Promoting Social Inclusion: the perception of priorities

in activities provision by support staff

Marco Lombardi, HoGent University & Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Brescia, italy

Claudia Claes, HoGent University & Gent University, Gent, Belgium

Luigi Croce, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Brescia, Italy

Stijn Vandevelde, Gent University, Gent, Belgium

IntroductionSocial Inclusion is a desired outcome for people with Intellectual Disabilities and nowadays many organizations and service providers have in their Mission the promotion of Social Inclusion for the People they serve. Yet, research showed that it might be insufficient unless service managers are also committed in exercising their leadership to inculcate new ways of working (Clement & Bigby 2007). Often, supporting organizations are promoting activities that have a low congruence with the assessment data collected on Clients and consequently on Personal Outcomes (Claes et al., 2012).

AimThe aim of this study was to investigate whether the Mission of the organization found a relevant correspondence in the perception of the priority of supports, provided by staff, related to Social Inclusion and Taking Care of the person.

Method: Sample 3 2 1

4 1

2 1

2

3 1

2

3

3

11

2

2

10

12

12

32323

7

5

8

11

10

81

PartecipantsCAGLIARI CENTO MANTOVA MASSA CARRARANORD MILANOOSTIA PALAZZOLOPATTI PESCARA PORDENONE PRATO RAGUSA ROMA ALTAMURA BOLOGNA INTEGRAZIONE GENOVA INTEGRAZIONE LA TORRE BRESCIA FOBAPFONDAZIONE PIATTI FONDAZIONE SALERNO PUNTO DI INCONTRO TRENTINO Cremona DolceMantova Dolcecinisello dolcetrescore dolcecremona SFACremona CDDCremona CDD2Cremona LAEPontevico Il gabbianoCremona AgropolisCremona ANFFASOASI Quinzano

113 Support-workers belonging to 35 different services devoted to serve people with ID, from all around Italy, were interviewed with an anonymous self-report based on 2010, McConkey & Collins work (McConkey and Collins 2010).

Method: instrumentThe McConkey & Collins questionnaire measures the priority perception regarding two different kind of tasks: • Taking Care • Social Inclusion.It is composed of 32 items, divided in two subscales. Each item (working task) had to be rated as 1 (Low Priority), 2 (Medium Priority), 3 (High Priority) or NA (Not Applicable).

A comparison was made between the ratings given by staff to the activities in the two areas of support.

MethodThe

instrument

MethodThe

instrument

Results: MissionOrganization Commitement

Taking Care Social Inclusion0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

7.3

100

Percentage of Missions’ Area of interest .

Areas % of organization with a mission classified in

this area

Social Inclusion 100

Taking Care 7,3

Results: McConkey and Collins questionnaire

Mediana0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

73.91

30.43

Percentage of Priority on working tasks

Taking care Social Inclusion

Tasks Median Standard deviation

Taking Care 73,91 17,78

Social Inclusion 30,43 14,54

Sig. diff. Wilcoxon (Z = 7,02 p<.001)

Results

Median0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

4.198.85

Percentage of working tasks rated as Not Appliable

Taking Care Social Inclusion

Task Median Standard deviation

Taking Care 4,19 19,14

Social Inclusion 8,85 17,25

Not Sig. diff.

Results

N°0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

12

2

Number of tasks rated as High Priority by >50% of Staff

Taking Care Social Inclusion

Task N°

Taking Care 12

Social Inclusion 2

Sig. diff. Wilcoxon (Z = 3,47 p<.001)

Results

N°0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1

Number of tasks rate as Not Appliable by > 50% of Staff

Taking Care Social Inclusion

Task N°

Taking Care 0

Social Inclusion 1

Not Sig. diff.

ResultsDespite almost every organization has in its own Mission the promotion of Social Inclusion, the priority of the tasks, perceived by the operators was significantly preponderant to Care tasks.

Even the non applicability of task was preponderant on Social Inclusion then on Taking Care (but not statistically sig.).

Conclusions• Utility

This study investigated a possible way to deliver services oriented to produce Social Inclusion outcomes focusing on the perception of the role of the support worker. A different perception of the staff regarding the provision of activities could promote the achievement of Inclusive and Quality of Life Outcomes.

• Robustness

The study was conducted on a sample of services collected around Italy. The number and location of participants could be implemented in future having a more comprehensive vision of the panorama, considering the different modalities of service provision for the People with ID that each Italian region has.

• Understanding

The scenario could be explained by a operators’ lack of a shared knowledge regarding the importance of Social Inclusion Outcomes and by the lack of alignment of Support Activities provided by the support staff and the Mission defined by the organization. Consequently the mission didn’t find an application in the activities that were provided or at list in the perception of the support staff.

• Relevance

The data collected in this study, first one collected on an Italian population, drives the reflection on two core aspects. First of all, the need of sensitization regarding Social Inclusion Outcomes for People with ID in the Support Staff. Consequently, an Organization, as Support Provider, should restructure the support process linking its support activities to the mission of the organization.

References• Claes, C., Van Hove, G., Vandevelde, S., van Loon, J., & Schalock, R.

(2012). The influence of supports strategies, environmental factors, and client characteristics on quality of life-related personal outcomes. Res Dev Disabil, 33(1), 96-103. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.08.024• Clement T. & Bigby C. (2007) Making Life Good in the Community:The

Importance of Practice Leadership and the Role of the House Supervisor. Victorian Government, Department of Human Services, Melbourne,Vic..• McConkey, R., & Collins, S. (2010). The role of support staff in promoting

the social inclusion of persons with an intellectual disability. J Intellect Disabil Res, 54(8), 691-700. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01295.x

Greetings from Brescia!

Marco LombardiCatholic University, Brescia, LecturerEQUAL, HoGent University, Researcher

marco.lombardi@hogent.be