test. Nevertheless,

the Rec Club felt that taking risks in a controlled manner were important to adjusting to

adulthood and being able to make better decisions in the future. Activities were chosen

through a series of steps. First, the participants would evaluate the leisure opportunities

available in the community and a pre test is given. Second, once activities were selected,

organizers would ensure, through various teaching methods, that participants had the

necessary skills to participate in the chosen activity. Thirdly, deficits in skills not

overcome through the use of prosthetics, training, and identified as requiring prompts,









become the focal point of the intervention. The participant then has the opportunity to

practice the skill under the close supervision of the organizer until the skill can be

executed independently. The organizers and other participants give positive feedback.

Lastly, a posttest is given to conclude the intervention. Results from the Rec Club have

been highly promising. Participants have been able to independently use bus routes

throughout the area, utilize various recreation facilities, including restaurants and

shopping malls. Major accomplishments for the Rec Club have been participants

organizing formal meeting without direct supervision and participant' s parent being more

willing to allow their child with mental retardation to enter the community unsupervised.

Thus, it is fair to say that leisure education programs offer potential solutions to the

challenges faced by people with mental retardation (Dattilo & Schleien, 1994). Leisure

education programs have resulted in participants gaining leisure skills that, subsequently,

increase leisure involvement for youth with mental retardation (Hoge, Dattilo, &

Williams, 1999). But despite the importance of leisure education, the opportunity for

leisure development is limited because vocational rehabilitation services do not view

leisure education as their primary responsibility and have relatively low priority. In the

past, recreation for mentally retarded persons was viewed as means of preventing

disruptive behavior in residential institutions, and as an interim measure to prevent

physical and psychological debilitation when structured programs of education and

training were unavailable (Luckey & Shapiro, 1974). However since then, the

constructive and creative use of leisure by individuals with mental retardation is

becoming accepted as an essential part of training programs that prepare these individuals

for life and work in the community. Some researchers feel that leisure professionals









should go beyond including instructions in leisure skills services for individuals with

mental retardation, but should also adopt a more comprehensive strategy geared toward

promoting an awareness of self, an appreciation of leisure, self- determination and

decision-making that is relative to leisure, knowledge and utilization of leisure resources,

as well as development of skills in the areas of social interaction and recreation activities

(Dattilo & Murphy, 1991). Bullock and Mahon (2000), attempted to do just that with the

leisure education conceptual model. The model consists of three domains which are: 1)

Awareness, 2) Skill learning and Rehearsal, and 3) Self-determination. The ultimate goal

of this leisure education model is personal satisfaction. The awareness domain has three

components: leisure awareness, self-awareness, and awareness of resources. The focus of

leisure awareness is aiding the individual in understanding the leisure principle. This

could involve helping the individual understand differentiate between what is leisure and

what is not. The self-awareness domain seeks to help the individual become aware of the

types of leisure that they would prefer. Lastly, awareness of resources, helps the

individual identify personal resources and resources in the community that will enable the

person to participate in their leisure of choice. The skills and rehearsal domain also

consists of three components. They are: 1) leisure activity skills, 2) community skills,

and 3) social/communication skills. These components are key to facilitating the leisure

goals of an individual. In order to participate in leisure, some level of skill is needed. If

an individual does not have the skill required to participate in the activity, then this

component suggests removing this barrier by teaching the necessary skills. Community

skills allow the individual to participate in community-based programs. Lastly,

social/communication skills aid in community inclusion for individuals with disabilities.









Social skills are important in helping individuals recognize appropriate behaviors. The

last domain, self-determination, is also divided into three concepts: 1) decision- making,

2) leisure planning, and 3) independent leisure initiation. Individuals have often been

taught skills, but not how to make decisions. If this were to be emphasized as well,

individuals would experience a greater sense of empowerment. Leisure planning refers

to individuals independently deciding how they would like to spend their leisure time.

This allows the individual to feel self-actualized, thus increasing self-determination.

Lastly, independent leisure initiation helps the individual in areas of self-control or self-

regulation. This component can be useful in facilitating person-centered outcomes for

individuals with disabilities (Bullock & Mahon, 2000).

Self- Determination for Individuals with Mental Retardation

The idea of quality of life has the same components for people with disabilities as

for people without disabilities. Although the concept of quality of life is ambiguous, at

best, in 1971, the Board of Directors of the American Institute for Research attempted to

discover a clear definition of this notion in regards to Americans. However after

surveying 3000 Americans, no clear definition of quality of life for Americans was

discovered. Nevertheless, five components of quality of life were discovered that needed

to be considered when defining quality of life (Flanagan, 1982). These five elements in

conceptualizing quality of life were:

1. Physical and material well- being. Money and financial security are needed to
ascertain good food, home, possessions, and expectations of these for the future.
Also, possessing physical and mental health along with effective treatment of
health problems, are critical factors.

2. Personal development and fulfillment. This component includes acquiring desired
knowledge, the ability to problem solve, self- determination, and graduating from
an educational institution. Also, the acquisition of worthwhile work in a job or









home and the opportunity to express oneself through music, art, writing, etc., are
associated with this component.

3. Participation in social, civic, and community activities. This includes membership
in church, club, or other organizations and the opportunity to vote and keep
informed through media.

4. Participation in recreational activities such as attending parties, attending or
participating in sporting events, and participating in hunting, fishing, camping, etc.

5. Relationships with others. Relationships that involve love, companionship, sexual
satisfaction, and communication that lead to friendships, having a boyfriend or
girlfriend, or marriage are important factors within this component (Modell, 1997,
p.10-11)."

Along with these components, researchers later agreed that quality of life was

dependent on the individual and their life experiences. Leisure professionals who

provide services for people with mental retardation should offer the opportunity for self-

determined and responsible decisions that reflect the individuals need to expand, explore,

and realize their potential. Practitioners and family members must maintain a delicate

balance between facilitating self-determined leisure participation and encouraging

development of culturally normative age-appropriate leisure behaviors for people with

mental retardation (Dattilo & Schleien, 1994). For persons with disabilities, personal

choice is often a neglected area of concern (Storey, 1993). This is striking being that a

key component to self-determined behavior is freedom of choice.

A study done by Rogers, Hawkins, & Eklund (1998) attempted to examine the

leisure of older adults with intellectual disabilities. There were 29 subj ects that

participated in in-depth, unstructured interviews that reported to being suitable for this

population. Topics that were included in the interviews were the meaning of leisure in

later life, leisure participation barriers in different settings, and factors related to leisure

pattern involvement and the participants' perceptions of the meaning of these patterns.









The most central theme that arose from the results of this study was the perceived lack of

self-determination regarding leisure choices by participants. Subj ects and care providers,

both indicated that leisure choices were controlled by care providers, and not the subj ect

them self. However, the majority of the subjects favored more freedom and internal

control in leisure. To the older adults in this study, retirement was not looked upon

favorably because it was seen as a time of loss and boredom. This was such because

work was the primary outlet for socialization. Participants in this study equated

retirement to diversionary activities throughout the day rather than leisure that held

personal value and meaning. The researchers of this study felt that the practice of

infantilization was evident in the lack of choices regarding leisure for participants in this

study. Infantilization refers to viewing people with disabilities as children (Hockey &

James, 1993), instead of individuals with unique needs. When individuals with mental

retardation do not have opportunities for self-determination, they do not have the

opportunities to express their individualism or fully experience leisure (Rogers, Hawkins,

& Eklund, 1998).

Typical Leisure Patterns of People with Mental Retardation

Over the years, many studies have been done that looked at the leisure patterns that

are typical of populations with mental retardation. These studies have demonstrated

similar results in their leisure patterns and repertoires. People with mental retardation

tend to not spend their discretionary time participating in recreation that is based in the

community, but instead, spend their free time inside of their homes (Hoge & Datillo,

1995). When in fact, being apart of the community positively effects the life quality of

individuals with disabilities (Mahon, Mactavish, Bockstael, O'Dell & Siegenthaler,

2000). Group home residents often report that residents get the opportunity to vote on









which activities that they would participate in as a group. This seems very self-

determining, but if a resident does not wish to engage in that particular activity, there are

few other options available because of limited transportation and staffing (Rogers,

Hawkins, & Eklund, 1998). Thus, the resident is left with passive leisure options and

little or no interaction with others.

Hoge and Datillo (1995) conducted a study that compared the recreation patterns of

adults with and without mental retardation. This was significant since at the time of this

study, no other studies were reported that compared these two groups. There were 100

participants with mental retardation and 100 participants without mental retardation. A

structured, in-depth interview was utilized to determine the recreation patterns of both

groups. Results from this study indicated similarities and differences between the two

groups. Some maj or similarities were engaging in activities that required resources,

similar top rated activities, and similar current participation rate in team sports. Major

differences that resulted from this study were: adults without mental retardation reported

participating in overall recreation activities more than adults with mental retardation and

adults with mental retardation did not engage in as many different recreation activities as

adults without mental retardation. Thus, this implies that people without mental

retardation have more leisure options, which could result in greater recreation

participation from this group.

Preferred Leisure Patterns of People with Mental Retardation

In the past, people with disabilities have rarely been given the opportunity to

choose the events that effect their quality of life. Thus, very few studies had been

reported that examined the recreation patterns of people with intellectual disabilities and










compared them to recreational pursuits that respondents would choose given no

restrictions (Sparrow & Mayne, 1990).

