barriers to accessing leisure opportunities for people with learning disabilities

O R I G I N A L A R T I C L E

Barriers to accessing leisureopportunities for people withlearning disabilities

Suzie Beart, Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield, Psychology Building, Western Bank,

Sheffield S10 2TP, UK, Debbie Hawkins, Psychology Department, Walsall Community Health Trust,

and Psychology Department, Greybury House, Bridge Street, Walsall WS1 1EP, UK, Biza Stenfert

Kroese, Psychology Department, Dudley Priority Health, Ridge Hill Hospital, Brierley Hill Road,

Stourbridge, West Midlands DY8 5ST, and School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston,

Birmingham B15 2TT, UK, Paul Smithson, Mencap, 43 East Parade, Harrogate, North Yorkshire HG1

5LQ, UK and Inigo Tolosa Psychology Department, Cross Street Health Centre, Cross Street, Dudley,

DY1 1RN, UK

Summary Five focus groups (i.e. small discussion groups consisting of service users) were held

within a variety of specialized services for people with learning disabilities. The aim

of these focus groups was to determine which leisure opportunities young people and

adults (� 16 years) with a mild/moderate learning disability currently accessed,

which activities they would wish to access and the perceived barriers to leisure

access. It was found that participants undertook a wide variety of community-based

leisure pursuits. Many of these activities took place in day centre time, as opposed to

genuine leisure time. A range of activities which participants would wish to try in the

future were identified. However, there were a number of perceived barriers which

would make it difficult to access these opportunities. All five groups identified these

barriers as being a lack of transport and carer/friend support. This is in line with

previous research. Only two out of the five groups saw money as a barrier to accessing

leisure opportunities.

Keywords Focus groups, integration, learning disabilities, leisure

Introduction

Many studies (e.g. Wertheimer 1983; McConkey & McGinley

1990; McEvoy et al. 1990) have found that people with

learning disabilities tend to participate in solitary, home-

based activities (e.g. playing cards and watching television).

The above authors found that a number of barriers existed for

those who did access community facilities. These included a

lack of leisure opportunities, negative public perceptions

of and attitudes towards people with learning disabilities,

and resource restrictions (principally cost, transport and

support).

Other research has focused on the effect that a person’s

living situation may have on their ability to access leisure

opportunities. For example, Jahoda & Cattermole (1995)

found that those living in large institutions had the least

integrated leisure opportunities and that those living in

community-based residential settings were only marginally

better off.

Hoge & Dattilo (1995) compared service users from a wide

variety of backgrounds and found that they were much less

involved in leisure activities than the general public. The

range of activities was also much narrower, suggesting a lack

of both choice and of an awareness of choice. Authors such as

Russell (1995) and Prost (1992) describe how the principles of

normalization (Wolfensberger 1972) have been interpreted to

mean that people with learning disabilities must participate

in leisure activities which are statistically normative rather

# 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 133–138 133

than those which have been freely chosen by the individual.

The above authors also described how the medical approach

to the provision of services and an emphasis on the health-

related benefits may have an influence on the types of

activities made available to service users, resulting in a focus

on ‘healthy’ activities such as swimming or ‘keep fit’, as

opposed to those of more social value.

Wade & Hoover (1985) considered how both external

constraints (e.g. institutionalization and social attitudes)

combine with internal constraints (e.g. lack of physical fit-

ness, motor skill deficits or a lack of cognitive skills) to result

in reduced access to leisure opportunities for people with

learning disabilities. There has also been a tendency to regard

individual factors, such as a lack of confidence, skills or

friends, as barriers to leisure rather than wider, organiza-

tional issues such as a lack of finances, support and transport

(Russell 1995). This focus on individual factors influences

how people with learning disabilities view their ability to

control their own leisure time.

