The program should take place in an accessible and newly developed facility that has been properly adapted for patrons living with chronic sensory and/or physical disabilities. The location of choice is the Olympic Oval facility in Richmond, British Columbia. The facility was developed in preparation for the 2010 Olympic and Paralytic Games. As a result, the entire facility has been architecturally adapted to the many specific needs of those with physical and/or mental impairments.
This includes, but is not limited to: (a) ramps and oversized elevators for wheelchair accessibility between levels; (b) a gym facility one of few in North America) that affords adaptations for both a cardiac and strength machine line; a result of the facility partnership with the Inclusive Fitness Initiative (c) a rowing center that is wheelchair accessible (d) clearly lit and visible walking paths for sensory deprived individuals (e) accessible ice arenas for sledge hockey A clear reason as to why this program is needed is explained by the shear number of individuals in the lower mainland who identify themselves as currently suffering from sensory and physical disability. Of the approximately 2. 0 million persons of working age living in the lower mainland, 10. % reported having a disability (Bobcats, 2009). The BC provincial government reports in their findings that mobility/activity limitations were the most common documented disabilities, totaling just over one quarter of total impairments. Furthermore, sensory impairments, those of hearing, sight and speech, totaled a modest 6. 9% (Bobcats, 2009).
Don’t waste your time!
Order your assignment!
Across BC, the Provincial government, along with many not-for-profit organizations, have taken huge strides in keeping students with disabilities active and healthy. The BC Ministry of Education has mandated for all schools to meet the daily physical activity requirements during school hours. This includes students living with chronic impairments (Ministry of Education, 2012). Teachers, now more than ever, are being trained on the importance of inclusive and adapted physical activity programs for children. This has led to increased participation within physical education settings, as well as increased self- perceived competence in participants.
Unfortunately, as young teenagers “age- out” of the public school system, and reach early adulthood, the opportunities to continue participating in such settings decreases drastically. Furthermore, the need to work and make a living makes the already available programs harder o access on a regular basis. My program aims to meet the demand for physical activity opportunities, as well as the affective demands for positive self-advocacy and healthy living techniques, as the disabled population systematically suffers from mainstream social oppression. The program will be a short-term program lasting 10 weeks. Specifically, the program will identify as a “workshop” as defined by Sore (1984).
The program actively involves participants in a short-term experience where the focus is on identifying problems associated with sport participation and accessible healthy living opportunities. Furthermore, the workshops aim to develop personalized solutions to such issues, by actively involving participants in the problem solving process, where learners generate their own adaptive solutions. In the group, participants are encouraged to share some of their positive experiences, and their own solutions to problems, for the purpose of disseminating knowledge applicable to most -if not all participants. The group facilitator/instructor is there mainly for the purpose of introducing unfamiliar content, and facilitating positive group work.
Each Monday of each week, the program will be run for 2 hours, for a total of 20 hours. The rationale for this choice is based on many factors: (i) The availability of facilities: The Richmond Oval is a highly consumed facility, with an already broad array of programs. Short-term programs are more likely to be fit into the facility rental schedules than longer ones. Specifically, ice rink availability begins to drastically decrease as the winter season approaches; so short-term programs can fit into a schedule that might avoid such conflicts. (ii) Availability of participants: A 10-week program mimics the type of recreational program that typically runs in the fall and winter sessions.
Participants, especially those tit children, enjoy enrolling in programs that run in the evening (so they can come after work), and that are short (so they don’t have to worry about making long term commitments that might interfere with vacation time, or with their children’s ever-changing schedules. (iii) Affordability: Programs are usually paid for up front, which means that short-term programs are more affordable for participants, mainly because they have significantly smaller budgets. One running definition of adult education is that it is a program delivered by an institution where a set of activities is used to create intellectual and/or physical earning.
It can also lead to positive changes in social conscience and affective (emotional) state (Mirth, 2003). More so, adult education assumes an ever- changing definition as it reflects the needs of the current contextual parameters (Mirth, 2003). This program provides a service to a specific demographic of adults, where the needs have been identified as not only physical and intellectual, but also social. The program is designed to add knowledge to clients who could already be familiar with adapting themselves to the physical environment, to optimize their mobility and capabilities. The program stimulates learning using situations that mimic real life contextual problems.
Such problems include accessibility and equitable opportunity for sport participation. Furthermore, a penchant of adult education is to stimulate social change. One of the program’s main focuses is to equip the participants with intellectual tools to make them more successful in an active setting. The program also stimulates learners to be agents of their own human rights. It will create affective states in participants that favor their participation in inclusive and specialized sporting events. Sponsoring Organization Our sponsoring organization is Supportability BC. Their vision is to promote the “Participation in physical activity and sport by all British Columbians who have a physical disability” (Supportability, 2011).
