Search

Background: Local governments play an important role in supporting people with intellectual disability to feel included in their local communities and local‐level inclusion is an increasing priority for councils and local authorities in many countries. However, people with intellectual disability themselves have had little involvement in setting the priorities for initiatives and activities in their local communities. In the project, we wanted to know what kinds of initiatives were being implemented and what people with intellectual disability felt was important about these activities in their local communities. In this paper, we explore how the involvement of people with intellectual disability has shaped the outcomes of the review and implications for research and practice. Methods: We completed a review of local‐level inclusion‐building initiatives. We translated the results into accessible formats and our inclusive research team used these to involve six people with intellectual disability in New South Wales, Australia, in exploring their priorities around kinds of activities, quality and depth of inclusion in their local communities. Findings: The data showed that people wanted to share their deep, rich insights and questions about the things that drive inclusion and exclusion—not only their views about the effectiveness of particular kinds of activities. Conclusions: Implications for future policy and practice are that consultation should not be framed narrowly, but invite people with intellectual disability into conversation about change‐making at community and societal levels, as well as seeking their views on specific initiatives and activities. This opens up new opportunities to respond to the priorities of people with intellectual disability in local community‐building. Accessible summary: Our project was about the different kinds of activities that people with intellectual disability can do in their local communities.We talked with people with intellectual disability about these activities, to find out what they liked and did not like. We asked people what was most important about activities in their community.People wanted to talk more about what helped them to feel safe and welcome, not just the activity itself.Having safe places, having your rights, meeting people and making friends, and having accessible information, were all very important to people.This study is important to local planners and people in communities. They can think about how they are planning to make things safe and welcoming before they start planning an activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accessible Summary: In the past 30 years, many people with (intellectual) learning disabilities have been moved out of large "institutions" and into their own home in their local communityThese people are now often between 30 and 50 years oldWe asked people with learning disabilities aged between 30 and 50 and who are living in their local community what things, including work, that they enjoyed doingWe asked people with learning disabilities aged between 30 and 50 and who are living in their local community whether they felt that they could make decisions about their lifeWe found out the things that make their life good, and also what might stop people enjoying their lifeWe learnt that people with learning disabilities should receive more support to assist them before they retireWe learnt that people with learning disabilities still need more support and choice around who they live with Background: This study investigated perceived quality of life (QoL) of community‐dwelling middle‐aged adults (30–50 years) with an intellectual disability and/or developmental disability living in rural or urban areas in New South Wales and Queensland, Australia. The specific aim of the current paper was to provide a descriptive evidence base of QoL and its specific domains by various key demographic characteristics of middle‐aged individuals. This cohort is likely to have either experienced or reached adulthood during and after large‐scale deinstitutionalisation in Australia. Methods and procedures: A cross‐sectional design was utilised, based on the QoL‐Q survey, testing domains of satisfaction; Competence/Productivity; Empowerment/Independence; and social belonging/community integration. The survey included demographic questions and was distributed to participants through disability support agencies across two states. The final sample included 291 respondents. Results: The overall QoL‐Q scores ranged from 3.0 to 29.5 (Mean = 20.4, SD, 4.1), with considerable variation in mean scores both across and within domains. The two demographic areas that showed greatest predictive value for QoL were work status and accommodation issues. The loss of agency and control in choice of co‐residents influenced perceived QoL for empowerment and independence domain of QoL‐Q. Conclusions: The findings highlight QoL issues associated with policy decisions and support programmes for middle‐aged adults. The two key recommendations arising from the project are that future planning for post‐retirement or reduced working hours needs to commence at a much younger age than currently expected, and more attention needs to focus on facilitating individual decision‐making and choice within shared accommodation options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]