Russell (1995) identified public attitudes as being the

greatest challenge to the development of leisure services

for people with learning disabilities, concluding that these

attitudes and perceptions are being reinforced through the

practices and procedures of public services, such as segre-

gated clubs and activities. Rose (1993) described how the

individual’s lack of perception of social norms can be a

barrier to integration. The above author cited the example

of a disabled child attending a play scheme with a Ghostbus-

ters T-shirt, when Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were in vogue.

McConkey & McGinley (1990) and Hoge & Dattilo (1995) also

pointed out that there is a generally held belief that people

with learning disabilities cannot enjoy themselves in the

same way as disabled people.

Brown (1994) focused on cost as a major barrier to acces-

sing leisure activities in her article focusing on long-stay

residential clients, ‘What price theory if you can’t afford the

bus fare: normalization and leisure services for people with

learning disabilities’. Hoge & Dattilo (1995) reviewed several

studies which identified finance and transport as being major

barriers. In addition, Rose (1993) and Barr (1996) both

stressed the need for adequate staff support.

Nevertheless, it has been widely acknowledged that lei-

sure has a beneficial impact on people for several reasons: it

enhances self-esteem, provides a basis for social interaction,

and provides opportunities for acquiring factual knowledge

and cognitive skills. Moreover, Rose (1993) described the

benefits of integrated leisure opportunities with regard to

changing public perceptions of service users.

In the light of these recognized benefits of leisure, and of

the often-encountered barriers in the form of cost, transport

and support, it was decided that further investigation into

this area would have an important role to play in the future

planning of services for people with learning disabilities.

Because the literature has also highlighted a tendency for

activities to be home-based rather than community-based

and for community activities to be mostly segregated, this

aspect was also investigated in the present study.

Hypotheses

The present authors formulated the following hypotheses:

1 The perceived barriers to accessing leisure opportunities

are (a) lack of transport, (b) cost and (c) lack of escort/

companion to accompany and support users.

2 People with learning disabilities commonly take part in

home-based activities rather than community-based ones.

3 Leisure users commonly take part in opportunities or

interests provided by a club or day placement specifically

for people with learning disabilities and less commonly in

integrated activities enjoyed by the general population.

4 People living in large institutions will have less leisure

opportunities than those living in smaller, residential

settings.

Participants and methods

Design

Many of the studies in the area of leisure opportunities for

people with learning disabilities concentrate on asking par-

ents and carers’ for their opinions (e.g. Aveno 1987, 1989). In

the present study, the authors were concerned with obtain-

ing the views of the service users themselves. The present

authors were aware of the problems of acquiescence, or the

tendency to agree with a proposed statement (Sigelman et al.

1982), and of recency effects, or the higher probability of

choosing the last option offered when closed questions are

posed (Glanzer & Cunitz 1966). For this reason, they avoided

using closed questions and opted for a semi-structured

interview, consisting of open-ended questions, in the context

of focus groups (Morgan 1996).

The focused interview is concerned with people’s subjec-

tive experiences of an area of interest to the researcher. Prior

analysis of the subject from field experience and literature

reviews allows the researcher to develop hypotheses to test.

The hypotheses then allow the researcher to set parameters

for the focused interview. Within the interview, a non-direc-

tive approach is taken so that the client group develops the

discussion. The content of the group’s discussion can then be

analysed to draw out the participants’ views.

Sample

In order to draw on the experience of service users with a

wide variety of social backgrounds, living conditions and

ages, five establishments within Dudley, a metropolitan

borough of the UK, offering specialist services to people

with a learning disability were highlighted. These were:

134 S. Beart et al.

# 2001 Blackwell Science Ltd, British Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 133–138

1 a day centre for older (age� 60 years) or retired adults

(now closed);

2 a special needs department of a mainstream further

education college;

3 a social education centre (SEC);

4 a school leavers’ group within a school for children

(age¼ 4–19 years) with special needs; and

5 a 50-bed long-stay National Health Service residential unit.

All services approached by the present researchers agreed

to participate in the study. A staff representative of each was

subsequently contacted and asked to contact a representative

group of six to eight clients. It was stressed that participants

needed adequate comprehension and communication skills

in order to fully participate. In total, 29 service users took part

(19 males and 10 females).

