International Abridged Version PASSING

PASSING: A Tool for Analyzing Service Quality

According to Social Role Valorization Criteria, 2025 Abridged Version of the (3rd rev. 2007 ed.)

PASSING Ratings Manual

Wolf Wolfensberger and Susan Thomas

PASSING:

A Tool for Analyzing Service Quality

According to Social Role Valorization Criteria, 2025 Abridged Version of the (3rd rev. 2007 ed.)

PASSING Ratings Manual

PASSING:

A Tool for Analyzing Service Quality According to Social Role Valorization Criteria, 2025

Abridged Version of the (3rd rev. 2007 ed.)

PASSING Ratings Manual

Wolf Wolfensberger & Susan Thomas

ISBN 978-1-989991-08-4

Copyright 2025, Valor Press

Published by: by Valor Press Valor Solutions

860 Rue Caron Street Rockland ON Canada K4K 1H1

Telephone: +1 (613) 249-8593 https://presse.valorsolutions.ca/en/

The correct reference for this work in the style of the American Psychological Association (APA) is:

Wolfensberger, W., & Thomas, S. (2025). PASSING:AToolforAnalyzingService QualityAccordingtoSocialRoleValorizationCriteria,2025AbridgedVersionof the(3rdrev.2007ed.)PASSINGRatingsManual. Rockland, ON: Valor Press. iii

Introduction to the 2025 Abridged Version of the (3rd rev. 2007 ed.) PASSING Ratings Manual

The teaching and implementation of Social Role Valorization (SRV) and the use of PASSING have, since 2010, expanded beyond North America, Australasia and Western Europe into Eastern Europe and the Indian subcontinent and, increasingly, there is interest in using PASSING’s powerful framework in societies with diferent cultural tradition. The ratings and supportive text provide excellent guidance in the universals on which SRV is based, and a number of people from non-western countries have participated in both workshops to teach PASSING, as well as in bonafide evaluations.

All previous editions of PASSING, including the most recent 3rd edition (Wolfensberger & Thomas, 2007), frequently use both positive and negative examples to clarify ratings and illustrate the application of assessment criteria. Although these examples are intended to be helpful, they are almost entirely based on western service forms and situations which users from other countries may be unfamiliar with. Needing to explain and/or translate western examples to make them relevant for other cultures and societies has proven to be dificult and an added complication when teaching and using PASSING in non-western countries.

Moreover, even in the English-speaking PASSING experience, there has always been some controversy about some of the examples, and these have sometimes proven to be distractions in training sessions and in the application of the ratings in assessment activities. This should not be surprising, as what is valued or devalued in societies evolves over time, and human service practices are continuously changing. Thus, examples have a shelf-life and need to be adapted, replaced, or, as we have done here, edited out. However, examples can be useful teaching tools and thus some examples that are determined to have global relevance remain (about 34,000 words or 17% of the text have been edited out of the preceding edition of the Manual). Ultimately, what matters is the universal that underlies or is embodied in each rating and its criteria, not examples that attempt to concretize the universal concept. Senior PASSING trainers and assessment team leaders will likely continue to use relevant examples accumulated from their service and assessment experiences and will illustrate SRV concepts by relating them to the real-time practices of human services that are being assessed.

Unfortunately, the senior author of PASSING, Professor Wolf Wolfensberger, died in 2011 and therefore could not be consulted about this change to the Manual. However, we have operated with the assumption that the ratings themselves are robust, and the nature of each rating is made adequately clear in the remaining sections of the Manual.

This Abridged version of the 3rd edition 2007 PASSING Ratings Manual is being published to guide both PASSING workshop participants and PASSING evaluators. Some may want to label this version as "experimental," acknowledging that the removal of examples may introduce its own dificulties, even if resolves certain others. Each of the 42 ratings include:

i. General Statement of the Issue

ii. SRV Requirement (Selected Generic Examples; Clearly Positive Service Examples; and Examples of Violations, all of which appeared in previous editions, are removed)

iii. Diferentiation from Other Ratings

iv. Suggested Guidelines for Collecting and Using Evidence

v. Criteria for Level Assignments (most examples removed)

This new version has maintained the pagination of the 3rd edition (2007) of PASSING, allowing assessment participants to use either the 3rd edition or this Abridged edition.

This Abridged Manual was developed under the leadership of Betsy Neuville, the Executive Director of Keystone Institute, to aid in teaching and application of PASSING in India and Bangladesh; with the support and assistance of Susan Thomas, the co-author of PASSING and coordinator of the Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership, and Change Agentry. Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York, and Raymond Lemay, the Editor of Valor Press and a board member of the International SRV Association; and with the support of the International SRV Association (ISRVA) as well as the All-India SRV Alliance (AISRV). It is our intention that this Manual helps promulgate the understanding and implementation of Social Role Valorization in dierent cultures working to bring the good things of life to all people.

Acknowledgements

The writers of PASSING would like to acknowledge and thank the following people and organizations for their contributions to the design and development of the instrument.

The contributors to the development of PASS (see footnote 2 on p. 4), the forerunner of PASSING, especially Linda Glenn and Sandy Leppan. Many concepts now in PASSING were first developed in PASS;

The County of Dane (Madison, Wisconsin) Developmental Disabilities Services Board which commissioned the first (1980, experimental) edition of PASSING;

The Easter Seal Research Foundation, which provided financial support for two years for the evolution and preparation of the second (1983) edition of PASSING, and for related research and material development;

John O’Brien, who assisted in the conceptualization of the original framework of PASSING, the format of ratings, rating foci and boundaries, and who consulted with the Dane County Developmental Disabilities Services Board on the development of the first (experimental) edition of PASSING;

Joe Osburn, who helped write some of the earlier ratings in the first edition, led several assessment teams through the process of applying the instrument during practice (“de-bugging”) assessments for the first and second editions, and conducted the majority of the negotiations and arrangements for instrument development and try-outs of the first edition with the Dane County Developmental Disabilities Services Board;

Carolyn Bardwell Wheeler, Judith Kurlander, Raymond Lemay, Al Marks, Darcy Miller Elks, and Jack Yates, who were team participants in early practice assessments with the experimental edition of the instrument, and who thereby provided us with helpful suggestions for structuring the instrument and revising several sections;

The administration, staff, and recipients of Jowonio School, and of the Onondaga Association for Retarded Citizens’ Highland Avenue group home, both in Syracuse, NY, who graciously allowed us to conduct practice assessments of their services with the first edition of PASSING, at some inconvenience to themselves;

Tom Doody, Susanne Hartfiel, Joe Osburn, David Race, and Jack Yates for reading through the third edition to catch errors, and/or to comment on revisions.

Introduction and Overview to the 2007 3rd Revised Edition

Background

This book, called the PASSING Ratings Manual, is one of several volumes (as explained below) that make up, or are related to, an instrument for assessing the quality of a human service, and for teaching adaptive service practices. The previous edition of PASSING1 was published in 1983, and the acronym PASSING initially stood for Program Analysis of Service Systems’ Implementation of Normalization Goals, but no longer does. PASSING is distinct from, but partially inspired by, the PASS (Program Analysis of Service Systems)2 method of evaluation.

Both PASS and PASSING are tools for the objective quantitative measurement of the quality of a wide range of human service programs, agencies, and even entire service systems. PASS measures service quality in terms of the service’s adherence to (a) the principle of normalization,3,4 (b) certain other service ideologies, and (c) certain administrative desiderata, all believed to contribute to service quality. On the other hand, PASSING measures service quality almost entirely by criteria of Social Role Valorization, or SRV.5 Each instrument is comprised of “ratings,” i.e., statements of issues related to service quality, and criteria that a service must meet in regard to that issue in order to be of high quality. PASS has fifty ratings, of which thirty-four are based on normalization. In PASSING, there are forty-two ratings, all of which incorporate SRV implications to the quality of a service.

PASS and PASSING are both designed to be applied to just about any type of human service, be it formal or informal (educational, vocational, residential, medical/health, counseling, advocacy, rehabilitation, transportation, correctional, etc.). Further, both are meant to be used to assess services to any type of person, but especially to those who are societally devalued or at risk thereof (people who are mentally retarded, elderly, physically impaired, mentally disordered, impaired in a sense organ, racial or ethnic minority members, poor, illiterate, disordered in conduct/behavior, criminals, severely/chronically ill or dying, etc.).

How PASS and PASSING resemble each other, and how they differ, is spelled out in the Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Quality , 6 and can also be appreciated by examining the PASS Handbook For further information on how the two instruments differ, contact the Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership & Change Agentry; Room 309 Huntington Hall, Syracuse University; Syracuse, New York 13244 USA; phone 315.443.5257.

1Wolfensberger, W, & Thomas, S. (1983). PASSING (Program Analysis of Service Systems’ Implementation of Normalization Goals): Normalization criteria and ratings manual (2nd ed.). Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation. (A first experimental edition came out in 1980.)

2Wolfensberger, W., & Glenn, L. (1975, reprinted 1978). PASS (Program Analysis of Service Systems: A method for the quantitative evaluation of human services). Handbook & Field Manual (3rd ed.). Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation. (Earlier editions appeared in 1969 and 1973.)

3Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The principle of normalization in human services. Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation.

4Wolfensberger, W. (1980). The definition of normalization: Update, problems, disagreements, and misunderstandings. In R. J. Flynn, & K. E. Nitsch (Eds.), Normalization, social integration, and community services (pp. 71115). Baltimore: University Park Press.

5Wolfensberger, W. (1998). A brief introduction to Social Role Valorization: A high -order concept for addressing the plight of societally devalued people, and for structuring human services (3rd rev. ed.). Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership & Change Agentry (Syracuse University). (Earlier editions appeared in 1991 and 1992.)

6Wolfensberger, W. (1983). Guidelines for evaluators during a PASS, PASSING, or similar assessment of human service quality. Downsview (Toronto), Ontario: National Institute on Mental Retardation.

In PASSING, some terms or phrases are printed in bold letters, some in italics , and some in bold italics . Bold, or italics, are used to indicate titles such as in headings and sub-headings for ratings and rating clusters, or names of publications and bold print in the text is also used to indicate emphasis. A combination of bold and italic lettering is used to indicate great emphasis or importance, especially in instances where short words, such as “if,” “or,” etc., would be difficult to see in bold letters only. Also, although PASSING is applied outside the United States, US spellings and usage have been used throughout.

Within ratings, we tried not to break paragraphs over two pages, but instead to have a paragraph end on a page, and the next paragraph start on a new page. For this reason, there are sometimes one or a few inches of blank space at the bottom of a page, and the text continues on the page following.

Purposes and Applicability of PASSING

PASSING has three major purposes: to assess the quality of any human service according to SRV criteria; to teach SRV; and to plan and analyze services according to SRV.

As noted, as an evaluation tool, PASSING is meant to be applicable to just about any type of human service. Some render a direct form of service, others an indirect one. Teaching someone, providing someone with a place to live, or with medical treatment, are examples of direct serving. Making a referral to another body so that it can deliver the needed medical care, or giving someone guidance on how to apply for a job, or for welfare, are examples of indirect service. In applying PASSING, it is very important that raters be very clear what type of service(s) is/are being provided, as will become evident in the various ratings of PASSING.

The PASSING Ratings Manual (hereafter called Manual for short) contains the material that a trained evaluator (i.e., a “rater”) would need in order to assess the quality of a service in relation to the criteria of SRV, and/or that a student of SRV would need in order to study SRV via the PASSING service evaluation approach even if the person did not want to assess a specific service, or to learn the PASSING discipline of service assessment. The Manual contains the complete forty-two ratings of PASSING, as well as additional narrative that may provide background to the ratings and to rating “clusters” (a cluster is a group of two or more ratings that have some common elements). The Manual is the book that raters and students of SRV must study thoroughly in order to understand:

a. how the implications of SRV are embodied in PASSING;

b. how PASSING structures SRV into “ratings” to be applied in the assessment of the quality of a service;

c. what each rating (or SRV implication) addresses; and

d. how each rating (or SRV implication) differs from the others.

The Manual is also the book that raters must take with them “into the field” (i.e., when they go out to a service to conduct a PASSING assessment), and which they will constantly need to refer to during all stages of an assessment, e.g., during data gathering, while making their rating level assignments, and during the deliberations (“conciliation”) of an evaluation team. In fact, raters will use the Manual in detail and repeatedly at each step as they apply PASSING, in order to:

a. frame questions to guide their study, observations, and inquiry of the service being assessed;

b. guide them in deciding on a level of service performance for each rating every time they do a service assessment;

c. clarify team members’ understanding of each rating while a rating team engages in conciliation in order to come to a consensus decision on all the rating levels;

d. help decide what information is to be reported back to an assessed service.

However, even thorough knowledge of the PASSING Manual is not sufficient to enable a person to master PASSING as a tool, and to participate in the conduct of a valid PASSING assessment. To that end, even otherwise very learned people must still (a) attend an introductory SRV training workshop, in which SRV is taught systematically; (b) attend an introductory PASSING training workshop, in which participants go through supervised practice assessments using the tool;

and (c) read, study, and learn other publications, especially the major current text on SRV (see footnote 5 on page 4). Therefore, a reader should not feel discouraged if, after reading this Manual, many questions remain. A complex work such as this cannot be understood just by being read, but has to be studied . However, by thoroughly studying this volume, a reader can gain a solid basic understanding of most of the implications of SRV for any service.

Further, this Manual can be very useful even to people who never attend SRV training, nor PASSING training, nor ever use PASSING to assess a service. The reason is that just by reading and studying PASSING, one can learn an awful lot not only about SRV, but also about adaptive principles and strategies for human services in general, and especially services to devalued people. For instance, PASSING sets forth a systematic framework for designing a service to optimize role-valorization via such aspects as its: location; internal and external facility appearances; service language practices; juxtapositions, groupings, and interactions of service recipients with each other, with servers, and members of the public; program functions; timing and rhythms of service activities; image-related issues of rights and autonomy; balance between overprotection and underprotection; comfort of the facility; individualization of service arrangements; fostering of recipients’ socio-sexual identity; presence and use of possessions; effective use of program time; etc. For many readers, PASSING will be much more useful for designing a service properly from the beginning than evaluating its quality later on when a lot of things will no longer be readily changeable.

SRV can also be used to structure elements on the highest societal level, as well as on the level of informal personal relationships in the family, among friends and casual contacts, and in a person’s own life situations. People who use PASSING for purposes of service design and analysis can of course ignore the evaluation-specific parts of the book, namely the sections in each rating entitled “Suggested Guidelines for Collecting and Using Evidence” and “Criteria and Examples for Level Assignments.”

However, when used as an evaluation instrument, PASSING is meant to be applied only to human services, be they formal or informal ones. It is therefore a misunderstanding to say that PASSING somehow “fails” as an instrument when it is used for purposes other than those for which it was primarily designed, or even worse, that SRV fails as a theory. For instance, while PASSING is meant to be a tool for analyzing services, it is not sufficient as a tool for structuring a party’s life outside of services. For such a purpose it can be very useful, but it was not specifically designed for such applications. Thus, a distinction must be made first between the application of SRV versus the application of PASSING; and secondly between applications of PASSING for the purposes for which it was designed, and other kinds of applications.

Structure of PASSING

This volume of PASSING contains the following (see Table of Contents for a quick overview): text;

a. a glossary of important and commonly-encountered terms and phrases in the PASSING

b. an overview of the issues of social image enhancement and personal competency enhancement, which are the two primary overall goals of SRV;

c. all forty-two ratings of PASSING, each of which embodies one or a few distinct SRV implications. Each rating contains the following:

c1. an explanation of the SRV rationale(s) for the rating, and of the issues at stake therein;

c2. a chart containing a very brief statement of the SRV issue in the rating;

c3. an explanation of the differences between the rating at hand, and any other ratings with which the rating might be confused;

c4. a chart containing a list of sources of evidence for making a judgment on the rating, a list of questions that might be asked in order to obtain information useful for judging the service’s performance on the rating, and brief summaries of some important and potentially difficult clarifications of the rating issue;

c5. criteria for five levels of quality and performance, from very low to very high. In an actual assessment, a rater would have to decide on which one of these levels the service being assessed falls.

The forty-two ratings are allocated into two major categories: social image issues (twenty-seven ratings) and personal competency issues (fifteen ratings). Service practices that have more impact on recipients’ social image than on their competencies fall into the first category; service practices that have more of an impact on recipients’ personal competencies than on their social image are in the second category. Within both categories, ratings are subdivided as to whether they apply to: (a) the physical setting in which the service is located; (b) the ways in which the service groups its recipients and otherwise structures and supports relationships between them and other people; (c) the activities and programs that the service provides or arranges, and other ways in which it uses or structures its recipients’ time; and (d) (applicable only to the image category) miscellaneous other imagery associated with the service, and not covered by any of the other ratings. Thus, there are ratings that have to do with how the physical setting of a service affects the social image of recipients; there are ratings that look at how the physical setting of a service affects recipients’ competencies; there are ratings that look at how the service-structured groupings and relationships affect the image of recipients; there is another category which has to do with how the service-structured groupings and relationships affect recipients’ competencies; yet another group of ratings assesses the image impact of miscellaneous other service practices; and so on. Altogether, there are seven major cells of ratings, and a rating is placed in whichever of the seven categories it has the greatest relevance to, granted that some ratings have relevance to more than one category. The chart which follows illustrates this.

1 PROGRAM ELEMENTS RELATED PRIMARILY TO RECIPIENT SOCIAL IMAGE ENHANCEMENT

2 PROGRAM ELEMENTS RELATED PRIMARILY TO RECIPIENT COMPETENCY ENHANCEMENT

01 PHYSICAL SETTING OF SERVICE

02 SERVICE-STRUCTURED GROUPINGS, RELATIONSHIPS & SOCIAL JUXTAPOSITIONS

03 SERVICE-STRUCTURED ACTIVITIES & OTHER USES OF TIME

04 MISCELLANEOUS OTHER SERVICE PRACTICES

11 ratings, coded 11

7 ratings, coded 12

6 ratings, coded 21

6 ratings, coded 22

3 ratings, coded 13

6 ratings, coded 14

3 ratings, coded 23

no ratings not applicable

Even within the seven categories, the same service feature may be rated by more than one rating. For example, there are two ratings in the category coded 11 which both measure the beauty of a service setting, but one measures the beauty of the setting exterior, and the other that of its interior. Two or more ratings that separately measure different aspects of a service feature are called rating “clusters,” and such clusters may have anywhere from two to three ratings, or may be comprised themselves of two or more smaller clusters. For example, the rating cluster “11 Image-Related Physical Setting of Service” is comprised of five rating clusters, each of which in turn contains two or three ratings.

Every rating and rating cluster is preceded by a sequence of code numerals in front of its name. The first number in the sequence indicates whether a rating or rating cluster falls into the image or competency domain. All those ratings and rating clusters in the category of image enhancement are preceded by the code number 1, and those in the category of competency enhancement by the code number 2. Each subcategory is also numbered (see the chart above): physical setting of service is 01; service-structured groupings and relationships among people is 02; service-structured activities and other uses of time is 03; miscellaneous other service practices is 04. Thus, the second digit in the series of numerals that precedes a rating or rating cluster name indicates the sub-category into which it falls. For example, in the rating cluster “11 Image-Related Physical Setting of Service,” the first number 1 indicates that this cluster falls in the category of image enhancement, and the second number 1 indicates that it falls into the sub-category of physical setting of a service. Thus, all the ratings within that cluster would also have as their first two numerals “11.”

