A Delphi Study of Trends in Special and Inclusive Recreation

A Delphi Study of Trends in Specialand Inclusive Recreation

David R.AustinIndiana University

Youngkhill LeeIndiana University

Deborah A. GetzIndiana University

Abstract. The purpose of this study was to ascertain special and inclusive recreationtrends as identified by practitioners and educators in this type of recreation. The studyemployed a modified Delphi technique that utilized a list of trends and asked experts toevaluate and rate each based upon their individual experiences. A total of 25 jurors(median age = 45.9; 15 female and 10 male; 19 practitioners and 6 educators) participatedin the study. Jurors rated 46 trends identified by the researchers and identified an addi-tional 20 trends to be evaluated. The numbers of jurors for rounds one through four were25,24,25, and 24, respectively. The results of this study pointed toward a promising fu-ture for special and inclusive recreation. Particularly noteworthy is that inclusive recre-ation appears to be becoming more widely embraced than in previous years. Refiectiveof a growing inclusive recreation movement are trends related to inclusion as an approachto programs and services and increased continuing education efforts in the area of in-clusive recreation.

Keywords: inclusive recreation, special recreation, trends, Delphi study

Résumé. Le but de cette étude était de s'assurer des tendances spéciales et incluses duloisir comme identifié par des gestionnaires et des éducateurs de loisir. L'étude a utiliséune technique d'enquêtes Delphi qui présente une liste de nouvelle tendances de loisira des experts afin d'évaluer chacun des ces tendances basé sur leurs différentes expé-riences. Un total de 25 jurés (âge médian = 45.9 ; 15 femelles et 10 mâle; 19 gestion-naires et 6 éducateurs) on participés à l'étude. Les jurés ont évalué 46 tendances iden-

Address ail correspondence to: David R. Austin, Professor Emeritus, Department ofRecreation, Park, and Tourism Studies, HPER Building 133, Indiana University, Bloom-ington, IN 47401. Email: [email protected].

Leisure/Loisir. 32(\): 163-182© 2008 Ontario Research Council on Leisure

163

164 Leisure/Loisir, Vol. 32 (2008)

tifiées par les chercheurs et ont identifié 20 tendances additionnelles. Les nombres dejurés pour les quatre premières rondes étaient 25, 24,25 et 24, respectivement. Les ré-sultats de cette étude démontrent un futur prometteur pour les loisirs spéciaux et inclusifs.Ce qui est particulièrement remarquable est que l'approche aux programmes et lesservices accrus de formation permanente dans le domaine de la récréation inclusifpourrait indiquez un mouvement beaucoup plus inclusive qu'on le croyait. Cependant,il y avait un manque de consensus sur une tendance proposée sur l'acceptation de larécréation inclusif par des fournisseurs de service de loisirs.

Mots-clefs, loisir inclusif, loisir spéciale, tendances, Étude De Delphi

Today there are more than 53 million individuals with disabilities livingin the United States and Canada. These persons with disabilities consti-tute the largest minority group in North America (Smith, Austin, Kennedy,Lee, & Hutchison, 2005). While society has historically isolated and seg-regated people with disabilities (Dattilo, 2002; Schleien, Ray, & Green,1997), times are changing.

In the United States, laws passed in the last quarter of the twentiethcentury (e.g., PL 93-112, The Rehabilitation Act, and PL 101-336, Amer-icans with Disabilities Act) have provided legislative mandates to createrecreational opportunities for individuals with disabilities (Schleien etal,1997; Smith et al., 2005). Canadians have embraced the notion of the in-clusion of others who happen to be "differently-abled" (Inclusion [dis-ability rights], n.d.). This inclusive approach was reflected in a 1998Canadian vision paper titled In Unison: A Canadian Approach to Disabil-ity Issues and the more recent In Unison 2000: Persons with Disabilitiesin Canada. In these papers various levels of government stated a com-mitment for the nation to work toward full participation and inclusion ofpersons with disabilities within society.

Throughout North America, a rapidly growing body of literaturehas also provided impetus for a movement toward the provision of recre-ation services for persons with disabilities. Contributing to the litera-ture has been a number of books on the subject of the provision of recre-ation for individuals with disabilities. For example, Anderson and Kress(2003), Bullock and Mahon (1997), Dattilo (2002), Hutchison and McGill(1998), and Schleien et al. (1997) have outlined the need for community-based recreation services for persons with disabilities and have offeredstrategies to bring about such services. Additionally, the Journal ofLeisureability and Therapeutic Recreation Journal have been strongsources of articles addressing the provision of recreation services forpersons with disabilities for the past 30 years.

Austin, Lee, & Getz / A Delphi Study 165

This movement toward the provision of recreation services for per-sons with disabilities is reflected in the use of the terms "special recre-ation" and "inclusive recreation." The term "special recreation" cameinto common usage within the park and recreation profession in theUnited States during the 1980s. The first book to employ the term wasKennedy, Austin, and Smith's (1987) Special Recreation: Opportunitiesfor Persons with Disabilities. Special recreation services have come torepresent services that are speciikally for individuals with disabilities andwhich may involve accommodations for these persons. Examples areSpecial Olympics and wheelchair sports, as well as programs designedto assist persons with disabilities to develop skills that prepare them tomove into mainstream recreation environments (Austin, 2001; Austin &Crawford, 2001; Smith et al., 2005).

