The Challenges of Safety and Community Integration for Vulnerable Individuals

Abstract

Although community inclusion brings a number of advantages for vulnerable individuals, it can also entail a range of challenges, and draws in issues of safety and security. This qualitative psychological study, therefore, aimed to explore the challenges being faced by two groups of vulnerable individuals: those with intellectual disabilities and dementia, and how these could be addressed in order to establish a community that is safe and welcoming for all. Interviews and focus groups were conducted with a range of community stakeholders—for instance, local businesses, residents, and individuals with intellectual disabilities, dementia and their carers—and data was thematically analysed to explore the issue of inclusion and participation particularly in relation to stigma and prejudice, self-worth, social isolation and feeling safe. As well as highlighting practical issues regarding inclusion and support, the work emphasised the psychological dimension, linking to a multi-faceted conception of community participation. While significant work is already addressing issues of risk and safety for vulnerable populations (such as “Keep Safe” schemes), the work described here leads to an alternative conceptualization, tied to notions of kindness in communities with a view to crafting communities capable of safely welcoming a wider variety of marginalized groups.

The Importance of Accessible Information in Promoting the Inclusion of People with an Intellectual Disability

“…It may be that it was this more personal connection that enabled the use of the 'Beating the Blues' resource to stimulate discussion and self-reflection. Such an interpretation is in keeping with the very welcome trend within the AI evidence base, which recognises the importance of the social construction of meaning and a reminder to consider the context in which the resource is used [18,31].…”

“…A lack of confidence in their abilities was highlighted as a barrier to making use of written information in the client interviews, as well as in those with carers, further highlighting the way in which this facilitative relationship may be of benefit. As well as contributing to the construction of relevant meaning, supportive relationships may play an important role in enhancing an individual's belief in their own abilities and promote self-esteem, which is a key enabler of independence, self-determination, and inclusion [31]. While the social and supportive elements of constructing meaning were clearly evidenced in the responses of clients, carers, and staff, the way in which this was described by many participants in this study (e.g., filtering information) highlights concerns around the potential for exclusion, misinterpretation, or partial information, when supporting the use of information, generally, and easy-read documents, in particular.…”

Discriminatory abuse: time to revive a forgotten form of abuse?

“…As a result, “low-level abuse” is often normalised and therefore under-reported (Sin et al , 2011; Landman, 2014). Alternatively, discriminatory abuse may go unreported because the person who experiences abuse perceives “pay-offs” in terms of companionship (Terras et al , 2019; Cooper, 2020), and consequently, mate crime is sometimes called “counterfeit friendship” (Landman, 2014).…”

“…This suggests that targeted public awareness campaigns are important to spread knowledge and information about accessing support. Other literature suggests that greater community participation initiatives can enhance public awareness and empathy, which can lead to fewer experiences of discriminatory abuse (Iparraguirre, 2014; Terras et al , 2019). The literature does not link poor public awareness to practitioner awareness and this may be worth exploring in future studies.…”

Towards a Better Understanding of the Sense of Safety and Security of Community-Dwelling Older Adults. The Case of the Age-Friendly City of The Hague

“…A sense of safety and security in a care relationship was also not mentioned, nor was data security concerning medical data, and the safety of food and meals were not discussed either. There is a large body of knowledge relating to the sense of safety and security in the domain of home care [ 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 ]. One of the reasons for the omissions is the fact that the scientific literature is often written from the perspective of professionals and organisations and does not necessarily reflect the outcomes of the subjective perception of older people.…”