Feature Issue on Faith Communities and Persons with ... - NCRTM

Profile
31
administration communicated with one
another and trusted one another. We
could have achieved very little, if anything,
if senior management was not a
well-functioning team who listened to
each other, and respected and supported
each other. One of the significant features
of this transformation was that it
was accomplished by a relatively small
group of people.
Nowhere was the power of this small
group more apparent than in the area of
staff training. The first area that we
looked at was staff orientation, where
staff were first introduced to the 3I’s&P
and the concept of normalization; consequently,
training materials were rewritten
and trainers instructed to use
participation in worshipping communities
as an excellent example of inclusion
and individualization. Similarly, self-advocacy
training for individuals with disabilities
and staff focused on the right to
worship, and our internal auditors were
If we are genuinely working for
an optimal lifestyle for people
with disabilities, then we should
be doing everything we can to
facilitate their inclusion in
worshipping communities.
instructed to inquire specifically of staff
and those we serve about how this right
was being protected. Residence managers
were briefed at meetings, not only on
the need to offer the option of attending
worship, but also on ensuring that staff
and transportation were available where
required. The effect of this focused
training was rapidly apparent: New staff
arriving at their first assignment began
asking why those they were serving were
not going to church or synagogue. New
managers just presumed it was normal
to take people to worship and did so. Experienced
staff who had wanted to take
individuals to worship in the past, but
did not feel that was permissible, now
felt able to assert themselves. And, individuals
with disabilities, returning from
worship, began telling others about their
experiences, sometimes even playing
tapes and teaching them hymns. Within
months, the number of individuals we
serve who were participating in worship
rose dramatically.
However, one of the difficulties of
this initial success was translating it into
more or less permanent structures. How
could we sustain this phenomenon
when management changed, staff were
transferred or moved on to other jobs,
or service recipients moved on to less restrictive
environments? A number of
tasks recommended themselves:
• It is a simple assignment to establish,
in the admission package, not only
what an individual’s religion is, but
also their current pattern of worship.
We found that prior to their admission,
a number of people were accustomed
to weekly, even daily, services
of some kind, and no continuity had
been established. This not only deprived
them of their customary spiritual
supports, but also the support of
the communities in which they had
participated.
• An agency’s policies and procedures
can be rewritten to acknowledge the
importance of each person’s spiritual
life and to provide continuity in each
individual’s pattern of religious worship,
consistent with their right to
choose. Further, the policies can remind
staff of each individual’s human
and civil rights to worship in the
religion of their choice.
• An agency’s database can be developed
to identify those individuals
who are particularly vulnerable to being
excluded from worship opportunities,
a sort of spiritual risk assessment
tool. Our experience revealed
that those least likely to participate in
worship communities were those
with infrequent family contact, limited
ability to communicate and to
ambulate, and greater support needs.
The response from clergy and congregations
has ranged from unremarkable
to excellent. Prior planning and discussion
has eliminated some problems
with wheelchair accessibility, special arrangements,
and participation. However,
one dimension of this initiative remains
problematic: How much of a
church’s or synagogue’s instruction and
worship are truly accessible to persons
with intellectual disabilities? Mary
Therese Harrington, in A Place for All:
Mental Retardation, Catechesis & Liturgy,
comments “Catechesis [religious instruction]
without liturgy [worship] is
dry and suffocating. Liturgy without
catechesis is asked to carry more than it
can bear.” Agencies can strive to deliver
people to the door of the church or
synagogue, but they cannot form and
educate people in their faith; they cannot
design developmentally appropriate
services; they cannot ensure that
people’s experiences are reflected upon
and then connected to the lessons of
Scripture, the cycle of the seasons, the
lives of holy men and women, and the
dynamics of the liturgy. It is precisely in
this problematic area that worship
emerges as a community responsibility
in which everyone has to play their part.
Agencies have to learn to value and promote
the spiritual well-being of individuals
who use their services, they have
to pursue inclusion and individualization,
and facilitate genuine relationships
between people with disabilities and the
broader community. However, there
must also be people and places to welcome
the vulnerable when they arrive, to
greet them with respect and lead them
by the hand to a place of honor, and to
genuinely minister to their needs.
Terry Gleeson is Quality Assurance
Director for PSCH, Inc., College Point, New
York. He may be reached at 718/445-4700
x2070, or at tpgleeson@hotmail.com.
Published on the Web site of the Institute on Community Integration (http://ici.umn.edu/products/impact/143/).