Dattilo and Rusch (1985) conducted a study that compared subj ects with severe

disabilities' behavior during participation in a chosen activity to behavior in the same

activity without the opportunity for choice. There were four participants ranging from

ages 8-12. Due to the severe disabilities of the participants, researchers used videotaping,

electronic switch manipulations, and observation methods to obtain results. For purposes

of this study, electronic switch manipulations referred to moving the electronic switch 45

degrees from the starting position, which activated the television program. Participants in

the study underwent three conditions of contingent participation 1, noncontingent

participation, and contingent participation 2, respectively. During contingent 1 and 2,

subj ects were given the choice to watch the television program as much as they liked by

activating the electronic switch. In noncontingent participation, the subjects were

involved in the same activity, but at scheduled times, the power to the television was

disconnected. Thus, preventing participants to further watch if they desire. Results from

this study indicated that during contingent participation 1 and 2, electronic manipulations

increased. Whereas, during noncontingent participation, there were immediate drops in

the frequency of electronic manipulations. Participants mean attending scores were also

higher during the contingent participation. This supports the concept that once the

participants had no control over the activity they lost interest and participated less.

Indicating that expressing choices are central to increasing leisure participation,

spontaneous verbal request, decreases in problem behaviors and social avoidance

behaviors (Newton, Ard, & Horner, 1993).









Sparrow and Mayne (1990) investigated the recreation patterns of 40 adults with

mild to moderate intellectual disabilities. Participants were asked closed questions about

what activities that they currently participated in, would like to participate in, and what

they felt prevented them from doing so. Questions were simplified and or repeated as

needed if the subj ect failed to answer or not understand. Care was taken to avoid

influencing with gestures or comments. Results showed that subjects recreated most

often alone and at home. A noteworthy outcome was the tendency of the subjects to

report a desire to increase their participation in all activity categories. The largest

constraint (65%) that subj ects reported as hindering their recreation participation was not

having the opportunity to participate.

Social Integration

Although there are many definitions of social integration, this concept generally

means a process that brings people with and without disabilities together in a shared

physical setting where meaningful social interaction takes place (Mahon, Mactavish,

Bockstael, O'Dell, & Siegenthaler, 2000). Studies indicate that there appears to be an

overall low rate of social interaction between people with and without disabilities

(Taylor, Asher, & Williams, 1987). This is tremendous being that "true social integration

in contingent upon interactions and relationships between individuals with and without

intellectual disabilities" (Wolfensberger & Thomas, 1983). The significance of this is

that integrated friendships provide an important network of social support for everyone,

not just individuals with disabilities. "Intimacy, a sense of belonging, and

interdependency are important needs related to the life satisfaction that friendships can

help foster" (Hawkins, May, & Rogers, 1996, p.74).









In 1996, Hayden, Soulen, Schleien, and Tabourne published a study that compared

the recreation integration of adults with mental retardation who moved into the

community to those individuals with mental retardation that remained at the institution.

Subjects were diagnosed with severe or profound mental retardation. This study utilized

various instruments to obtain data. An interview survey was developed that addressed

information about the quality of life for each of the participants. Sections of the survey

included questions regarding recreation and recreation integration. The Inventory for

Client and Agency Planning (ICAP) was also used to provide descriptions of diagnostic

status, functional limitations, demographic variables, and mobility assistance required

(Hayden, Soulen, Schleien, & Tabourne, 1996). Although, results from this study

indicated that subj ects that moved into the community had increased their recreation

activity involvement, they still engaged in a high amount of leisure activities that were

very sedentary. In addition to these findings, both groups engaged primarily in recreation

activities with friends who were also disabled or with staff, regardless of where they lived

(Hayden, Soulen, Schleien, and Tabourne, 1996). Thus, indicating that although

individuals with mental retardation are integrated into the community, this does not

necessarily conclude that they will have increased interactions with individuals that are

without mental retardation. There is an inability of people with mental retardation to

interact with people without mental retardation because of specialized services (e.g.

transportation) and preference for passive leisure that is done at home.

Nevertheless, social deficits for people with mental retardation can be reduced by

leisure within the community. Social networks of individuals with disabilities can be

increased by participation in inclusive community recreation and leisure activities, thus









enhancing their quality of life. However, adequate programs and policies that facilitate

participation and the development of social networks in community recreation and leisure

activities must be established in order to improve the overall quality of life of individuals

with disabilities (Modell, 1997). Schleien (1993) suggested two basic approaches to

facilitating social integration in leisure and recreation programs. If utilized in recreation

programming, both of these approaches can help in developing relationships based on

individual need. The aim of the first approach is to place individuals with disabilities into

present programs for individuals without disabilities. This placement would provide the

opportunity for individuals with and without disabilities to form social relationships.

"Existing community recreation and leisure programs designed originally for individuals

without disabilities are far more beneficial than segregated programs that are usually

isolated from the community and the non disabled population" (Modell, 1997, p.46). The

second approach involves including non-disabled individuals into segregated recreation

programs for individuals with disabilities, such as the Unified Sports, which are a part of

the Special Olympics (Modell, 1997). This form of reverse integration would also

provide the opportunity for social interaction between individuals with and without

disabilities.

Constraints to Leisure

Numerous studies have shown that individuals with mental retardation often

encounter barriers to their leisure participation within the community. Thus, they

typically participate in leisure that can be done within their homes (Beart, Hawkins,

Stenfert-Kroese, Smithson, & Toolsa, 2001). However, those individuals with mental

retardation with assess to the community still experienced lack of leisure opportunities,

negative public perceptions and attitudes, and resource restrictions.










Thus, being that cost, transport, and support are often encountered barriers, Beart,

Hawkins, Stenfert-Kroese, Smithson, and Toolsa (2001) decided that further examination

regarding leisure constraints would play a key role in future service provision for

individuals with mental retardation. Subjects (n=29) from five establishments with

experience in providing a wide variety of social backgrounds for individuals with mental

retardation were chosen to participate in this study. The subj ects had to have moderate

levels of comprehension and communication skills. The subjects were asked questions

regarding their current leisure actives and preferred leisure activities. The answers to

these questions were then placed into categories of home-based or community-based.

Then the activities were further assigned to two categories: 1) requirement of money and,

2) requirement of transportation. Results from this investigation indicated that support

and transportation were indeed barriers to community participation for individuals with

mental retardation. Over half of the current leisure activities and preferred leisure

required transportation. Thus, providing information on available transportation is

central to alleviating this constraint. Money was discovered to be less of a barrier.

Researchers in this study suggested that this could be due to the subj ects' lack of

awareness of money because many of the activities were arranged by people other than

the subjects' themselves. It was also found in this study that the subjects participated in

more community-based than home-based leisure. This was in direct contrast to other

studies that suggested that individuals with mental retardation generally participated in

solitary leisure. However, in this study it was discovered that the community-based

leisure participation occurred mainly with other people with mental retardation. Thus, it

was still segregated leisure. The final finding of this study revealed that individuals









living in large institutions participated in a similar number of activities as those

individuals with mental retardation living in small institutions.

Messent, Cooke, and Long (1999), conducted a study of the primary and secondary

barriers that individuals with mental retardation typically encountered when attempting to

participate in active leisure living in residential homes and a social education center. The

subjects (n=24), with mild to moderate mental retardation, were first administered a

physiological and level of obesity assessment. Thus, it was discovered early in the study

that the participants were below the minimum level of physical activity necessary to

avoid health risks associated with physical inactivity (Messent, Cooke, & Long, 1999).

Researchers in this study did not have structured questions, but instead simply asked the

subj ects to talk about their lives around a set theme. The themes were current daily

activities, activities that they did and did not enj oy and why, beliefs and attitudes

regarding health in relation to physical activity, and experiences during an exercise

program. Residential managers and caregivers were then asked questions regarding staff

responsibility in general and specifically leisure, leisure opportunities, integration, power,

choice, support, exercise, and physical activity. Results of this study found that staff

ratios (20: 1) were significant barriers to leisure opportunities. Thus, staff were seldom

able to provide support for activities beyond the residence, even for those residents that

wished to be physically active. Limited funds and unclear roles among managers and

caregivers were also found to cause tension over the appropriateness of specific leisure

opportunities. Availability and accessibility of leisure services were also noted as

barriers to participation because of the lack of appropriate opportunities. Lastly, this

investigation found that despite the high attendance rate of the exercise program by the









residents with mental retardation, the staff were unable to support the community-based

opportunities because of the barriers discovered during this investigation. Thus, unclear

guidelines for residential provision, finances, staffing, participant income, and limited

community leisure options were found to be significant constraints to individuals with

mental retardation participating in active leisure.















CHAPTER 3
METHOD S

The purpose of this study was to investigate how the quality of life for individuals

with mental retardation living in a non-institutional setting is impacted by the status of

recreational services in the Arc agencies throughout the United States. This was

accomplished by examining the current recreation services that are provided to clients of

the Arc that involve participation within the community and while at the Arc, individual

assessment procedures, and the leisure education of the Arc participants. The Arc was

chosen for this investigation because this agency is recognized as the foremost partner

with families and people with mental retardation to support and enhance their quality of

life through specific policy advocacy programming that benefit these groups. This

agency also educates individuals with mental retardation, families, policymakers, service

providers, and others on the best practices and issues that impact individuals with mental

retardation and their families. The Arc aims to ensure that individuals with mental

retardation and their families have the environment and opportunity to live their lives in

the community.

Currently, there is insufficient information on the extent of community recreation

participation of individuals with mental retardation throughout the United States.

Research that documents the status of recreation of individuals with mental retardation

living in non- institutional settings is almost scarce. Little research is available on the

recreation assessment processes, programs offering, and providers of recreation services

in non- institutionalized settings throughout the United States. Therefore, this









investigation is significant due to its exploratory nature in the realm of the impact of the

provision of a wide variety recreation for non- institutionalized individuals with mental

retardation.

This chapter describes the procedures that were utilized in this study. This includes

the sampling procedures, the research design, and the identification of the survey

instrument, validity, and reliability. A description of the statistical procedures employed

in data collection, analysis, and evaluation is also included in this chapter.

Sample

The sample consisted of 220 local Associations for Retarded Citizens (The Arc)

throughout the United States that had registered operating websites with the national Arc.

