Daño inmaterial

The theme of ‘Promoting and Funding Inclusion’ explores the challenges of funding inclusive activities, the reliance of powerful promotion on continued funding, and the universal responsibility of fundraising. Although there was a dearth in the literature on promotion and funding inclusion, the issue was so prominent in the data collection and was instrumental in the action research, that it was important to dedicate a section to this theme. Funding inclusion was woven into almost all of the participant discussions around inclusion; expenses and funding were key concerns for both parents and activity providers.

Analysis of the data shows that funding was both a barrier and a facilitator. The data from phase two demonstrated that among the realistic actions, participants focused on how they could implement inclusive provision at a reduced cost, or ways that they could generate an increase in funding. Each of the sixteen priority actions developed by participants during cycle two involved some level of funding, and the frequency of financial concerns apparent in the data demonstrated a high level of financial anxiety among participants. This may have been different in another population group. The data demonstrated that there was a focus on funding among activity providers; it also demonstrates a lack of focus on other areas highlighted in the literature such as self- development of children and young people with disabilities (Willis et al. 2018a), or the pressure on families (Shields and Synnot 2016). This suggests that the financial pressure on activity providers detracts from other key issues addressed in the literature.

Costs, funding and finance were not so widely discussed in the literature, despite the obvious expense of the home-based and residential programmes, and multi-agency approaches (Anaby et al. 2015; Anaby et al. 2017; Willis et al. 2018a; Willis et al. 2018b). The only research in the literature review to research ‘community’ clubs was focused on sports clubs in Australia (Jeanes et al. 2018), although many of these clubs had wider-support from governing bodies in terms of management, finance,

development and inclusivity. In contrast, the community clubs in this research were all small and independent clubs, and either run as not-for-profit, or start-up family

businesses. Funding inclusion in these smaller clubs relied on local government funding, charitable grants and fundraising. In larger organisations, there is a high level of management dealing with finances so activity providers can focus on the activities without the concerns of finance. By contrast, in smaller organisations, funding is often the responsibility of those also providing hands-on in delivery of the provision. The finding that there was more pressure on community clubs to both fund and deliver participation in inclusive activities is a major concern, impeded further by austerity measures, reduced budgets and the reduction in grants. The literature on austerity demonstrates that austerity has led to a reduction in the quality of services and opportunities for children and young people with disabilities to participate in inclusive community leisure and recreation activities (Horridge et al. 2019). This poses a major threat to the development of the social model principles that can unite society through equality.

The data revealed that the reduction in quality of services has further damaged the level of mistrust of mainstream activity providers among parents of children and young people with disabilities. Research on austerity by Horridge et al. (2019) found that most families reported services to be worse than three years prior, and some families

reported that the needs of their children were less well met than ten years ago. The data in this research found that participants held the view that major providers were driven by profit over inclusivity, and that parent participants perceived inclusive

initiatives to be profitable for mainstream providers, with the potential to fill a large gap in the market. Parent participants firmly believed that funding inclusive initiatives made commercial sense, and although they were aware of the impact of austerity, this did not seem to translate in their views about profit over inclusivity. In contrast, the

experiences of activity provider participants demonstrated a desire to make change happen despite financial constraints, with a huge sense of personal responsibility for fundraising and professional development, as captured in this comment from Annie:

“if there’s any specialist kit or anything that we can use to help develop children and adults then you know rather than trying to struggle to get the money if we get everyone involved and actually organised some fundraising ourselves we can sort of generate it that way.”

The data implies a level of personal responsibility among those who work in the sector to support funding for inclusive leisure provision for all children. In contrast to the negative perceptions from parent participants, evidence from activity provider participants demonstrated that organisations wanted to provide more support to children and young people with disabilities.

In the current financial climate, continued funding is incredibly important to activity providers. Data from participants links the reliance of continued funding on the demonstration of achievements with positive advertising, success stories and community engagement to reduce stigma. In discussion about fundraising and promotion, Annie considered how engaging communities through fundraising events helped generate both awareness and funds:

“And then we’ve also got organised fundraising events, getting community involved, spreading awareness, but also if there’s any specialist kit or anything that we can use to help develop children and adults, then you know rather than trying to struggle to get the money. If we get everyone involved and actually organised some fundraising ourselves we can sort of generate it that way.” The data shows that both parents and activity providers felt that the responsibility for funding inclusion and promoting awareness of inclusion was a community

reliance on the state to make change happen (Oliver 2013), the current situation of a lack of available funding means that this is the reality.

Participants also felt that staff should fundraise for their own training development, which raised a question about the lack of essential resources, the provision of which is essential for the social model of disability. Lack of training is also highlighted as a structural barrier in the literature (Emira and Thompson 2011). The cost of training as an issue was prominent throughout the data and focused on the alternative lower cost methods of training, which included on the job training, peer-training, and sharing experience and knowledge with colleagues and organisations; these are explored in more depth in the next section.

One challenge for the research considering the focus that developed around funding, was that the level of knowledge about the costs of providing activities and all the associated overheads among activity staff and volunteers was varied and led to some debate among the participants during the research. Data from participants

demonstrates that social media and other online promotion and marketing tools were viewed as having no cost, and there was a lack of understanding about the overhead costs involved for organisations, as captured in this conversation between Melody and Talia:

Melody: “Even where you put regular website updates, I think that would come into the no budget anyway, but I understand what you’re saying about the time.” Talia: “Yeah it’s the time and sometimes you have to generate people to go on the website haven’t you, you’ve got to push the people to go on it, so you kind of think well actually is that the way to go anyway - should you just be putting information on social media so it’s free?”

The theme of funding and promoting inclusion, strongly highlights how the issue of funding inclusion is prominent, immediate, and concerning. Funding was at the forefront of participant data across the participant-derived themes: the cost of

overcoming barriers, the cost of communication aids, the cost of education, the cost of activities, and the lack of funding. Austerity has shifted the responsibility for funding inclusion away from government and onto activity providers and communities. The finding that such a focus on funding could have the potential to detract from the key focus of enhancing inclusion, is also worrying. The findings suggest that the lack of investment into inclusive provision at a local grass-roots level is perceived by stakeholders as a major barrier.