blog post: ‘Is community integration understood by those charged with facilitating it?’

Dr. Jeff McNair from CalBaptist posted on his blog recently on the following question: Is community integration understood by those charged with facilitating it? Jeff is familiar with SRV and has sponsored an SRV workshop in California. See some previous posts on our blog here.

His incisive post is worth reading and considering, particularly in light of SRV teaching around personal social integration and valued social and societal participation. SRV teaching emphasizes that personal social integration and valued participation cannot be legislated or enforced but must ultimately be welcomed by people with valued social status.

His post is also relevant to consider from the perspective of the PASSING tool and assessment process, including the inquiry process (interviewing a human service organization) and the time spent visiting and observing services from an SRV framework.

McNair also touches on the idea of the culturally valued analog, by asking ‘Where would you go in the community to find opportunities for friendships and relationships?’

Note also his focus on the role domain of ‘cultus/values’ which Wolfensberger described in the SRV monograph (p. 30, A brief introduction to Social Role Valorization, Wolfensberger, Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry, 2004). In this case, McNair is looking at local churches in terms of the possibility of personal social integration and valued social participation; and I would add, in terms also of valued roles.

Marc Tumeinski

One Response

Subscribe to comments via RSS

  1. Written by Darrell Wills
    on July 9, 2015 at 11:53 pm
    Reply · Permalink

    As WW used to say, this is a Kraft cheese sort of issue. The definiiton of integration and inclusion has been hijacked by many to be “whatever it is they do and add the word (e.g. inclusion) In WW terms, like adding Kraft cheese. Evil always takes advantage of ambiguity and so the definition must be clear and as simplified as possible. Here are 12 key points to keep clear:
    1. Inclusion is not what you personally decide it to be.
    2. Inclusion is participation in physical, social and curricular spaces and places and activities of other valued citizens.
    3. It is not one of these. It is all 3 – physical, social and curricular (which in adulthood is a work/career role that continues one’s life long development.)
    4. It is not mere presence but valued participation that has at least 2 dimensions: it provides one with a positive image of self and a positive image in the eyes of others.
    5. If it does not have these core dimensions, it is not inclusion. It might be hopeful, “good will” to include but it is not yet inclusive.
    6. Inclusion of all (able and not) is not easy. It requires both WILL and SKILL to accomplish.
    7. Inclusion is both a moral and technical organising principal.
    8. Humans require inclusion to survive. We are ALL uniquely born “helpless” and remain so for many years. Inclusion is therefore consistent with and a requirement of ALL human development; including those who need more help for longer.
    9. Inclusion is consistent with both moral and legal principles of our country.
    10. Inclusion is a basic human need – like safety, food and shelter, humans also need to be loved and experience belonging, make a contribution to life as well as having basic survival needs met.
    11. Humans are diverse.
    12. Humans do not have special needs. They have typical human needs. What we do to meet the need might look “special” or we might call it special .. but the human has only human needs.

Subscribe to comments via RSS

Leave a Reply