The national headquarters of the Arc confirmed the accuracy of the national website

listing. The questionnaire was administered through electronic mail to activity directors at

the designated Arc agencies that have access to Internet services. If that particular Arc

did not have a recreation director on staff, then the Executive Director was asked to

complete the survey. Activity directors were chosen as the target participants because

they tend to give more reliable information concerning recreation programs for

individuals with mental retardation at the Arc.

Research Design

The survey instrument that was utilized in this investigation was developed by the

researcher and reviewed by a panel of experts in the Hield of recreation and individuals

with developmental disabilities. The survey instrument consisted of 12 questions that

targeted various aspects of the recreation services of Arc.

The questionnaire was then pilot tested at the local Arc in Gainesville, FL, in order

to refine the instrument. The respondent was a director of recreation services at the Arc.










Questions were added, deleted, and/or reworded after analysis of the pilot test. Following

the pilot test modifications, the researcher sent out the survey instrument and conducted

the investigation of the impact of the provision of ideal recreation services on the quality

of life for individuals with mental retardation throughout the United States within the Arc

agencies.















CHAPTER 4
RESULTS OF THE STUDY

The purpose of this study was to determine the status of recreation within the Arc's

agencies throughout the United States. The study was conducted by means of an

electronic mail questionnaire to each of the Arc agencies that had operating websites with

valid email addresses, which consisted of 220 agencies. The goal of the survey was to

determine current information on how recreation is being implemented, and by whom, in

the Arc agencies throughout the United States. Therefore, the survey instrument

addressed recreation personnel, programming practices, assessment procedures, and

constraints to leisure.

From the proposed sample of 220 Arc agencies that were emailed the

questionnaire, 28 of the email addresses were faulty. Thus, leaving an effective sample

of 192 Arc agencies. Only 19 agency responses were received after the initial emailed

survey. Thus, a reminder letter was emailed to the non-responding email addresses.

After the emailed reminder letter with an attached second emailed questionnaire, 19 more

responses were received. Resulting in an effective sample of 3 8, a response rate of 20%.

Of the Arc agencies with operating websites, 154 did not respond. Therefore, of the 676

Arc agencies throughout the nation, 38 participated in this survey of recreation at the Arc.

Thus, the results of this study can only be inferred to 6% of the 676 Arc agencies within

the United States.

The results were organized according to the five sections of the questionnaire

utilizing frequencies tables and crosstabulations. The first section was the cover letter,










which requested that an activity director/coordinator, or executive director if no activity

director was present, respond to the survey. The data were reported in the following four

sections: Recreation Personnel, Recreation Programming Practices, Constraints to

Leisure, and Agency Assessment Methods.

Of the 3 8 responses received, some respondents failed to complete every question

of the questionnaire, resulting in missing responses. Thus, the number of responses for

each question varied according to how the individual respondent answered the question.

Data Analysis- Frequency Tables

Recreation Personnel

The recreation personnel frequency section inquired about the individual

completing the survey. The questions asked whether there was an activity director

employed, educational background, and certification status.

According to the table 4-1, 47% of the respondents indicated that they did not

employ an activity director/ recreation therapist. Whereas, 53% of the respondents

indicated that they did employ an activity director/ recreation therapist within their

agency.

Table 4-1. Employ Activity Director/ Recreation Therapist
n %
No 18 47
Yes 20 53
Total 38 100

Of the agencies that employed an activity director/ recreation therapist in table 4-2,

60% had a Bachelor' s degree, 25% had a Master' s degree, 10% had a High School

Diploma, and 5% had an Associate of Arts degree.










Table 4-2. Educational Level of Activity Director/ Recreation Therapist
n %
HS 2 10
AA 1 5
BS 12 60
MS 5 25
Total 20 100
NA 18
*If applicable

Of the activity director/ recreation therapist that attended college in table 4-3, 33%

indicated that they maj ored in Recreation, 13% maj ored in Sociology, 13% maj ored in

Psychology, 13% majored in Liberal Arts, and 13% majored in Education. However, of

the activity director/ recreation therapist that attended college, 3 did not indicate a college

maj or.

Table 4-3. College Major
n %
Recreation 5 33
Sociology 2 13
Psychology 2 13
Human Services 1 7
Liberal Arts 2 13
Education 2 13
Business Adm. 1 7
Total 15 100
Missing 3
*If applicable

Of the agencies that employed activity director/ recreation therapist in table 4-4,

40% held certifications, but were unspecified. Of the activity director/ recreation

therapist, 20% were Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialist, and another 20% had

experience that they indicated was equivalent to being certified. Of the activity director/

recreation therapist, 50% (10 of 20) did not indicate their certification status.









Table 4-4. Certification Status
n%
CTRS 2 20
Other/ Unspecified 4 40
Equivalent Experience 2 20
Director of Services 1 10
Certified Inclusion Specialist 1 10
Total 10 100
Missing 10
*If applicable

Programming Practices

The programming practices section of the questionnaire inquired about the

recreation programming and recreation opportunities for clients of the Arc. The

questions asked level of client decision-makings and integrated recreation, and leisure

education.

Based on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 from table 4-5, with 1 being very dependent and 5

being very independent, 28% of the respondents indicated that clients of the Arc were

independent in their leisure decision-making. Whereas, 19% indicated that clients of the

Arc were dependent leisure decision-makers. The most indicated response (44%) was

neither very dependent or very independent. Of the respondents, 6 did not indicate a

level of independent decision-making.

Table 4-5. Independent-Decision Making
n %
Very Dependent 1 3
Dependent 6 19
Neither 14 44
Independent 9 28
Very Independent 2 6
Total 32 100
Missing 6










Table 4-6. Independent-Decision Making
Mean 3.2
Mode 3

On table 4-7, of the respondents, 30% indicated that clients of the Arc were likely

to have reasonable opportunities for community recreation with people without mental

retardation, based on a Likert scale of 1 to 5. In contrast, 21% of the respondents

indicated that clients of the Arc were unlikely to have such opportunities. The "neither"

response (33%) was indicated most by respondents.


Table 4-7. Integrated Recreation
n %
Unlikely 7 21
Neither 11 33
Likely 10 30
Very Likely 5 15
Total 33 100
Missing 5

Table 4-8. Integrated Recreation
Mean 3.4
Mode 3

Of the respondents in table 4-9, 63% indicated that their agency offered leisure

education programs for clients.

Table 4-9. Lei Ed Program.
n %
No 14 37
Yes 24 63
Total 38 100

Of the respondents that indicated that their agency offered leisure education

Programs in table 4-10, 52% indicated that their agency did not offer formal leisure

education for its' clients. Whereas, 48% of the respondents did provide formal leisure

education programs.









Table 4-10. Formal Lei Ed
n %
No 13 52
Yes 12 48
Total 25 100
Missing 2
*If applicable.

Of the respondents that indicated that their agency offered leisure education

programs in table 4-11, 82% indicated that their agency provided informal leisure

education programs.

Table 4-11. Informal Lei Ed.
n %
No 4 18
Yes 18 82
Total 22 100
Missing 2
*If applicable.

Of the respondents that indicated that their agency provided leisure education

programs, 50 % included leisure awareness components (table 4-12), 58% included

leisure skill development (table 4-13) components, 54% included leisure resources (table

4-14) components, and 46% included leisure decision-making (table 4-15) components.

In contrast, of the respondents that indicated that their agency provided leisure education

programs, 50% indicated that their agency did not include leisure awareness (table 4-12)

components, 42% did not include leisure skill development (table 4-13) components,

46% did not include leisure resources (table 4-14) components, and 54% did not include

leisure decision-making (table 4-15) components.










Table 4-12. Leisure Awareness
n %
No 12 50
Yes 12 50
Total 24 100
NA 14
* If applicable

Table 4-13. Leisure Skills
n %
No 10 42
Yes 14 58
Total 24 100
NA 14
* If applicable

Table 4-14. Leisure Resources
n %
No 11 46
Yes 13 54
Total 24 100
NA 14
* If applicable

Table 4-15. Leisure Decision-Making
n %
No 13 54
Yes 11 46
Total 24 100
NA 14
*If applicable.

Constraints to Leisure

The frequency responses to constraints to leisure inquired about the level of the

effect of various factors on the Arc' s client community recreation participation.

Of the respondents in table 4-16, 39% indicated most that financial constraints

often had an effect on clients of the Arc participation in community recreation. Of

subj ects that indicated that finances played a role on community recreation participation,

29% indicated a neutral role. Financial constraints very much effected 19% of the










subject's community recreation participation. In contrast, only 3% indicated that

financial constrained the Arc's clients from community recreation participation.

Table 4-16. Financial Constraints
n %
Not at All 1 3
Rarely 3 10
Neutral 9 29
Often 12 39
Very Much 6 19
Total 31 100
Missing 7

Table 4-17. Financial Constraints
Mean 3.6
Mode 4

Of the respondents in table 4-18, 52% indicated that transportation was very much

a constraint to clients' community recreation participation. To a lesser degree, 26%

indicated that transportation was often a barrier to participating in community recreation.

In contrast, only 3% indicated that transportation constrained the Arc's clients from

community recreation participation.

Table 4-18. Transportation Constraints
n %
Not at All 1 3
Neutral 6 19
Often 8 26
Very Much 16 52
Total 31 100.0
Missing 7

Table 4-19. Transportation Constraints
Mean 4.2
Mode 5

Of the respondents in table 4-20, 50% indicated that community attitudes rarely

acted as a barrier to clients of the Arc from participating in community recreation.










Whereas, only 3% of the respondents indicated that community attitudes prevented

clients from participating in recreation within the community.

Table 4-20. Community Attitude Constraints

Not at All 3 10
Rarely 15 50
Neutral 9 30
Often 2 7
Very Much 1 3
Total 30 100
Missing 8


Table 4-21. Community Attitude Constraints
Mean 2.4
Mode 2

Of the respondents in table 4-22, 23% indicated that staff supervision rarely played

a role in preventing clients from participating in recreation within the community. In

contrast, 20% indicated that lack of staffing was a barrier to clients' participation in

community recreation.

