Page 104 - Social networks of people with mild intellectual disabilities: characteristics and interventions

Chapter 5
of support organizations and support staff may even limit social inclusion at times. Research on the neighbouring of people with ID (van Alphen, Dijker, van den Borne, & Curfs, 2009), for example, shows that the location of the homes of people with ID to sometimes act as a physical barrier to neighbourly interactions when there is no shared space to meet or see other people (e.g. bordering gardens, a shared driveway). Organizing social activities and even doing favours within the support organization may also limit neighbouring (van Alphen et al., 2009). People with ID report insufficient availability of staff members (i.e. not enough one-on-one staff time) to help promote community participation (Abbott & McConkey, 2006). Not only the organization but also support staff themselves can limit inclusion by imposing rules such as not allowing people to go out alone or to talk to strangers (Abbott & McConkey, 2006; van Alphen et al., 2009).
These findings are important because we know that support staff can play an important role in the facilitation of social inclusion (Abbott & McConkey, 2006; Todd, 2000; van Alphen et al., 2009). If social networks are small and social support is perceived as insufficient, support staff can undertake network interventions to expand and strengthen social networks. Various network interventions are described in the literature on social networks in general (Heaney & Israel, 2008) and more specifically in the field of mental health care (Biegel, Tracy, & Corvo, 1994; Pinto, 2006). In all cases, a distinction between expanding the social network with new contacts and strengthening existing ties, such as family ties, is made (Biegel et al., 1994; Pinto, 2006). Group interventions involving self-help groups can also be used to expand social networks, increase friendships and decrease loneliness (Perese & Wolf, 2005). In their comprehensive review of 100 studies on the effectiveness of social network interventions, Hogan, Linden and Najarian (2002) distinguished group versus individual interventions, professional- versus peer-guided interventions and interventions with a focus on social skills versus expansion of the social network and increasing perceived support. Noteworthy was that none of the 100 studies concerned people with ID. Research on social network interventions and their effects in the field of ID is thus rare.
One of the few studies of social network interventions for people with ID reviewed the effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing the social interactions of adolescents with ID and their general education peers (Carter & Hughes, 2005). In this research a distinction was made between skill-based
102