The organization’s goal “… Is to create a fun and safe social environment for athletes with a disability, who could be introduced to an activity for the first time or competing on an international level. All staff and volunteers of Supportability are committed to [training and supporting] athletes with great professionalism and to provide everybody with an enjoyable experience in paratroops” (Supportability, 2011). Internal structure: An executive director oversees the general day-to-day operations of the society, including finances, staff employment and volunteer recruitment. A. The executive director answers to an executive committee and a board of directors. B.
The executive committee communicates with the provincial government, concerning funding and related resource support C. The remaining membership belongs to the public stakeholders who pay a yearly fee in order to take part in the activities and programs provided by Supportability BC. That being said, membership is also pen to stakeholders who have no interest in physical participation, but rather, participation in the organization as a means for social change. D. An annual general members meeting is held to update members on the developments in the past year; the future of the organization; and to listen to any stakeholder thoughts and criticisms. E. Supportability BC partners with multiple corporate sponsorships.
In exchange for corporate funding, the organization “enhances [corporate] brand image; increases their bottom line; improves employee recruitment and retention; and demonstrates the compass responsibility to he community’ (Supportability BC, 2011). F. The process of decision-making is primarily “a formal, hierarchal chain of command” (Sufferable, 2013) with the executive director setting the course of action for all associated parties working underneath his/her supervision. Member feedback and the board of directors however, heavily influence the decisions. The board must oversee the general direction of the organization, and whether or not Supportability BC is meeting its aforementioned goals. G.
The Sponsoring entities (Sussex Insurance, Vanity and others) do not appear to vastly influence decision-making, but they do seem o have a lot of influence on the branding of the events and the organization as a whole. All events must abide by certain visual agreements so that the companies are well represented. *I would recommend using the POINTS instrument developed by Yang (1999) in order to quantitatively assess planning power and influence within Supportability BC (Sufferable, 2013). Potential partnering organizations: The program is committed to developing relationships with other not-for-profit organizations, to further our umbrella of outreach. Included are potential competing organizations as well. A.
The BC Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation. The ministry strives for improved quality of living for those living with disabilities and offers a wide array of resources to do so including tax exemptions, personal support programs and earnings exemptions. The Ministry could prove very useful in partnering with our program to perhaps reduce or eliminate tax fees for the program, or by adding addition resources for daily operations (Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation, 2014) B. The BC Disability Benefits Advocacy Program can help ease the process for applying for tax breaks or earnings exemptions (Disability Alliance BC, 2014). C.
The BC Branch of the Canadian Bar Association is a lawyer referral website that can help participants seek financial aid, fight prejudice, or any other litigious issues (Canadian Bar Association, 2014). D. It is difficult for a participant to regularly commit to and enjoy a program when they do not have access to appropriate housing. The BC Housing association can work in unison with our program to provide accommodations within the home, at affordable rates, so that participants can continue their active lifestyle within the comforts of their abode. The potential competing organizations are: A. Sport BC is a “non-profit sport federation, representing over 60 Provincial Sport Organizations in British Columbia.
As a member-based organization, Sport BC offers services and programs to build the capacity of our members and advocate on their behalf to improve the landscape for organized sport in BC (Sport, 2010). The fear is that Sport BC is such a large umbrella organization, that it will infiltrate the programming resources needed for this program. Sport BC is well funded and supported, with notable partnerships with the Snuck for Kids Fund, the BC Amateur Hockey Association, and VAN (Sport, 2010). If our omitting program is to survive, the hope is to offer programs that are much more specifically catered to the disabled community. Sport BC has a great range of programs for kids and adults, but unfortunately their large range comes at the cost of program specificity.
Our program aims to provide detailed, tailored educational sessions for participants so that their experiences feel the most contextually relevant. Sport BC will effect our program implementation by forcing our planning committee to act fast and secure facility times that might otherwise be surrendered to sporting associations affiliated with Sport BC such as the ABACA. The dates of our programs will have to settle within optimal periods when BC Sport is least active, to maximize participation rates. Our presentation to the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation will have to be clear, and set us apart from Sport BC, as to maximize funding support. The Stakeholders will act as the executive planner of this program.
I will be the key decision- maker on what topics will be covered in lectures, as well as what physical activities will be covered. Throughout the planning process however, I will listen to a great deal of stakeholder opinions as well as many other experts. These groups will be highly influential in the planning process, and for the most part, a collaborative approach to program planning will be utilized. As a result, I will create a planning committee to oversee key facets of the program, to ensure that the appropriate amount of feedback from all stakeholders is considered. Other than the executive planner (myself), there are a plethora of stakeholders who will influence our planning process: a.