Table 4-22. Staff Supervision Constraints
n %
Not at All 7 23
Rarely 7 23
Neutral 5 17
Often 5 17
Very Much 6 20
Total 30 100
Missing 8

Table 4-23. Staff Supervision Constraints
Mean 2.9
Mode 1











Of the respondents in tables 4.24, 29% indicated that lack of recreation

knowledge often inhibited the Arc's clients from participating in community recreation.

Only 16% indicated that recreation knowledge did not prevent clients from participating

in recreation within the community.

Table 4-24. Recreation Knowledge Constraints
n %
Not at All 5 16
Rarely 6 19
Neutral 9 29
Often 9 29
Very Much 2 6
Total 31 100
Missing 7

Table 4-25. Recreation Knowledge Constraints
Mean 2.9
Mode 3

Of the respondents in table 4-26, 26% indicated that skills were a neutral

contributor to client' s participation in community recreation. 23% indicated that skills

did not inhibit community recreation participation. However, 19% responded that lack of

skills often prevented clients of the Arc from participating in community recreation.

Table 4-26. Skills Constraints
n %
Not at All 7 23
Rarely 7 23
Neutral 8 26
Often 6 19
Very Much 3 10
Total 31 100
Missing 7

Table 4-27. Skills Constraints
Mean 2.9
Mode 3









Data Analysis-Crosstabulations

The second part of the data analysis looked at the effect of specific dependent

variables on specific independent variables. The independent variables were employed

activity director, leisure education, and level of independent decision-making and

integrated recreation. The dependent variables were potential constraints to recreation,

leisure education, agency assessment methods, integrated recreation, and level of

deci sion-making.

Employed Activity Director

Of the respondents that did not employ an activity director in table 4-28, 56% did

not offer leisure education programs for the clients. Whereas, of the respondents that

employed an activity director, 80% offered leisure education programs.

Table 4-28. Lei Education by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation
Activity Director
Lei Education No Yes
No 56 20
Yes 44 80
Total 100% 100%

In table 4-29, of the respondents that did not employ an activity director, 33% did

not assess the recreation interest of their clients. Whereas, 42% of those that employed

an activity director assessed the recreation interest of their clients annually.





Table 4-29. Freq of Assessed Recreation Interest by Employed Activity Director
Crosstabulation
Activity Director
No Yes
Assessed Recreation Interest
Not at All 33 0
Weekly 11 5
Monthly 11 16
Quarterly 0 16
Annually 39 42
Other/ Combination 6 11
Ongoing/ As needed 0 11
Total 100% 100%

In table 4-30, of the respondents that did not employ an activity director, 44% did

not evaluate their clients after recreation programs. Whereas, 70% of the agencies that

employed an activity director annually evaluated their clients after recreation.

Table 4-30. Freq of Client Evaluation from Rec by Employed Activity Director
Crosstabulation
Activity Director
No Yes
Client Evaluation from Rec
Not at All 44 5
Weekly 0 5
Monthly 6 10
Quarterly 11 5
Annually 22 70
Other 6 0
Ongoing/ As needed 6 5
Semi Annually 6 0
Total 100% 100%

Of the respondents that that did not employ an activity director in table 4-3 1, 29%

indicated that their clients were unlikely to participate in recreation with people with

mental retardation. Whereas, 37% of the agencies that employed an activity director,

indicated that their clients were likely to participate in integrated recreation programs.









Table 4-31. Integrated Recreation by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation
Activity Director
No Yes
Integrated Recreation
Unlikely 29 16
Neither 50 21
Likely 21 37
Very Likely 0 26
Total 100% 100%

In Table 4-32, of the respondents that did not employ an activity director, 29%

indicated that their clients were dependent in their decision-making regarding leisure

choices. Whereas, 33% of the agencies that employed an activity director indicated that

their clients were independent in the leisure preferences.

Table 4-32. Independent Decision-Making by Employed Activity Director
Crosstabulation
Activity Director
No Yes
Independent Decision-Making
Very Dependent 7 0
Dependent 29 11
Neither 43 44
Independent 21 33
Very Independent 0 11
Total 100% 100%

In table 4-33, of the respondents that did employ an activity director, 56% indicated

that the utilized the interview method of assessment when assessing their clients

recreation. Of the agencies that employed an activity director, 47% used a combination

of methods to assess their clients.





Table 4-33. Assessment Method by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation
Activity Director
No Yes
Assessment Method
Interview (formal, informal) 56 21
Activity Checklist 6 26
Other 6 5
NA 33 0
Combination 0 47
Total 100% 100%

In table 4-34, 67% of the agencies that did not employ an activity director did not

offer formal leisure education programs. Whereas, 56% of the agencies that did employ

an activity director did offer formal leisure education programs.

Table 4-34. Formal Lei Ed by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation
Activity Director
No Yes
Formal Lei Education
No 67 44
Yes 33 56
Total 100% 100%

In table 4-3 5, 100% of the agencies that did not employ an activity director did

offer informal leisure education programs. Similarly, 75% of the agencies that did

employ an activity director also offered informal leisure education programs to their

clients .

Table 4-35. Informal Lei Ed by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation
Activity Director
No Yes
Informal Lei Education
No 0 25
Yes 100 75
Total 100% 100%

Of the agencies that did not employ an activity director in table 4-36, 50% of them

did not and 50% of them did include the leisure awareness component in their leisure

education classes. Similarly, of the agencies that did employ an activity director, 50% of










them did not include leisure awareness as apart of their leisure education programming,

whereas, 50% of them did.

Table 4-36. Leisure Awareness by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation
Activity Director
No Yes
Leisure Awareness
No 50 50
Yes 50 50
Total 100% 100%

In table 4-37, of the agencies that did not employ an activity director, 63% did

include leisure resources as apart of their leisure education classes. However, of the

agencies that did employ an activity director, 50% of them did not include leisure

resources as apart of their leisure education programming, whereas, 50% of them did.

Table 4-37. Leisure Resources by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation.
Activity Director
No Yes
Leisure Resources
No 38 50
Yes 63 50
Total 100% 100%

Of the agencies that did not employ an activity director in table 4-3 8, 63% did

include leisure skills training as apart of their leisure education classes. Also, 56% of the

agencies that did employ an activity director included leisure skills training in their

leisure education classes.

Table 4-38. Leisure Skills by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation
Activity Director
No Yes
Leisure Skills
No 38 44
Yes 63 56
Total 100% 100%










In table 4-39, of the agencies that did not employ an activity director, 63% did not

include leisure decision-making training as apart of their leisure education classes.

However, of the agencies that did employ an activity director, 50% of them did include

leisure decision-making as apart of their leisure education programming, whereas, 50%

of them did not.

Table 4-39. Leisure Decision-Making by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation
Activity Director
No Yes
Leisure Decision-Making
No 63 50
Yes 38 50
Total 100% 100%

In table 4-40, 43% of the agencies that did not employ an activity director indicated

that their client often had financial constraints to t heir leisure. Whereas, only 3 5% of the

agencies that did employ activity directors often experienced financial constraints.

Table 4-40. Financial Constraints by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation
Activity Director
No Yes
Financial Constraints
Not at All 7 0
Rarely 14 6
Neutral 29 29
Often 43 35
Very Much 7 29
Total 100% 100%

In table 4-41, 57% of the agencies that did not employ an activity director

experienced transportation constraints very much to their leisure. Whereas, only 47% of

the agencies that did employ an activity director experienced transportation barriers very

much.










Table 4-41. Transportation Constraints by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation
Activity Director
No Yes
Transportation Constraints
Not at All 7 0
Neutral 21 18
Often 14 35
Very Much 57 47
Total 100% 100%

In table 4-42, 43% of the agencies that did not employ an activity director rarely

experienced community attitudes as a constraints to their client's leisure. However, 56%

of the agencies that employed activity directors rarely experienced community attitude as

leisure constraints.

Table 4-42. Community Attitude Constraints by Employed Activity Director
Crosstabulation
Activity Director
No Yes
Community Attitude Constraints
Not at All 7 13
Rarely 43 56
Neutral 36 25
Often 7 6
Very Much 7 0
Total 100% 100%

Of the agencies that did not employ an activity director in table 4-43, 3 1%

indicated that lack staff supervision was a barrier to their client' s leisure. In contrast,

3 5% of the agencies that did employ an activity director rarely experienced staff

supervision as a constraint.









Table 4-43. Staff Supervision Constraints by Employed Activity Director
Crosstabulation
Activity Director
No Yes
Staff Supervision Constraints
Not at All 15 29
Rarely 8 35
Neutral 23 12
Often 23 12
Very Much 31 12
Total 100% 100%

Of the agencies that did not employ an activity director in table 4-44, 21% rarely

experienced recreation knowledge as constraint to their client's leisure. In contrast, 41%

of the agencies that employ an activity director indicated that recreation knowledge was a

constraint to their client's leisure.

Table 4-44. Recreation Knowledge Constraints by Employed Activity Director
Crosstabulation
Activity Director
No Yes
Recreation Knowledge Constraints
Not at All 14 18
Rarely 21 18
Neutral 43 18
Often 14 41
Very Much 7 6
Total 100% 100%

Of the agencies that did not employ an activity director in table 4-45, 21%

indicated that skills were not a constraint to their client' s leisure. Similarly, agencies that

did employ an activity director also did not experience skills as a leisure constraint.










Table 4-45. Skills Constraints by Employed Activity Director Crosstabulation
Activity Director
No Yes
Skills Constraints
Not at All 21 24
Rarely 21 24
Neutral 29 24
Often 14 24
Very Much 14 6
Total 100% 100%

Leisure Education

Of the agencies that did not offer leisure education programs in table 4-46, 18%

indicated that their clients were unlikely to participate in recreation with individuals

without mental retardation. Whereas, 36% those agencies that offered leisure education

programming, indicated that their clients were likely to participate in integrated

recreation.