The use of the expression "inclusive recreation" is more recent. Thethird edition of Smith, Austin, and Kennedy's (1996) book reflected theterm in the new title oí Inclusive and Special Recreation: Opportunitiesfor Persons with Disabilities. Since that time the concept of inclusiverecreation has been well represented in the literature. Bullock and Mahon(1997) stated: "Inclusion provides opportunities for a participant tochoose to be with her peers in the regular (recreation) setting and also pro-vides supports and accommodations needed to ensure personally satis-fying and valued participation" (p. 54). They further stated: "Inclusionhas been defined as a process that enables an individual to be a part ofhis environment by making choices, being supported in what he does ona daily basis, having friends, and being valued" (p. 62). Dattilo (2002)stated: "Inclusion implies that everyone deserves to be given a chance tobe a part of a community from the beginning of their life" (p. 29). An-derson and Kress (2003) succinctly stated that inclusion is: "Having thesame choices and opportunities in recreation activities that other peoplehave" (p. 7).

Special recreation then represents the provision of separate programsfor persons with disabilities. Inclusive recreation, on the other hand, in-volves persons with and without disabilities joining together in recreationexperiences. Before the term "inclusion" became widely adopted, theword "integration" was employed to convey persons with and without dis-abilities participating together. The term inclusive recreation howeverhas come to represent much more than the mere physical integration ofpersons with and without disabilities joining together in recreation (cf..Smith et al., 1996).


Instead, inclusive recreation has come to convey persons with disabil-ities being full participants in recreation opportunities afforded anyonein the community. Inclusive recreation represents having füll standingwithin recreation environments. Thus, the phrase "inclusive recreation"means fully including persons with disabilities in regular recreation op-portunities and facilities (Smith et al., 2005). The inclusive recreationmovement has been a meaningful one that has greatly enhanced the livesof persons with disabilities. Studies of inclusive recreation programshave documented outcomes including increased social interaction, en-hanced community adjustment, improved decision making, and buildingconfidence and self-esteem for people with disabilities (Anderson,Schleien, McAvoy, Lais, & Seligmann, 1997; McAvoy & Lais, 1999;McAvoy, Schatz, Schatz, Schleien, & Lais, 1989; McGill, 1996; Sable,1995; Schleien, Heyne, Rynders, & McAvoy, 1990; Schleien et al., 1997).

In tracing the use of the terms special recreation and inclusive recre-ation, it may be seen that, over time, there has been a growing interest inthe provision of recreation services for persons with disabilities. Butwhat about the future? What trends appear on the horizon that may por-tend the future of special and inclusive recreation? These are the ques-tions that prompted the research on which this article rests.

There has been a lack of attention to the identification of trends in spe-cial and inclusive recreation. The only published examination of trendsin special and inclusive recreation appeared in the first five editions of thebook by Smith and his colleagues (1987,1991,1996,2001,2005) on spe-cial and inclusive recreation. The authors of the book relied primarily oninformal assessments from selected educators and professionals associ-ated with special and inclusive recreation to form the basis of chaptersdevoted to trends in special and inclusive recreation. While these chap-ters offered speculation about the future of special and inclusive recre-ation, they were not based on a proven research approach. The purposeof this study was to ascertain special and inclusive recreation trends rec-ognized by practitioners and educators in special and inclusive recre-ation by employing an accepted research method.

MethodThis study employed a modified Delphi technique that utilized a list oftrends and asked participants, known as jurors, to evaluate and rate eachbased upon their individual experiences. Linestone and Turoff (1975)defined the Delphi technique as a method of "structuring group com-munication process so that the process is effective in allowing a group ofindividuals, as a whole, to deal with a complex problem" (p. 3). The

Austin, Lee. & Getz / A Delphi Study 167

Delphi is traditioiially used in research where no one known single an-swer exists (Reeves, 1995). The Delphi technique has been used as atool to build consensus and as a forecasting tool for futures research. Itoriginated from the Oracle at Delphi where the ancient Greeks reportedthey were able to forecast future events (Hawkins & Austin, 1990). As aresult, the term Delphi has become associated with predicting the future.

In recreation and leisure studies, the Delphi technique has been usedfor gathering information related to a wide variety of topics includingidentifying: (a) competencies needed for park board members (Hurd,2004); (b) an agenda for developing a family recreation research (Free-man, Hill, & Huff, 2002); (c) key competencies in multicultural educa-tion for entry level therapeutic recreation professionals (Getz, 2000);(d) indicators for sustainable tourism ( Miller, 2001); (e) key liabilityand risk management trends impacting the delivery of recreational sportsprograms into the twenty-first century (Young, 1998); and (f ) gerontolog-ical recreation courses (Hawkins & Austin, 1990).

In leisure, as in many other professions, there are times when it is im-portant to be able to bring individuals together to identify key factorswithin a specific topic. With current technology, the Delphi method al-lows for an opportunity to bring experts fi-om a wide area together via aninternet survey while maintaining anonymity. The Delphi is also identi-fied by Veal (2006) as a powerful tool in leisure and tourism research.

The two commonly used variations ofthe Delphi technique are theclassic and the modified. In the classic Delphi, a panel of jurors is askedin the initial round to identify items that they then rate in succeedingrounds. In the modified Delphi technique used in this study, the jurorswere provided with a list of items identified through a literature review.In the first round the jurors were asked to rate each of the individualtrends and to provide additional trends they believe should be included.These ratings were then compiled and provided back to the jurors sothey could review other jurors' comments. During the second, and suc-ceeding rounds, the jurors were asked to evaluate the measures of cen-tral tendency for each trend and agree or disagree (see Table 1). If the juroragreed, then he or she indicated agreement. If they disagreed, then he orshe was asked to provide a rating and then justify that rating with writ-ten feedback. This written feedback was meant to assist other jurors tounderstand the rating. In the third round, the jurors were asked to re-view the measures of central tendency and the written feedback compiledfrom the previous round. At the end of each round, measures of centraltendency are compiled. For those trends where consensus was notreached, they were sent out again for review.