Copies of the original proposal were sent, including the

questions which were to be asked and a consent form asking

for the participants’ permission to video the session. The staff

used a variety of methods in selecting the participants (see

Table 1), and the numbers and comprehension levels varied

for each group. They approached potential participants and

explained the nature and purpose of the study, and then

asked if the participants were willing to take part. The

researchers repeated this exercise to ensure that the partici-

pants were still willing to take part in the focus group and be

videotaped before the focus group session commenced.

Procedure

Each session began with the researchers introducing them-

selves and using an ‘ice breaker’ game to get to know peo-

ples’ names. An explanation of the aim of the group was

given, emphasizing the importance of gaining the views of

service users. The staff present were requested not to parti-

cipate directly except to clarify anything that the researchers

did not understand. Prompt cards consisting of line draw-

ings of various leisure activities taken from the What’s On?

pack (Cragg & Garvey 1990) were then displayed to act as

visual cues to aid discussion.

One researcher acted as a facilitator, one as the video

operator and the third recorded interviewees’ responses

on an observation form.

During the group discussion four questions were asked:

1 What activities are you doing now?

2 What allows you to do these activities?

3 What things would you like to try which you aren’t doing

now?

4 What stops you from doing what you would like to do?

The discussions lasted between 40 and 60 min. At the end

of the discussion, the group members were thanked, and

some time was spent chatting over coffee and biscuits.

Method of data analysis

Each group’s responses to the questions were recorded on an

observation sheet during the discussion periods and later

checked by means of the video recording of the sessions. The

lists of leisure activities which group members presently

engaged in and the activities which they would like to try

in the future were assigned to one of nine categories which

were taken from the Trail Leisure Assessment Battery for

Adults with Learning Disabilities that Hoge & Dattilo (1995)

developed for their study on ‘Recreation participation pat-

terns of adults with and without mental retardation’. These

categories were chosen because they were pertinent to the

hypotheses and were derived from previously validated

research.

The categories are listed below:

1 relaxing at home (e.g. watching television or listening to

music);

2 being creative at home (e.g. painting, drawing or sewing);

3 improving things at home (e.g. making repairs, or taking

care of animals and plants);

4 doing things at home (e.g. playing a board game or talking

on the phone);

5 learning new things (e.g. library or college classes);

6 doing things with people (e.g. parties or shopping);

7 doing sports and exercise (e.g. walking or netball);

8 doing outdoor activities (e.g. picnics); and

9 doing things for fun (e.g. cinema or theatre).

The first four categories are home-based and the rest are

community-based.

All activities mentioned during the group discussion were

assigned to categories by two raters independently of each

Table 1 Methods of participant selection

Service Participants

Day centre for older or retired adults Individual clients aged �60 years selected by staff (n¼ 5; one female, four males)

Special needs department of a mainstream college Representatives from each class asked to volunteer (n¼6; four females, two males)

Social education centre Members of the student committee asked to take part as a body by staff; they solicited views

from their peers within the centre before attending the focus group (n¼ 6; two females,

four males)

Special school A further education class of pre-school leavers picked by staff (n¼6; two females, four males)

Long-stay National Health Service residential unit Individual clients invited to attend by the researchers (n¼ 6; one female, five males)


Barriers to accessing leisure opportunities 135

other. The first was one of the researchers and the second was

an assistant psychologist who had not been involved in the

research. Inter-rater reliability was calculated by dividing the

number of agreements by the agreements and disagree-

ments, and multiplying by a hundred. The percentage of

agreements was 92%. The remaining 8% were agreed after

discussion.

All activities were further categorized in two ways:

1 how much money these required: we adopted Hoge &

Dattilo’s (1995) approach which required a judgement of

whether an activity requires (a) ‘an initial outlay of funds

such as purchasing a radio or television, a cassette or a

tennis racquet’, or (b) whether it required funds ‘each time

in order to participate, such as going to a movie’; and

2 whether or not an activity needed transportation to access it.