Table 4-46. Integrated Recreation by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation
Lei Education
No Yes
Integrated Recreation
Unlikely 18 23
Neither 45 27
Likely 18 36
Very Likely 18 14
Total 100% 100%

In table 4-47, 27% of the agencies that did not provide leisure education programs

indicated that their clients were dependent in regarding their decisions. In contrast, 33%

of the agencies that provided leisure education programs indicated that their clients were

independent decision-makers.





Table 4-47. Independent Decision-Making by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation
Lei Education
No Yes
Independent Decision-Making
Very Dependent 0 5
Dependent 27 14
Neither 55 38
Independent 18 33
Very Independent 0 10
Total 100% 100%

In table 4-48, of the agencies that did not offer leisure education programs, 45%

indicated that their clients experienced neutral effects of financial constraints on their

l ei sure. Of the agencies that did offer leisure education programs, 50% indicated that

their client's recreation participation was often effected by financial constraints.

Table 4-48. Financial Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation
Lei Education
No Yes
Financial Constraints
Not at All 9 0
Rarely 18 5
Neutral 45 20
Often 18 50
Very Much 9 25
Total 100% 100%

In table 4-49, of the agencies that did not offer leisure education programs, 36%

indicated that transportation constraints very much effected their clients' leisure

participation. Similarly, 60% of the agencies that offered leisure education programs

indicated that their clients experienced transportation constraints as well.










Table 4-49. Transportation Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation
Lei Education
No Yes
Transportation Constraints
Not at All 9 0
Neutral 18 20
Often 36 20
Very Much 36 60
Total 100% 100%

In table 4-50, of the agencies that did not offer leisure education programs, 55%

indicated that their clients rarely experienced community attitudinal constraints.

Similarly, 47% of the agencies that did offer leisure education programs also indicated

that their clients rarely experienced community attitude constraints to their leisure.

Table 4-50. Community Attitude Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation
Lei Education
No Yes
Community Attitude Constraints
Not at All 9 11
Rarely 55 47
Neutral 18 37
Often 9 5
Very Much 9 0
Total 100% 100%

In table 4-5 1, 40% of the agencies that did not offer leisure education programs

indicated that their clients did not experience staff supervision constraints to their leisure.

Whereas, 25% of the agencies that did offer leisure education programs indicated that

their clients experienced staff supervision constraints very much.





Table 4-51. Staff Supervision Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation
Lei Education
No Yes
Staff Supervision Constraints
Not at All 40 15
Rarely 30 20
Neutral 10 20
Often 10 20
Very Much 10 25
Total 100% 100%

In table 4-52, 27% of the agencies that did not offer leisure education programs

indicated that their clients did not experience recreation knowledge constraints. Whereas,

3 5% of the agencies that did offer leisure education programs indicated that their clients

often experienced recreation knowledge constraints to their leisure.

Table 4-52. Recreation Knowledge Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation
Lei Education
No Yes
Recreation Knowledge Constraints
Not at All 27 10
Rarely 27 15
Neutral 27 30
Often 18 35
Very Much 0 10
Total 100% 100%

Of the agencies that did not offer leisure education programs in table 4-53, 36%

indicated that their clients did not experience skills constraints to their leisure. In

contrast, 30% of the agencies that did offer leisure education programming indicated that

their clients often experienced skills constraints.










Table 4-53. Skills Constraints by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation
Lei Education
No Yes
Skills Constraints
Not at All 36 15
Rarely 27 20
Neutral 18 30
Often 0 30
Very Much 18 5
Total 100% 100%

In table 4-54, of the agencies that did offer leisure education, 50% indicated that

they included the leisure awareness component to their leisure education programs. In

contrast, 50% of the agencies indicated that they did not include leisure awareness

programs.

Table 4-54. Leisure Awareness by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation
Lei Education
Yes
Leisure Awareness
No 50
Yes 50
Total 100%

Of the agencies that offered leisure education programs in table 4-55, over half

(54%) indicated that they included leisure resources education when educating their

clients on leisure. Whereas, 46% indicting that they did not.

Table 4-55. Leisure Resources by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation
Lei Education
Yes
Leisure Resources
No 46
Yes 54
Total 100%

Of the agencies that offered leisure education programs in table 4-56, 58%

indicated that they leisure skills education in their leisure training. Whereas, 42% did not

include this component in their leisure education programming.










Table 4-56. Leisure Skills by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation
Lei Education
Yes
Leisure Skills
No 42
Yes 58
Total 100%


In table 4-57, 54% of the agencies that offered leisure education programs did not

offer training on leisure decision-making. Whereas, 46% of the agencies did include this

component into their leisure education programs.

Table 4-57. Leisure Decision-Making by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation
Lei Education
Yes
Leisure Decision-Making
No 54
Yes 46
Total 100%

In table 4-58, 43% of the agencies that did not offer leisure education programs did

not assess the recreation interests of their clients at all. Whereas, 43% of the agencies

that did offer leisure education programs assessed their client' s recreation interests

annually .

Table 4-58. Freq of Assessed Rec Interest by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation.
Lei Education
No Yes
Assessed Rec Interest
Not at All 43 0
Weekly 7 9
Monthly 0 22
Quarterly 7 9
Annually 36 43
Other/ Combination 0 13
Ongoing/ As needed 7 4
Total 100% 100%









Of the agencies that did not offer leisure education programs in table 4-59, 43% did

not evaluate their client after participation in recreation programs. Whereas, those

agencies that did offer a leisure education program, 54% evaluated their clients after

participating recreation programming on an annual basis.

Table 4-59. Freq of Client Evaluation from Rec by Lei Education Offered Crosstabulation
Lei Education
No Yes
Client Evaluation from Rec
Not at All 43 13
Weekly 0 4
Monthly 7 8
Quarterly 7 8
Annually 36 54
Other 0 4
Ongoing/ As needed 7 4
Semi Annually 0 4
Total 100% 100%

Level of Integrated Recreation and Independent Decision-Making

Of the agencies that indicated that their clients were unlikely to participate in

integrated recreation in table 4-60, 50% responded that their clients often encountered

financial constraints to their recreation. Similarly, 40% of the agencies that indicated that

their clients were likely to participate in integrated recreation, responded that their clients

often experienced financial constraints.

Table 4-60. Financial Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation
Integrated Recreation
Unlikely Neither Likely Very Likely
Financial Constraints
Not at All 0 11 0 0
Rarely 0 22 10 0
Neutral 33 22 20 60
Often 50 44 40 20
Very Much 17 0 30 20
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%









In table 4-61, 100% of the agencies that indicated that their clients were unlikely to

participate in integrated recreation, responded that transportation was very much a

constraint to their clients leisure participation. Also, 50% of the agencies that indicated

that their clients were likely to participate in integrated leisure responded that their

clients' leisure was very much constrained by transportation.

Table 4-61. Transportation Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation
Integrated Recreation
Unlikely Neither Likely Very Likely
Transportation
Constraints
Not at All 0 0 10 0
Neutral 0 22 30 20
Often 0 44 10 60
Very Much 100 33 50 20
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Of the agencies that indicated that their clients were unlikely to participate in

integrated recreation in table 4-62, 67% responded that community attitudes rarely

constrained their clients. Similarly, 40% of the agencies that indicated that their clients

were very likely to participate in integrated recreation, responded that community attitude

was rarely a constraint to their clients' leisure.

Table 4-62. Community Attitude Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation.
Integrated Recreation
Unlikely Neither Likely Very Likely
Community Attitude
Constraints
Not at All 0 11 11 20
Rarely 67 44 44 40
Neutral 33 33 22 40
Often 0 11 11 0
Very Much 0 0 11 0
100% 100% 100% 100%

In table 4-63, 67% of the agencies that responded that their clients were unlikely to

participate in integrated recreation, indicated that staff supervision was very much so a









constraint to their clients' leisure. In contrast, 30% of the agencies that responded that

their clients were likely to participate in integrated recreation, indicated that staff

supervision was rarely a barrier to their clients participation.

Table 4-63. Staff Supervision Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation.
Integrated Recreation
Unlikely Neither Likely Very Likely
Staff Supervision
Constraints
Not at All 0 25 20 40
Rarely 17 25 30 20
Neutral 0 25 10 40
Often 17 25 20 0
Very Much 67 0 20 0
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

In table 4-64, 50% of the agencies that indicated that their clients were unlikely to

participate in integrated recreation, responded that recreation knowledge was often a

constraint to their clients' leisure participation. In contrast, 40% of the agencies that

indicated that their clients were very likely to participate in integrated recreation,

responded that recreation knowledge was not a constraint at all to their clients' recreation

participation.

Table 4-64. Recreation Knowledge Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation
Integrated Recreation
Unlikely Neither Likely Very Likely
Recreation Knowledge
Constraints
Not at All 0 11 20 40
Rarely 17 22 30 0
Neutral 33 33 20 40
Often 50 22 20 20
Very Much 0 11 10 0
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

In table 4-65, 33% of the agencies that indicated that their clients were unlikely to

participate in integrated recreation responded that their clients' leisure was often effected









by skills constraints. Whereas, 60% of those agencies that indicated that integrated

recreation was very likely for their clients, did not experience skills as a constraint.

Table 4-65. Skills Constraints by Integrated Recreation Crosstabulation
Integrated Recreation
Unlikely Neither Likely Very Likely
Skills Constraints
Not at All 17 22 0 60
Rarely 17 33 30 0
Neutral 17 33 30 20
Often 33 11 20 20
Very Much 17 0 20 0
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

In table 4-66, 33% of the agencies that indicate that their clients were dependent

decision-makers, indicated that their clients often encountered financial constraints to

leisure. In addition, 75% of the agencies that responded that their clients were

independent decision-makers, indicated that their clients also often experienced financial

constraints to leisure.