A rating is indicated by the capital letter “R” in front of the sequence of numbers at the start of its name, e.g., “R1122 Internal Setting Aesthetics.” This R distinguishes ratings from rating clusters.

Each PASSING rating has five “levels” of service quality, and each level of each rating is accorded a certain number of points; this number is called its weight or score. For example, the rating R1111 SettingNeighborhood Harmony has a weight of 16, meaning that a service could conceivably attain 16 points if it fully met the criteria of that rating. The sum of the weights of all the ratings in PASSING is 1000. However, as is explained in further detail in the aforementioned Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Quality, the weights for each rating are not shown in the Manual. This was done in order to avoid biasing a rater’s judgment of the performance of a service by knowing how many points the service could gain or lose on a particular rating. Instead, the rating weights are listed on a scoring form, called the Scoresheet/Overall Service Performance Form During the evaluation process, raters record their judgments on a Checklist that does not show the rating weights, and only after the completion of the evaluation team’s conciliation are the team’s final judgments transferred from the Checklist to a Scoresheet. A sample each of the PASSING Checklist and Scoresheet can be found in the back of the Guidelines , though in the 1983 edition of the Guidelines , these differ slightly in their language from this 2007 edition of the PASSING Manual. A sample Checklist can also be found at the back of this Ratings Manual, and both forms, being consumable, must be purchased separately from the publisher, since each rater will need at least one of each for every assessment.

Note that the wording of the text for all ratings and rating clusters ( starting with the text for “ 1 Ratings Primarily Related to Social Image Enhancement,” and ending with the last rating R 233 ) assumes that social role - valorization of service recipients is the desired outcome of a service. However, the larger SRV literature points out that SRV itself consists of a hierarchy of “if this, then that” propositions.7 The theory itself does not use a language that one should or should not do this or that, but that if one does or does not do this or that, then such-and-such an outcome can be expected to occur, and should not be surprising. PASSING does use “should” and “should not” language because it is based on the premise that at least overall, a service should be role-valorizing for its recipients, even if it cannot optimize all service quality dimensions.

The forty-two ratings in PASSING are not totally self-contained, in that the introduction to a given section or cluster of ratings contains material that is relevant to all the ratings within that section or cluster. Raters need to read, and become thoroughly familiar with, the introductory materials that precede a given rating or rating cluster in order to be able to master the rating itself, and especially when using only part of PASSING. For example, if raters are only applying some of the image-related physical setting ratings, they must know the introductory narratives to those ratings.

7Wolfensberger, W. (1995). An “if this, then that” formulation of decisions related to Social Role Valorization as a better way of interpreting it to people Mental Retardation, 33(3), 163-169.

Text that applies to more than one rating or rating cluster is inserted where it first comes up. For instance, some text applies to both some image-related and some competency-related ratings; therefore, it shows up where those image-related ratings are introduced, and its earlier appearance is crossreferenced where those competency-related ratings are introduced later on.

The Conduct of an Assessment

The conduct of a PASSING assessment follows a certain pattern. The instrument is applied by a team of no fewer than three people, called “raters.” Each team is under the direction and supervision of a person who is highly trained and skilled in PASSING, called a “team leader,” and each team does the following:

a. extensively review documentary materials (if available) regarding the program, including policy documents, statements of mission, recipient records, individual program plans, activity schedules, log books, position papers, job descriptions, regulations, publicity materials, etc.;

b. tour (usually by car and on foot) the neighborhood surrounding the service;

c. tour both the exterior and interior of the service setting itself;

d. conduct a lengthy, in-depth interview with service leaders, such as administrators and executives;

e. conduct interviews with servers, i.e., direct service providers, be they paid or unpaid;

f. observe the program/service in operation;

g. talk with the recipients, and possibly with recipients’ family members, advocates, and neighbors in the service neighborhood.

After the team has done the above, each rater individually assesses the program on each of the ratings in the instrument. This is done by deciding which level of performance on a rating the service merits. As mentioned, each PASSING rating has 5 levels, which represent different degrees of adherence of service practice to the issue at stake in the rating. The lower levels represent poor performance and the higher levels good performance. Each rating carries a certain weight (i.e., score), and so does each level of each rating. Once a rater has privately assigned a level for each rating to the service being assessed, the team meets at length in order to come to a consensus judgment as to the service’s performance on each rating. This process is called “conciliation.” At the end of it, the team (usually via a designated team member) reports back to the assessed service on its performance, usually in writing, often also orally. Rules for conciliation are given in the companion monograph for conducting an assessment mentioned before, namely the Guidelines (see footnote 6 on p. 4). The Guidelines also contain many instructions for assigning the different rating levels, but in addition, some more current, and some additional, guidelines for applying the PASSING ratings specifically are given in the section of this Manual entitled “The Rationales for the 5 Rating Levels, and Guidelines for Assigning Levels to Ratings” on pp. 12-15.

In all previous versions of PASSING, examples were used throughout, including in the five different levels for each rating. Examples are very useful for concretizing the abstract principles of each rating. However, as noted in "Introduction to the PASSING Ratings Manual: International Abridged Version," almost all the examples were intentionally excised from this version.

Once a rater has mastered the introductory and explanatory rationale narratives for a rating or rating cluster, he or she can take some or all of them out of the Manual, for easier use of the Manual while doing interviews and observations in the field. Some users hole-punch the Manual so as to put some or all of the contents into three-ring binders. In order to enable some such arrangement of sheets for different purposes, the Manual has been set up somewhat modularly, with each part of a rating starting on a separate page. This arrangement also makes it possible for a rater who plans to evaluate a service only on selected dimensions of SRV (i.e., using only some ratings) to leave the rest of the ratings out of the binder. A rater can thereby gain more rapid access to the pages that contain instructions for specific ratings, as well as lighten the material that must be taken into a service setting that is being assessed.

Raters will use the PASSING Manual over and over again. Consequently, there is no need to rigidly memorize any part of it. A rater will always have at least certain introductory parts, plus rating-specific parts, of the Manual with him or her all during an evaluation.

Of utmost importance in applying PASSING is to use it in certain standardized and consistent ways, as spelled out in the aforementioned Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Quality (see footnote 6 on p. 4). Following these prescribed procedures makes the results of different evaluations more comparable, and enables meaningful research to be conducted on the results. If the rules for assigning levels to a rating, spelled out in the Guidelines , are not followed, then the results will not be valid, and also not comparable to the results from other evaluations. Because the administration of PASSING to a service is very complex, evaluators need to have thoroughly studied the parts of the Guidelines that are relevant to PASSING, and to have the Guidelines book at hand throughout the evaluation, so as to be able to look up procedural points as needed. Also, raters need to distinguish those parts of the Guidelines intended for practicum evaluations (i.e., teaching and learning) from those that apply to “real” evaluations.

The 1983 Guidelines book also explains, on pp. 62-63, why PASSING generally rates service features without regard to the reasons why such features are present, or what the motives behind them are. All that matters is to what degree they contribute to the role-valorization or devalorization of service recipients.

When the 1983 edition of PASSING was published, the authors had hoped that other monographs on PASSING would also be developed, as had happened in part for PASS previously. However, so far aside from several published research studies only some informal unpublished user manuals have appeared, e.g., for assessment team leaders. Although unpublished, and circulated informally in the PASSING teaching culture, these can be very useful to members of PASSING evaluation teams. For information on obtaining any of these, contact the Training Institute, Room 309 Huntington Hall, Syracuse University; Syracuse, New York 13244 USA; phone 315/443-5257. Also useful to evaluators are certain passages in the PASS Handbook (3rd 1975 edition), such as the discussion of quantitative measurements of service quality (pp. 25-28, 30-31), and of the relevance or irrelevance of apparent recipient satisfaction with a service (pp. 3132).

In addition to the PASSING Ratings Manual, and the Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Quality , there are also a number of forms that are needed in order to conduct a PASSING assessment. These forms fall into three categories.

a. Those needed by each member of a rating team during each assessment. These are the Checklist and the Scoresheet/Overall Service Performance Form.

b. Those which would be very useful for a rater, but are not essential. So far, this includes only the Individual Rating Evidence Organization Sheet, of which a rater may want to use one for each rating during an assessment.

c. Those which only certain team members in specific roles (e.g., the team leader) need to have. These are the Findings and Comments for Specific PASSING Ratings form (of which one may be needed for each rating) and the Research Data Form (of which one is needed per assessment).

Actually, any team member might want to have copies even of those forms that he or she does not necessarily need, just to keep a complete record of the assessment. Also, the team leader will need several copies of the Checklist and Scoresheet/Overall Service Performance Form for each assessment.

As already noted, the forms are copyrighted, and therefore any forms that a team member needs or wants for an assessment should be purchased from the publisher, not copied from the samples in the Guidelines monograph.

Conclusion

Because PASSING is so big and complex, and because many distinctions must be made among the issues covered by different ratings, we have deliberately been a bit repetitive in explaining in different parts of the book what some of the distinctions are among ratings, and what are some of the more important rating points and principles. For instance, a point or distinction made early in the book may be mentioned later several more times. Also, the “Differentiation From Other Ratings” section within each rating has often been expanded from the earlier (2nd) edition. This also helps if only some sections of PASSING are used.

As noted, PASSING can also be read just to learn more about SRV, rather than to evaluate services. However, in that case, readers should be aware that there is a steady flow of SRV publications, and that some of these can also be read profitably to learn SRV better. As such publications appear, the list of the most recommendable items changes.

For information about upcoming SRV and PASSING training events, any active SRV or PASSING trainer can be contacted, as can the Training Coordinator at the above Training Institute.

The Rationales for the 5 Rating Levels, and Guidelines for Assigning Levels to Ratings

As noted earlier, each rating in PASSING has five levels; for each rating, a service is assigned a level that reflects its performance on the issue assessed by that rating. The aforementioned 1983 Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Quality (see footnote 6 p. 4) contains many instructions for assigning levels during an assessment. Some are still valid, but this section contains some important new instructions, as well as some revised ones that supersede certain instructions applicable to PASSING in that companion monograph.

Principles That Underlie the Assignment of All Rating Levels

1. In all ratings, any vulnerabilities or risks of the recipients must be taken into account. Some practices inflict little or no harm unless recipients have a certain vulnerability. In other words, a service feature must not be considered in isolation (e.g., the service is located in a building that looks on the outside like a bar); what matters is the interaction between the feature and the vulnerability of the recipients (the recipients of the service in the setting that looks like a bar from the outside are valued adults, or are former and current drug addicts in a rehabilitation program, or are pre-school-aged children receiving day care there, etc.).

Devalued people are broadly vulnerable to further devaluation, as for instance through negative imagery, but different devalued classes are vastly more vulnerable to certain specific negative imagery than other such classes. For instance, death-imaging practices are particularly harmful to sick and elderly people because they are vulnerable to being seen as dead, dying, or better off dead. In the competency domain, confusing lay-outs of premises are bad for demented people who already are apt to be confused; etc. This issue of “heightened vulnerability” is elaborated on pp. 82-83 and 124-127 in Wolfensberger, W. (1998), A Brief Introduction to Social Role Valorization: A High-Order Concept For Addressing the Plight of Societally Devalued People, and For Structuring Human Services (see footnote 5 on p. 4), and in many narratives for specific ratings and rating clusters.

However, it must not be assumed that only devalued people have certain vulnerabilities. For instance, teenagers today are vulnerable to being suspected of all sorts of degeneracies even if they come from the most valued population sectors.

2. As noted in a previous section, some service quality issues assessed by a single rating have both image and competency implications, but were not split into two ratings, one in the image enhancement and the other in the competency enhancement domains. Where that is the case, the rating was assigned to only one of these categories, depending on whether the image or the competency factors were likely to be dominant. In applying such ratings, raters should consider both the image and competency impact of the service’s practices, despite the fact that the rating is carried in only one of these categories. For example, although the rating R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs has been placed into the competency enhancement category, it could happen that a major need of recipients is for enhancement of their social image, or of a particular image (e.g., as adults, as workers), and in that case, image issues would have to be taken into account.

3. Raters must only deal with whether service practices do or do not conform to the principles laid out by SRV theory in the descriptions of the specific ratings. If practices do so conform, they can be assumed to have positive role-valorizing effects, at least on a probabilistic basis i.e., for most recipients most of the time and the wording of the rating levels reflects this.

Raters do not have to have proof, or produce such proof themselves, that the dynamics at issue in a rating actually have positive or negative impact on the recipients, though if such evidence actually exists, it can be taken into account. In other words, raters are not allowed to deny credit for role-valorizing practices because they themselves have not seen the positive impact/outcome, nor can raters give credit for something positive apparently having happened to recipients that cannot reasonably be attributed to the service practice or feature at issue. For instance, if recipients attend very well to their personal appearance but are in no way influenced to do so by the service, then the service cannot be credited for it on R141 Service Address of Recipient Personal Impression Impact.

4. The purview that a service has (see p. 36 in “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms”) has a bearing on what the service can be credited or penalized for. There are three rules.

a. A service cannot be penalized for not doing something that is not within its purview.

b. A service is penalized if it does something that is not within its purview that is detrimental to recipients.

c. A service is credited if it does something beneficial for its recipients that is not within its purview. However, because exceeding purview almost always incurs some image cost, the service will probably be penalized for this on some image-related rating.

In trying to determine whether, and to what degree, an issue assessed by a rating falls within the purview of the service being assessed, it can also be very helpful to consider the service’s culturally valued analogues (see pp. 30-31 in “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms”). Whatever is the purview of a culturally valued analogue for a service to devalued people can be presumed to be the minimal purview of that service.

5. As far as we can tell, the issues in all image ratings are always under service purview except possibly in the case of certain services and certain service recipients on the four ratings of: R124 ImageRelated Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships; R133 Promotion of Recipient Autonomy & Rights; R141 Service Address of Recipient Personal Impression Impact; and R142 Image-Related Personal Possessions. For instance, an office that screens people applying for eligibility for welfare may have little or no purview to address issues covered by R124 and R141.

For the competency ratings, services always seem to have purview except possibly , as far as we can tell, for certain services and certain service recipients on the four ratings of: R222 Competency-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships; R225 Promotion of Recipient Socio-Sexual Identity; R233 Competency-Related Personal Possessions; and in some instances R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs, as is explained in that particular rating.

Whenever raters encounter an instance where the issue assessed by a rating falls outside the purview of the service being assessed, then that rating should not be applied, and instead, the service’s score will be “pro-rated” once all ratings have been conciliated, as explained on pp. 82-84 of the 1983 Guidelines monograph (see footnote 6 on p. 4).

6. In a few of the image-related physical setting ratings, a Level 3 has to be assigned if a service setting is in “isolated dislocation,” and has no neighborhood, so to speak (see p. 34 in “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms”).

The

Specific Rating Level Principles

Levels should be assigned according to the following criteria, while keeping in mind all the above six points.

Level 1. The practices covered by the rating at issue, and that are within the purview of the service being assessed, are severely damaging to the image or competencies, and thereby the social roles, of all or most recipients, even if some practices do some good. The kinds and degrees of vulnerability of the recipients have to be taken into account, in that the same practice can have a much more deleterious impact on recipients with certain vulnerabilities than on recipients with other, lesser, or no vulnerabilities.

Level 2. The practices covered by the rating at issue, and that are within the purview of the service being assessed, can be assumed to do one of two things:

a. they inflict significant damage or impairment overall to the image or competency, and thereby the social roles, of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some of the practices may be somewhat positive (note the difference between severe damage in Level 1 and significant damage here); or

b. they inflict severe damage or impairment (as in Level 1) to the image or competency, and therefore the roles, of a significant minority of recipients, even if higher level conditions prevail for the other recipients. Such discrepancies in impact are often due to inappropriate groupings, showing how poor grouping can set constraints on other ratings.

Both Level 1 and Level 2 require a preponderance of negative conditions in the service being assessed, in regard to the issue covered by the rating.

Level 3 The effect of the service practices at issue on recipients’ image or competency, and therefore their roles, is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. Level 3 is meant to capture a state where there is either a balance of slightly positive and slightly (but not very) negative features or practices; or where the effect of service practices on recipients’ image or competencies is, so to speak, neutral.

A Level 3 determination is often the most difficult to make. One of the following two scenarios must apply:

a. a service has some positive features and some negative features that in their totality of likely impact on image or competency, and therefore roles, seem to balance each other out. In other words, something enhancing is being done, and something negative is also being done, though none of the negative conditions may be as low as Level 1 for any recipients whatever; or

b. for other reasons, the service practices in regard to the rating issue neither significantly impair nor significantly enhance recipients’ image or competencies, and thereby their roles. A likely scenario here could be that recipients are not at significant image or competency risk, and what the service does neither significantly harms their image or competency, nor does it significantly enhance their image or competency. This might happen, for instance, if a service embraces a new craze that does not really do any good but neither does it do any harm, or at least not much of either.

Where image ratings are concerned, Level 3b is a fairly common scenario in services for ordinary citizens. So many services that such people receive neither add to their already positive image, nor detract from it.

In regard to Level 3a, it cannot be merely assumed that any program weakness can be offset or balanced out by a program strength. There are instances where even one single significant shortcoming may defeat or diminish any number of positive program features on the same rating issue. To further clarify: it is not the number of positive and negative features that must balance out (e.g., two good practices and two bad ones), but the totality of their likely impacts on service recipients, taking into account both the identities and image and/or competency risks of recipients, as well as the above proviso in Level 3a about no conditions being as low as Level 1 for any recipients. Conceivably, there could be instances where a single shortcoming could defeat, or seriously diminish, the impact of any number of positive program features on the same rating issue, perhaps even to the extent that a Level 1 must be assigned despite the presence of certain positive practices.

Level 4. This level can only be assigned under one of the following two conditions:

a. service conditions are mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients; or

b. recipients experience optimal conditions, as in Level 5, but relevant direct service personnel and service leaders lack consciousness of the importance of the issue, and thus a significant safeguard against future deterioration of service quality is lacking.

For a Level 4, there must be a preponderance or dominance of positive conditions in the service being assessed, in regard to the issue covered by the rating. Any negative conditions that do exist cannot be severely or significantly negative, as noted in Level 4a.

There are a very few ratings where an absence of any negative conditions whatever is required for a Level 4 or higher.

Level 5. This level is what has been called “the achievable ideal.” On this level, it is almost impossible to conceptualize further improvements except perhaps trivial and/or infinitesimally small ones; significant suboptimality is not allowed for even a minority of the recipients. In addition , consciousness of the importance of the rating issue must prevail among the service leadership and relevant direct service personnel, in order to safeguard against future loss of service quality.