168 Leisure/Loisir. Vol. 32 (2008)

Table 1The Scale Used in Delphi Survey

1No Importance

2Slight Importance

3Moderate Importance

4Significant Importance

5Extreme Importance

The trend has no importance for professional practice.Should NOT be considered in professional practice.

The trend has slight importance for professional practice.Should be considered in professional practice.

The trend has moderate importance for professional practice.Suggested in professional practice.

The trend has significant importance for professional practice.Recommended in professional practice.

The trend has extreme importance for professional practice.Highly recommended in professional practice.

The entire study was conducted via the internet. Respondents wereasked to go to a web page and respond via that site. The first round of thestudy included two sections. In the first section, jurors were providedwith a list of 46 of the trends that had been identified in two ways:(a) trends identified by Sinith, Austin, and Kennedy (2001), and (b) asystematic review of literature (e.g.. Palaestra, Parks & Recreation,Therapeutic Recreation Journal, and Journal of Leisurability) withinthe past three years related to special and inclusive recreation. In thesecond section of round one jurors were asked to identify any additionaltrends that had not been previously identified by the researchers. Thismodification allowed for current trends to be reviewed while also permit-ting the jurors to identify additional trends that they may have experiencedbut that were not reñected in the current literature.

In rounds two through four the jurors were presented with the meanand standard deviation for each trend calculated fi"om the previous round.The jurors were then asked to review each trend and state whether theyagreed or disagreed with each mean score.

If jurors disagreed with the group mean fi-om the previous round, theywere asked to provide a rationale for their disagreement and the ratingscore they deemed appropriate. If jurors agree with the group mean,then agreement was recorded and tabulated and no other action was re-quired for that item in that round. After consensus was reached on an item,then the item was no longer seen again by the jurors. Consensus in thisstudy was defined as agreement of at least 80% of the jurors.


JurorsThe initial panel of jiirors was identified through three different methods.The first method was to seek assistance fi"om an executive director of awell known non-profit organization that provided inclusive recreationservices and resources. Through the assistance of the executive director,a total of 19 names were identified. The second method was the use of alist of individuals who participated in 2002 National Institute on Recre-ation Inclusion (NIRI) hosted by National Therapeutic Recreation Soci-ety. The researchers and two practitioners identified a total of 14 individ-uals not previously named in the first process. The researchers alsoreviewed publications and professional presentations as the third methodin identifying jurors. A total of 14 individuals who had either publishedin professional journals or had presented at national conferences on in-clusive and special recreation in the last three years were identified.These individuals were identified as jurors because of their experience inpractice or because of their active involvement in research related tospecial and inclusive recreation.

As a result of these three methods, a total of 47 individuals wereidentified. The researchers contacted these potential jurors via e-mail toinvite them to participate in the study. Of the 47 individuals, 25 agreedto participate as jurors in the study. There were 15 female and 10 male re-spondents who had a median age of 45.9 years and a median number ofyears in the field of recreation of 21.6. There were 19 jurors who identi-fied themselves as practitioners and 6 identified themselves as educa-tors. The education level of the jurors included 6 who held a bachelorsdegree, 15 with a masters degree, and 4 who had completed a doctoral de-gree.

Data AnalysisThe analysis for round one involved two separate steps. In the first step,jurors were asked to rate 46 trends identified by the researchers. Themean and standard deviation for each score were derived and reportedback in the second round. In the second step, the jurors identified 20 ad-ditional trends. These trends were reviewed by the researchers for dupli-cation and one was identified to be duplicative of one of the trends pro-vided by the researchers. A second trend was identified to be duplicativeof one provided by another juror so these were merged into a singletrend. The final number of trends evaluated was 63. There were two ofthe original trends on which consensus'was not reached. Thus the totalnumber of trends on which there was consensus was 61.


In the second and succeeding rounds, means and standard devia-tions were calculated for each trend. Those trends that revealed juroragreement of 80% or greater were identified to have reached consen-sus. As previously stated, there were two trends on which consensus wasnot reached. These trends were not shown to the jurors again. There werea total of 59 trends reviewed in round two, 24 in round three and 14 inround four. The numbers of jurors for rounds two through four were 24,25, and 24 respectively.

Results and DiscussionConsensus was reached on 97% of the trends evaluated even though therange of standard deviations was relatively broad, ranging from 0.5 to 1.9.The final rating for each of the 61 trends for which consensus was reachedis reported in Table 2, along with the standard deviation for each trend.

To analyze trends two steps were taken. First, trends were categorizedunder headings employed by Smith et al. (2001) in order to comparethem with the only previously published list of special and inclusiverecreation trends. These categories were: (a) program trends, (b) ap-proaches to programs and services, (c) financial trends, and (d) profes-sional trends. The trends rated by our jurors in the present study were thencompared with the most recent set of trends identified by Smith et al.(2001) through their informal polling of experts.

Only those trends that were rated 3.0 or above (on the 5.0 scale)have been included in the Results and Discussion section because onthe jurors' rating system trends below 3.0 were viewed as not being sug-gested for professional practice. All 61 trends on which consensus wasreached appear in Table 2.