Local and provincial coalitions that may be interested in our specific initiative i. Formerly known as the BC Coalition of People with Disabilities, the eely renamed Disability Alliance BC is committed to building community among people living with disabilities. The coalition states that developing “community partnerships” are among one of their missions. They may be interested in helping develop our program alongside Supportability BC as our main sponsoring organization. B. Local grantees of the program’s funds i. Community grantees, local private business sponsors and local corporate sponsors will be interested to see how the program reflects their own interests.
The larger the grant, the more we can expect them to be vocal throughout the planning process. C. Government funding agencies i. The Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation will play a key role in funding our program and, aside from the wealth of knowledge they will add, the ministry will also impose certain guidelines that we must abide by to meet their expectations. D. University and educational institutions i. At the heart of a strong program is the potential to create further research and to involve members of the local academic community. We may use such institutions to seek advice about theoretical teaching practices, as well as for good leads on strong instructors. E. The sponsoring organization .
Supportability BC, our sponsoring organization, will add a wealth of physical and intellectual resources to our program, but they will also affect the way it is planned. Their funding, based off of membership fees and donations, will be key to our planning budget as well. F. The planning committee members i. The planning committee members will, in all likelihood, be the largest contributing stakeholders in the program as they are the planners. Each of the 5 members will report to the executive planner, but they are the engine that drives the vehicle towards successful planning. They are always on the front lines of landing practice, and will be responsible for positions that will be covered later on in the assignment. G. The participants of the program i.
Program planning is difficult to do without input from potential participants, as well as input from experts within the target audience. The planning committee will seek input from various disabled athletes, as well as feedback from participants as they are going through the program, so content and practices can be changed before and during the implementation. H. The facility managers i. The Richmond Oval facilities are very busy, and facility managers might eave input on how to properly design a program to optimize the participant experience, while also keeping the facility operationally sound. The input might involve scheduling changes or equipment availability issues, among other things. The constraints to our program’s success: i.
Participant recruitment: The disabled community is a smaller minority of the Greater Vancouver area, and as such, reaching out to such a precise subpopulation can prove difficult (especially for those with sensory deficiencies). Our marketing has to be efficient and strategic. Radio and poster marketing loud target those with visual and auditory disabilities, but targeting which physical areas and radio stations will take some research. J. The proposed program takes on a large amount of financial costs due to facility rentals, staff compensation and marketing. Hopefully, some costs will be offset by generous sponsorship funding and government grants.
Both sources of external income will be optimized if we present a professional case for why our program deserves such assistance. This is the responsibility of the Sponsorship & Ministry Relations Coordinator. K. Staff expertise is another issue. Physical and ensure disabilities are such broad terms that encompass so many varying manifestations. Quality staff must be recruited to ensure that their lesson plans are adequate enough to accommodate for the unique individual capabilities of each participant. Furthermore, quality staff often plan lessons that are perceived as more professionally coordinated, which leads to increased rates of patron return. That being said, quality staff is difficult to obtain, and often, competing programs are also looking for them.
We will make our best efforts to outreach to candidates who have the greatest amount of experience, while also going wrought the candidate list of applicants. L. Philosophical constraint: There have been arguments that physical disability is a socially constructed constraint. A program like this that helps “uplift” individuals with disabilities out of oppression can be seen as an agent of perpetuating the social idea that people with disabilities are always in need of help. A way of avoiding such accusations is to use this program as a means of “furthering the development of paratroops and paratroops participation”, therefore taking the focus away from the disability, and bringing attention to the physical activity opportunities.
The relevant learner and environmental characteristics that will affect our planning process are: a. The demographic, as explained in the introduction, consists of a smaller minority of potential participants. Within that demographic, an even smaller proportion is expected to be eligible and willing to participate. When planning the program, we must take into consideration lower-than-expected participation rates, yet plan for the maximum capacity. Furthermore, participants within this demographic experience disability differently, so we have to ensure that best practices are UT in place to optimize participation irrespective of unique characteristics.
This demographic may also be very sensitive to the stigmas related to disability, and may treat instruction and offered aid differently, so we have to be aware of the amount and intensity of instruction we provide to each individual. Some require more attention while others prefer being independent. Planning practices should be put in place to offer opportunities for teamwork, as well as individual skill acquisition time. B. The sociopolitical context can also play into program planning: With the recent teachers union strike making headlines around BC, t has become increasingly apparent that the provincial government is not as willing or enthusiastic on funding education programs.