Table 4-66. Financial Constraints by Independent Decision-Making Crosstabulation.
Independent Decision-Making
Very Dep Dep Neither Indep Very Indep
Financial Constraints
Not at All 0 17 0 0 0
Rarely 0 33 8 0 0
Neutral 100 17 31 25 50
Often 0 33 31 75 0
Very Much 0 0 31 0 50
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Of the agencies that indicated that their clients were very dependent decision-

makers in table 4-67, 100% of the respondents indicated that their clients experienced

transportation constraints very much. Of the respondents that indicated that their clients

were independent decision-makers, 75% indicated that their clients were very much

constrained by transportation.









Table 4-67. Transportation Constraints by Independent Decision-Making
Crosstabulation
Independent Decision-Making
Very Very
Dep Dep Neither Indep Indep
Transportation
Constraints
Not at All 0 0 8 0 0
Neutral 0 50 15 0 50
Often 0 33 31 25 0
Very Much 100 17 46 75 50
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Of the agencies that indicated that their clients were dependent decision-makers in

table 4-68, 67% indicated that their clients rarely experienced community attitudes as a

constraint. Similarly, of the agencies that indicated that their clients were very

independent decision-makers, 50% indicated that their clients rarely experienced

community attitudes as a barrier to leisure.

Table 4-68. Community Attitude Constraints by Independent Decision-Making
Crosstabulation
Independent Decision-Making
Very
Very Dep Dep Neither Indep Indep
Community Attitude
Constraints


Not at All 0 0 8 25 0
Rarely 0 67 50 38 50
Neutral 100 33 33 13 50
Often 0 0 0 25 0
Very
Much 0 0 8 0 0
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Of the agencies that indicated that their clients were dependent decision-makers in

table 4-69, 33% indicated that their clients rarely encountered staff supervision

constraints. Those agencies that indicated that their clients were very independent









decision-makers, responded that 50% of their clients rarely had staff supervision

constraints.

Table 4-69. Staff Supervision Constraints by Independent Decision-Making
Crosstabulation
Independent Decision-Making
Very Very
Dep Dep Neither Indep Indep
Staff Supervision
Constraints
Not at All 0 17 25 25 0
Rarely 0 33 17 25 50
Neutral 0 33 17 0 50
Often 0 17 8 38 0
Very
Much 100 0 33 13 0
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Of the agencies that responded that their clients were dependent decision-makers in

table 4-70, indicated that 33% of their clients often experience recreation knowledge

constraints. Of the agencies that indicated that their clients were independent decision-

makers, 38% indicated that their clients were rarely constrained by recreation knowledge.

Table 4-70. Recreation Knowledge Constraints by Independent Decision-Making
Crosstabulation
Independent Decision-Making
Very Dep Dep Neither Indep Very Indep
Rec Knowledge
Not at All 100 0 23 13 0
Rarely 0 17 15 38 0
Neutral 0 50 15 25 100
Often 0 33 38 13 0
Very Much 0 0 8 13 0
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Of the agencies that indicated that their clients were dependent decision-makers in

table 4-71, 50% responded that their clients often encountered skills constraints to

recreation. Whereas, of the agencies that responded that their clients were independent

decision-makers, 50% indicated that their clients rarely experienced skills constraints.





















Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%


62



Table 4-71. Skills Constraints by Independent Decision-Making Crosstabulation.
Independent Decision-Making
Very Dep Dep Neither Indep Very Indep
Skills Constraints
Not at All 0 17 31 0 50
Rarely 0 17 15 50 0
Neutral 100 17 15 38 50
Often 0 50 15 13 0
Very Much 0 0 23 0 0















CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSIONS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECO1V1VENDATIONS

The purpose of this study was to compile information on the status of recreation

services within the Arc agencies throughout the United States. In addition, this study

aimed at determining the types of constraints that may have an impact on the degree of

self-determination and community integration of individuals with mental retardation that

are members within these agencies. However, little research has been conducted on the

recreation services, if any, that are provided by the Arc. This study examined the

educational and certification background of recreation personnel employed at the Arcs

throughout the nation, the type of programs that the Arc' s recreation personnel were

providing for their clients with mental retardation, and the effects of constraints on

recreation programming and participation. This study received responses from 38 out of

192 Arcs with operating websites throughout the United States. The total number of Arcs

within the United States is 676. Thus, the survey response rate obtained represented 20%

of the Arcs with operating websites, but only 6% of the total population of the Arc

agencies within the United States. The survey was addressed to "Activity Directors" or

the person that best fit that description. Addressed sections of the survey were recreation

personnel background, degree of recreation integration, level of independent decision-

making, leisure education, constraints, and frequency of agency assessments and

evaluations. Therefore, compiling data on the current recreation services provided at the

Arc throughout the United States will aid in efforts to improve the adequacy of recreation

services provided currently.









Recreation Personnel

Respondents indicated that 47% of the sampled agencies employed activity

directors/ coordinators. Of these activity directors, 60% had a Bachelors of Science

degree, 25% had a Masters degree, and 10% only had a high school diploma. Out of the

employed activity directors with college degrees, only 33% maj ored in recreation.

Sociology, psychology, liberal arts, and education were each indicated by 13% of the

employed activity directors sampled. Only 20% of the surveyed sample were Certified

Therapeutic Recreation Specialists, with the remaining maj ority of the sample (40%)

obtaining another unlisted form of certification.

Of those surveyed agencies that employed activity directors/coordinators, the

maj ority of aforementioned activity directors had educational backgrounds in recreation

or another social science. However, although this may seem promising, less than half of

the Arc agencies surveyed employed an activity director/coordinator.

Of the agencies that did not employ an activity director, 56% did not offer leisure

education for their clients. Of those not employing an activity director, only 33% offered

formal leisure education and 100% informal leisure education. Of the agencies that

offered leisure education, 56% offered formal leisure education, 75% offered informal

leisure education, 50% included the leisure awareness component, 50% included the

leisure resources component, 56% included the leisure skills component, and 50%

included the leisure decision-making component. This indicates that those Arc agencies

that employ an activity director are more likely to provide leisure education programming

for their clients. Those agencies that employed an activity director were also more likely

to annually assess the recreation interests (42%) and perform annual client recreation

evaluations (70%), whereas 33% of agencies with no activity director did not assess









recreation interests of their clients at all. In addition, 44% of the agencies with no

activity director, did not evaluate clients after recreation participation.

The Arc agencies that indicated that they employed an activity director also

indicated that their clients were likely (37%) and very likely (26%), to participate in

integrated recreation with people without mental retardation. Whereas, agencies with no

activity director indicated that their clients were "unlikely" (29%) and "neither" (50%) to

have the opportunity to recreate in an integrated environment. Only 1 1% of the agencies

with employed activity directors indicated that their clients were dependent decision-

makers. In contrast, agencies with no activity director, 29% indicated that their clients

were dependent decision-makers. This supports the idea that activity directors provide

better opportunities for individuals with mental retardation to increase self-determination

and opportunities for recreation that is not limited to others with mental retardation.

Agencies that employed an activity director indicated at 29% that their clients

experienced financial constraints very much, 35% indicated that transportation is often a

barrier to leisure, 41% reported that recreation knowledge often effected their clients

leisure, and 24% indicated that skills was often a constraint to their clients full recreation

experience. Conversely, only 7% of the agencies with no activity director reported

financial constraints effecting their clients' recreation very much, 14% indicated that

transportation was often a constraint, 14% reported that recreation knowledge was a

barrier to their client' s leisure, and 14% indicating that skills was often a constraint that

effected their clients leisure. Despite agencies with no activity director reporting overall

lower percentages, this could be due to those agencies failing to provide as wide a variety

of recreation programming for their clients as an agency that employed an activity









director likely would. Thus, activity directors have more experience with recreation

programming and the barriers that can hinder these experiences. Agencies with and

without activity directors, indicated similar percentages reporting that community

attitudes were rarely a barrier to their clients' leisure experiences. This is likely due to

the increases in public awareness about individuals with mental retardation and other

developmental disabilities.

Programming Practices

Of the agencies that reported their client' s level of independent decision-making,

28% indicated an independent level. Similarly, of the agencies reporting on integrated

recreation, 30% indicated that their clients were likely to experience recreation that

included those individuals with and without mental retardation.

Of the agencies that were sampled, 63% indicated that they offered leisure

education programs to their clients, with 48% offering formal leisure education and 82%

offering informal leisure education programs. Of those Arc agencies that included leisure

education in their recreation programming for their clients, 50% included leisure

awareness, 58% included leisure skills, 54% included leisure resources, and 46%

included leisure decision-making. Also, according to agencies that offered leisure

education programs, 43% assessed their clients annually on recreation interest and 54%

annually evaluated their clients after recreation programs. This indicates that leisure

education is occurring within the maj ority of Arc agencies surveyed, however, leisure

decision-making (self-determination), which studies have proven to be an important

component to the quality of life for individuals with mental retardation, received the

lowest response rate. Despite this slightly low result on self-determination training, the

aforementioned results suggest that agencies providing leisure education are assessing










clients to discover recreation preferences and evaluating recreation programs to better

provide services for their clients.

Of the agencies that reported that they offered leisure education programs for their

clients, 36% indicated that their clients were likely to participate in integrated recreation

opportunities. Whereas, of those agencies not offering any leisure education, only 18%

reported that their clients likely had the opportunity for integrated leisure. Of the

agencies not offering leisure education, 27% also reported their clients being dependent

decision-makers, whereas only 15% of the Arc agencies providing leisure education

reported their clients being dependent in their leisure decision-making. This illustrates

the positive effectiveness of leisure education programs on individuals with mental

retardation self-determination and opportunities for recreating with diverse groups.