Program TrendsProgram trends firom the present study were largely similar to those pre-viously identified by Smith et al. (2001) and generally mirror the popu-larity of these leisure pursuits among persons without disabilities (Smithet al., 2005). Highly rated trends were related to golf, travel, and outdoorrecreation programs. Golf related trends included: increasing numbers ofassistive devices being manufactured for golfers for with disabilities(mean of 4.0); growth in support for accessible golf by the golf commu-nity to encourage accessibility to golf for persons with disabilities (meanof 3.9); and providing teaching clinics for golfers with disabilities (meanof 3.6). These trends were reflective of works by Mittelstaedt (1997),Robb (2003), and Skulski (2003) which had identified increased de-mands of golfers with disabilities, as well as growing numbers of golfers


Table 2Final Ratings for Each of the 61 Trends

Showing Means and Standard Deviations

Rank IVend Mean SD

1. Increasing the numbers of assistive devices being manufactured(e.g., single-rider golf carts) for golfers with disabilities.

2. Increased construction of children's playgrounds to meet the needsof all children.

3.5 Increased support from golf organizations, such as the United StatesGolf Association (USGA) to encourage accessibility to golf for personswith disabilities.

3.5 An increasing number of colleges and universities providing recreationalprogramming for students with disabilities.

5.5 Increasing numbers of inclusive camps that serve both children with andwithout disabilities.

5.5 More widespread fundraising efforts for special recreation programs.

7. Increased recognition that people with disabilities should have choicesin services and opportunities."

8.5 Growth in the types and numbers of adapted equipment commerciallyavailable to persons with disabilities (e.g., pool lifts, fishing aids, andbowling equipment).

8.5 Increased understanding of the ADA related to compliance and appropriateaccommodation."

10. Increased opportunities for continuing education on inclusive and specialrecreation services.

11. Greater opportunities for travel by persons with disabilities are beingprovided by travel organizations specializing in services for travelerswith disabilities.

12. Greater accessibility to outdoor recreation programs for personswith disabilities.

13.5 Increased development of assistive technology to meet the recreationalneeds of persons with disabilities.

13.5 The provision of inclusive recreation and ADA training for general(non-TR) community recreation staff."

15. Increased emphasis on professional training for high skill areas(e.g., behaviour modification, peer acceptance/social inclusion,support strategies, etc.)"

16.5 Improvements in outdoor recreation equipment for persons with disabilities. 3.6 0.6

16.5 Providing teaching clinics for golfers with disabilities.

18. The identification of fiscal resources to allow for planning and fundingof physical facility accessibility retrofits and new construction."

19. The provision of community recreation services to residents ofgroups homes.

20.5 Increasing numbers of summer camps for children with disabilities,such as camps for campers with burn injuries, diabetes, and cancer.

20.5 Increasing numbers of older adults who experience disability in laterlife and need accommodations/accessibility to continue preferredrecreation activities." 3.6 0.9

4.0

4.0

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.9

3.8

3.8

3.7

3.7

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

3.6

0.7

0.8

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.8

1.0

0.8

0.7

0.5

0.5

0.5

0.6

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

172

Rank Trend

Leisure/Loisir,

Table 2 {continued)

Vol. 32 (2008)

Mean SD

22.5 Growing acceptance of an inclusive recreation program philosophydirected not only to the physical integration of persons with disabilitiesbut to embracing the needs of all within one environment. 3.6 1.0

22.5 Increasing numbers of youth with disabilities who expect greater accessto inclusive recreation." 3.6 1.0

24. Increased emphasis on social competence in addition to leisure and motorskill development as a key of inclusive recreation." 3.6 1.5

25. An increase in the number of persons with disabilities in leadershippositions (i.e., policy and advisory boards, staff, and volunteers).» 3.5 0.6

26.5 More parents of children with disabilities are choosing inclusive overspecialized recreation opportunities." 3.5 0.8

26.5 Expansion in winter sports activities, such as ice skating, snow skiing,and sledge hockey for persons with disabilities. 3.5 0.8

28. Inclusion of persons with disabilities ih outdoor adventure, high risk andstress challenge activities (e.g., caving, rappelling, ropes courses,speed boating). 3.5 1.0

29. The establishment of policies and procedures that support the inclusion ofpeople with disabilities in ALL programs, services, and facilities.» 3.4 0.5

30. Expansion of arts-related programs for persons with disabilities." 3.4 0.6

31. Increased cooperation and collaboration between TR and generalpractitioners." 3.4 0.8

32. Increased awareness of the need for program accessibility in addition tophysical accessibility.

34. The development of strategies to promote inclusive recreation programs.

34. • Increasing numbers of inclusive child-care programs."

34. Increased evidence of peer coaching (modelling) as a strategy to achieveinclusion (i.e., partners programs, unified sports, running buddies)." 3.3 0.5

36. Greater opportunities for inclusive travel programs are being provided

by organizations such as Wilderness Inquiry. 3.3 0.8

37. Acceptance of inclusive recreation by leisure service providers. 3.3 0.9

38. Increased availability of programs to improve leisure skills and motorskills to residents of group homes. 3.3 1.3

39. Increased use of behaviour management plans by CTRS professionalsto facilitate inclusive recreation placements." 3.2 0.6

40. An expansion in noncompetitive opportunities, such as "fitness for all"programs for persons with disabilities (e.g., aerobic dance, yoga, andweightlifting). 3.2 0.8

41.5 The development of advocacy councils and parents groups formed tofoster community recreation programs for persons with disabilities." 3.2 1.0

41.5 Increasing numbers of specialized camps, such as computer camps orsports camps for children with disabilities. 3.2 I.O

43. Increased partnering among consumer controlled organizations(e.g.. Centers for Independent Living) and community recreation agenciesto improve access to inclusive recreation." 3.2 I.I