A Level 5 is much more difficult to attain on some ratings than on others. For instance, it is easier to attain a Level 5 on R1431 Image Projection of Personal Labeling Practices, or R1432 Serving Entity, Program, Setting, & Location Names, than on R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use.

Miscellaneous Other Guidelines

The specific rating level principles laid out here should govern raters’ assignment of levels to the different ratings.

In applying the rating levels, one practice that PASSING team leaders and other users have found helpful is to first collect and review all the evidence relevant to the rating at issue, and then to characterize it overall, e.g., “very harmful to the image (or competencies) and therefore the roles of all recipients,” “not too bad,” “harmful to the image (or competencies) and thereby the roles of most recipients, but actually good for some of them,” “can’t imagine anything better.” This will help the assessment team to know whether to look at the low or high end, or the middle, of the levels.

If raters adhere faithfully to the rating criteria, and once they acquire some experience with PASSING, they will probably find that the determination of a Level 3 is the most difficult, followed by the determination of a Level 2. Level 5 should be the easiest to determine.

Even in the ratings that do not specifically assess service groupings, the nature of the grouping can account for services receiving a certain level. Namely, Level 2b and Level 4a both have provisos to the effect that different recipients are affected differently enough by the service feature being assessed as to warrant a Level 2 or Level 4. Usually, this would happen when a grouping is composed of people who do not have the same or similar identities, needs, and/or vulnerabilities.

How This 3rd (2007) Edition

Does and Does Not Differ From the 2nd (1983) Edition

This entire section will be of special interest to readers who have used the earlier (2nd, 1983) edition of PASSING, but it should also be read by all users because it explains certain rationales behind some of the contents and language of this edition.

This third edition is an extensive revision of the second (1983) one, but has not attempted to incorporate every conceivable revision that might have improved the text even more. Below, we explain eighteen changes that have been made, and three conceivable ones that have not.

1. The terms normalization and normalizing have been replaced throughout the text by Social Role Valorization, SRV, and role-valorizing. However, this is not merely a wording change, but also one of underlying theory, which the new text also reflects.

2. The authors decided to no longer use PASSING as an acronym, as in the previous edition in which PASSING stood for Program Analysis of Service Systems’ Implementation of Normalization Goals. So now PASSING is a name, rather than an acronym, and the book has a new subtitle: A Tool For Analyzing Service Quality According to Social Role Valorization Criteria. Ratings Manual This allows continuity with the previous edition, but without having to come up with a contrived new name to fit the pre-existing acronym.

3. Generally, the language has been changed so as to no longer imply that the service being assessed is necessarily run by a formal service agency, or that the servers are paid service workers. Accordingly, the term “service client” has been changed to “service recipient”; and the terms “service worker” and “service staff” have been changed to “server” in those instances where the text is meant to include both people who work for pay and can therefore be considered employed or hired staff, as well as people who serve voluntarily or for free and can therefore not be considered employees. In those instances where the text is meant to apply only to paid servers, or only to unpaid ones, this is now clearly stated. In some examples, the words “clients” and “staff” may still be found if they are fitting to the example.

4. There were also changes in the names of several ratings and rating clusters, so that the number of the rating or rating cluster is now more important than its name in relating PASSING to the 1983 edition of the Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Quality (see footnote 6 on p. 4). However, behind a few of the minor name changes are some significant content changes, especially in the cases of R124, R131, R222, and R223 (see points 8, 9 and 10 below).

What Was Called, in the 1983 2nd Edition… …is Now Called, in the 2007 3rd Edition:

12 Image-Related Service-Structured

12 Image-Related Service Structured Groupings & Relationships Among People Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions

123 Image Projection of Intra-Service Client

123 Image Projection of Intra-Service Grouping Composition Recipient Grouping Composition

R1231 Image Projection of Intra-Service Client R1231 Image Projection of Intra-Service Grouping Social Value Recipient Grouping Social Value

R1232 Image Projection of Intra-Service

R1232 Image Projection of Intra-Service Client Grouping Age Image Recipient Grouping Age Image

R124 Image-Related Other Integrative Client R124 Image-Related Other Contacts & Personal Relationships Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships

What Was Called, in the 1983 2nd Edition…

125 Service Worker Image Issues

R1251 Service Worker-Client Image Transfer

R1252 Service Worker-Client Image Match

R131 Culture-Appropriate Separation of

…is Now Called, in the 2007 3rd Edition:

125 Server Image Issues

R1251 Server-Recipient Image Transfer

R1252 Server-Recipient Image Match

R131 Culture-Appropriate Separation or Program Functions Combination of Program Functions

R133 Promotion of Client Autonomy & Rights

14 Image-Related Miscellaneous Other Service

R133 Promotion of Recipient Autonomy & Rights

14 Image-Related Miscellaneous Other Language, Symbols & Images Service Practices

R141 Program Address of Client Personal

R141 Service Address of Recipient Personal Impression Impact Impression Impact

R1432 Agency, Program, Setting, & Location

R1432 Serving Entity, Program, Setting, & Name Location Name

211 Setting Accessibility

R2111 Setting Accessibility Clients &

211 Setting Access

R2111 Setting Access Recipients & Families Families

R2112 Setting Accessibility Public

22 Competency-Related Service-Structured

R2112 Setting Access Public

22 Competency-Related Service-Structured Groupings & Relationships Among People Groupings & Relationships

221 Competency-Related Intra-Service

221 Competency-Related Intra-Service Client Grouping Recipient Groupings

R2211 Competency-Related Intra-Service

R2211 Competency-Related Intra-Service Client Grouping Size Recipient Grouping Size

R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service

R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Client Grouping Composition Recipient Grouping Composition

R222 Competency-Related Other Integrative

R222 Competency-Related Other Client Contacts & Personal Relationships Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships

R223 Life-Enriching Interactions Among

R223 Life-Enriching Interactions Among Clients, Service Personnel, & Others Recipients, Servers & Others

R224 Program Support for Client

R224 Service Support for Recipient Individualization Individualization

R225 Promotion of Client Socio-Sexual

R225 Promotion of Recipient Socio-Sexual Identity Identity

R231 Program Address of Clients’ Service

R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs Needs

5. Spelling, grammatical, punctuation, and similar typesetting errors have been corrected. These were minor. The authors fervently hope no new ones have been introduced.

6. The section formerly entitled “Suggestions on How to Read, Study and Use the PASSING Ratings Manual” has a slightly different title, and contains some content revisions as well.

7. A very significant amount of editing and changing of both text and examples was done, though this is more obvious in certain sections and ratings than in others. This includes cleaning up of a number of conceptual errors in the previous edition. Some improvements of text wording were major, some minor. However, some of what appear to be minor changes in wording have considerable impact, and could change (a)the rating by which a service feature is assessed, or (b) the level assignment it receives on that rating.

8. One of the differences between normalization and SRV is that normalization was ideology mixed with empiricism, whereas SRV is an attempt to be a more purely empirical theory, which a party may (or may not) decide to employ based on that party’s ideology (see also footnote 7 on p. 8). This has implications especially to the issue of social integration (see definition on p. 33 in “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms”). In this edition of PASSING, only SRV-derived rationales for integration are considered, and not any nonempirical/ideological ones, meritorious as the latter may be. This accounts for the fact that in this edition of PASSING, a service may receive credit in at least some situations where its recipients are grouped and/or juxtaposed to certain societally devalued people. The reason is that while competency and positive social valuation are highly correlated (so that the more competent people are, the more they are likely to be valued, and the more valued people are, the more they are likely to be afforded opportunities to enhance their competencies), nevertheless, marginal people, or even outright devalued ones, may have many competencies, even valued competencies, and can thereby serve as models in certain respects for recipients.

This distinction between valued competent parties and devalued competent ones also helps to clarify that the image benefits that accrue to devalued people from their social integration with valued people in valued activities and valued settings are not necessarily the same as the competency benefits that may or may not accrue to them from such integrative participation. Similarly, the distinction made above helps to differentiate the competency benefits that can accrue to devalued parties from their association with others who are more competent (even if these others are not highly valued), from the image transfers that come from such associations and such image transfers may actually be very negative even when the competency benefits are great.

These theoretical insights have had considerable effect on the reconceptualization of two grouping ratings (R1231 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Social Value, and R2211 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition); and on the reconceptualization and renaming of ratings R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships and R222 Competency-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships. In contrast to the previous edition, this edition of PASSING now makes clearer that both image-enhancement and competency-enhancement can derive from contacts that are not necessarily only with people who are highly valued. In other words, this edition of PASSING is clearer that while social integration with valued people in valued activities and valued settings tends to be the most image-enhancing for devalued people, and is often the most competency-enhancing strategy, it is nonetheless sometimes possible for the image and competencies of devalued people to be improved (sometimes greatly so) through social juxtapositions and contacts even if these are not, or are not always, with valued people.

9. In the 2nd (1983) edition of PASSING, the rating R131 looked only at whether a service inappropriately combined program functions that are normatively conducted separately in open society. However, as can be seen from its name change (R131 Culture-Appropriate Separation or Combination of Program Functions), the rating now also looks at whether the service inappropriately separates functions that are typically conducted jointly in valued society.

10. We realized that in the 1983 (2nd) PASSING edition, some of the elements of R223 LifeEnriching Interactions Among Servers, Recipients, Servers, & Others (which is one of the competencyrelated ratings) were not SRV issues at all, and that some were more image-related than competencyrelated. In good part, this was due to some unconscious inheritance from the predecessor rating in PASS (see footnote 2 on p. 4) called “R1154 Interactions.” There has therefore been a major revision of R223 in this edition, including in its rating levels.

11. Because the issue of service influence over recipient possessions comes up in three ratings (R133 Promotion of Recipient Autonomy & Rights, R142 Image-Related Personal Possessions, and R233 Competency-Related Personal Possessions), the relationship among these three ratings was clarified.

12. The theoretical developments in recent years around the construct of “model coherency” (see PASS, referenced in footnote 2 on p. 4) have been drawn on to make a better distinction between the ratings of R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs and R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use.

13. One of the other major changes is that texts which apply to all the ratings in several rating clusters were consolidated, and moved to a spot where it is easier to tell that they do, in fact, apply to all ratings in a cluster. For instance, as shown on the Table of Contents, the text applying to all thirteen ratings under the rubrics “12 Image-Related Service-Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions,” and “22 Competency-Related Service-Structured Groupings & Relationships,” has been placed before the text that introduces the ratings that begin with 12…, on pp. 133-136. Similarly, as also shown on the Table of Contents, the text applying to all four ratings under the rubrics “123 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition,” and “221 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Groupings,” has been placed before the text that introduces the ratings that begin with 123, on pp. 155158.

14. All the statements of criteria for the five levels of each rating (called “Criteria and Examples for Level Assignments”) have been revised. While the essence of the levels is not changed thereby i.e., Level 1 is very poor service performance, Level 2 is somewhat poor service performance, Level 3 is “neutral” service performance, Level 4 is good service performance, and Level 5 is ideal service performance, all as before the level statements have all been reworded so as to make the principle of each level, and the distinctions among levels, clearer for raters.

Even more than before, the rating criteria imply that it will be easier for some services to get higher scores than others. Uncomplicated services with a single narrow function, and/or that serve recipients who are not devalued, are more likely to score higher, in part because they face fewer pitfalls, especially in the image domain.

15. In the original 2007 3rd edition, this point dealt with the examples used throughout the text. But since almost all the examples have been eliminated, we are not reproducing that point 15 in this version.

16. This edition contains some changes in the set-up of the book, in response to feedback from users. These format changes are a trade-off: they eliminate certain features of a practical nature, but reduce the bulk of the book, which is an advantage when it is carried around during an evaluation. However, while the Manual has been set up to be easier to use, the application of PASSING to service evaluation has not become easier. In fact, certain refinements in what is covered by certain ratings may even have added a bit of complexity.

17. In this edition of PASSING, there is no section that describes Social Role Valorization in detail as there was on pp. 23-29 of the 2nd (1983) edition of PASSING. This is because SRV has been refined and elaborated in several separate publications since 1983, especially in the following three items:

Wolfensberger, W. (1998). A brief introduction to Social Role Valorization: A high-order concept for addressing the plight of societally devalued people, and for structuring human services (3rd rev. ed.). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Training Institute for Human Service Planning, Leadership & Change Agentry.

Wolfensberger, W. (2000). A brief overview of Social Role Valorization. Mental Retardation, 38 (2), 105-123.

Race, D. G. (1999). Social Role Valorization and the English experience. London: Whiting & Birch.

Instead of the lengthy previous section describing SRV, a much briefer description of SRV has been added in the “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms” on pp. 39-40.

18. Because the names of some of the ratings and rating clusters have been changed, various scoring and reporting forms (including the Checklist and Scoresheet/Overall Service Performance Form ) have been revised. As noted before, the forms are copyrighted, and therefore are not to be photocopied. They should be ordered from Valor Press: https://presse.valorsolutions.ca/en.

Among the things that this revision has not endeavored to do are the following three.

1. The text has not yet been edited so as to fully incorporate all developments in SRV theory since 1983, and especially since the mid-1990s. For instance, much of the text still speaks of people being valued or devalued rather than their roles being valued or devalued.

Also, while PASSING is the most extensive elaboration of SRV, it is not the most authoritative written statement on it (see No. 17 above). One reason is that PASSING contains some discourse and concepts which it inherited from its predecessor PASS, and PASS dealt with the predecessor of SRV, namely normalization. This inherited discourse deals with a few constructs either that are not part of SRV, that approach the limits of SRV, that SRV deals with only partially or indirectly, or at least whose relevance to SRV is debatable. For instance, there are PASSING passages that could be read to imply that a service recipient’s self-image is affected by a service practice. However, SRV is concerned primarily with a party’s image in the eyes of others who are in a position to do good or bad things to that party. Another example is the construct of need, which plays an especially large role in R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs. So far, SRV theory has not completely resolved to what degree the need construct fits into SRV theory.

Therefore, readers and users of this Manual should first obtain and read at least the above - listed 1998 publication (see point No. 17 above) before attempting to apply PASSING to a service. Additionally, in order to validly use PASSING, a person should first have attended an Introductory Workshop in Social Role Valorization of at least 3 days’ duration.

However, the PASSING Manual alone is sufficient to engage in service design and planning, though of course, additional reading and training in SRV would almost certainly enhance that process.

2. Though certain additional improvements in organizing the text have already been conceptualized and partially drafted, they have not yet been incorporated.

3. Readers will note that this edition of PASSING, just like the previous one, does not use so-called “people-first” language, i.e., it does not always put the words person, individual, or people before any modifying adjective. For instance, it uses the phrase “impaired person” rather than “person who has an impairment” (or person who is called, labeled, etc. as impaired). The reason this is mentioned is that since the previous edition of PASSING was published, so-called “people-first” language has become a practice that is considered progressive, and even mandatory, in many fields of service to impaired and otherwise devalued people. Some people are outright fanatical about this issue, and assign vastly exaggerated importance to it. Some potential users of PASSING might therefore be surprised to find in it what they consider to be out-dated and even offensive (maybe extremely offensive) language. Therefore, the authors of PASSING decided to briefly explain why such people-first language is not used in PASSING:

a. Those who advocate the practice often claim that putting the adjective after the words person, individual, people, etc., will improve people’s attitudes towards any such persons described. However, SRV strives to be an empirical theory, and we know of no empirical evidence of the validity of this language claim, and consider even its theoretical basis to be dubious.

b. Putting the adjective after rather than before the noun that it modifies violates what linguists call the “natural rules” of the English language, which can and does place the adjective in front of virtually all nouns (e.g., cloudy skies, pretty face, menacing intruder). Insisting that a different sentence construction be used only in regard to impaired and societally devalued people sets those people and classes linguistically apart from everyone else, and requires that people artificially and awkwardly refrain from speaking or writing in a way that is natural to their native tongue This can actually be “languagesegregative” and counterproductive.

c. Advocates of people-first language often claim that such language is what impaired and devalued people themselves want. However, we do not believe that what any person, group, or class wants should be the overriding determinant of what everyone else must do, in this case or in any other respect, and especially not if what people want violates morality, empiricism, or rationality. In this case, it certainly violates rationality, by violating the “natural rule” of English (noted in “b” above), and probably also empiricism as well.

Therefore, PASSING uses culturally normative and natural sentence constructions.

The minor changes in this edition over the previous one in what gets rated by the different ratings, plus the changes in how the level assignments are to be made, mean that it cannot be taken for granted that the research studies8,9 on the previous edition of PASSING are fully applicable to this new edition, though it is quite likely that new research would come up with comparable conclusions. However, we do not believe that a short form of this new edition of PASSING should be based on the ratings that Flynn (1999; see footnote 8) recommended for a short form of the 1983 edition, unless new cross-validated research on real assessments (rather than on training assessments) has shown that such a short form has sufficient predictive validity.

Overall, this edition of PASSING is not simpler than the previous one, but it is clearer, more accurate, and in at least some ways more “user-friendly.”

The PASSING instrument was more than 20 years old at the time of this revision. Still the authors believe that the concepts and ideas in it, and its structure, have stood the test of time very well, even if some of the examples had become slightly outdated.

People who have used, learned, and/or taught the previous edition of PASSING absolutely MUST make a careful and serious study of this new edition, and especially of the subtle changes, such as in the rating levels. Otherwise, they will carry over to this edition practices they learned with the previous edition that have changed, and are no longer valid.

All references to PASSING page numbers in the monograph entitled Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Quality (see footnote 6, on p. 4) are to the 1983 edition of PASSING. This will be corrected when the Guidelines are revised. Further, the language of the 1983 Guidelines is still reflective of normalization rather than SRV.

8Flynn, R. J. (1999). A comprehensive review of research conducted with the program evaluation instruments PASS and PASSING. In R. J. Flynn, & R. A. Lemay (Eds.), A quarter-century of normalization and Social Role Valorization: Evolution and impact (pp. 317-349). Ottawa, ON: University of Ottawa Press.

9Flynn, R. J., LaPointe, N., Wolfensberger, W., & Thomas, S. (1991). Quality of institutional and community human service programs in Canada and the United States. Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience, 16, 146-153.

Suggestions

on How to Read, Study and Use the PASSING Ratings Manual, 10 and a Checklist for Reading and Review of the PASSING Ratings Manual

As mentioned, a reader should be able to get at least a basic understanding of SRV and its implications just by reading this Manual (though that alone is not sufficient to give anyone a complete understanding of SRV, nor mastery of the PASSING instrument).

The best way to start learning PASSING is to read through the Ratings Manual from beginning to end. However, to become expert at using the Manual for the evaluation of services, much further study and review is required. One possible regimen of study that some users may find useful and beneficial is sketched below, but others may prefer a different approach.

1. Keep in mind that you will probably have to make repeated recourse to the “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms” (pp. 29-40).

2. Read the explanation of the importance of social image enhancement (pp. 41-52).

3. Review the section you have just read on imagery and image enhancement. Now read all those ratings which have to do with social image enhancement, i.e., the twenty-seven ratings and their preceding introductions that have a code number beginning with “1...” or “R1.”