It must be noted that participants were asked about the

range of activities in which they engaged, not how often or

how long they took part in leisure pursuits.

Results and discussion

The present authors’ first hypothesis (i.e. the perceived

barriers to accessing leisure opportunities are lack of sup-

port, transport and money) was substantiated for transport

and support, but less so for money. These findings are

discussed in more detail below.

In order to test the second hypothesis (i.e. the majority of

activities engaged in by participants are home-based), the

present authors compared the number of reported home-

based activities to the number of community-based activities.

They found that this hypothesis was not supported. Across

all five groups, only 22 out of the 86 activities in which people

participated were home-based. The college group partici-

pated in the fewest home-based activities (one), and the older

adults group and long-stay residential group participated in

the most (six home-based activities for each group).

The third hypothesis (i.e. leisure users commonly take part

in segregated leisure opportunities) was supported since it

was found that many of the current leisure activities people

engaged in were organized through and took place in day

services. Approximately 65% of community activities fell

into this category.

The final hypothesis (i.e. that people living in large institu-

tions will have less leisure opportunities than those living in

smaller, residential settings) was not substantiated in that the

college and school groups participated in the fewest activities

(11 and 16, respectively). The long-stay residential group

participated in a total of 17 leisure activities. The highest

number of activities were accessed by the older adults and

SEC groups, who took part in a total of 20 and 22 leisure

activities, respectively.

A summary of the data relevant to the current leisure

activities and the activities participants which would like

to try is presented in Table 2.

The present authors found no evidence for their hypoth-

esis that the majority of activities which people with learning

Table 2 Number of leisure activities which the participants are currently engaged in and those which they would like to try

Focus group

ActivityOlder

adults College

Social

education

centre

Special

school

Residential

unit Total

Activities in which participants are currently engaged

Relaxing 2 1 2 2 2 9

Creative 3 0 1 2 4 10

Improving things 1 0 0 1 0 2

Doing things at home 0 0 0 0 1 1

Learning 3 0 0 0 0 3

With people 3 0 4 2 4 13

Sports 0 3 7 3 1 14

Outdoor 3 0 2 4 3 12

Fun 5 7 6 2 2 22

Activities which participants would like to try

Relaxing 1 0 0 0 0 1

Creative 0 1 4 1 0 6

Improving things 0 0 0 1 1 2

Doing things at home 0 0 0 1 0 1

Learning 0 0 1 0 1 2

With people 0 3 1 0 0 4

Sports 1 13 8 1 1 24

Outdoor 1 2 3 1 3 10

Fun 0 5 6 2 4 17


136 S. Beart et al.

disabilities participate in are home-based. This finding con-

trasts with other studies on leisure which have found that

people with learning disabilities largely engage in solitary,

home-based leisure pursuits (e.g. Wertheimer 1983; McCon-

key & McGinley 1990). This discrepancy may be the result of

several factors. Firstly, the focus groups involved adults with

mild to moderate learning disability and relatively good

communication skills. This group is probably more able to

access community leisure opportunities than people with

more severe learning disabilities or poorer communication

abilities. Secondly, people may have quite simply not chosen

to talk about home activities and preferred to discuss the

more exciting community pursuits. Thirdly, as the present

authors had hypothesized, many of the community activities

(65%) which the participants discussed were organized

through the day centre services which people attended,

and were rarely integrated activities. For example, if some-

one stated that they took part in ‘keep fit’, this would be

recorded as a community activity. However, the person was

often referring to an organized activity within their day

centre rather than to an integrated community-based class.

Carrying out activities in a day centre is not the same as fully

utilizing the leisure opportunities available to the general

public. While there is evidence that practising leisure skills

can have positive effects (Rose 1990) and while it may give

many people the opportunity to try activities which they may

otherwise miss out on, it indicates that the present sample’s

leisure activities are restricted to weekdays, and rarely occur

during evenings and weekends.