44.5 Increased use of volunteers, in place of paid staff, as inclusion companions." 3.1 0.8

3.43.3

3.3

1.00.5

0.5

Austin, Lee, & Getz

Rank Trend

/ A Delphi Study '

Table 2 (continued)

Mean

173

SD

44.5 The development of cooperative arrangements where public recreationagencies combine resources to conduct recreation programs for personswith disabilities. 3.1 0.8

46. Professional specialization in inclusive and special recreation areas forpersons with disabilities. 3.1 0.9

47. The levying of fees and charges for leisure services. 3.1 1.0

48. Increased collaboration with schools during breaks to allow for continuous.programs for children with disabilities." 3.0 0.9

49. An expansion of inclusive sports such as fishing tournaments sponsoredby the Department of Veterans Affairs. 2.9 0.9

50. An increasing role for the Americans with Disabilities Act in thedevelopment of inclusive recreation in America. 2.9 1.0

51. The National Park Service to serve as a model to enhance accessibility

efforts at state and local levels. ' 2.8 1.0

52. Increased field-based research and evaluation. 2.7 0.7

53.5 Recognition by recreation professionals that persons with disabilitiesshould be free to express their sexuality. 2.7 0.9

53.5 An expansion of sports programs conducted by organizations such asthe United States Cerebral Palsy Athletic Association. 2.7 0.9

55. The provision of therapeutically oriented, purposeful interventions forclients needing goal-directed programming by CTRSs. 2.6 0.8

56.5 The provision of interpretive materials in community recreation programsfor persons with disabilities. 2.6 0.9

56.5 Establishing levels of programs within community services for peoplewith disabilities. 2.6 0.9

58. Increased cooperation between healthcare organizations(e.g., hospitals and behavioural health centres) and public recreationagencies to provide recreation services to community residents who havedisabilities or who are ill. 2.6 1.0

59. The development of individual recreation plans, designed by CTRSs,for residents of group homes. 2.4' 1.2

60. The provision of leisure education curricula for children with disabilitiesin public schools. 1.6 0.5

61. The provision of leisure counseling opportunities for persons withdisabilities in community park and recreation departments. 1.1 1.9

" denotes trends identified by jurors

with disabilities. Despite these trends, Maas atid Hasbrook (2001) haveargued that golfers with disabilities are absetit from advertisements atidphotographs and giveti tninimal attetition iti articles oti golf.

Greater opporttmity for travel by persons with disabilities being pro-vided by travel agencies was another highly rated trend (mean of 3.8). Arelated trend was greater opportunities for inclusive travel programs pro-


vided by recreatioti organizatiotis such as Wilderness Itiquiry (3.3). Anumber of studies (e.g., Blum, 2003; Burnett, 1996; Burnett & Baker,2001; Israeli, 2002) have reported this trend and explored the ways to meetdiverse needs of travellers with disabilities.

Increased accessibility to outdoor recreation programs, includingthe inclusion of persons with disabilities in adventtire activities (mean of3.5) and expansion in winter sports activities (mean of 3.5) were identi-fied trends consistent with various literature doctunenting increasingpopularity of outdoor recreation for individuals with disabilities (Bran-nan, Fullerton, Arick, Robb, &. Bender, 2003; Cordell, Green, &. Betz,2004; McAvoy, 2001). A related trend important to professional prac-tice was greater participation by persons with disabilities in noncom-petitive sports and fitness activities such as yoga and weight lifting (meanof 3.2). Two program trends important to practice were identified by thejtirors in this study. These were: an expansion of arts-related programsfor persons with disabilities (mean of 3.4); and increasing the ntimber ofinclusive child-care programs (mean of 3.3).

Approaches to Programs and ServicesTwo major areas previously identified by Smith et al. (2001) were rein-forced by the jtirors in the present study. These two areas were: assistivetechnology arid equipment, and the inclusion of persons with disabilities.

Trends related to assistive technology and equipment included: moreaccessible playgrotinds (mean of 4.0); growth in the tj^es and numbersof adapted equipment cotnmercially available (e.g., pool lifts, fishingaids) (mean of 3.9); the emerging development of assistive technologyto meet the recreational needs of persons with disabilities (mean of 3.7);and the comprehensive improvement of outdoor recreation equipment forpersons with disabilities (mean of 3.6).

While the general area of inclusion as an approach to programs andservices had previously been identified by experts polled by Smith etal. (2001), the growing ritimber of trends identified by the current studycould be thought to signal continuing expansion in the area of inclusion.Among several inclusion trends important to professional practice were:increasing numbers of inclusive camps that serve both children with andwithout disabilities (mean of 3.9); growing acceptance of an inclusiverecreation philosophy with the aim of embracing the recreational needsof all within one environment (mean of 3.6); increasing numbers ofyouth with disabilities who expect greater access to inclusive recreation(mean of 3.6); more parents of children with disabilities choosing in-clusive recreation over special recreation opportunities (mean of 3.5);


establishment of policies and procedures that support the inclusion ofpeople with disabilities in all programs, services, and facilities (mean of3.4); development of strategies to promote inclusive recreation programs(mean of 3.3); and increased evidence of peer coaching (modelling) asa strategy to achieve inclusion (mean of 3.3).

Additionally, three new approaches to programs and services wereidentified by the jurors in this study. The highest of these (mean of 3.6)was an increased emphasis on social competence in addition to leisure andmotor skill development as a key to inclusive recreation. Second, with amean of 3.4, was increased cooperation and collaboration between ther-apeutic recreation and general park and recreation practitioners. Thethird highest new trend related to programming involved the developmentof advocacy councils and parents' groups formed to foster communityrecreation programs for persons with disabilities (mean of 3.2).