4. Read the explanation of the importance of personal competency enhancement (pp. 283286).

5. Review the discussion of competency enhancement that you have just read. Now read all those ratings which have to do with personal competency enhancement, i.e., the fifteen ratings and their preceding introductions that have a number beginning with “2...” or “R2.”

6. As you read each rating, follow this procedure:

a. Read the “General Statement of the Issue” section first. Then stop reading, and try to jot down very briefly (in one or two short, simple sentences) the issue at stake in the rating. For example, after having read the “General Statement of the Issue” for the rating R1111 Setting-Neighborhood Harmony, stop reading, and write a statement that captures the essence of that rating, such as the following: “In order to be role-valorizing, the appearance of a human service setting should blend in enhancingly with its neighborhood.” If you have trouble summarizing what you have read in the rating, then re-read the “General Statement of the Issue” again; if you continue to have difficulties, make a note to the authors to consider a future revision of the passage.

b. After you have read the “General Statement of the Issue” and have written your own brief statement of the issue, turn next to the “Rating Requirements Chart,” and read the statement of the rating issue in the column entitled “SRV Requirements.” See if the statement you just wrote comes close to the short statement of the issue in that column. If so, you probably understand fairly well what the rating is about.

10The authors are indebted to John O’Brien, whose similar guide for users of PASS was the model used to construct this guide.

If you are only trying to learn about SRV, but are not going to use PASSING to assess a service, you can skip step 6c, and proceed to number 6d

c. Go next to the “Suggested Guidelines for Collecting and Using Evidence” chart. The first column is a list of a few important facts or principles to keep in mind when using the rating for assessment purposes. Read through the middle column of key questions to be answered. Is it clear to you why the answers to those questions are needed in order to determine a service’s performance on the issue at stake? Lastly, look at the column of probable sources of evidence for the rating. There is no need to be thoroughly familiar with this column now, since you will likely refer to it a number of times as you conduct the assessment itself.

d. Turn next to the “Criteria for Level Assignments.” Read the five different rating levels Do not worry if you are unsure as yet about the distinctions between each level; this will probably only become clear through actual practice with the instrument on assessments.

The rationales for all the rating levels, and the specific principles for each level of the ratings, are explained at length in the section of this Manual entitled “The Rationales for the 5 Rating Levels, and Guidelines for Assigning Levels to Ratings” (pp. 12-15).

7. If you are studying PASSING to learn how to apply it to a service, follow steps 6a through 6d for each of the forty-two ratings. If you are studying PASSING only to learn SRV, then as mentioned, you can skip step 6c for each rating.

After you have completed the above steps for all forty-two ratings, you will probably have a fairly good comprehension of each of the SRV implications that are embodied in PASSING.

The checklist which follows can help guide a person through a first reading of PASSING. It generally follows the sequence of ratings in the Manual, and the reading sequence described above. As well, the checklist includes a few key questions that a person should be able to answer after reading each of the divisions and subdivisions of the book.

CHECK BELOW WHEN COMPLETED

Look through the Table of Contents, and read through the entire book.

REVIEW Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms (pages 29-40).

RE-READ: 1 Ratings Primarily Related to Social Image Enhancement (pages 41-52);

REVIEW: Why is social image enhancement a major goal of SRV?

RE-READ: 11 Image-Related Physical Setting of the Service (pages 53-54);

REVIEW: How is this area related to the SRV goal of social image enhancement?

RE-READ: 111 Service-Neighborhood Harmony (page 55); R1111 Setting-Neighborhood Harmony (pages 57-62); R1112 Program-Neighborhood Harmony (pages 63-70).

REVIEW: How are these two ratings related to each other? different from each other?

RE-READ: 112 Setting Aesthetics (pages 71-72);

R1121 External Setting Aesthetics (pages 73-78); R1122 Internal Setting Aesthetics (pages 79-84).

REVIEW: How are these two ratings related to each other? different from each other?

RE-READ: 113 Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue (pages 85-86);

R1131 External Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue (pages 87-92);

R1132 Internal Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue (pages 93-98).

REVIEW: How are these two ratings related to each other? different from each other?

RE-READ: 114 Setting Age Image (page 99);

R1141 External Setting Age Image (pages 101-106); R1142 Internal Setting Age Image (pages 107-112).

REVIEW: How are these two ratings related to each other? different from each other?

RE-READ: 115 Miscellaneous Image Aspects of the Physical Setting (page 113);

R1151 Image Projection of Setting Physical Proximity (pages 115-120); R1152 Image Projection of Setting History (pages 121-126);

R1153 Image Projection of Setting Other Internal Physical Features (pages 127-132).

REVIEW: How are these three ratings related to each other? different from each other?

RE-READ: Overarching Considerations Shared by the Thirteen Ratings Under the Rubrics 12 Image-Related Service-Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions, & 22 Competency-Related Service-Structured Groupings & Relationships (pages 133-136).

12 Image-Related Service-Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions (page 137).

REVIEW: How do the various dimensions of a social grouping affect the image of the members of the grouping? How can the relationships among people affect the image of a person?

RE-READ: R121 Image Projection of Program-to-Program Juxtaposition (pages 139-146).

R122 Service-Neighborhood Assimilation Potential (pages 147-154).

REVIEW: How are these two ratings related to each other? different from each other?

RE-READ: Overarching Considerations Shared by the Four Ratings Under the Rubrics 123 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition, & 221 CompetencyRelated Intra-Service Recipient Groupings (pages 155-158).

123 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition (pages 159-160).

REVIEW: How does the composition of a recipient grouping affect its members’ social image?

RE-READ: R1231 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Social Value (pages 161-168);

R1232 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Age Image (pages 169-176).

REVIEW: How are these two ratings related to each other? different from each other?

RE-READ: R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships (pages 177-186).

REVIEW: How does this relate to 12 Image-Related Service-Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions? other ratings in this section/cluster?

RE-READ: 125 Server Image Issues (page 187).

R1251 Server-Recipient Image Transfer (pages 189-196);

R1252 Server-Recipient Image Match (pages 197-204).

REVIEW: How are these two ratings related to each other? different from each other?

RE-READ: 13 Image-Related Service-Structured Activities & Other Uses of Time (page 205).

REVIEW: How do the nature and structure of a service’s activities and programs, and its use of recipients’ time, affect its recipients’ image?

RE-READ: R131 Culture-Appropriate Separation or Combination of Program Functions (pages 207-214);

R132 Image Projection of Service Activities & Activity Timing (pages 215-224);

R133 Promotion of Recipient Autonomy & Rights (pages 225-232).

REVIEW: How are these three ratings related to each other? different from each other?

RE-READ: 14 Image-Related Miscellaneous Other Service Practices (page 233).

REVIEW: How can symbols, imagery, and language use associated with a service affect its recipients’ image?

RE-READ: R141 Service Address of Recipient Personal Impression Impact (pages 235-242); R142 Image-Related Personal Possessions (pages 243-250).

REVIEW: How do the issues assessed by these two ratings affect the image of service recipients?

RE-READ: 143 Image Projection of Language & Labeling Practices (pages 251-252). R1431 Image Projection of Personal Labeling Practices (pages 253-258); R1432 Serving Entity, Program, Setting, & Location Names (pages 259-268).

REVIEW: How are these two ratings related to each other? different from each other?

RE-READ: R144 Image Projection of Service Funding (pages 269-276); R145 Image Projection of Miscellaneous Aspects of a Service (pages 277-282).

REVIEW: How do the issues assessed by these two ratings affect the image of service recipients?

RE-READ: 2 Ratings Primarily Related to Personal Competency Enhancement (pages 283-286).

REVIEW: Why is the enhancement of a service recipient’s competencies an important goal of SRV?

RE-READ: 21 Competency-Related Physical Setting of the Service (page 287).

REVIEW: How can the physical environment of a service affect recipients’ competency development?

RE-READ: 211 Setting Access (pages 289-290); R2111 Setting Access Recipients & Families (pages 291-296); R2112 Setting Access Public (pages 297-302).

REVIEW: How are the two setting access ratings related to each other? different from each other?

RE-READ: R212 Availability of Relevant Community Resources (pages 303-310); R213 Physical Comfort of Setting (pages 311-316); R214 Challenge/Safety Features of Setting (pages 317-324); R215 Individualizing Features of Setting (pages 325-332).

REVIEW: How are these four ratings related to each other? different from each other?

RE-READ: 22 Competency-Related Service-Structured Groupings & Relationships (pages 333-334);

Overarching Considerations Shared by the Thirteen Ratings Under the Rubrics 12 Image-Related Service-Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions, & 22 Competency-Related Service-Structured Groupings & Relationships (pages 133-136).

REVIEW: How can the grouping of recipients within a service affect recipients’ competencies? How do the relationships among people affect the development of recipients’ competencies?

RE-READ: 221 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Groupings (pages 335-336);

Overarching Considerations Shared by the Four Ratings Under the Rubrics 123 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition, & 221 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Groupings (pages 155-158);

R2211 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Size (pages 337-346);

R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition (pages 347-354).

REVIEW: How are the two recipient grouping ratings related to each other? different from each other?

RE-READ: R222 Competency-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships (pages 355-362);

R223 Life-Enriching Interactions Among Recipients, Servers, & Others (pages 363-370);

R224 Service Support for Recipient Individualization (pages 371-378); R225 Promotion of Recipient Socio-Sexual Identity (pages 379-386).

REVIEW: How are these four ratings related to each other? different from each other?

RE-READ: 23 Competency-Related Service-Structured Activities & Other Uses of Time (page 387).

REVIEW: How do the programs and activities of a service, and its use of recipients’ time, affect the competencies of recipients?

RE-READ: R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs (pages 389-402); R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use (pages 403-412); R233 Competency-Related Personal Possessions (pages 413-421).

REVIEW: How are these three ratings related to each other? different from each other?

Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms

There are a number of terms and phrases which occur and are used repeatedly throughout the ratings in PASSING. In order for someone to accurately understand and use PASSING, it is imperative that he or she be very familiar with the specific meanings of these terms as they are used in this instrument. Many of the terms have other additional meanings, both in ordinary use, and more specifically in human services. However, it is the meaning below, and only that meaning, which applies when these terms are used in PASSING. Individual readers may also discover that there are some terms used in PASSING with which they are unfamiliar (e.g., the term “appurtenance,” used in several of the physical setting ratings, might be an example), and which are not included in this section. In those instances, readers should refer to any dictionary. If understanding is still not reached, please let the authors know. Raters are instructed to refer to this section frequently for clarification of issues, as they complete their individual ratings, and during team deliberations.

The terms are listed alphabetically.

Age - appropriate: Within the values of a given culture, that which is considered typical, expected, desirable, or valued for persons of a particular age Within the range of what is cultureappropriate (see definition on p. 31) in a culture, certain behaviors, personal appearances, activities, rights, possessions, facilities, facility decors, etc., are expected and valued only if they are associated with persons of a certain age, but not with persons of another age. For example, in North American culture, short pinafores, anklet socks, “Mary Jane” shoes, and plastic flower barrettes and jewelry are some components of what is considered age-appropriate appearance for young girls. When behaviors, personal appearances, activities, etc., that are culturally valued, expected, and legitimized only for people of a certain age are associated with people of a different age group, such associations are called “age-inappropriate.”

Any characteristics that might be judged as age-appropriate must first be culture-appropriate, i.e., it must be valued by the culture for at least some of its valued members. For example, the playing of games is a culture-appropriate activity in most societies, and the playing of certain games (e.g., Farmer-in-theDell) is considered age-appropriate for a certain age group (i.e., children) within North American culture, but not for other age groups (i.e., adults). On the other hand, being unclothed in the presence of strangers is not considered culture-appropriate for hardly anyone in North American society, and thus, in most contexts, it has no age-appropriate dimension.

Citizen advocate: A competent, unpaid citizen volunteer with minimal conflict of interest and who is not controlled by the serving entity being assessed, who relates to, and/or represents and advocates for, the interests and needs of a person in need The person represented by a citizen advocate is called the advocate’s “protégé.” The citizen advocate is recruited and supported by a Citizen Advocacy office that is independent (especially from the assessed agency) and that finds and matches advocates for/with people in need. A citizen advocate may be a family member, a friend, a member of the public, a legally-appointed guardian or trustee, etc. However, a person may function in the role of a personal advocate even if he or she has not been officially designated as a citizen advocate by a Citizen Advocacy office.

Citizen or personal advocates are not the same as volunteers to a service, because such volunteers ordinarily do not primarily represent the needs of individuals, but of the service entity (see definition on p. 37). Often, service/agency volunteers are assigned to assist staff in their functions and help out with administrative work. Even if a service volunteer helps out with individual recipients, he or she often does so with many recipients; or even if with one at a time, it is often not the same recipient over time. Furthermore, such volunteers are under at least some degree of control by the serving entity, whereas a citizen advocate is a freely functioning citizen whose relationship with an impaired person is free from the conflict of interest that would be present (by definition) if the advocate were paid, or if the entity that served the person had any control over the advocate. For this reason, individual servers who may be assigned to advocate for individual recipients (and who would more properly be called “in-house advocates” or “staff advocates”) are not to be counted as citizen advocates.

Community: The geo -demographic area which includes, but is usually larger than, a neighborhood (as defined on p. 34), and which is typically characterized by at least a loose sense of “belonging together.” Ordinarily, any city, town, or village would constitute a “community.” However, there are some instances in which areas outside a city, town, or village would also be included, such as the area that surrounds a rural village.

Most commonly, one of the forces which contributes to this sense of “belonging together” is the presence of a wide range of basic resources (see definition of “generic” on p. 33) such as post offices, banks, stores and shopping centers, physicians, dentists, other professional services, etc., which are used by the members of the community, and for which a resident of the community would not have to go elsewhere. In an urban area such as a city, the urban area itself as well as the adjacent suburbs would usually constitute the community. However, even some parts of larger urban areas are relatively self-sufficient communities in themselves. In some rural areas, the community may include a very large geographic area in which the population is oriented toward some center of population concentration (e.g., a town) and basic resources.

Conservatism corollary: One of the implications of SRV, which states that the more impaired, devalued, or otherwise at risk of social devaluation a person or group is, the more important it is to (a) do things which are the most image -and/or competency -enhancing for that person or group, so as to increase the likelihood of their role -valorization, and (b) at the very least, avoid doing anything which would even slightly harm the party’s image or competencies, and thereby their valued roles, even if these practices might otherwise be typical or valued in the culture. This corollary has profound and sometimes surprising implications for the application of SRV in a service, especially where devalued people are served. Some examples are the following. As much as possible, groupings of devalued people should be small because large groupings only compound the image jeopardy of each member. Overt negatively valued elements of the appearance of a person, or of members of a group, should be corrected and minimized, and/or compensated for with valued elements. Activities which have historically been associated with devalued people (such as the use of poster children for fund-raising, broom-making by blind people) should be avoided, even if typical people also engage in them, and even if they bring other benefits, because they perpetuate sometimes ancient negative stereotypes and associations Efforts to enhance the competencies of competency-impaired persons should be even more intensive, and should begin at an earlier age, than similar efforts in the lives of ordinary people, because the competencies of devalued people are so much more at risk. Certain names, styles of dress, hobbies and pursuits that valued people may engage in without loss to their image should be avoided where devalued people are at stake, because these risk eliciting in the minds of observers negative stereotypes to which the devalued party is vulnerable, and/or because devalued people may not have sufficient compensating positively valued qualities to counteract or balance off some of the problematic imagery that may be associated with such practices.

In other words, the conservatism corollary implies that services “bend over backwards” to both enhance the image and competencies of their recipients, and to protect their recipients’ image and competencies from any further diminishment.

Contacts: This term will be found in a number of ratings as a shorthand for both social interactions, and direct juxtapositions of person(s) to person(s) , in contrast to juxtapositions of persons to objects, symbols, or verbal phrases.

Culturally valued analogue: A societal practice (a) which can be encountered with at least reasonable frequency in the valued sector of society, (b) with which most members of the society would be familiar, (c) of which most members of the society would hold positive expectations and images, (d) which constitutes a valued parallel to a practice performed by or with devalued people. With very rare exceptions, all human services have some culturally valued analogue; some types of services have several. For instance, the culturally valued analogues to a residence for impaired people might be a family home, an adoptive home, a boarding house, an apartment that two or three age peers share, a fraternity or sorority house, a boarding school, a relative taking in an orphaned niece, nephew, grandchild, etc. Similarly, the culturally valued analogue to an educational service could be an early education program, kindergarten, elementary school, high school, or university, an evening or weekend adult education program, a home-making “extension” course, a correspondence school, apprenticeship, a combination work-study program, etc. The analogue to a vocational program for impaired people might be regular industry or an office, vocational preparation and training during adolescence, apprenticeship, etc.

A culturally valued analogue for a counseling program might be informal advice given by a friend, older person, pastor, etc.; for meals-on-wheels, it might be a neighbor bringing over a dish to a sick neighbor; etc. So far, only one type of “service” has been discovered to lack a culturally valued analogue, and that is a prison. However, even for prisons, more valued cultural practices can be identified for at least some people, such as intensive social supervision rather than total physical isolation, segregation, and detainment.

Culture - appropriate: That which is in keeping with the values, ideals, and mores of the culture, which are accepted, agreed upon, and generally adhered to by most people throughout the culture. Things which are culture-appropriate are typically regulated through laws, customs, heritage, tradition, and other forms of both formal and informal social sanction, and are expressed in behaviors, personal appearances, activities, routines and rhythms, facility structures and appearances, rights, etc., which are considered typical, normative, and even valued for members of the culture regardless of their age. For example, personal cleanliness is a characteristic which is valued in North American culture, no matter what the person’s health, age, wealth, education, sex, etc. Cleanliness can thus be called a culture-appropriate aspect of a person’s appearance.

In contrast, behaviors, personal appearances, activities, routines and rhythms, facility structures and appearances, etc., which are negatively valued for virtually any member of a culture are called “cultureinappropriate.” For example, total inactivity and nonproductivity in one’s waking hours is not valued for anyone (not even babies) in North American culture, and is thus considered culture-inappropriate there. In many cultures, culture-inappropriate practices are those that are alien to that culture, and would be viewed by its members with suspicion or opprobrium.

Developmental activities: The major means by which people grow, learn, develop or contribute as members of the culture, especially in terms of their personal identities, skills, experiences, social roles and status, and through which they establish and maintain a major portion of their peer associations and relationships. Developmental activities are extremely diverse, are often socially structured and sanctioned, and persons are usually expected or encouraged to engage in them for a significant portion of their waking hours. In our culture, developmental activities for children would heavily include education and, to some degree, play; for adolescents and young adults, they include a combination of learning and education, and work or work training; for adults, they largely include work, work enhancement, and civic and cultural activities. For people of any age, they might include cultic and religious activities.