When planning talks with the Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation, we must be wary of the budget cuts that have been made recently, and expect significantly less funding. This will play a role in what activities are affordable, and which ones must be cut from the curriculum. C. Geographical characteristics play a huge role in program planning. The Richmond Olympic Oval sits on the West side of Richmond, which is not very accessible other than by car. How do we take into consideration commuter cost and commuting time into planning? Planning a program that begins in the heart of rush hour may not be very smart or considerate of participants who may have to drive long distances and cross the bridges into Richmond.
Motivation States For the majority of participants, we expect their motivational orientations to be “learning-oriented” (Cross, 1981). We hope that participants are there to pursue physical activity as a learning opportunity. The expectation for an outcome of the course is to provide options for learners to continue lifelong physical activity. Therefore, we expect that participants be mostly there for the sake of learning for continued personal growth. That being said, we could see a smaller cohort of participants there with “activity-oriented” motivation (Cross, 1981). Some individuals might be registered simply to stay active, and not because they want to learn more about lifestyle changes or specific adaptations.
Barriers affecting our learners The situational barriers are plentiful for those with physical limitations. We must be aware that, on average, people with disabilities often earn less income than the median working-age salary. Planning programs must take into consideration cost efficiency to the highest degree. Affordability could make or break the success of participant registration, irrespective of how well the program is planned. One of our philosophical beliefs is “participation without limitation”, and we will publicly declare that anyone in need of funding assistance will receive it. We will have to budget that into the proposal for funding from the BC government.
A dispositional barrier is that participants could be suffering from low self-esteem and low self-perceived competency. The belief that physical usability is a lifelong anchor may affect registration rates and learner confidence. Promoting and ensuring a safe, learner-centered approach to learning, where goals are self-referent can help restore confidence in athletes. The need for proper instructors is a key to eliminating this barrier. As mentioned before, the location of the complex may lead to less registration rates, as some potential patrons might have to commute from great distances. This institutional barrier is hard to alleviate. One way we can accommodate long commuters is to schedule classes outside of rush hour traffic.
Childcare is another situational barrier: Patrons with children are less inclined to register due to their parental duties. Luckily, the Richmond Oval offers a daycare program that our program might be able to collaborate with in order to reduce or even eliminate additional costs. Http://recreational. Ca/participate/childbearing. HTML Roles in the planning process: a. The content experts will be the executive committee at Supportability BC as well as any staff hired to train/educate the participants. Primarily, the hired staff know a “great deal more about the program topic than the participants… ” And are considered experts on the content (Smolders, 2014).
Supportability BC has a wealth of representatives who can offer their expertise on the development and delivery of a course because they are more experienced at program delivery, tailored towards groups with physical disabilities. B. Participant representatives will be consulted as well. Primarily, our goal is to offer up an open forum (either online or in a small group meeting) where participants in paratroops will be consulted. The goal is to get a sense of the issues participants have experienced in the past when taking part in paratroops and physical activity. Mainly, we want to empower he participants by providing them with the most autonomy possible. Hey can give their input on what programs seem the most interesting or engaging. C.
The planning committee will be highly influential throughout the planning process. Other than coordinating their own responsibilities, they will be highly influential in dictating the course of program development, and how much input comes in from each external stakeholder. Each member will oversee a different, equally important role: i. Sponsorship & Ministry Relations Coordinator ii. Participant recruitment and feedback Coordinator iii. Facilities and equipment Coordinator v. Volunteer/Staff Coordinator v. Media and Promotions Coordinator Conclusion: The planning process is such an intricate experience with so many levels of influence and dynamic interaction.
At the very core of program planning is the human experience. People must communicate and develop professional relationships using a network that is tightly connected. Stakeholders come from all angles of the community, ranging from corporate sponsors to the participants themselves and everything else in between. A proper program is one that takes into account all stakeholder opinions regardless of their overall influence. The main insight having completed this assignment is that planning should be a collaborative process. A top-down approach may be structured, but it is important that subordinate groups have large influence in program planning.
More so than anything, it makes all members of the planning experience feel competent and autonomous. The wary issue is that roles must be properly defined in order to ensure that no one crosses over and performs someone else’s responsibilities. That might lead to conflict and feelings of role ambiguity. Identifying clear roles, then providing the resources for each member in each ole to create solutions to barriers will only enhance the program’s probability of success. Such resources however, are not always easily accessible. Forming partnerships with adjacent organizations, coalitions, or local community groups can help share knowledge and resources in a reciprocal manner. In short, the planning process is never an easy A-B-C experience.