Constraints to Leisure

Of the constraints that often effected the recreation of individuals with mental

retardation, the Arc agencies sampled indicated that 39% of them experienced financial

constraints often, 52% encountered transportation constraints very often, 29%

experiencing recreation knowledge constraints very often, 50% reported to rarely

experiencing community attitude constraints, 23% indicated that rarely encountering staff

constraints, and lastly, 23% not experiencing skills constraints at all.

Of the agencies that offered leisure education programs, 50% experienced financial

constraints very often, 60% also encountered transportation constraints very often, 35%

reported dealing with recreation knowledge constraints often, and 30% often experienced

skills constraints. Those agencies that did not provide leisure education services did not

experience these constraints to the same degree as those agencies providing leisure

education programming. This could be a result of the agencies with no leisure education










programs, not programming to meet the leisure needs of their clients with mental

retardation. Thus, no recreation programming, would suggest no, or very little,

constraints to recreation. However, those Arc agencies providing, or not, leisure

education indicated similar responses regarding community attitude and staff supervision

constraints.

Those agencies that had clients that were unlikely to participate in integrated

recreation indicated that their clients often experienced financial constraints, very often

had transportation constraints, encountered recreation knowledge constraints often, and

were often constrained by skills. Similarly, those agencies that consisted of clients that

were very likely to participate in integrated recreation, although indicating lower

percentages, still experienced noteworthy constraints in these areas, as well.

Of those agencies that consisted of clients that were very independent decision-

makers, they still experienced financial and transportation constraints to the same degree

as those agencies with clients whom are dependent in their decision-making. However,

those agencies with independent decision-making clients, had noticeably lower rates of

recreation knowledge and skills constraints than those agencies with dependent decision-

making clients.

Conclusion

The findings of this study indicate that Arc agencies throughout the United States

still has some ways to go regarding the provision of certain aspects regarding recreation

for its' clients. As research has proven numerous times, recreation is a key component to

the quality of life for individuals with mental retardation, not just individuals without

mental retardation. Data from this study indicated that less than half of the surveyed Arc

agencies throughout the United States have employed recreation staff. However, those










agencies with activity directors indicated an educational background of Bachelors of

Science degree, with most having maj ored in recreation and some form of certification.

Nevertheless, when compared to those agencies that did not employ recreation personnel,

the agencies lacking designated recreation personnel proved to lacking in all areas

investigated by this study. This implies a greater need for Arc agencies throughout the

United States to actively employ more recreation personnel so that their clients can

receive the full benefits of quality recreation.

This study reflects the idea that by employing an activity director, clients of the Arc

are more likely to participate in recreation that is integrated and make more self-

determined choices regarding leisure participation. This was further evidenced by data

that indicated clients of agencies that did not employ an activity director had fewer

opportunities for integrated recreation and were more dependent regarding decision-

making abilities.

Data from this study confirms that the Arc agencies with activity directors are more

likely to provide leisure education programs than those Arc agencies with no activity

director available. Agencies with leisure education programs also suggested that their

clients had better opportunities for integrated recreation and independent decision-

making skills.

However, despite many of the positive results regarding the benefits of employing

an activity director and providing leisure education programs, all of the agencies sampled

still experienced a significant degree of inhibited recreation programming because of

constraints. The most indicated constraints to client's leisure were Einancial and

transportation. Once again, research has already shown that these two constraints act as










significant barriers to all individuals with disabilities. Recreation knowledge and skills

were indicated as constraints as well, but these are constraints that can possible be

improved with increased leisure education programming. Community attitudes and staff

supervision, were the least indicated constraint by all of the Arc agencies sampled. This

is evidence of the improved legislation, education, and respect for individuals with

developmental disabilities.

Recommendations

The results of this study provide several recommendations that can be made to

assist the Arc agencies and recreation professionals in their service delivery to individuals

with mental retardation.

1. Further research should to be conducted on the recreation that is utilized in the Arc
agencies throughout the United States and should include improved implementation
and survey tools.

2. Further research should be conducted on the efficacy of recreation programs
currently in use within the Arc agencies throughout the United States.

3. Further research should be conducted on the relationship between self-
determination and recreation provision within the Arc agencies throughout the
United States.

4. Further research should be conducted on the constraints that the Arc agencies
throughout the United States encounter regarding the provision recreation services.

5. Further research should be conducted on the use of recreation in non-institutional
settings.















APPENDIX A
SAMPLE OF COVER LETTER

"We would like the recreation director to fill out this survey. If there is no recreation
director, then we would like the Director of the ARC or a suitable representative to
complete the survey."--

I am a graduate student in the Department of Recreation, Parks, and Tourism at the
University of Florida, conducting research on the status of recreation services provided
by ARC throughout the nation, under the supervision of Dr. Robert Beland. The purpose
of this study is to determine the types of recreation that individuals with mental
retardation in non-institutional settings are participating in within the home setting and
within the community. The results of this study may help recreation programmers better
understand how recreation is a key component to healthy quality of life and allow them
to design recreation services accordingly.

I am asking that you participate in this survey because of your extensive knowledge
concerning ARC's recreation services. Since the survey is designed for ease-of-use, it
should take no more than 15-20 minutes to complete. You do not have to answer any
question that you do not wish to answer. There are no anticipated risks, compensation,
or other direct benefits to you as a participant in this interview. You are free to withdraw
your consent to participate and may discontinue your participation in the survey at any
time without consequence.

If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me by email at
pinkjimi@ufl.edu or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Robert Beland, by email at
rbeland@hhp.ufl.edu or by phone at (352) 392- 4042 x 1222. Questions or concerns
about your rights as a research participant rights may be directed to the UFIRB office,
University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611; phone: (352) 392-0433.

By agreeing to participate in this study, you give me permission to report your
responses anonymously in the final manuscript to be submitted to my faculty
supervisor as part of my course work.

If you agree to participate in this study, please complete the survey at
www2.hhp. ufl.edulRPT/belandsurvey. htm by October 15, 2003.

Thank you for your participation.

Dorcas V. Smith














APPENDIX B
COPY OF FOLLOW-UP LETTER

"We would like the recreation director to fill out this survey. If there is no
recreation director, then we would like the Director of the ARC or a suitable
representative to complete the survey."--

This letter is in reference to the current survey we are conducting that examines
the national status of recreation services at ARC's.


This is a reminder letter asking for your cooperation with this survey. ARC's
throughout the nation have received a questionnaire, such as this, in the past few
weeks. If you have already submitted your survey, thank you for your reply. If
not, please do so as soon as possible. It is very important that you submit your
completed questionnaire if the results are to accurately represent the recreation
services provided by ARC. It would be greatly appreciated if you could take a
few minutes to read the initial letter below. Then go to
www2.hhp. ufl. edulRPT/belandsurvey. htm to com plete the survey. Your
cooperation with this project is vitally important.

I am a graduate student in the Department of Recreation, Parks, and Tourism at
the University of Florida, conducting research on the status of recreation services
provided by ARC throughout the nation, under the supervision of Dr. Robert
Beland. The purpose of this study is to determine the types of recreation that
individuals with mental retardation in non-institutional settings are participating in
within the home setting and within the community. The results of this study may
help Recreation Programmers better understand how recreation is a key
component to healthy quality of life and allow them to design recreation services
accordingly.

I am asking that you participate in this survey because of your extensive
knowledge concerning ARC's recreation services. Since the survey is designed
for ease-of-use, it should take no more than 10 -15 minutes to complete. You do
not have to answer any question that you do not wish to answer. There are no
anticipated risks, compensation, or other direct benefits to you as a participant in
this interview. You are free to withdraw your consent to participate and may
discontinue your participation in the survey at any time without consequence.

If you have any questions about this research protocol, please contact me by
email at pinkjimi@ufl. edu or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Robert Beland, by email at
rbeland@hhp. ufl.edu or by phone at (352) 392- 4042 x 1222. Questions or









concerns about your rights as a research participant rights may be directed to the
UFIRB office, University of Florida, Box 1 12250, Gainesville, FL 3261 1; phone:
(352) 392-0433.

By agreeing to participate in this study, you give me permission to report
your responses anonymously in the final manuscript to be submitted to my
faculty supervisor as part of my course work.

If you agree to participate in this study, please complete the survey at
www2.hhp.ufl. edulRPT/belandsurvey. htm by October 15, 2003.

Once again, thank you for your participation.

Dorcas V. Smith





APPENDIX C
COPY OF SURVEY INSTRUMENT

ARC Survey Questions

1. Does your agency employ an Activity Director/ Coordinator or Recreation Therapist
for recreation services?
Y es _No [ If no, please skip to question 4]


2. If "Yes", what is the educational background of the Activity Director/ Coordinator or
Recreation Therapist? [Please indicate highest degree]


SHigh School
Doctorate


_Associate's Degree


Bachelor's Degree


_Master's Degree


Major:


3. If applicable, what is the certification status of the Activity Director/ Coordinator?

_Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialist (CTRS)
_Certified Park and Recreation Professional (CPRP)
_Certified Activity Director
_Other(s) (please specify)

4. To what extent do you think your clients have reasonable opportunities for community
recreation activities with people without mental retardation?


Unlikely to have opportunities


Very likely to have opportunities


5. To what extent do you think your clients are independent in their leisure decision-
making?


Dependent


Independent











6. In box 1, please indicate which of these activities ARC clients participate in. In box
2, please indicate which of the previously selected activities require that clients pay a
fee to participate and in box 3 if there is a fee, what is it?