Deviancy: A sociological term referring to the social status (see definition on p. 40) into which a person is cast, often unconsciously, by others, and especially by the larger society, when he or she is perceived as (a) different from most others in the society, (b) in one or more dimensions which are perceived as significant by a majority or norm -setting segment of the society, and (c) when these perceived significant differences are valued negatively by the society or its norm -setting segment. For example, people who are physically impaired are commonly cast into a deviant social status in our society because (a) their bodies are different from those of most people in society, (b) these physical differences are perceived as significant ones, and (c) being physically impaired or limited is not a condition which the society values, nor to which people in the society aspire. Deviancy is not the same as mere differentness; it is society’s negativ e perception of a differentness that makes a differentness into a deviancy. For example, one may have an IQ of 165 and therefore be markedly different in a significant dimension from the rest of the population, but high intelligence is much more valued than devalued in our society, while low intelligence (also a significant difference in that dimension) is overwhelmingly devalued.

Direct services, & Indirect services: Direct services are those helping and serving forms that involve a personal interaction of a helping or serving nature between a server and a recipient. Examples of direct services include: teaching, in the broadest sense; physical therapy; most kinds of medical diagnosis and treatment; counseling and providing guidance, encouragement, direction, ego-building; providing companionship, affection, love; instrumental supplementation, i.e., assisting a person to accomplish instrumental (problem-solving) tasks or to overcome instrumental challenges, such as providing a person with a wheelchair so that the person can get from here to there, or reading to a blind or illiterate person. People who perform direct services in most human service settings might be such personnel as physicians, nurses, nurses’ aides, teachers and teachers’ aides, counselors, psychologists, and psychiatrists, provided that the persons filling these roles actually interact directly with people in need, rather than conducting strictly supervisory functions, preparing other servers to work directly with recipients, etc. Many direct services are performed by paid workers, but unpaid servers can also provide such services; in fact, the bulk of all serving that humans do for each other they do on an unpaid basis.

In contrast, indirect services are those that are rendered from a distance. Some of these are of a helping nature (e.g., getting money for a poor family), while others merely facilitate direct services (administering a service, giving consultation or training to direct service workers, advocating that a person receive a direct service, etc.).

Distantiation: The creation or placing of some kind of distance between oneself and something else (person, animal, object, etc.), usually something that one fears or dislikes. Distantiation can take either physical or social forms. Physical distantiation occurs when some sort of physical distance is employed to separate the object of fear or dislike from the person or group of people who fear or dislike that object. Some examples of physical distantiation are banishment, exile, segregation, and exclusion via physical barriers such as fences. Social distantiation occurs when some kind of “mental” or “metaphysical” distance is created, which is often done when physical distantiation is not an available option. Some examples of social distantiation include verbal degradation, treating people as if they were less than human, denying people the rights typically accorded to others, ignoring people who are actually present, avoiding eye contact, etc.

Domiciliary function: The sphere of life functioning having to do with residing somewhere, usually in one particular place and for a prolonged period. The “domiciliary function” is thus typically played by “the place where one lives,” i.e., one’s domicile. In contemporary developed societies, the domiciliary function is usually considered to be carried out in certain settings, and especially ones of relatively longterm nature. However, the domiciliary function is not always carried out in a long-term residence. For instance, college dorms definitely serve a domiciliary function, even if their student residents consider “home” to be someplace else. Similarly, hotels, motels, inns, camps, etc., also play a domiciliary function; for some residents, it may be a long-term one, as for people who live in a hotel, and for others (such as overnight visitors), it may be a short-term one. Some people who travel constantly (e.g., gypsies), or homeless people, may spend their nights in many different places (e.g., a camp, or shelter), but have no one single place that serves the domiciliary function for them.

In addition to the domiciliary function, people typically engage in numerous other distinct life functions and social processes in ordinary society, including formal education, remunerative employment, recreation, religious worship, and so on.

Facility: The physical structure (usually a building) in which a service is located and/or rendered, including any additions, signs, etc., that are attached to the structure itself. However, the term “facility” does not refer to the grounds around the facility (see definition of “service setting” on p. 37). Not all services are located or rendered in a facility, although they are always rendered in some kind of setting.

Generic: Anything which is available to virtually anybody who wishes or needs to use it, and which is neither designed, operated, nor intended to only be used by or applicable to a specific devalued person, group, or class. The term is usually used in reference to resources (“generic resources”) or services (“generic services”). Generic resources include such things as banks, stores, public entertainment and recreation centers and facilities, churches, many governmental offices, post offices, public transportation, public parks, etc. Some facilities are available to any citizen, such as parks and shopping malls. Some services too are available to anyone, though some require payment. Examples are professionals, agencies, or bodies in the fields of health, education, employment, etc. such as public schools, many adult education services, lawyers, dentists, most private physicians, most hospitals, public employment offices, community colleges, and so on which aim to serve citizens in general rather than a particular (devalued) target group. A service is not generic if it is addressed only to a specific group of devalued people, as would be the case with a work program for mentally retarded adults, a weekend recreation program for residents of an institution for the elderly, or a prison work-release program. There are also generic events, which may also cost money to attend. An example would be events at a symphony hall or civic center that are open to anyone who purchases a ticket.

Grouping: See definition of “program grouping” on p. 35.

Impaired/impairment: Any conditions of bodily or functional abnormality that reduce, or interfere with, the acquisition or exercise of competency, regardless of the source or causation of such a condition. Examples are blindness, deafness, mental retardation, mental disorder, senility or dementia, missing limbs, inability to walk.

Integration: The valued participation by people in the culturally normative and valued activities and settings of their society, in culturally normative amounts, and with ordinary and valued people. In PASSING, the term integration is used mostly to refer to the participation of devalued people with non-devalued ones in valued activities and settings. Integration can range from zero to extensive.

One can speak of physical integration of both persons and services. Persons can be physically integrated when they are in ordinary settings, activities, and contexts where non-devalued people are also present, but have no or only token interactive contact with the non-devalued people. For example, a group of impaired children could be physically integrated into a typical school for ordinary youngsters, and although the children share the same facility and perhaps even attend some of the same functions (such as school-wide assemblies and athletic events), the impaired children might not have any genuine social contact with their fellow non-impaired students. A great deal of what after ca. 1970 was often called “mainstreaming,” and then after ca. 1985 was called “inclusion,” was only physical integration.

A service can be said to be physically integrated when it is located in the midst of all sorts of suitable integrative resources, but its recipients experience no or very little social interaction with non-devalued people. An example might be a group home located in a residential area with many potentially integrative resources nearby, but the residents socialize only with each other, paid staff, and other devalued people. Numerous ratings deal with the issue of physical integration.

In contrast, social integration goes beyond the mere presence of both devalued and nondevalued people in the same physical space, to where real social interaction between them takes place, and does so in valued, or at least normative, settings, contexts, and activities. And in order to be truly rolevalorizing, the presence and participation of the devalued parties must be wanted and valued by the nondevalued integrators, or at least not resented.

There are rationales in favor of social integration of devalued people into valued society that do not derive from SRV, and these must not be confused with rationales for integration that have to do with its contribution to the development of positively valued social roles.

Readers are referred to published materials on SRV (see point No. 8 on p. 18) for further discussion of integration (e.g., see the three items mentioned in point No. 17 of the section entitled “How This Third (2007) Edition Does and Does Not Differ From the 2nd (1983) Edition,” on p. 20).

Isolated dislocation: A service that would usually be found in a certain type of neighborhood is instead located in an area in which, for all intents and purposes, there is no neighborhood. For example, a residential service would usually be found in a residential neighborhood, but a residential institution for orphaned children might be set in the middle of a field where there is nothing but other fields and woods for miles around. Or, a work site which would usually be located in a commercial or industrial area might instead stand at the edge of the ocean, surrounded on three sides by water, and on the fourth by acres of sand and undeveloped property. In such instances, not only is the service dislocated (i.e., not in the appropriate type of matching environs), but it is also isolated from any neighborhood in the usual sense of the word in other words, it stands in isolated dislocation . This term does not refer to the isolated location of services that are appropriately distanced from what might typically be considered a neighborhood. For example, such services as camps, retreats, possibly certain types of residential working farms, agrarian communes, etc., might be quite isolated, but given the nature of such a service, such isolated settings would generally not be dislocated ones.

Neighborhood: The physical area around a service (but not including the service setting itself) which is within reasonable walking distance for an adult in good physical condition. Even if the service and its setting are quite large, the neighborhood is that area within reasonable walking distance which is outside the grounds of the service.

Normative: That which is not perceived or experienced by members of a society as odd, peculiar, outlandish, or even as deserving of unusual attention, because either: (a) it is culturally typical, conventional and encountered commonly in the societal mainstream (e.g., it is typical in our culture for males to wear trousers); and/or (b) due to typical cultural experiences, the phenomenon is well within the range of the “expectable,” or consistent with an aspired norm, even if that norm is rarely actualized or attained (e.g., it is an aspired norm for adults to vote at every election, even though not everyone does).

Normative does not necessarily mean the following: (a) normal, if for no other reason than that there may be no agreement on the concept of normality; (b) good or bad, or moral or immoral, because there may be some things in any culture which may be typical or even culturally valued, but which may be judged as immoral by many people; (c) being or acting like everyone else, because in any culture, there is a range of typical and acceptable behaviors, and different members of the culture may engage in highly diverse behaviors which all still fall within that normative range; or (d) being deprived of all choices, because, at least in North American culture, independence and an individual’s freedom to choose among available alternatives are themselves culturally valued, and normative.

PASS ( Program Analysis of Service Systems): An evaluation tool, comprised of 50 ratings, for measuring the quality of a human service according to criteria of normalization, other adaptive service ideologies, and administrative effectiveness. PASS has been issued in three editions (1969, 1973, 1975), and in two volumes: the Handbook , which explains the background and uses of PASS, and the Field Manual, which contains the ratings. PASS came out at about the same time that normalization emerged onto the human service scene in the early 1970s, and was used extensively to teach normalization. Much of its content, and especially its normalization-based ratings, can be considered the predecessor of PASSING PASS is referenced in footnote 2 on p. 4 in the “Introduction and Overview” section of this Manual

Program: An activity carried out by a human service (in the broad sense) in order to serve, provide or facilitate a specified function in the lives of its recipients Human service programs typically (a) have a defined structure (in terms of times, places, actors, and roles), (b) carry out identifiable patterns and routines of behaviors and activities, (c) tend to be focused on presumedly similar needs, problems, and/or groups of people, (d) have aims and purposes which are at least implicit or expected, even if not specified, and which (e) at least on the surface are more or less agreed upon by the public, servers, and recipients. For example, a residential program may consist of providing certain persons with a place to live, in which certain activities and expected behaviors take place; an educational program could be a place where people go to school during the day, five days a week, and are taught certain subjects in small groups with other people their own age; a service which provides adults with productive, remunerative daytime activity is a work program.

Some services provide only one, or one type, of program, while others provide several, or several types of programs. For example, a residential services agency may provide only residential programs, but may offer several different such programs, such as a group home for children, a series of sheltered apartments for adults, a group home for adolescents, a nursing home for elderly people, etc. On the other hand, a community mental health organization might provide more than one type of program, such as a “day treatment” center for adults, a residence, an educational program for children and teenagers, a walkin counseling program, a dispensing clinic for prescribed psychoactive drugs, and a self-help program for adults.

A service program is usually thought of as being carried out by a service agency, but may also be carried out by an individual service practitioner (e.g., a free-lance clinician); or even informally by an unpaid individual or group, as exemplified by a family that establishes an intensive developmental regimen at home for one of its family members who is impaired, or recovering from surgery.

A program should not be confused with a setting (there may be several different programs in one setting, or less commonly, several settings may be used by only one program); an agency (an agency may run several different programs); a service-related name (names may not reflect the real nature or number of programs); the recipients’ ages (one program may serve people of all ages); or recipients’ conditions (people with all types of conditions may be served in the same program).

Program grouping, or grouping: The population of recipients selected and/or constituted so as to receive a particular program. Groupings may consist of one person, or any larger number. In other words, in SRV and PASSING contexts, one can speak of “a group of one.” A grouping may also be divided into smaller groupings, called “sub -groupings,” within a program. Some examples of program groupings and sub-groupings are: in a group residence for impaired adults, the program grouping consists of the impaired adults who live there; in a school for children, the program grouping consists of the student body, and each classroom within the school would constitute a different program sub-grouping; in an adult literacy program, the program grouping consists of all the adults who receive literacy training, while program sub-groupings may each consist of one adult receiving individual tutoring from a mentor; in a sheltered workshop, the program grouping consists of the impaired trainees/employees of the workshop, and there may be smaller program sub-groupings for certain work tasks; in a nursing home for elderly people, the program grouping consists of the nursing home residents, and the program sub-groupings consist of the people placed in the different wards of the nursing home according to the severity of their conditions; in an institution, the program grouping consists of all the residents, and there may be program sub-groupings (such as a unit for children, one for adults), which may be further sub-grouped (by ward, floor, wing); etc. Not every program, even if it is very large, has sub-groupings, while sometimes even very small programs do.

Recipients may also be served in a series of groupings within one program. For example, in secondary schools, most students are divided into groupings by year (freshman, sophomore, etc.), and are then serially grouped into different groupings for each subject area (chemistry, languages, etc.). In fact, in many educational programs, it is not uncommon for recipients to be both sub-grouped and serially grouped within a program grouping.

Program groupings and sub-groupings are composed only of recipients of the service; servers, recipients of and workers in other services, and members of the public, do not constitute members of a program grouping being assessed.

Purview: The scope or limit of influence, authority, competence, responsibility, or concern in recipients’ lives that would generally be perceived as the appropriate and/or properly delegated one for a particular service or server. Different purviews usually imply different measures of legitimate relationship toward, possibly even authority and control over, a recipient. For instance, a telephone crisis counseling service would not be perceived as having within its purview a responsibility for providing hot meals, while a hospital emergency room would be perceived as having the proper purview for emergency medical services. Most residential services would have considerable authority over what recipients do on the premises. Some, such as some psychiatric services, even have legitimate authority to prevent certain recipients from leaving, which is not generally the case for services with other purviews, such as a recreation program, adult education programs, or a transportation service.

In order to delineate what the appropriate purview of a service to devalued persons might be, it is very important to examine the culturally valued analogue (see earlier definition) to such a service. For example, the purview of a group home for troubled children would be similar to that of a normative family or an adoptive home; the purview of a vocational service for impaired adults would be similar to that of typical businesses and industries; etc. However, this does not imply that a service to devalued people must never exert greater authority, control, responsibility, etc., than would its culturally valued analogue. For instance, a residence for typical valued adults (such as an apartment shared by several single working men) does not have it within its purview to determine what all its residents will do at night in their spare time, what clothes they will be encouraged or discouraged from wearing, etc. Rather, this would usually be up to each individual resident of the apartment to decide for himself. But a residential service for adults who are impaired in competency (such as a group home for retarded adults) may very well have it within its purview to control (or at least exert extensive influence over) these same, and perhaps other, aspects of its recipients’ lives.

Certain kinds of services have, by their very nature, a broad purview to both address recipient needs, and to pursue the address of certain such needs by other parties. In fact, the more authority, supervision, and management control a service exercises over its recipients, the greater purview it generally has to see to it that recipients’ needs are met, either by that same service itself, or by some other party. Residential services that exercise some degree of supervision or even control over their residents, and educational services for young children, are examples. For instance, a residential service to elderly people of impaired mentality has a much greater purview and responsibility to see to it that its residents are not just clean, fed, and dressed, but also that they receive medical attention when they need it, that their minds are engaged, that their health and strength is preserved or even enhanced, etc. A residential service to elderly people with fully competent minds has much less such responsibility; its elderly residents can probably be expected to see to such address of at least some needs themselves.

Recipient: A person who receives a service that is provided by a server . Examples of recipients would be students in an education program, apprentices in a work training program, sick persons receiving nursing, persons who receive counseling in a guidance service, etc.

A clear distinction must be made between those people who are the recipients of a human service program, and those who may be on the scene for any number of reasons but who are not recipients. For instance, when a child welfare agency places a foster child with a family that also has several natural children, only the foster child is considered a recipient of the service agency, not the other children nor the foster parents. A classroom may serve both retarded and non-retarded students together, in which case both would be considered recipients of the educational program. However, if a special segregated classroom for impaired children that is being assessed recruited non-impaired children from other classrooms or schools to come in as volunteers to work with the impaired students for part of the day, the non-impaired students would not be considered recipients of the special class that is being assessed. Or, a vocational services agency for impaired people may hire non-impaired, competent workers who do not require work training, with the intent of having them work alongside its impaired trainees in order to provide these trainees with models of what productive workers are like. In this case, the non-impaired co-workers would be considered servers rather than recipients of the vocational agency, unless the primary reason for their presence was to provide them also with a program of work training/preparation or sheltered work.

Server: Any person who --either on their own initiative, or deployed by a human service agency --performs, carries out, or supports functions of service to one or more recipients. Such a server may be either paid or unpaid for rendering this service.

Paid servers would usually include such people as direct-level/clinical workers (caseworkers, paid foster parents, teachers, rehabilitation counselors), and indirect servers such as janitorial staff, clerical workers, program supervisors, administrators, and executives. However, people are sometimes referred to as “volunteers” even though they do, in fact, receive some payment (even if very minimal) for their service. For example, in many services for retarded children, there are elderly people called “foster grandparents” who are usually matched by the service with an individual retarded child to accompany the child on trips, implement the child’s programming, read to the child, provide the companionship and affection from adults that the child needs, etc., and where these servers work part-time at low wages even though they are commonly called “volunteers.”

Other servers might not be paid by the service that deploys them, but that service may still extensively and fundamentally control their actions. For example, in a church-run meals-on-wheels program, all of the cooks and drivers who deliver the meals and visit with the recipients while they are eating may be unpaid volunteers. However, such people are deployed to carry out the service mission, and are virtually totally under the control of the program (e.g., as to hours of service, what procedures to follow, etc.). Most service volunteers (though not most citizen advocates; see earlier definition) also fall into this category.

There may be some workers present in the service being assessed who are actually paid and/or controlled by a different agency (e.g., inspectors or auditors from outside regulatory agencies, chaplains or other religious personnel who are employed by a church but who are sent in to conduct worship services for the recipients). For PASSING purposes, such people are not to be considered servers of the service being assessed , but as members of the public, or “others.”

In some instances, a service uses recipients of other services (such as students of another classroom or school) to assist service workers in their supervision of the recipients. For PASSING purposes, such persons are considered servers in this capacity. However, in other instances, a service may use recipients of the program being assessed to perform staff functions vis-à-vis other recipients of the very same program (an example might be prison trusties). In such instances, such persons are not considered servers, but recipients (see definition of “recipient” on p. 36).

Service: This term is used in two senses in PASSING. One is to refer to any action that is intended to address some need of a person, group, or class, as in “one person performs a service for another.”

The term also refers to any person, practitioner, body, group, or organization that claims to, or is intended to, or does, provide such service to people, as in “a human service agency.” Another term used in PASSING for this meaning of service is serving entity or service entity Serving entities could include: a voluntary association that recruits unpaid citizens to provide a service, such as to transport impaired people to shopping or appointments; a voluntary non-profit agency that hires people to perform some serving function; a public government body that provides a service, such as a public assistance (“welfare”) office, or a state-run residential institution; a free-lance professional who provides a service, such as a physical therapist in private practice; a foster family; etc. Any of these parties may also be referred to as a “service provider.”