There were some interesting differences between the

groups in terms of: (1) the activities which they were cur-

rently accessing; and (2) the activities which they wanted to

access. The focus groups allowed the present authors to draw

some themes from the group discussions and highlighted the

importance of considering people’s needs at a small group,

or better still, an individual level.

Participants from the long-stay unit were engaged in the

most home-based activities, and therefore, had fewer inte-

grated leisure opportunities. This was perhaps not a surpris-

ing result since participants from the other focus groups

mostly lived with their families, and in some cases, hostels,

where community access is more easily established.

The elderly day care group talked of only three activities

which they wanted to try (i.e. watching football, trains and

doing lawn sports). Hoover et al. (1992) found similar results

in their study of older adults. The above authors warned

against pushing activities onto people for ‘their own good’.

Russell (1995) also warned against leisure being used as

therapy and losing its element of choice. It would seem that,

although new opportunities should continue to be offered to

older adults, the focus should be on improving the access

that they have to the activities which they are currently

enjoying and in ensuring that they have adequate support

in following these pursuits.

The college and SEC groups each generated a long list of

activities which they wanted to try (24 and 23, respectively).

Both showed interest in night-clubbing, theatre, concerts and

sports (e.g. rugby, ice hockey, archery, rock climbing, wind-

surfing and sailing). All of these activities were noticeably

absent from their current repertoire.

The present authors hypothesized that money would be

perceived as a barrier to participants accessing leisure facil-

ities. However, lack of money was only perceived as a

difficulty in two out of the five groups. One person men-

tioned taxis being expensive, and others noted the expense

of acquiring necessities such as golf club membership or

bowling shoes.

Overall, there appeared to be a lack of awareness of

money. This may reflect the fact that many activities are

arranged by day centres, and therefore, do not involve

money changing hands (e.g. ‘keep fit’ provided by the day

provision rather than a leisure centre). It is also possible that

many participants have their money controlled by someone

else (e.g. parent or carer) who gives it to them as they need it.

The perceived barriers to accessing leisure were very

clearly expressed in all five groups. These included the same

two factors which were discussed when participants were

asked what allowed them to do leisure activities, i.e. trans-

port and support. In the long-stay residential group, one

person mentioned ‘being naughty’ as another potential bar-

rier. The school group also reported that parental control

stopped them from clubbing and visiting friends.

The types of transport which the groups reported to be

available to them included lifts from parents and carers, as

well as public and specialist transport (‘Ring and Ride’).

Many activities were said not to be within walking distance,

and therefore, people were very reliant on transport. Al-

though transport often allowed people to use their leisure

time in the way they wanted, there were several drawbacks.

For example, there were complaints that public transport

was not regular enough and often involved long waits,

resulting in people missing their leisure pursuits. Likewise,

specialist transport was criticized for not always being on

time and one person complained that there was not enough

space. ‘Ring and Ride’ does not cross council boundaries, so

people felt limited by where they could go and frustrated that

it was hard to visit friends who had moved out of the area.

Specialist transport stops at 2200 h and this was felt to be a

restraint when going out in the evening. The alternative of

taking a taxi was felt to be too expensive.

The only transport service mentioned apart from public

transport was ‘Ring and Ride’, indicating that there may be a

lack of awareness of other available services in the borough

(e.g. voluntary transport services and ‘easy rider’ buses).

Overall, the present authors found that 70% of the activ-

ities that people did and 83% of those that they wanted to do

required some type of transport to reach them. This, coupled

with the fact that the vast majority of people with learning


Barriers to accessing leisure opportunities 137

disabilities do not have access to independent transport (e.g.

their own car, motorcycle or bike), means that providing

information on all available transport services is critical.

A second major determining factor in whether or not users

could access activities was the availability of support. This

included worries about getting lost or running into danger if

they didn’t have someone with them. There were concerns

about health issues from people with epilepsy who felt they

would like someone with them for some leisure activities in

case they had a seizure.