123
Exercise/ Aerobics/ Health clubs
Movies/ theater

Sport Events- Spectator

Sports Events- Participant
Outdoor recreation (Camping, Picnics, Hiking, etc.)
Bowling
Zoos/ Museums
Dances/ Socials
Water Activities (pos, beaches, etc.)
Parks
Performing Arts
Theme Parks (Disne World, Universal Studios, etc.)
Knitting
Salon/ Sa
Reading
Watching TV/ Videos/ DVDs
Writing Journalin
Cooking
Cards/ Board gmes
Bingo
Video games
Arts/ Craft

Talking with others

Puzzles

Music
Gardening
Photogah
Prayer/ Meditation, etc.
Yard games (Frisbee, basketball, etc.)
Chat/ Surf the net
Community events (festivals, art shows, etc.)
Other

Do you offer any leisure education programs for your clients? Yes No


If yes, please check all that apply:



















9. Rate the following factors, from 1 to 5, with 1 having no effect, as to their effect on
your clients' participation in community recreation activities i.e. To what extent do these
factors create obstacles and barriers for clients from participating in community
recreation activities?


Factors
Financial resources 1 2 3 4 5
Transportation 1 2 3 4 5
Community attitudes 1 2 3 4 5
Staff supervision 1 2 3 4 5
Knowede of recreation resources in the community 1 2 3 4 5
Leisure skills needed to participate in recreation 1 2 3 4 5


10. How often are ARC clients assessed as to their recreation interests? [Please check
one]

Not at all
Weekly
Month ly_
Quarterly_
Annually_
Other

11. If an assessment is conducted, what methods) is used? [Please check all that
aPPVly

Interview (formal, informal)
Activity checklist
Other

12. How often are ARC clients evaluated as to the outcomes of the recreation
programs? [Please check one]

Not at all
Weekly


Formally structured (classes) _


Informal/ unstructured (calendar/ brochures)


8. Which of the following apply to the leisure education classes?


Leisure Skill Development

Leisure Decision-Making


Leisure Awareness


Leisure Resources


Neutral


Very Much


Not at all






77


Month ly~
Quarterly_
Annually~
Other
















LIST OF REFERENCES


American Association on Mental Retardation.(1 992).Mental retardation: Definition,
classification, and systems ofsupport. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Association for Retarded Citizens. (Last accessed April 1, 2004) http://www.thearc. org/

Beart, S., Hawkins, D., Stenfert- Kroese, B., Smithson, P., & Tolosa, I.(2001). Barriers to
accessing leisure opportunities for people with learning disabilities. British Journal
ofLearning Disabilities, 29, 133-13 8.

Bostwick, D., & Foss, G.(1981).Obtaiinig consumer input: Two strategies for
identifying and ranking problems of mentally retarded young adults. Education
and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 16, 207-2 12.

Bullock, C. & Mahon, M.(2000).hItroduction to recreation services for people 11 irlh
disabilities: A person-centered approach (2nd ed.).Champaing, IL: Sagamore
Publishing.

Brasile, F., Skalko, T., & Burlingame, J.(1998).Perspectives in recreational therapy:
Issues of a dynamic profession. Ravendale, WA: Idyll Arbor.

Carter, M., Van Andel, G., & Robb, G.(1995). Therapeutic recreation: A practical
approach.Prospect Heights, 1L: Waveland Press, Inc.

Dattilo, J., & Murphy, W.D.(1991l).Leisure education program planning: A systematic
approach. State College, PA: Venture.

Dattio, J. & Rusch, F.(1985).Effects of choice on leisure participation for persons with
severe handicaps. The Association for Persons 11 ithr Severe Handicaps, 10(4), 194-
199.

Dattilo, J., & Schleien, S.(1994).Understanding leisure services for individuals with
mental retardation. M\~ental Reta~rdation, 32(1), 53-59.

de Zaldo, G.F.(1999).The social integration of individuals with disabilities. Bilingual
Review, 24(1), 3-19.

Flanagan, J.(1982). Measurement of quality of life: Current state of the art. Archives of
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 63, 53-59.










Hawkins, B.A., May, M.E., & Rogers, N.B.(1996). Therapeutic activity intervention 11 ithr
the elderly: Foundations and practices. State College, PA: Venture.

Hawkins, B.A., Peng, J., Hsieh, C., & Eklund, S.J.(1999).Leisure constraints :A
replication and extension of construct development. Leisure Sciences, 21, 179-192.

Hayden, M.F., Lakin, K.C., Hill, B.K., Bruininks, R.H., & Copher, J.I.(1992). Social and
leisure integration of people with mental retardation in foster homes and small
group homes. Education and Training in M~ental Retardation, 2 7(3), 187-199.

Hayden, M.F., Soulen, T., Schleien, S.J., Tabourne, C.E.S.(1996). A matched,
comparative study of the recreation integration of adults with mental retardation
who moved into the community and those who remained at the institution.
Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 30(1), p 41-63.

Hockey, J. & James A.(1993).Growing up and growing old: Aging and dependency in the
life course. Sage Publications, Inc., Newbury Park, CA.

Hoge, G., Dattilo, J.(1995).Recreation participation patterns of adults with and without
mental retardation. Education and Training in M~ental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities, Vol 30(4), p 283-298.

Hoge, G., Dattilo, J., Williams, R.(1999).Effects of leisure education on perceived
freedom in leisure of adolescents with mental retardation. Therapeutic Recreation
Journal, 33(4), p 320-332.

Howe-Murphy, R., & Charboneau, B. G. (1987). Therapeutic recreations intervention:
An ecological perspective. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Hutchison, P., & Lord, J.(1979).Recreation integration: Issues and alternatives in leisure
services and community involvement.Ottawa, Ontario: Leisurability.

Kaye, S.(1997). Disability watch: The status of people 11 ithr disabilities in the United
States.Volcano, CA: Volcano Press, Inc.

Luckey, R.E., & Shapiro, I.G.(1 974).Recreation: An essential aspect of habilitative
programming. M\~entalRetardation, 12(5), p 33-35.

Mahon, M.J., Mactavish, J., Bockstael, E., O'Dell, I., & Siegenthaler, K.L. (2000). Social
integration, leisure and individuals with intellectual disability. Parks & Recreation,
35(4), 25-34.

Messent, P.R., Cookes, C.B., & Long, J. (1999). Primary and secondary barriers to
physically active healthy lifestyles for adults with learning disabilities. Disability
and Rehabilitation, 21(9), 409-419.

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










Mundy, J., & Odum, L.(1979).Leisure education: Theory and practice. New York:
Wiley.

Neumayer, R. & Bleasdale, M.(1996).Personal lifestyle preferences of people with an
handicap. Journal oflntellectual & Developmental Disability, 21(2), 91-115.

Newton, S., Ard, W., & Horner, R.(1993).Validating predicted activity preferences of
individuals with severe disabilities. Journal ofAppliedBehavior Analysis, 26(2),
239-245.

Newton, S., & Horner, R.(1993). Using a social guide to improve social relationships of
people with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons nI ithr Severe
Handicaps, 18(1), 36-45.

Orlin, Malinda. (1995).The american with disabilities act: Implications for social
services. Social Work, 40(2), 233-240.

Rider, R., lannella, M., Duncan, C.(1 993).Extracurricular fitness and leisure
programming for individuals with disabilities. Palaestra, 9(3), 48-53.

Romaniuk, C. & Miltenberger, R.(2001).The influence of preference and choice of
activity on problem behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 3(3),
152-160.

Rogers, N., Hawkins, B., & Eklund, S.(1998).The nature of leisure in the lives of older
adults with intellectual disability. Journal oflntellectual Disability Research,
42(2), 122-13 0.

Salzberg, C.L. & Langford, C.A.(198 1).Community integration of mentally retarded
adults through leisure activity. American Association on M~ental Dejiciency, 19(3),
127-131.

Schleien, S.(1993).Access and inclusion in community leisure services. Parks and
Recreation, 28(4), 66-72.

Schloss, P., Smith, M., & Kiehl, W.(1986).Rec club: A community centered approach to
recreational development for adults with mild to moderate retardation. Education
and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 21(4)282-288.

Sparrow, W.A. & Mayne, S.C.(1 990).Recreation patterns of adults with intellectual
disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal (3), 45-49.

Storey, K.(1993). A proposal for assessing integration. Education and Training in M~ental
Retardation, 28(4), 279-287.

Taylor, A.R., Asher, S.R., & Williams, G.A. (1987). The social adaptation of main-
streamed mildly retarded children. ChildDevelopment, 58, 1321-1334.










Williams, R. & Dattilo, J. (1997).Effects of leisure education on self-determination,
social interaction, and positive affect of young adults with mental retardation.
Therapeutic Recreation Journal 31(4), 244-258.

Wolfensberger, W., & Thomas, S. (1983). P.A.S.S.I.N.G. (Program analysis of service
systems' implementation of normalization goals):Normalization criteria and'
ratings manual (2ND Ed).Toronto, Ontario: National Institute on Mental
Retardation.

Zigler, W.G., & Hodapp, R.(1986). Und'erstand'ing mental retardation. Cambridge, Eng.:
Cambridge University Press.
















BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Dorcas Vickie Smith is a native of Ft. Lauderdale, FL, and a proud alumnus of the

Nova Center for Applied Research and Professional Development in Davie, FL. Ms.

Smith received her Bachelor of Science in recreation, parks and tourism degree, with an

emphasis in therapeutic recreation, and a minor in gerontology from the prestigious

University of Florida in 2002. From there, she entered the Master of Science therapeutic

recreation program at the University of Florida. She plans to graduate from this program

in 2004. While completing her graduate course work, Ms. Smith works full-time at an

assisted living facility for the memory impaired as a Life Enrichment Coordinator and

she is also a Certified Therapeutic Recreation Specialist (CTRS).

At this time, Ms. Smith has no children. However, she does have a wonderful cat

named Bailey, who has been a never ending source of support, alongside family, friends,

and sorors of Sigma Gamma Rho Sorority, Inc. Ms. Smith's ultimate goal is to open an

adult day care center that caters to older adults with mental retardation or memory

impairment. With her drive to succeed and giving back to the community, she will go

well beyond obtaining her goals. "If He gives you the vision, He has the provision! "