Service setting: The physical environment in which a service is rendered, comprised of (a) the geographic tract or site on which it is located and which it controls, (b) any facility or facilities (see definition above) it contains, and any additions thereto, (c) the grounds or estate around the facility, and (d) fences or walls that might surround and belong to the grounds, signs on the facility and grounds, etc. The physical setting of a school would include the school building(s) and the surrounding grounds, such as possibly other buildings (e.g., library or portable classrooms), parking areas, and play or athletic grounds. The physical setting of a residential program located in an apartment building might include the entire apartment complex, its parking lot, outside swimming pool, lawn area, etc. However, some service settings consist only of either a facility or grounds, but not both. For example, a service in a densely populated urban area may be in a building which is surrounded by no grounds at all that pertain to it and, in fact, may hardly be physically separated from other adjacent buildings. As well, it is at least conceivable that some services (e.g., recreation and camping) may have extensive grounds, but no actual buildings. The setting is usually demarcated by commonly understood, natural or artificial, and/or legally constituted, boundaries.

Setting exterior: Any aspect of the physical setting that an observer would be able to view without having to gain access to the inside of a facility in the setting. If there is no service facility, then the setting is considered to have only an exterior. The setting exterior does not include any parts of the facility interior that are not visible from outside, nor does it include any outdoor parts of the setting that are only accessible from within the facility, such as an inner courtyard surrounded by a building.

The exterior of the physical setting would thus generally consist of: (a) the building’s exterior(s), including those modifications, renovations, additions, or other features such as attached signs, etc., which are visible to an observer from the outside of the building(s); (b) the grounds or site on which the building(s) is/are situated (even if these are quite extensive and are not fully visible from the setting’s boundaries), including any inherent, built-in, or quasi-permanent features of the site other than building(s) per se, such as landscaping, parking areas, on-grounds driveways or access roads, sidewalks and pathways, lawns and gardens, playground equipment, fences and walls, etc.; (c) any part of the interior of the facility that is visible from the outside , even if it is actually indoors, such as decorations hung in the windows.

Sometimes, the exterior of a setting may be so extensive that not all of it is visible to a passer-by or other observer on the perimeter of the setting. Examples might be camps, or institutions that have quite sizeable grounds, much of which may not be visible until one penetrates some distance into the setting. Or, the public might not be able to see much or any of the service setting because of some kind of barrier surrounding the service which blocks vision. An example would be a prison entirely enclosed by a very high stone wall. In such cases, the exterior still consists of everything on the outside of the facility (if there is one) plus the exterior of the facility itself. In the above examples, the entire camp grounds, except for the inside of any facilities such as cabins, would be considered the exterior of the setting; the entire grounds, fields, driveways, etc., of the institution would constitute the setting exterior, except for the inside of the institution buildings themselves and any spaces they enclose; the prison walls and any spaces between them and prison buildings, as well as the outside of the prison buildings, would constitute the setting exterior.

Often, a service does not occupy its entire setting. This would be the case when the service is (a) located in only some of several buildings on the same grounds or site (such as one building of an institution that has several buildings), (b) only one of several occupants of a single building (such as one apartment within an apartment building), or possibly (c) the only occupant of a building or site, but does not utilize all of the available space within the setting. But the image of recipients will be affected by the external appearance of the entire setting, including all of its parts or features, because an observer is not likely to focus consciously only on the relevant human service part and to exclude all of the other parts from his or her vision, and may not even be able to do so should he or she so wish. Also, the external appearance of a service setting projects an image of its recipients to an observer even before the observer knows which part of the setting is occupied by the service. In other words, most observers are likely to form unconscious interpretations of recipients based on the impressions conveyed to them by the whole of the setting as well as by any of its parts. Therefore, for PASSING purposes, when raters assess a program that takes place in only a part of a larger setting, the external appearance of the entire setting should be assessed in all the external setting ratings, while for the internal setting ratings, only those parts of the setting would be rated which are actually used by the program being assessed.

Setting interior: That part of a service’s physical setting which is only visible once an observer has gained access to the inside of any facilities in the setting. Thus, the interior of a setting would generally consist of: (a) rooms, hallways, stairways, inside walls, floors and ceilings, windows and doors, closets and storage areas, and other interior spaces such as basements and attics; (b) private, interior, though not necessarily “inside,” aspects of the facility, such as breezeways that are hard to see from the public outside area, enclosed patios, courtyards or sundecks, garage interiors, etc.; and (c) any other aspects of the service facility that an observer must get inside the building in order to see. In extremely rare instances, the service has no facility. For instance, emergency counseling or medical treatment following a disaster may be given wherever recipients happen to be, which may be outdoors or scattered in a multitude of natural settings. Or, some campgrounds may have no facility, except perhaps toilets. In such cases, the setting is considered to only have an exterior, and all the PASSING ratings which are applicable to a setting’s interior would be pro-rated.

Where a service occupies only part of a facility (such as one ward in one wing of a large psychiatric institution), then raters should apply the internal setting ratings only to the part(s) of the setting interior that are used by a program being assessed and by its recipients. However, the appearance of the areas in which recipients spend most time would be given greater weight than areas in which recipients spend little time.

(Social) devaluation: The process of attributing less value to a person, group, or class of people than is accorded to typical or most persons and groups, usually because the devalued party is perceived as having some undesirable characteristic which differentiates that party from others. In other words, the adjective “devalued” does not imply that a devalued entity is of low value, but that the entity is attributed with low value. Devaluation can range from mild to extreme, and thus, some groups are much more devalued than others. Devaluation of individuals and groups takes place both by individuals and by whole collectivities of people even societies and, at least in Western cultures with a JudeoChristian value orientation, it is largely unconscious. Some people/groups who are widely socially devalued in Western society are: mentally retarded people; mentally or behaviorally disordered persons; the elderly; prisoners, and those who are accused of having committed criminal offenses; severely ill people, especially if they are chronically or terminally ill; people who are addicted to alcohol or other drugs; people who are physically impaired, or impaired in a major sense organ, such as hearing or sight; poor people; people from a different (non-Western) culture, such as foreign immigrants; people who are of a racial or ethnic minority; people who are unassimilated into the culture, such as members of religious enclaves who live a life-style very different from that of most other people in the culture. In addition to these commonly societally devalued people, each individual almost invariably has his or her own personal list of people whom he or she devalues, and would rather not associate with. While people who fall into one or more of these categories are said to be “socially devalued,” those who do not belong to one of the above groups are said to be “typical” people, or even “valued” if they fall within the upper range of the value continuum.

Social role: A combination of behaviors, privileges, duties, and responsibilities that is socially defined, is widely understood and recognized within a society, and is characteristic or expected of a person occupying a particular position within a social system, or wh o performs certain functions within it.

The responsibility or duty expectancies of a role often come in the form of “you must,” “you should,” or “you shall not.” For instance, in our society, two obligations of the parent role are that parents should rear and take care of the children they bring into the world, and should not mistreat them. Similarly, it is expected that an employee should carry out the duties of a job, obey the dictates of the employer who pays the worker’s salary, not loaf, and not steal from employers. A person in the sick role is expected to want to get well, and to seek and accept treatment to this end. One of the obligations of the role of husband is to be willing to provide or at least contribute to economic support to his family.

In contrast, the privileges of a role might be thought of as “you may” or “you are permitted to” types of expectancies. For instance, a person in the sick role is permitted to stay home from school or work. And it is expected that a grandparent may spoil the grandchildren a bit. Ordinarily, the higher a person’s social status, and the more valued a person is in society, the more options the person has about what social role(s) he or she will play. For example, valued persons can usually choose what occupation they would like to pursue, whether they want to marry, what they will wear, etc. On the other hand, people of low social status, or who are socially devalued, often have their social role(s) imposed on them, and their options curtailed.

Social Role Valorization, or SRV: Social Role Valorization is a theoretical framework that, based on empirical knowledge and drawing on multiple theories in sociology and psychology: (a) posits a relationship between the social roles people occupy, and how these people are then perceived, evaluated, and treated; and (b) predicts how shaping the social roles of individuals, groups, or classes is likely to influence how perceivers of these roles respond to, and treat, the parties in these roles; and (c) provides a basis for designing a great many strategies for shaping people’s roles.

People seen to occupy roles that are positively valued by perceivers are likely to be positively valued by the perceivers, and people seen to occupy roles that are negatively valued by perceivers are likely to be negatively valued by the perceivers. In turn, how people are perceived profoundly affects how the perceivers act toward, or in respect to, them. People seen in a positive light (in large part because of the roles they are seen as occupying) will be much more likely to be accorded the good things of life by their perceivers than people whom the perceivers see in a negative light. In fact, bad things are very likely to be done to individuals, groups, or classes who are devalued, and/or who are seen in devalued roles.

Therefore, if the roles of a person, group or class are positively valued by a perceiver, this increases the likelihood that the perceiver will afford to the perceived access to whatever good things the perceiver has control over.

Any action that contributes to role-upgrading, or to defense against role degradation, can be said to be role - valorizing Any action that contributes to role-degradation, or the enlargement of devalued roles, is said to be role - devalorizing

Social Role Valorization posits that on a probabilistic basis, the two major means and sub-goals towards valued roles are the enhancement of people’s social image and enhancement of their competencies. Accordingly, the overall Social Role Valorization sub-goals for a particular human service (especially one to devalued people) are enhancement of the social image and the competencies of the (devalued) recipients, and of other people like the recipients. All of the multitude of implications of SRV can be classified as contributing primarily to one or the other of these two ends of image- and competency-enhancement.

Social status: The perceived rank or position of a person in relation to others within a hierarchy of social prestige. Social status is determined by standards that prevail and are widely agreed upon (though not necessarily overtly stated) by the majority of members of a society. People to whom high social status is attributed are considered valued and important, and are accorded respect, power, privilege, and opportunity; people to whom low social status is attributed are viewed and treated as of lesser value, unimportant, powerless, unworthy, and in extreme cases, even as expendable, and are denied participation, experiences, rights, etc., that people with high status can take for granted.

The perceived social status of a person may vary from group to group that the person belongs to or participates in. For example, while a person may be attributed with low social status within and by the larger society, the person may have achieved high status within a social sub-group, such as an ethnic subculture, school, prison, the person’s family, etc. This is possible because the standards that determine a person’s social status may vary across sub-cultures within a society.

Stigma: A visible or otherwise obvious sign that marks a person as being devalued or as having some socially devalued characteristic or identity. Stigmata (the plural term) are usually quite visible, or at least obvious. Examples are physical deformities; facial scars or other disfigurements; devalued skin color; a shuffling walk; clothes that are filthy, tattered, do not fit, or are inappropriate to the person’s age or sex; poor grooming; and bizarre stereotypic gestures and mannerisms such as self-mutilation. Stigmata may also be obvious via hearing and smell, e.g., a person may ceaselessly babble or shout, or may have offensive body odor. Sometimes, a stigma not only identifies a person as devalued, but also indicates to which devalued group the person “belongs,” i.e., whether the person is addicted to alcohol or drugs, retarded, etc.

Valued: That which is seen as positive by a perceiving party. As an adjective, “valued” means the entity including a person or group is attributed with positive value, in contrast to an entity that is attributed with little or no value, and referred to as “devalued.” The term does not imply that an entity is of high value, but only that the entity is perceived that way by some party.

1

Introduction to the Issues of Social Imagery and Image Enhancement

As noted in the definition of Social Role Valorization (pp. 39-40 of the “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms”), the two major avenues towards valued social roles are a valued social image and competencies. The more of either of these a party possesses, the more that party will be likely to have access to social roles that are valued by society; and in turn, the more valued social roles the party holds, the more that party will likely have access to and will be granted the good things of life.

This section deals with the first SRV sub-goal of image enhancement, which also includes defense of image against (further) degradation. Readers should take note that all the ratings in this section of PASSING that emphasize how a service can affect the image of its recipients are to the end of valued social roles for recipients, and ultimately to the good things of life for them, rather than being concerned with image enhancement for its own sake.

This section explains the reality and power of social imagery, and the reality and impact of image transfer. These concepts are extremely important to a deep understanding of the following: (a) the ways in which imagery determines how some people come to be valued or devalued in the eyes of others; (b) how people or societies communicate the fact that they perceive a person or group as valued or devalued, especially when overt communication of such judgments is inhibited; (c) how the status of a person or group is perpetuated through the use of imagery; (d) how images can be used to increase the likelihood that a devalued person or group will become more valued; and (e) why twenty-seven ratings on social imagery are included in PASSING. (Of course, many rating issues contribute partly to both image enhancement and competency enhancement, but for the purposes of assessment, they have been placed in the category to which they generally contribute the most.)

The Reality, Power, and Prevalence of Social Imagery

Humans tend to attach some sort of value to every human experience: places and positions (e.g., high/low, in/out, front/back, right/left); appearances (light/dark, beautiful/ugly, order/chaos); actions (virtuous/evil, responsible/irresponsible, lawful/criminal, powerful/weak, loving/cruel); objects (well-made/shoddy, useful/useless); sounds (soft/harsh, melodious/raucous); colors (cheerful/somber); textures (smooth/rough, soft/hard); and so on. Some concepts and images, such as clean, light, and whole, are typically attributed with positive value in our society, while negative value is attached to other concepts and images, such as dirty, dark, and broken. The value that can be attached to any characteristic, quality, or phenomenon ranges from extremely negative at one end to highly positive at the opposite pole. For example, the state of dying or being near death is much more negatively valued than is the state of chronic illness, which is itself more devalued than the state of minor short-term illness. Similarly, honesty is more valued than cheating and stealing; intelligence is more valued than mental dullness; first place is more valued than second, third, or last; etc. Usually, if positive value is attached to some entity, then negative value is attached to its opposite.

The value that is ascribed to a particular phenomenon may vary across cultures, time, place, and to some extent, even individuals. For example, being left-handed has been a devalued trait in certain countries and at certain times, but not (or less so) in others; in many cultures, fair skin untouched by the sun was highly valued at least at one time, or at least for women, while today, even year-round suntans are highly valued in many cultures. However, despite such differences in what is valued or devalued, the process of attaching value to phenomena is universal, and is now believed to be part of the very process of perception.

These positive and negative value judgments are ever present in human life, and are communicated in social interactions via symbols and imagery. Language is one such set of symbols that represents and expresses qualities and values by means of spoken, written, or signed words; for example, the words “good” and “goodness” symbolize positive qualities. A variety of perceptual processes especially visual ones can communicate value quality judgments. For example, a drawing of a smiling face might be used to symbolize “happiness.” The power of these image communications is so strong that they can induce an observer to sense and respond to the value quality they represent, such as when a person feels fear and revulsion on seeing a picture of a skull, or on hearing the words “human skeleton,” because these symbolic representations elicit the negative connotations of dying, death, and decay.

There are three reasons why symbolic communication via imagery is so effective, and can be so much more powerful than purely rational (verbal) abstract communication.

1. Symbols and images are the language of affect, which is the oldest and most shared language of human beings. Abstract verbal languages are much later developments. The difference in the power of the two types of communication can be illustrated by the fact that people who speak unrelated verbal languages (e.g., English and Chinese) can convey very little meaning to each other unless they have learned both languages, whereas the language of affect (using facial expressions, gestures, etc.) enables such people of very dissimilar verbal languages to communicate to at least a degree.

2. Because symbolic communications are very often directed towards the unconscious (as in art, advertising, and politics), they are very resistant to conscious verbal resolution. For example, in modern advertisements, powerful images are so subtly embedded that often, only one’s unconscious perception will take them in. If symbolic communications can therefore bypass conscious detection, analysis, censorship, and evaluation, and yet be deeply absorbed into the unconscious, then they can of course be highly effective.

3. Symbolic communications are often attached with centuries of accumulated meanings meanings that are communicated to the recipient of the communication along with the more obvious or intended ones. For example, one theory holds that at least one reason why red is such an emotional color for people is because of the very long, deep, and primitive association of red with blood.

Sometimes, symbols are consciously and deliberately attached to something in order to rapidly convey important meanings. For instance, a skull and crossbones may be placed on the door of a power transmission station as a warning that entry into the station is dangerous to life. Similarly, advertisers consciously and consistently try to attach positive symbols to their wares, as when US ads show a beautiful, well-groomed young woman smoking a cigarette, with the Statue of Liberty in the background and words such as “pride” and “freedom” in prominent type on the picture even though the ad also grudgingly notes in fine print on the bottom that smoking can kill.

The practice of deliberately attaching culturally positively valued images to an object in order to promote or sell it is universal. A good example of this universality is that there was once a US advertising jingle, “Baseball, hot dogs, apple pie, and Chevrolet.” And there was an Australian ad which was an exact parallel to the US cultural values expressed in this jingle, capitalizing on symbols of Australian national identity, i.e., “Football, meat pies, kangaroos, and Holden cars.” The strategy, the rhythm, and the tune were exactly the same only the content was varied to capitalize on the values of the particular culture.

It is not yet fully understood why so much about human mentation and communication is unconscious, and why so much imagery and symbolism is attached unconsciously to emitted or received communications. However, at least five important reasons are fairly well established.

1. If there is a serious inconsistency between the values a person holds in his or her conscience and what he or she really feels, wants, or perceives, then the person will repress awareness of the “unworthy” sentiment into the unconscious. There, however, it constitutes a powerful force that strives for expression. Because direct and honest expression is denied by one’s conscience, the repressed sentiments are expressed indirectly, i.e., symbolically, in a disguise which slips by the person’s conscious “censor.” An example might be when a city zoning council forces a nursing home to be located next to a cemetery, thereby acting out the widely-held (but usually unconscious) perception that old people are as good as dead, or ought to be.

2. When symbols have historically been attached to something, the reason for the attachment, or the complete meaning of the symbol, may in time be forgotten, although the practice of attaching that same symbol to that same entity may continue, thereby deeply unconsciously perpetuating the original meaning. For instance, some forms of greeting (e.g., raising one’s favored hand while saying hello) were once probably meant to show that one came in peace and carried no weapon. Today, giving a hand greeting is still imaged as a positive and peaceful thing, although few people are conscious of its historic connection to peacefulness. A current human service example would be the prevalence in the names of services of words which suggest height and separateness (such as “crest,” “hill,” “mount,” “top,” “knoll”), even if the service is located on level ground, or down in a valley. Centuries ago, because it was widely believed that diseases and disorders were propagated by mists and winds, hospitals and asylums were placed on mountains and hills away from the places where people lived, so that the ill winds would not blow onto the population and give them the diseases, and so that the institution residents would benefit from good air themselves. Today, a great many human services are still imaged with names reminiscent of height and distance, although few people are aware of the old rationale, or even of the absurdity of attaching elevation names to facilities that are not on elevated ground, or of giving more elevation names to human service settings than to similar nonservice settings.

3. A great deal of human learning takes place unconsciously. For instance, it is estimated that millions of bits of sensory information bombard the waking human mind every few seconds yet only a very minute fraction of that input is stored in the memory, and much of that only in the unconscious. Thus, images and symbols, constituting such a big part of human communications, are also apt to be taken in and stored in the unconscious.