Finally, other programmatic approaches that reinforced previouslyidentified trends by Smith et al. (2001) included: an increasing numberof colleges and universities providing recreational programming for stu-dents with disabilities (mean of 3.9); increasing numbers of summercamps for children with disabilities such as camps for campers with buminjuries, diabetes, and cancer (mean of 3.6); the provision of communityrecreation services to residents of group homes (mean of 3.6); increasedawareness of the need for program accessibility in addition to physicalaccessibility (mean of 3.4); increased availability of progranis to im-prove leisure skills and motor skills to residents of group homes (meanof 3.3); and increasing numbers of specialized camps such as computercamps or sports camps for children with disabilities (mean of 3.2). Anew programmatic trend added by the jurors in the current study was in-creased use of behaviour management plans by Certified TherapeuticRecreation Specialists (CTRSs) to facilitate inclusive recreation place-ments (mean of 3.2). This trend certainly has a good fit with the interestin inclusive recreation evidenced by the trends related to inclusion re-ported in this study.

Trends in Community RelationsWhile the judgments of the jurors in the present Modified Delphi studyregarding trends in community relations tended to mirror those of the ex-perts polled by Smith et al. (2001), some differences emerged. A newlyidentified related trend was the increased use of volunteers in the placeof paid staff as inclusive companions (mean of 3.1). Miller, Schleien,Rider, Hall, Roche, and Worsley (2002) and Roker, Player, and Coleman(1998) docimiented the trends associated with inclusive volunteering


and its importance in the lives of individuals with disabilities. Anothernewly identified trend that relates to community relations was that ofseeing an increase in the number of persons with disabilities in leader-ship positions on policy and advisory boards and as professional staffmembers (mean of 3.5).

Three other community relations trends were noteworthy. One newlyidentified trend was that of increased partnering among consumer con-trolled organizations (e.g., Centers for Independent Living) and com-munity agencies to improve access to inclusive recreation (mean of 3.2).A second new trend indicated increased collaboration between recre-ation agencies and schools during breaks to allow for continuous pro-grams for children with disabilities (mean of 3.0). The third trend was thedevelopment of co-operative arrangements where public recreation agen-cies combine resources to conduct recreation programs for persons withdisabilities (mean of 3.1). Such joint actions allow services to persons withdisabilities that might not otherwise be available.

Financial TrendsThree financial trends important to professional practice were agreedupon by the jurors in this study. Two of these trends had been previouslyidentified by Smith et al. (2001). These were fundraising for special recre-ation programs (mean of 3.9) and the levying of fees and charges tofimd programs (mean of 3.1). Arising firom the jurors in this study wasa new trend involving the identification of fiscal resources to allow forplanning and ñanding physical facility accessibility retrofits and newconstruction (mean of 3.6).

Professional TrendsTrends related to continuing education emerged as a prominent areaamong those within the category of professional trends. Highly ratedtrends in this category included: increased opportunities for continuingeducation on inclusive and special recreation services (mean of 3.9); theprovision of inclusive recreation and Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) training for general (non-TR) community recreation staff meanof 3.7); and increased emphasis on professional training for high skillareas (e.g., behaviour modification, peer acceptance/social inclusion,support strategies, etc.) (mean of 3.7).

Professional trends emerged that were identified by this study that hadnot previously been listed by Smith et al. (2001). Two of these trends(each with a mean of 3.9) were: increased understanding of ADA re-lated to compliance and appropriate accommodation; and increased


recognition that people with disabilities should have choice in servicesand opportunities.

Two other newly identified trends were rated above 3.0. One of theseinvolved the increasing numbers of older adults who experience disabil-ity in later life and who need accommodations/accessibility to continuepreferred leisure activities (mean of 3.6). The other identified was the in-creasing professional specialization in the areas of inclusive and specialrecreation (mean of 3.1).

The new trend regarding ADA is one that has likely come about dueto media attention to ADA. Additionally, coverage given ADA by au-thors of special and inclusive recreation textbooks since the passage ofthe legislation in 1990 may have played a role (e.g., Bullock & Mahon,1997; Schleien et al., 1997; Smith et al, 1994,1998,2001,2005). The otherhighly rated new trend of increased recognition that people with disabil-ities should have choice in services and opportunities is undoubtedlytied closely to the ADA legislation. The ADA has received the attentionof recreation providers who realize that they must comply with the law.On the leading edge of education on ADA and inclusive recreation havebeen the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) and the Na-tional Therapeutic Recreation Society (NTRS). In 1997, NTRS, pub-lished a position statement on inclusive recreation that has been widelycirculated and NTRS and NRPA have annually sponsored the NationalInstitute on Recreation Inclusion since 2000 (Smith et al., 2005).

The new trend involving the increasing numbers of older adults whoexperience disability in later life and who need accommodations/acces-sibility to continue preferred leisure activities relates to the well docu-mented "graying of America and Canada" (Smith et al , 2005) that willproduce growing elderly populations with more persons with disabilities.While little has been written about the emergence of the new trend towardincreasing professional specialization in the areas of inclusive and spe-cial recreation (3.0), the National Institute on Recreation Inclusion, heldannually by the National Recreation and Park Association, may be con-strued to be a refiection of this trend.

