Community‐based Residential Supports for People with Intellectual Disabilities and Challenging Behaviour: The Views of Neighbours

Abstract

Background The issue of the views of neighbours of community-based residential supports for people with intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour has not been examined till date. This study looks at the views of neighbours of two types of community-based residential supports: non-congregate settings where the minority of residents have challenging behaviour; and congregate settings where the majority of residents have challenging behaviour. Materials and methods A self-completion questionnaire was used to collect information on contact between neighbours, residents and staff, and the views of neighbours. Information was also collected by semi-structured interview with service staff on the characteristics of settings. Results Sixty-four questionnaires were returned. Contact between neighbours and service users was limited for both types of setting, with two-thirds of neighbours not knowing any service users by name, and a third having had no active contact with service users. Neighbours of non-congregate settings were more likely to think that community care was a 'good policy' (76%) than neighbours of congregate settings (53%) and to believe that there were benefits to the neighbourhood from having the group home in the area (46% versus 29%) but these differences were not significant. Contact with people with intellectual disabilities was associated with more positive attitudes to community care and specific characteristics of the settings. Conclusions Contact between neighbours and people with severe intellectual disabilities and challenging behaviour is limited. However, the majority of neighbours are positive about community care and the problems reported by neighbours are predominantly minor. The results point to the key role that contact plays in fostering positive attitudes. Findings regarding differences between congregate and non-congregate settings are limited by the small number of responses from neighbours of congregate settings.

Improving Quality of Life Outcomes in Supported Accommodation for People with Intellectual Disability: What Makes a Difference?

“…Evidence supports this, specifically for people with challenging behaviour (Mansell 1994;Robertson et al 2002;Mansell et al 2003b) and, important to any action based on this evidence, Beadle-Brown et al (2003) found no negative effect for people without challenging behaviour living with those with challenging behaviour. Mansell et al (2003b) also found that a negative effect in terms of staff warmth and respect, for people who were non-ambulant and grouped together.…”

People with intellectual disability as neighbours: Towards understanding the mundane aspects of social integration

“…Indeed, it is common practice among policy makers to frame initial opposition to the arrival of care facilities for people with ID in terms of neighbours' stigmatizing or not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) attitudes or to emphasize the political equality and rights of the groups concerned (Dear, 1992;Jason et al, 2005). Studies into neighbourhood social integration tend to focus on why these reactions may occur (Graham & Hogan, 1990;Pittock & Potts, 1988;Robertson et al, 2005;Schwartz & Rabinovitz, 2001) and how attitudes may change (Hudson-Allez & Barrett, 1996;Zippay, 1997).…”

“…Social integration of groups with special characteristics and needs has been predominantly conceptualized, in the research literature, in a dichotomous manner, with neighbours viewed as either accepting or opposing the presence of these groups in the neighbourhood (Currie et al, 1989;Hudson-Allez & Barrett, 1996;Jason, Roberts & Olson, 2005;Robertson et al, 2005;Schwartz & Rabinovitz, 2001). Indeed, it is common practice among policy makers to frame initial opposition to the arrival of care facilities for people with ID in terms of neighbours' stigmatizing or not-in-my-backyard (NIMBY) attitudes or to emphasize the political equality and rights of the groups concerned (Dear, 1992;Jason et al, 2005).…”

Urban encounters limited: The importance of built-in boundaries in contacts between people with intellectual or psychiatric disabilities and their neighbours

“…Researchers blame the lack of professional support (Alphen et al, 2010) or seek explanations in the developed environment, such as the manner in which people with disabilities are housed (non-congregate settings versus congregate settings) (Bostock and Gleeson, 2004), housing in weaker neighbourhoods with small apartments where proximity is a problem (Trappenburg, 2015), lack of community spirit in urban areas (Nicholson and Cooper, 2013) or a lack of common space (such as bordering gardens or a shared driveway) (Alphen et al, 2009(Alphen et al, , 2010Pittock and Potts, 1988). When asked for their opinions and attitudes, respondents without disabilities indicate that they would accept people with intellectual disabilities or psychiatric disorders as a neighbour provided that people with disabilities do not bother them and that they can rely on a qualified social professional if they are bothered or have problems (Alphen et al, 2010;Leegwater and Lubbinge, 2005;Robertson et al, 2005;Veldheer et al, 2012).…”

“…Various reasons have been proffered to explain the difficult integration into neighbourhoods of people with disabilities. Researchers blame the competencies of people with disabilities (notably a lack of social skills) and/or those of neighbourhood residents (Alphen et al, 2010); they refer to feelings of insecurity in people with disabilities due to negative experiences in the past such as name-calling and abuse (Alphen et al, 2009;Robertson et al, 2005). Researchers point at prejudice and negative community attitudes (Dijker et al, 2011;Hudson-Allez and Barret, 1996;Pittock and Potts, 1988).…”