4. The human mind is limited in dealing with the complexity of most phenomena by what the French anthropologist Levi-Strauss has called “binary thinking,” which means that humans tend to try to deal with issues and decisions as if they involve only two options (either-or). This type of simplistic thinking may be, in a sense, natural to humans, but is a hindrance in one’s orientation to the complexity of the universe. Thus, the simplistic explanations and responses that people make to many phenomena are not only inaccurate, but can even become a barrier to a more accurate conscious perception of reality. Where reality perception is reduced, even if unintentionally, unconsciousness is apt to set in.

5. Some “self-survival” dynamics of groups and organizations often require or reinforce unconsciousness. Social scientists have noted that groups and organizations, from the most informal to the most formal ones, tend to seek their own survival and continuation, usually above all else. Thus, organizations will generally pursue their own survival despite their overtly stated mission which is supposed to be the most important focus. However, if the organization’s real purpose is to survive above all else, then obviously, unconsciousness must usually operate in the repression of this fact, so that the organization can pretend that its stated mission is its real and most important one.

The Process of Image Association

and

Placing one entity in physical or mental (perceptual or conceptual) closeness to another is called juxtaposition. When a symbol or image is juxtaposed to another entity, including possibly another symbol or image, it is called image juxtaposition. Thus, there can be juxtapositions between and among persons, objects, places, and images or meanings. When a negatively valued entity or symbol is juxtaposed to another entity or symbol, it is called deviancy image juxtaposition (in PASS, by Wolfensberger & Glenn, 1975, referenced earlier in footnote 2 on p. 4).

Through the process of association, further discussed below, when a symbol is juxtaposed to an entity (including a person or group), the meaning of one can be transferred to the other. For instance, the positive images associated with the Statue of Liberty can transfer to cigarettes when the two are juxtaposed in advertisements, making the cigarettes themselves valued and desirable. Negative images of cruelty, savagery, and inhumanity can become attached to the enemy during times of war when posters depict enemy soldiers committing atrocities. Similarly, the originally negative symbol of the cross (a tool of execution of law-breakers) became positively valued for many people because it assumed the positive value of a person, Jesus, with whom it was so strongly associated.

Not only do symbols attached to places, objects, people, etc., convey some kind of value message, but symbols may eventually even become attached to other symbols, and thereby express a sentiment about such other symbols, or (more likely) about what they represent. For instance, after someone has put a swastika symbol on the door of a building in order to indicate that the local branch of the Nazi party has its office therein, someone else may come along and paint a large “X” symbol over the swastika in order to express a negative feeling not so much towards the swastika, but towards what it stands for. Thus, a chain of image communications is established, starting with one object or idea (i.e., the Nazi party) that eventually becomes represented by a symbol (i.e., the swastika), which in turn communicates with another symbol (i.e., the X), which in turn stands for yet another object or idea (i.e., dislike or negation).

The world is full of juxtapositions of symbols with objects, places, people, ideas, or other symbols. While most people may not (be able to) verbalize it explicitly, they are aware of at least some of the messages contained in the juxtapositions which they perceive, and are certainly influenced by a great many of the image juxtapositions to which they are exposed, even ones of which they are not fully conscious, e.g., ones they may merely glance at, but not consciously remember, as they drive down the road. The power of (unconscious) image associations to affect behavior is well-known and documented in the psychological literature. In fact, image associations are one of the most powerful influences over people’s attitudes and behaviors towards any number of things they may encounter in the world.

Furthermore, a person can be influenced by a symbolic message even if that message contains a falsehood as many a consumer has discovered after bringing an advertised product home from the store. If a person is associated with images of wealth, such as expensive tailored clothes, gold jewelry, and a luxurious automobile, the person is likely to be perceived as wealthy even if that is not actually the case. In fact, because wealth is generally highly valued in our culture, the person with whom images of wealth are associated may come to be highly valued him or herself. Similarly, if the logo of a human service agency for impaired people shows a twisted human-like figure that looks very sad, the recipients of that service (and other impaired people like them) will come to be perceived as unhappy people with broken bodies even if the people are neither very impaired nor sad, or even if they are quite joyful. Unfortunately, as mentioned, because so much symbolism is used unconsciously or reflexively, much of it escapes explicit rational, verbal, and conscious analysis. Once more, experts in certain fields such as propaganda, advertising, etc., are very much aware of this reality, and use it with great ingenuity and even ruthlessness.

The Facilitation of Image Transfer

Even though the above theoretical discussion is limited and oversimplified, one can nevertheless conclude that a transfer phenomenon exists whereby the meanings, sentiments, values, etc., attached to one place, object, person, class, idea, or symbol can become attached to another such entity to which it is juxtaposed. In most cases, this transfer will only take place where a number of facilitating conditions prevail. These conditions include the following.

1. Several theories of learning hold that things which occur contiguously (i.e., next or near to each other) in time and/or space will come to be associated with each other. For example, in Pavlov’s famous experiments, dogs were given food soon after they heard a bell ring. The bell and food were contiguous in time, and to some degree in space. Soon, the bell took on some of the stimulus qualities of food, and the dogs began to salivate when they heard the sound of the bell by itself. In other words, the sound of the bell had become positively-imaged for the animals because it was contiguously associated with a positively valued object, food. Human beings also learn a number of things through contiguous juxtapositions. Thus, language, pictures, symbols, and miscellaneous other imagery that are contiguous with an object, person, action, image, etc., are more likely to be mentally (though often unconsciously) associated in the future with that entity, and with others like it.

2. An image transfer from one juxtaposed entity to the other is also facilitated if the juxtaposition occurs repeatedly, with high frequency , or even only more frequently than an observer would expect on the basis of chance alone. One single contiguous juxtaposition rarely brings about a lasting association in a perceiver’s mind unless it is a particularly intense one, as explained in number 3 below. Whether lasting associations will form depends in good part on the frequency with which juxtapositions are encountered. For example, the ringing of the bell along with the presentation of food to Pavlov’s dogs was not only contiguous but, at least in the beginning, it happened each time the food was presented. If the juxtaposition had happened only rarely, the dogs’ association of the bell with food might never have developed, or might have taken a much longer time. Similarly, even very young children in our society were once able to rapidly distinguish the “good guys” from the “bad guys” in cowboy movies on the basis of the color of the hats (white or black) that the characters wore, because the association of white with good, and black with bad, has been an extremely frequent one in our culture. And when the name or picture of a brand of liquor or automobiles is consistently juxtaposed with images of sex appeal (as is the case in a great many advertisements), then in the minds of people who have been frequently exposed to this juxtaposition, liquor and cars will become much more closely associated with sexual prowess, glamor, and attractiveness, than would a product which is less frequently sex-imaged, such as mothballs or mouse traps.

3. Contiguity between a symbol and an object, place, person, or other symbol can bring about a lasting association if the perceiver experiences the association very strongly. Sometimes even one single intense instance of association can endure a lifetime, as is often the case with people who developed a dread fear (phobia) of something on the basis of a single experience. Such associations can be established by intense sensory stimuli (e.g., a loud noise such as a thunderclap, a very bad or very pleasurable taste sensation, extreme pain), as well as by stimuli which have important personalized meaning to the observer. An example of the latter might be to a patriot the national flag or the major government building. Especially if an intense juxtaposition is also frequent and contiguous, a particularly strong association will usually take place.

4. Related to intensity is that the more noticeable an image juxtaposition is, the more likely is it that an association will be made in the minds of observers. Usually, a more visible juxtaposition is more noticeable. For instance, a prominent notation on an agency’s letterhead that the agency receives money from the “Fund for Incurables” is apt to establish a connection between “incurable” and the agency’s recipients, much more than if this fact were not publicized. Similarly, if a court sentences offenders to serve on the residents of a nursing home, this will be more damaging to the residents if the offenders have to wear tags or clothing that signifies their status than if the offenders were dressed and addressed like all the other servers in the nursing home. However, sometimes noticeability can also relate to other senses, such as smell. A bad odor that is very noticeable in a service will tend much more to be associated with the service and its recipients than one that only the most sensitive nose can detect.

5. If a person is positively reinforced for making associations between entities and images, then such reinforced associations are more likely to be maintained. For example, if a human service agency organizes a fund-raising campaign that associates its recipients with images of, and appeals to, pity and charity, and if the campaign is successful (i.e., brings in a great deal of money to the agency), then the agency is likely to try the same approach again, because it has been rewarded for doing so. This is particularly likely to happen if the association is also contiguous and frequent, as mentioned earlier.

Reinforcement for an association may also take the form of having one’s pre-existing expectations and stereotypes confirmed. For example, if a person associates the color red with “stop,” and if traffic and pedestrians do stop when a red light flashes, then the person will probably continue to associate stopping with that color; whereas if traffic and pedestrians continued to move despite a red signal light, the person might begin to question whether the color red was really a dependable indicator that traffic would halt or pedestrians would wait.

6. The greater the number of images present that stand for a given phenomenon, the more likely it is that whatever these images are juxtaposed to will become associated with what the images represent. For example, a rubber ball is a symbol that is representative of children and childishness. If not only a rubber ball, but other images that are also representative of children, such as a swing set, a sandbox, and a rocking horse, were all present on the front lawn of a house, then an observer would be much more apt to associate children with that home than if only the rubber ball had been present. If, in fact, impaired adults live in that home, observers may come to think of them (perhaps unconsciously) as children, childish, immature, etc.

7. Some symbols and images have more “representative power” in regard to a given phenomenon than do others. Symbols and images which are strongly representative of a certain entity are more likely to elicit an association to that which they represent than are symbols and images which are less representative of the quality. For example, a black suit and a prominent white collar that goes completely around the neck are images strongly representative of the religious ministry, much more so than is an ordinary suit, or the name “World Concern.” Therefore, an association of a person to the ministry is much more apt to occur if the person wears a black suit and inverted white collar than if the person wears some other clothing, works for an organization entitled “World Concern,” or just wears a badge that says “World Concern.”

8. If a person has already formed an association between one object, person, place, idea, etc., and another, and then encounters something else that he or she perceives as similar to one of the components of the established association, it is likely that the person will generalize the earlier association to the new entity that is perceived to be similar. This is called “ stimulus generalization .” Probably most people are familiar with this phenomenon in the case of a child who generalizes a negative association of unpleasant taste with a certain vegetable, such as lima beans, and thereafter will not eat any kind of beans, or possibly even any kind of green vegetable. In the same way, people are apt to generalize the associations that they have already made to persons who have certain characteristics, to other persons whom they perceive as being somehow similar to the first group. For example, if someone has developed negative associations to one or several persons of a certain race, ethnicity, age, physical appearance, socioeconomic status, mannerism, mental capacity, etc., then the person is apt to make the same association to other people who are perceived as similar in racial origin, ethnicity, age, appearance, etc. Thus it is that people may be suspected of any number of things of which they are innocent, because they share some characteristic with a guilty party.

9. Response generalization can also facilitate image transfer. This phenomenon occurs when responses that differ slightly from the original response to a stimulus come to be emitted over time to the same stimulus. To return to Pavlov and his dogs, the dogs first responded to the bell and the delivery of the food by salivating, then sniffing and pacing in anticipation, etc. Thus, an entire chain of responses (in this case, associations) comes to be built up over time. Similarly, a person may have made an original association of discomfort to being in the presence of an impaired person, and over time, this discomfort may generalize into responses (and associations) of fidgetiness, stereotyped trite verbal phrases, fear, dislike, flight, even hatred.

The Power of Image Transfer in Social Relationships

Obviously, people who are associated with positively valued characteristics will tend to become valued themselves, and people associated with negative characteristics will tend to either become devalued, or at least “at risk,” i.e., more likely to become devalued than other people to whom those negative associations are not attached. In turn, once certain characteristics of a group of people have become valued or devalued, other characteristics of theirs may also come to be valued or devalued, through a process of stimulus generalization discussed earlier. Thus, in a typical high school, the fashions, opinions, and associates of the school athletic stars or cheerleaders often come to be the fashion, opinions, and crowd of friends that are adopted and aspired to by other students in the school. Similarly, in “hawk” circles during the 1960s and 1970s, characteristics often associated with “doves” who protested against the Vietnam War, such as long hair, beads, beards, and blue jeans, came to be highly devalued.

The way in which socially devalued people are presented and interpreted to the larger society by human service settings, servers, agencies, funders, regulatory and administrative bodies, etc., is very directly affected by these dynamics of social imagery and image transfer. These dynamics have a powerful impact on the ways in which individual members of the society (including servers and families of devalued people), and society as a whole, behave towards devalued people, and eventually on how the devalued people themselves behave. If the images associated with human services to people who are impaired, elderly, retarded, mentally disordered, blind, etc., are negatively valued ones, then negative associations will be made (often unconsciously) to the recipients of the services. For example, if services to impaired people are disproportionately often located next to garbage/sewage plants, if they frequently employ their recipients in salvage work and garbage recycling, if they commonly solicit other people’s cast-off, useless, broken, or irreparable items (perhaps even with the slogan, “Recycle an item, recycle a person”), then the impaired recipients of the service, and other people like them, are extremely likely to be associated in people’s minds with decay, worthlessness, discard, and garbage. Because garbage does not have a favorable connotation in the language and imagery of most cultures, and because negative associations between garbage and impaired people have been constructed by these practices in the public (un)consciousness, societal response to impaired people is much less likely to be positive.

Especially when the people to whom negative images are juxtaposed are already perceived as, or suspected of being, deviant, these image associations tend to elicit in observers not merely the expectation, but even confirmation, that “those people” will act in negatively valued ways, or that they constitute an undesirable presence. If positive images were consistently associated with services to societally devalued people, then at least some of the positive value contained in this imagery would be apt to transfer to such persons, who would then be more likely to be seen (at least over time) in a more positive or less negative light. For example, if impaired people were served in valued locations that had positive names and appearances, and if they were involved together with valued people in valued activities, then the recipients (and people perceived as similar to them) would be associated with positively valued images. As a result, it is likely that they will become (more) valued as members of society, believed to belong in the community, and expected to be competent, contributive, and productive. Unfortunately, people who are impaired and otherwise widely socially devalued have been much more systematically associated with negative images than with positive ones.

Important Value Attributes of People That Imagery Can Convey or Affect

As one studies, and tries to understand and do something about, the issue of image transfer, it is important to (a) believe that image transfer is real and does take place, (b) understand how the transfer takes place, and (c) appreciate what perceived qualities of people are critically at stake, especially if the people at issue are devalued.

We have already discussed the fact that image transfer is real and how it takes place. We will now explain which value perceptions about a person are most apt to be affected by image juxtapositions.

The meanings and symbolism inherent in speech, signs, writings, sounds, smells, settings, objects, and other sources of imagery can carry value messages about all sorts of important attributes of people, of which we will lift out seven for special consideration: (a) their social status; (b) their social roles; (c) their membership in the society; (d) their age identity; (e) their similarity to other people; (f) their competence; and (g) miscellaneous personal characteristics and attributes. These are discussed below.

1. Social status A person’s social status consists of the person’s perceived rank or position in relation to others in a hierarchy of prestige. Obviously, social status is determined by standards that are widely agreed upon (though not necessarily overtly stated) by the majority of the members of a society. People with high attributed social status are considered valued and important, and are accorded respect and power; those with lower perceived social status are viewed and treated as of less value, importance, power, and worth. In extreme cases, they may be seen as having none of these, and even as being expendable.

Various images associated with (devalued) people can either enhance or demean their social status and reputation. For example, when a vocational service is located in a prestigious neighborhood or across the street from a convention center, employs staff who are highly valued themselves and respected in the community, and provides work which is considered meaningful and important (such as manufacturing automobile parts), then the positive images associated with the service’s location, staff, and work tasks will transfer to its (devalued) recipients, thereby improving their status. On the other hand, if a work service is located next to a garbage dump, provides a very unattractive and uncomfortable facility for its recipients to work in, and engages them in the repair and sale of other people’s discarded objects, or in “fake work,” then the social status of the recipients is likely to suffer, especially if they were already devalued or at risk thereof to begin with.

2. Social roles. As noted earlier, a social role may be defined as a combination of behaviors, privileges, duties, and responsibilities that is socially defined, is widely understood and recognized within a society, and is characteristic or expected of a person occupying a particular position within a social system, or who performs certain functions within it. For instance, the social role of “husband” is expected to be filled by an adult male, and men in that role are expected to abide by the obligations of a marital relationship, provide for a family, help raise children, and so on.

Images associated with a person, or with a service to that person, can interpret him or her as filling a variety of positively or negatively valued social roles. For example, images might enhance a perception that the person plays positively valued roles, such as those of citizen, student, worker, friend, parent, developing human being, etc. On the other hand (and frequently where devalued people are concerned), image associations may project a person into negatively valued roles. These commonly include the roles of: (a) subhuman, e.g., animal, vegetable, or object; (b) menace to society, or at least an object of dread; (c) person to be pitied; (d) burden of charity, to be reluctantly supported (usually on a bare subsistence level) by more privileged people; (e) a person who has not grown into maturity, perhaps never will, or has regressed back to the child level; and (f) a sick, diseased, or even dying organism. None of these roles are widely valued; some are virtually always devalued; rarely do people aspire to enter them yet they are roles into which impaired and devalued people have historically been cast and portrayed, often largely as a result of strong and persistent negative image associations. For example, devalued people have literally been called “animals” and “vegetables”; they have been served in settings directly across from or next door to places associated with animals, such as zoos; and they have been associated with animals in research, e.g., as in language training for chimpanzees and severely impaired people. They have been interpreted as menaces by association with walls, locks, fences, barred windows, and service staff who wear military-type uniforms (as was the case in the early 20th century in a number of institutions), and by being sent to places far removed from the rest of society. They have been portrayed as objects of pity by innumerable fund-raising appeals designed to elicit sympathy and guilt, and by the sale of useless objects which people were asked to buy merely in order to support “poor unfortunates.” They have been cast into the role of eternal children or people in their “second childhood” by such image associations as: calling adults (even elderly people) “children,” “kids,” “boys” and “girls”; services teaching children’s games to adults and following children’s schedules; dressing adults like children; use of children’s decorations in adult settings; funding of services for adults with money from departments charged with serving children; and names such as “day care center” for programs for adults and the aged. And they have been interpreted as diseased by association with medically-trained staff; by names such as “hospital” or “clinic” for the places where they live, go to school, and work; and by having every conceivable activity of their lives interpreted as a form of “therapy,” e.g., “work therapy,” “reading therapy,” “religion therapy,” “garden therapy,” “recreation therapy.”

3. Membership in valued society By means of imagery, people may be interpreted as deserving of membership and participation in the culture, or of separation and segregation from the rest of society. For example, if people who are devalued were to live, work, go to school and church, and recreate in the same places in the community where other people do these things, if they were served in places that look very much like similar places for valued people in the society, and if they did the same kinds of things at the same times and in the same ways as do most other people (e.g., work eight hours a day five days a week, celebrate holidays at the appropriate time of year), then those associations would promote an image that such people belong as participants in society. In contrast, when they are served in places that are very different, and separate or even far away from communities where valued people can be found, then they would be viewed as belonging outside the societal mainstream, as being in “need” of separateness and segregation, and as being properly placed and served by or in settings where only other devalued people are also served.