ConclusionThe results of this study provide some important information associatedwith current trends in special and inclusive recreation. However, there aresome limitations associated with this study, and thus interpretation ofthe findings requires caution. The first limitation is associated with the 25individuals selected to be participants in the study. These individuals

178 . Leisure/Loisir, Vol 32 {200S)

represent leaders in the field of recreation and inclusion and as a resultdid not include the perspectives of individuals and agencies who are notrecognized leaders. Second, the use of a modified Delphi technique canbe a limitation as the trends reviewed in the first round were provided bythe researchers. This effort to save time and to incorporate trends iden-tified by Smith et al. (2001) may have impacted the jurors' feedback.Third, the trends identified in this study are understood to be the jurors'impressions of what they see as trends.

In spite of the limitations, this study is the first Delphi study to ex-amine important trends in special and inclusive recreation. The results ofthis study generally point toward a bright fixture for special and inclusiverecreation. Especially encouraging were the new trends that emerged. Par-ticularly noteworthy is that inclusive recreation appears to be becomingmuch more widely embraced. Reflective of a growing inclusive recreationmovement are trends related to inclusion as an approach to programsand services and increased continuing education efforts in the area of in-clusive recreation. Yet, it is troubling that consensus was not achieved onthe stated trend dealing with acceptance of inclusive recreation by leisureservice providers. It may be speculated that the level of concern for in-clusion represented in the United States is not as pronounced as it is inCanada.

There are a number of recommendations for further research in spe-cial and inclusive recreation. First, a replication of the present studymight be accomplished utilizing jurors with diverse backgrounds. Sec-ond, as various trends emerge in special and inclusive recreation services,it may be necessary to explore some challenges for those individualswho work in the field. Such data-based evidence may offer insights intothe content to be included in the training of professionals in this areareceive. In conjunction with the second recommendation, a third rec-ommendation is to identify required competencies to prepare new prac-titioners to meet the needs of individuals who participate in special andinclusive recreation. Increasing the body of knowledge related to specialand inclusive recreation can be an important way for inclusive recre-ation personnel to better understand their clients and as a result betterserve their needs. Finally, it would be interesting to replicate the currentstudy using groups of American and Canadian experts so that resultsfi-om the two groups might be compared and contrasted.

There are some applications for inclusive recreation practice thatarise fi-om this study. The most obvious is that by examining the list ofidentified trends, professionals can take the trends into considerationwhen planning programs and facilities. The second application is that pro-

Austin, Lee, & Getz / A Delphi Study • 179

fessionals have a source to cite to park and recreation board members andother public policy makers that indicates there are trends toward ADAcompliance as well as increased recognition that people with disabilitieshave a right to choices in recreation services^and opportunity.

ReferencesAnderson, L., & Kress, C.G. (2003). Inclusion: Including people with disabil-

ities in parks and recreation opportunities. State College, PA: Ven-ture.

Anderson, L., Schleien, S., McAvoy, L., Lais, G., & Seligmann, D. (1997). Cre-ating positive changes through an integrated outdoor adventure pro-gram. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 31(4), 214-229.

Austin, D.R. (2001). Glossary of recreation therapy and occupational therapy.State College, PA: Venture.

Austin, D.R., & Crawford, M.E. (2001). Therapeutic recreation: An Introduc-tion (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Blum, E. (2003). Disabled travel coming of age. Travel Weekly, 62(4), 25-27.Brannan, S., Fullerton, A., Arick, J.R., Robb, G.M., & Bender, M. (2003). In-

cludingyouth with disabilities in outdoor programs: Best practices, out-comes, and resources. Champaign, IL: Sagamore.

Brodwin, M.G., Star, T., & Cardoso, E. (2004). Computer assistive technologyfor people who have disabilities: Computer adaptations and modifica-tions. Journal of Rehabilitation, 70(3), 28-34.

Bullock, C.C., & Mahon, M.X (1997). Introduction to recreation services for peo-ple with disabilities: A person-centered approach. Champaign, IL:Sagamore.

Burnett, J. J. (1996). What service marketers need to know about the mobility dis-abled consumer. Journal of Service Marketing, 10(3), 3-20.

Burnett, J.J., & Baker, H.B. (2001). Assessing the travel-related behaviors ofthe mobility-disabled consumer. Journal of Travel Research, 40, 4-11.

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Passed in 1982). Retrieved Sep-tember 5,2007, from http://www.laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#garantie.

Clark, M. (2004). Shift in recreation profession: Inclusion into the communitysetting is no longer for specialists anymore. Park & Recreation, 39(9),8-9.

Cordell, H.K., Greeen, G.T., & Betz, C.J. (2004). Outdoor recreation in 21st cen-tury America. State College, PA: Venture.

Dattilo, J. (2002). Inclusive leisure services: Responding to the rights of peoplewith disabilities (2nd ed.). State College, PA: Venture.

Freeman, P.A., Hill, B.J., & Huff, C. (2002). Development of a family recreationresearch agenda, LARNet; The Cyber Journal of Applied Leisure andRecreation Research. Retrieved February 25, 2008, from http://larnet.org/2002-5.html.

180 Leisure/Loisir, Vol 32 {200S)

Getz, D.A. (2000). Key competencies in multicultural education for entry-leveltherapeutic recreation professionals. Microform Publications, Acces-sion Number: S-812473.

Hawkins, B.A., & Austin, D.R. (1990). Identification of competencies needed ingcrontological recreation course: An application of the Delphi tech-nique. Annual in Therapeutic Recreation, 1, 21-27.

Human Resources Development Canada (1998, November). In unison: A Cana-dian approach to disability issues. Retrieved November, 1998, fromhttp://www.socialunion.ca/pwd/unison/unison_e.html.