Ill health in the family and relatives moving away were

also talked of as barriers to leisure pursuits. Sometimes

someone had moved away who had helped the user to access

facilities and hadn’t been replaced so that the activity had to

cease.

One of the limitations of the present study is that some of

the categories designated as either home-based or commu-

nity-based are not mutually exclusive. For example, some

new things can be learned at home (this was a category

designated as community-based). Whether an activity

requires transport or money can also be seen as somewhat

arbitrary categorization because this not only depends on the

activity, but also on individual circumstances (e.g. location

and personal fitness). Finally, the present study is a small,

local project, and therefore, it may be felt that it is not

generalizable to other areas. However, it has shown that

the focus group methodology is an effective way in which to

sample the local leisure needs of service users with learning

disabilities.

References

Aveno A. (1987) Survey of activities engaged in and skills most

needed by adults in community residences. J Assoc Persons Severe

Handicaps, 12: 125–30.

Aveno A. (1989) Community involvement of persons with severe

retardation living in community residences. Exceptional Children,

55: 309–14.

Barr O. (1996) Developing services for people with learning

disabilities which actively involve family members – a review of

recent literature. Health Social Care Community, 4 (2): 103–12.

Brown H. (1994) What price theory if you can’t afford the bus fare:

normalisation and leisure services for people with learning

disabilities. Health Social Care Community, 2 (3): 153–9.

Cragg R. & Garvey K. (1990) What’s on? A comprehensive menu of

ordinary living activities for adults. Birmingham, R. Cragg.

Glanzer M. & Cunitz A.R. (1966) Two stage mechanisms in free

recall. J Verbal Learning Verbal Behavior, 5: 351–60.

Hoge G. & Dattilo J. (1995) Recreation participation of adults with

and without mental retardation. Education Training Mental

Retardation Dev Disabilities, 30 (4): 283–98.

Hoover J., Wheeler J. & Reetz L. (1992) Development of a leisure

satisfaction scale for use with adolescents and adults with mental

retardation: initial findings. Education Training Mental Retardation,

27 (2): 153–60.

Jahoda A. & Cattermole M. (1995) Activities of people with

moderate to severe learning difficulties, living with purpose or

just killing time? Disability Soc, 10 (2): 203–19.

McConkey R. & McGinley P. (1990) Innovations in leisure and

recreation for persons with a mental handicap. Lisieux Hall, Whittle le

Woods, Chorley, Brothers of Charity Services.

McEvoy J., O’Mahoney E. & Tierney A. (1990) Parental attitudes

to friendship and use of leisure by mentally handicapped

persons in the community. Int J Rehabilitation Res, 13 (3):

269–71.

Morgan D.L. (1996) Focus groups. Annu Rev Sociology, 22: 129–52.

Prost A.L. (1992) Leisure and disability: a contradiction in terms.

World Leisure Recreation, 34 (3): 8–9.

Rose S. (1990) The value of outdoor activities. Nursing, 4 (21):

12–16.

Rose S. (1993) Integrated leisure opportunities. In: Brigden P., Todd

P., editors. Concepts in community care for people with a learning

difficulty. Basingstoke, Macmillan.

Russell J. (1995) Leisure and recreation services. In: Malin N., editor.

Services for people with learning disabilities. London, Routledge.

Sigelman C.K., Budd E.C., Winer J.L., Schoenrock C.J. & Martin

P.W. (1982) Evaluating alternative techniques of questioning

mentally retarded persons. Am J Mental Deficiency, 86:

511–8.

Wade M.G. & Hoover J.H. (1985) Mental retardation as a constraint

on leisure. In: Wade M.G., editor. Constraints on leisure. Chicago,

IL, Charles C. Thomas.

Wertheimer A. (1983) Leisure. London, Values into Action.

Wolfensberger W. (1972) The principle of normalization in human

services. Toronto, National Institute on Mental Retardation.


138 S. Beart et al.

barriers to accessing leisure opportunities for people with learning disabilities

Documents