**11. Summary of main findings**

The main findings do highlight some important variations between samples. These domains include the following variables and are illustrated in **Table 7**.

There were significant differences between the two samples, with regard to the following variables. There were more people over the age of 60, more single people, more rented and



**Table 7.** Community-home and no-community-home. Significant observed differences between community-home and no-community-home samples.

council living accommodation and a higher percentage left school at 15 years of age in the no-community-home sample. A higher percentage of respondents in the community-home sample had more children under 16 years; the majority owned their accommodation and went on to pursue a higher level of education. The community-home sample reported seeing people who were '*disabled'* [with a learning disability] in their community, more often than did the contrast sample. With regard to view that a community-home opening would pose problems or difficulties, 13% of respondents in the no-community-home sample reported that this could result, whereas only 1% related negativity to this question in the community-home sample.

More people in the no-community-home sample registered concern with regard to the following variables: isolation, being teased and made fun of, being victimized, posing a danger to children, not having adequate care, being noisy, and creating a disturbance, would have an adverse effect on property values and could be violent or irresponsible. Under 50% of the community-home sample registered general awareness as a major positive for people with learning disabilities. They further alluded to the fact that children would become more aware and knowledgeable about people with learning disabilities.

Interestingly, more people in the no-community-home sample were able to identify a local service provider than in the community-home sample. Nonetheless, respondents in the community-home sample knew that people with learning disabilities attended special centres and were able to identify the name and location of a community-home in their neighbourhood, whereas a significantly less people knew of community-home in the no-community-home sample. A higher proportion of people in the community-home sample stated that people with learning disabilities were good neighbours. In the no-community-home sample, more people were interested in helping out with activities such as visiting people with learning disabilities in their homes, inviting them to their home and helping out with social outings.

### **12. Discussion**

**11. Summary of main findings**

200 Learning Disabilities - An International Perspective

**Demographic attributes of** 

**Social Networks and** 

**People reporting contact with people with learning** 

**Are they people with learning disabilities**

**Problems or difficulties for a neighbourhood**

**Problems that respondents** 

**Centres for people with learning disabilities**

**People who attended these** 

**Knowledge of communityhomes for people with learning disabilities**

**Reason why community care policy is good or not**

**centres**

**both samples**

**activities**

**disabilities**

**suggested**

include the following variables and are illustrated in **Table 7**.

XXX

XXX

XXX Yes

XXX

Yes, it would

Not Adequate Care/Supervisor

**Benefits** X XXX

X

XXX

XX

Yes, there is

Public Houses

Seen them around

The main findings do highlight some important variations between samples. These domains

There were significant differences between the two samples, with regard to the following variables. There were more people over the age of 60, more single people, more rented and

XX XXX XXX XXX

XX XXX XXX XXX

picked on

General Awareness Children would become more aware

XX X X Lady Lane Brothers of Charity Rehab

Visit Visit your home Help with

Danger to children

outings

Property value Violent/irresponsible

Isolated Teased Victimised/

Noisy/ created disturbance

People with Learning Disabilities

They are good neighbours

**Types of activities** XX XXX XXX

**X XXX XXX XX XX**

**Age School Marital Status Children Accommodation**

As evidenced by research studies including the Irish study exemplar in this chapter, true social integration has not been fully achieved for people with learning disabilities. It has been suggested that contact, personal goal setting, relationships with the staff for people with learning disabilities and the wider community may be the key to changing attitudes and thus enhancing genuine integration [61, 72]. Thus, the micro-neighbourhood design combined with the random survey allowed the views of those who may have been expected to have contact with people with learning disabilities as living in the direct neighbourhood of a community-home to be compared with the general population.

It seems that significant contact with community-homes is very limited, which is supported by Abbott and McConkey [61, 72, 73]. While respondents maintained that they had contact with people with learning disabilities, with 96% reporting contact in the micro-neighbourhood and 64% in the no-community-home sample, this was not reflected in the type and quality of contact. Only 48% of the community-home sample and 36% of the no-community-home sample stated they had 'real contact', implying that significant contact is lacking.

The foregoing highlights the point that proximity to a group home does not necessarily imply neighbourly contact. The evolution of community living options for people with learning disabilities has therefore to be accompanied by an awareness of the prevailing social attitudes and the amount of contact people with learning disabilities have with neighbours and the wider community.

When one considers that those in the general population were more likely to report interest in becoming involved with people with learning disabilities in community-homes, this suggests that this expressed wish is an abstract statement that does not occur in reality for those living in the micro-neighbourhood in closer proximity to people with learning disabilities. The contact is superficial and reflects a major deficit in the level of relationships. Therefore, when compared with the positive attitudes expressed, it seems there is evidence of a discrepancy between attitudes in principle and attitudes in fact. Ichheiser's [4] theory serves to explain how people living in areas where there were no-community-homes express no reservations about having people with learning disabilities as neighbours ('*views in principle'*); whereas '*view in fact'* surface when a community-based home for people with learning disabilities is next door; not in my backyard or the NIMBY effect.

While the findings show significant differences between the two samples, the research cannot control or elucidate the various possible factors that may have contributed to these differences. In general, it is apparent that the results provide some evidence of the level of awareness and attitudes that exist and are illuminating in that it leaves many questions yet to be answered. These include questions relating to the determinants of social inclusiveness and more importantly quality of life issues for people with learning disabilities living a normal life in the community. It begs one to question the normality and the adequacy of such services in seeking to achieve a normal life in such community settings. The value of building relationships within communities is pivotal, creating a sense of community and changing perceptions relating to disability. Ichheiser [4] suggested that:

*The only reasonable thing we can do about illusions and misinterpretations which are deeply rooted in the nature of our human existence is to neutralise their too disturbing effects by increasing awareness within our social perception* [p. 35]*.*

The hope still rests on the endeavours of learning disability service providers and government agencies in promoting neighbourhood relationships and social inclusiveness. As people with learning disabilities are now living in communities, it is essential that social integration policy continues to be challenged and requires ongoing engagement with a broader economic and political rhetoric [74].

The lack of evidence-based research relating to natural supports and independent living is a significant obstacle to the development of policy and services in this area. Additional studies and data collection are required to address this deficit. Service providers and how they deliver services can also present barriers to network formation and social inclusion for people with learning disabilities. These barriers could arise from staffing issues, staff practices and the priority given to care over community participation. To achieve true social integration, however, the onus rests with service providers and government agencies to identify these barriers and address them. Accurate, update knowledge on the attitudes of the community towards people with learning disabilities must be elucidated before such attitudes can be improved.