Human Resources Development Canada (2001, March). In unison 2000: Personswith Disabilities in Canada. Retrieved February, 2008, fromhttp://www.socialunion.ca/rN_unison2000/in00/00e.html.

Hurd, A. (2004). Competency development of board members in public park andrecreation agencies. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, 22(4), 43-61.

Hutchison, P., & McGill, J. (1998). Leisure, integration, and community (2nd ed.).Toronto: Leisurability Publications.

Israeli, A.A. (2002). A preliminary investigation of the importance of site acces-sibility factors for disabled tourists. Journal of Travel Research, 41(1),101-104.

Kaye, H.S., Kang, T, & LaPlante, M.E. (2000). Mobility device use in theUnited States. Washington, DC: National Institute on Disability and Re-habilitation Research, U.S. Dept of Education, Office of Special Edu-cation and Rehabilitative Services.

Kennedy, D.W., Austin, D.R., & Smith, R.W. (1987). Special recreation: Oppor-tunities for persons with disabilities. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders Col-lege Publishing.

Kennedy, D.W., Austin, D.R., & Smith, R.W. (1991). Special recreation: Oppor-tunities for persons with disabilities (2nd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Wm. C.Brown.

Klitzing, S.W. (2002). The best practices for successful inclusion. Park & Recre-ation, 37(5), 60-64.

Linestone, H.A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and ap-plications. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Maas, K.W., & Hasbrook, C.A. (2001). Media promotion of the paradigm citi-zen/golfer: An analysis of golf magazines' representations of disabil-ity, gender, and age. Sociology of Sport Journal, 18(1), 21-37.

McAvoy, L. (2001). Outdoor for everyone: Opportunities that include people withdisabilities. Parks & Recreation, Í6(8), 24-36.

McAvoy, L., & Lais, G. (1999). Programs that include persons with disabilities.In J.C. Miles & S. Priest (Eds.), Adventure programming (pp. 403-414).State College, PA: Venture.

McAvoy, L., Schatz, C , Stuatz, M., Schleien, S., & Lais, G. (1989). Integratedwilderness adventure: Effects of personal and lifestyle traits of per-


sons with and without disabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal,25(3), 50-64.

McGill, J. (1996). Developing leisure identity: A pilot project. Brampton, ON:Brampton Caledom Community Living.

Miller, K.D., Schleien, S., Rider, C, Hall, C , Roche, M., & Worsley, J. (2002).Inclusive volunteering: Benefits to participants and community. Ther-apeutic Recreation Journal, 56(3), 247-259.

Miller, G. (2001). The development of indicators for sustainable tourism: Resultsof a Delphi survey of tourism researchers. Tourism Management, 22(4),351-362.

Mittelstaedt, R. (1997). Accessibility for golfers with disabilities: It's a tee time!Parks & Recreation, 32(6), 52-58.

Reeves, E.A. (1995). Physical education teachers' practices concerning riskmanagement in the State of West Virginia (Doctoral dissertation. WestVirginia University, 1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 56,3087A.

Robb, G. (2003, Oct.-Nov.). Golfers with disabilities: An opportunity to ex-pand customer service and increase revenue. The Bottomline, 14-16.

Roker, D., Player, K., & Coleman, J. (1998). Challenging the image: The involve-ment of young people with disabilities in volunteering and campaign-ing. Disability & Society, 13(5), 725-741.

Sable, J. (1995). Efficacy of mobility integration, disability awareness, and ad-venture programming on adolescents' acceptance of individuals withdisabilities. Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 29(3), 206-217.

Schleien, S., Heyne, L., Rynders, J., & McAvoy, L. (1990). Equity and excellence:Serving all children in community recreation. Journal of Physical Ed-ucation, Recreation and Dance, (57(8), 45-48.

Schleien, S., Rynders, J.E., Heyne, L.A., & Tabourne, C.E.S. (Eds.). (1995).Powerful partnerships: Parents and professionals building inclusiverecreation programs together. Minneapolis, MN: University of Min-nesota.

Schleien, S.J., Ray, M.T., & Green, F.P. (1997). Community recreation and peo-ple with disabilities: Strategies for inclusion (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD:

. Paul H..Brookes.Skulski, J. (2003, Fall). Golf: An update on the movement toward full inclusion

of people with disabilities (NCA Monograph). Bloomington, IN: Na-tional Center on Accessibility

Smith, R.W., Austin, D.R., & Kennedy, D.W. (1996). Inclusive and special recre-ation: Opportunities for persons with disabilities (3rd ed.). Madison,WI: Brown & Benchmark.

Smith, R.W., Austin, D.R., & Kennedy, D.W. (2001). Inclusive and special recre-ation: Opportunities for persons with disabilities (4th ed.). Boston,MA: McGraw Hill.


Smith, R.W, Austin, D.R., Kennedy, D.W., Lee, Y., & Hutchison, R (2005). In-clusive and special recreation: Opportunities for persons with disabil-ities (5th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.

U.S. Census Bureau. (1995). Population profile of the United States. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2001). Demographic profile. Washington, DC: Author.U.S. Department of Commerce. (2001). Country's older population profiled by

the U.S. Census Bureau. U.S. Census Bureau Public Information Of-fice (Publication No. CBOl): Washington, DC: Author.

Veal, A. J. (2006). Research methods for leisure and tourism: A practical guide.New York: Prentice Hall/Financial Time.

Young, S.J. (1998). Perceived liability and risk management trends and issuesimpacting the delivery of recreational sports programs in the 21st cen-i«ry. Microform Publications, Accession Number: S-161986.

Documents

A Delphi Study of Trends in Special and Inclusive Recreation