4. Age identity Imagery can interpret people as younger or older than they are, or as the age that they are in fact. For instance, language such as “kids” and “little ones” interprets people as children even if they are elderly. Wearing face make-up and revealing clothing interprets females as mature women even if they are in their teens, or younger. Decor such as posters of rock music bands interprets people as youths, teens, or young adults. And so on.

5. Similarity to others. By means of imagery, (devalued) people may be interpreted as either similar to valued people, or as very unlike them. For instance, if servers actually live with their (devalued) service recipients on as equal a basis as possible, in a home that looks like typical homes for typical people, share in common activities with the recipients, and speak of and to recipients in respectful terms and tones, then recipients are apt to be seen as similar to the (valued) servers, and to valued people in society in general. But an impression is conveyed that the recipients are very much unlike valued people if these recipients live in a building that looks like a warehouse or a prison, have servers who try to keep themselves separate in spaces which recipients cannot enter, are spoken to by servers mostly in sharp tones of voice or called by last name only, and presented to members of the public as “vegetables.”

6. Competence . While imagery cannot directly bestow competence on a person, it can help to do so indirectly by conveying messages and expectations that a person can or cannot learn and grow, thus affecting the behavior of observers toward the person, such as the extent (if any) of encouragement and support they will provide for the person’s development. For example, if a person who is only mildly impaired is grouped with people who have much more severe impairments, and/or if that person is not presented with meaningful and developmentally challenging activities but is served in a setting in which potentially risky features of the environment have been reduced or eliminated, then a very strong impression is likely to be conveyed that the person will not indeed cannot grow and develop. On the other hand, if a (devalued) person is involved in a full-day program which is intensely challenging, is served by well-trained and committed servers who are skilled in pedagogy and human development, and works on equipment which necessitates that the user exercise skill and care, then these images combine to create the impression that the person is competent and can become even more so. It is important to remember that the impression of actual or potential competence can be created by imagery even if the person is presently lacking in such much like an impression of sex appeal can be created for toothpaste. However, once the image of competency has been established, or at least once the image of incompetency has been neutralized, then it is much more likely that real opportunities to develop competency will be offered, and that the person will actually act more competently. It is thus that the power of positive imagery combines with the power of positive expectations and positive role demands.

7. Other personal attributes or characteristics Imagery associated with people can also emphasize any number of positively or negatively valued personal attributes: beliefs, habits, appearances, physical/social/intellectual life circumstances, group membership, personal history, etc. Examples of positive image associations for (devalued) people along these lines are: clean, neat, fashionable, and flattering grooming and dress; language used to and about the person which underlines his or her strengths and individuality, rather than the impairment, diagnosis, condition, etc.; ownership of the type and amount of possessions that would be expected for valued people of the same age in the rest of society; the display of items which positively express the uniqueness and abilities of the individual, e.g., handcrafted objects, drawings or paintings, family photographs, hobbies.

In contrast, miscellaneous negative image associations can create or sustain the perception that (devalued) people have no positively valued attributes or characteristics, e.g.: language which equates a person with his or her devalued condition (“epileptics,” “retardates,” “CPs,” etc.), as if the person were no more than the impairment; grooming or dress which exaggerates impairments and unnecessarily draws attention to devalued physical characteristics, such as a close-cropped brush haircut on a man whose head and ears are malformed; a bare and ugly environment which carries the message that people in the setting neither deserve a pleasant place to be, nor would or could appreciate one; and so on.

In regard to all these points, it should be remembered that imagery impacts directly, or eventually indirectly, on both the perceiver and the perceived.

Conclusion to the Issues of Social Imagery and Image Enhancement

Because imagery is such a powerful and prevalent form of human communication, and because it has such powerful effects on people’s behavior, then in order to be role-valorizing, every aspect of a human service that conveys any image message at all should, as much as is possible and honest, (a) convey positive messages about its recipients’ social status, roles, membership in society, age, similarity to valued members of society, competencies, and miscellaneous other attributes, in order to make the life conditions of such (devalued) people more valued; and (b) refrain from unnecessarily conveying negative images about people. In order to know how to juxtapose positive image messages onto recipients, and to avoid the juxtaposition of unnecessary negative images, it is important to know the many different ways by which any human service can convey image messages about its recipients. For the purposes of PASSING, the service features or actions which can cast images onto the service’s recipients have been classified into four major categories, and each is briefly explained below.

1. Physical settings and their features . A number of characteristics of the physical setting can affect the image of recipients associated with the setting. These include the setting’s history, its nearness to other settings and sites that themselves carry images, the degree to which it blends in with other settings in its neighborhood, and a number of other dimensions of its appearance.

2. Groupings and juxtapositions with other people and programs The people with whom a human service associates its recipients can also image a recipient in various ways. Included here would be the image that servers project on their recipients (e.g., via servers’ appearance and identity), the other people a recipient is served with and whether these other people are positively or negatively imaged/valued, the images of any other people with whom a service might put its recipients in contact, and the images of other service programs that are located in close proximity to the service.

3. Activities of a program . The activities that a service provides for its recipients, and the ways in which it structures their time while they are in the service, also can influence recipients’ image. A person’s image is especially tied to the ways in which he or she is occupied, especially during the daytime hours, and by the daily, weekly, monthly, and even yearly schedules and customs that he or she follows.

4. Miscellaneous other service practices Such things as the terms used to address and describe (potential) recipients, and the name of the service itself, can also juxtapose images onto recipients. Other service features that can image the recipients to whom these are juxtaposed include the name and other images attached to the service’s funding sources, the service’s logo, and the kinds of equipment (if any) that the service uses to conduct the program.

Each of the twenty-seven ratings that fall under this section entitled “1 Ratings Primarily Related to Social Image Enhancement” describes a service aspect in relation to one of these four categories by which a service can either damage or enhance the image of its recipients’ social status, roles, age identity, competencies, similarity to other valued people, and miscellaneous other attributes.

As mentioned before, categories 1, 2, and 3 have competency parallels in PASSING, and the fifteen competency-related ratings are also divided into these three categories; but category 4 has no competency parallel in PASSING.

11 IMAGE-RELATED PHYSICAL SETTING OF THE SERVICE

Just as every other aspect of a human service can affect the image of the people who use it, so can various characteristics of the physical setting in which the service is rendered or headquartered. The physical setting of a service is so closely identified with the service itself that when people hear the name of a service, they may almost automatically picture in their “mind’s eye” what the service setting might look like. Because there is such a strong association of a human service with the physical setting in which it is located, it is very important that the physical setting be as positively imaging as possible. A service setting can have features that jeopardize the social image of the service recipients, or that can bring to an observer’s mind positive ideas about the value, status, roles, age, competency, etc., of recipients. And of course, a setting can have features that convey multiple, and even mutually contradictory, images and messages that can be confusing to beholders. Services rendered in settings which are positively imaged will cast positive images on their recipients (or, at the very least, will not do their recipients’ image any harm), while services located in negatively imaged settings can only harm the image of their recipients, especially if recipients are already devalued or at high risk of being so. While much of the association of the images of a setting to its users takes place unconsciously, it is nonetheless very impactful.

The image of a service setting will convey messages about recipients regardless of whether these are valued or devalued in society. However, the image and value of already valued people is usually at much lesser risk of degradation, and can generally survive occasional negative image juxtapositions much better than can the image and value of already devalued people. For instance, while the location of a nursing home for elderly people on top of or next to a cemetery would be devastating to the image of its elderly residents who are already seen (largely unconsciously) as being dead, near-dead, or better off dead, such a location is very unlikely to do harm to the image of valued occupants of an expensive apartment complex built on such a site. Similarly, a vocational training center or weekend college prep program being located in a poor, run-down section of a city would not do nearly as much damage to the image of its students if they are ordinary high-schoolers as it would if the students were impaired, or poor minority youths.

However, there can still be drawbacks to some image-degraded locations even for services to valued people. For one thing, unless they absolutely have to, valued people will be less likely to use a service that is located in a negatively-imaged area, especially if the area is extremely negativelyimaged. Secondly, access to the setting, at least for recipients and their families, may not be very good, since it is unlikely that many valued people would live in a devalued area, and since public transportation, parking convenience, and safety of access all important factors which contribute to setting access are often not very good in devalued areas. Thirdly, and especially if fewer valued people use the service than expected or “needed,” it may be very hard for some types of services to resist accepting a lot of devalued recipients, perhaps even changing the very nature of the service in order to do so, and thus creating yet another deviancy congregation in a deviancy-imaged locale. And lastly, SRV neither recommends nor endorses improving the social image of devalued people by causing currently valued people to be negatively imaged and cast into low social status against their will. Rather, SRV supports reduction of the negative image of devalued people while, at the same time, preserving a positive image for valued ones.

What all the above means is that generally, no human service is image-enhanced by being located in a negatively-imaged setting. This has the unfortunate implication that it will be impossible for services in certain locales to escape at least some image-degradation. This situation is most likely to occur where devalued people have been concentrated in such isolation, and/or in such large numbers, that a service which is reasonably accessible to (potential) devalued recipients would be almost totally inaccessible to non-devalued people, or at least, much less apt to be used by non-devalued people. Examples would be “deviancy ghettos” such as exist in a great many cities.

These kinds of situations are often the result of long-term destructive societal policies. However, as explained in the 1983 Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Quality (see footnote 6 on p. 4), PASSING does not excuse service shortcomings that compromise recipients’ image and/or competency enhancement even if these result from societal policies rather than from the service’s practices, and even if this means that optimal conditions (and therefore rating levels) cannot be achieved for some services.

While SRV points out various ways in which a given service might resist being compromised by such policies, and might even work to change these somewhat (e.g., via using image-enhancing service names and forms of address, improving the personal appearance of its recipients, not congregating too many devalued people together in one spot), some social policy issues that impinge on service quality must be resolved on a higher societal level.

Relevant to all setting image ratings is that a service may be located in a setting that was initially founded and/or constructed for a different purpose than its present one. For instance, what is now a school may once have been a factory, a former church may have been converted into a soup kitchen, a bar into a drop-in center, a military hospital into an institution, etc., etc. Often, the exterior and/or interior of what is now a service setting still looks like what the setting was initially designed for. The image-related ratings only deal with the setting at the time of the evaluation , regardless whether a current setting feature is the result of an earlier use of the setting for another purpose, or the result of more recent arrangements.

The meanings and images conveyed by the exterior of a setting are largely determined by local norms and practices, whereas the meaning and images conveyed by a setting’s interior are much more determined by larger cultural/societal norms. For example, Spanish-style exterior architecture is much more common in certain parts of North America than in others; in some very wealthy neighborhoods, it may be very typical for many houses to be surrounded by high stone walls or security fences; certain apartment complexes and other housing developments are characterized by a very distinctive style perhaps even unusual building materials that would not commonly be found elsewhere. On the other hand, there is little variation in factory interiors across North America; kitchens would be much more alike, and very easily identifiable as such, throughout North America, as would bedrooms; etc.

There are several characteristics of a physical setting which carry image messages about the users’ social status, roles, age, competencies, membership in society, similarity to valued people, and miscellaneous other attributes. These characteristics include: (a) the harmony of the service setting and service program with the neighborhood in which it is located; (b) the aesthetic appearance of the setting; (c) the congruity of the setting’s appearance with the appearances of settings that house or conduct analogous programs for valued people; (d) the age image projected by the setting’s appearance; (e) the setting’s proximity to other sites with their images; (f) the history of the setting; and (g) various other miscellaneous internal physical features. Several of the above are broken down further, and assessed by more than one rating.

111 SERVICE - NEIGHBORHOOD HARMONY

A human service that blends harmoniously with its neighborhood helps to foster an enhancing identification of the recipients with the neighborhood, and symbolically strengthens a positive perception that recipients have a rightful place in the community. Thus, both human service settings and program functions should enhancingly match both (a) other settings, and (b) other program and life functions in the neighborhood.

The context, services, settings, and facility characteristics and features that are found in a neighborhood may clearly identify it in the minds of most observers as being of a certain type, such as old, modern, urban, rural, commercial, industrial, recreational and entertainment, residential, and so forth. Zoning regulations and ordinances have long required that buildings in a given area conform to a range of particular styles in that area, and they typically restrict the types of activities, services or programs that may be located within a specific area. By means of these measures, communities try to reduce a clash of settings and functions within a neighborhood which could create (un)conscious dissonance, and possibly lead to a decline in property values and/or a flight of owners from the neighborhood. One finds these issues commonly addressed in zoning hearings regarding construction of new buildings, or improvements and renovations to existing settings, as well as in other real estate and marketing considerations.

The issue of service-neighborhood harmony is of special concern to human services because it affects social image transfer and transmission in at least two ways.

1. Settings and programs which are not harmonious with their surroundings contribute to an overall sense of incoherency and disorder. For a similar reason, people would feel a sense of dissonance and maybe even of (unconscious) discomfort if a single building incorporated components of three grossly different architectural styles.

2. If a human service does not conform to typical cultural expectations about what kinds of settings and programs ought to be in a particular neighborhood, then a (sometimes subtle) message of differentness is transmitted, and negative images generated by this message may be transferred to the recipients of the program. So, for example, if a building looks like it “doesn’t belong,” then observers are apt to think that the people who use it, and possibly even its designers and owners, “don’t belong” either. Such negative perceptions tend to elicit negative role expectancies, and inhibit the development of (positive) social relationships. Thus, any neighborhood mismatches which make the program stand out may create image barriers which may greatly inhibit the recipients’ assimilation into the neighborhood.

Even if the dimension that marks the service as different is not in itself a negatively valued one, any sense of distinct differentness about the service may turn into a sense of differentness about the people associated with it. If these people are not devalued and are therefore not confronted with major (perhaps even overwhelming) problems of social acceptance and participation, then such perceptions of differentness usually are inconsequential. However, people who are already devalued and/or perceived as deviant, or are at risk of being so perceived, cannot easily afford to be set apart any more, or perceived as even yet more different.

Most observers will be able to fairly clearly identify the function, program nature, and architectural ambience of a given neighborhood, and will therefore hold clear expectations about what types of facilities and programs would or would not ordinarily be found in it. The more distinct the character of a neighborhood, the stronger these expectations are likely to be, and thus, the fewer will be the kinds of services that can achieve harmony with the neighborhood. On the other hand, in some (heterogeneous) neighborhoods, there is already such architectural and service variety that many fewer services would offend against neighborhood harmony.

The following two ratings assess the degree of harmony with its neighborhood of (a) a service setting, and (b) the program function conducted in the setting.

R1111 Setting - Neighborhood Harmony

General Statement of the Issue

The physical setting in which a human service takes place should blend enhancingly with its surrounding physical neighborhood, e.g., by being of a size and style which is similar to, or at least harmonious with, other settings in the neighborhood, and by appearing to serve a function similar to those which other settings in the environment appear to serve.

There appear to be two major sources of disharmony between a service setting and its neighborhood.

1. The appearance of the service setting may clash stylistically with the external appearance of most other settings in its neighborhood. For example, the service setting may: (a) be much bigger or (less commonly) much smaller in size; (b) be of a different or unusual architectural style; (c) be much more modern than the rest of the settings in the neighborhood, or else appear “quaint” because it is much older; or (d) have some other external features that are unusual to the neighborhood, such as attached signs and other symbols, a modern wing added on to an older facility, etc.

The external features of most newly constructed facilities tend to clash at least somewhat with pre-existing settings in their surrounding neighborhood, unless the neighborhood itself is new and still developing. However, even some older or existing settings fail to blend well into their neighborhoods.

In some cases, a service setting may have blended in very well with its neighborhood before external modifications were made (renovations, addition of a new wing, a fire escape, a fence, etc.); in others, external setting modifications may aggravate an already existing clash between the service setting and its neighborhood.

2 Secondly, the external appearance of the service setting may suggest to an observer a function which clashes with the function suggested by the external appearances of other settings in that neighborhood.

Rating Requirements Chart R1111 Setting - Neighborhood Harmony

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance recipients’ social image & thereby their social status, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles a service setting’s external physical appearance should blend enhancingly with its physical neighborhood. It should not clash with the appearance of other settings in the neighborhood due to service setting style differences, additions, renovations, or other physical features, or by appearing to serve a function which clashes with those that other settings in the neighborhood appear to serve.

R1111 Setting - Neighborhood Harmony

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. This rating should not be confused with any that deal with the interior of settings. For instance, R1153 Image Projection of Setting Other Internal Physical Features rates any negative images projected by, and derived from, internal service setting features.

2. There are several other ratings (R1121 External Setting Aesthetics, R1131 External Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue, and R1141 External Setting Age Image) which assess the images projected by the exterior of the service setting, and this rating should not be confused with these others.

a. Any external features which affect the exterior beauty of the facility (e.g., peeling paint, external setting upkeep and beautification) would be rated under R1121 External Setting Aesthetics. A setting may be distinguished from other settings in its neighborhood by being uglier than they are, or by being very conspicuously more beautiful, either of which would be slightly penalized on R1111 Setting-Neighborhood Harmony. However, R1121 External Setting Aesthetics assesses the setting’s attractiveness regardless of how it compares with the attractiveness of neighboring settings.

b. R1131 External Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue rates only the match of the setting’s external appearance with the program function that is conducted within, not the match of the service setting’s appearance with the appearance of other settings in the neighborhood.

c. R1141 External Setting Age Image assesses the age-appropriateness of the external service setting features in relation to the service recipients, regardless of how these features blend in with the appearance of other settings in the neighborhood.

3. This rating is concerned with whether a service setting fits in with other settings in the neighborhood, and R1112 Program-Neighborhood Harmony is concerned with whether a service program matches its neighborhood. A setting can be harmonious or disharmonious with its neighborhood, regardless of what program and/or recipients it houses. Vice versa, a program can be harmonious or disharmonious with its neighborhood, regardless of how its setting blends in, or whom it serves.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

In determining the neighborhood’s ambience, it is sometimes helpful to imagine that the service setting did not exist, so as to picture the neighborhood as it is (or would be) without the service setting.

Look at the typical structural features (building size, style, design, materials, construction, age, major exterior furnishings, etc.) of the other settings in the neighborhood. Consider only the external appearance of the setting, but include all visible exterior aspects, such as size, additions, renovations, attachments, signs, grounds, etc.

External features of a setting meant to make it more usable to people with certain impairments (rated by R213 Physical Comfort of Setting) might incur a penalty on the rating here.

Some people are at much graver risk of being imaged in negative ways than others. Raters should give more weight to service features that reinforce already existing negative stereotypes of recipients.

Some services have an administrative or major central setting, but carry out many/most of their services in dispersed community settings that are not operated by, or part of, the service, as in the case of home delivery of meals (Meals-on-Wheels), child placement, etc. In that case, the building/setting in which the administrative office, or the bulk or centralized part of the service, is located should be assessed on this rating.

The more heterogeneous (mixed) the ambience of the neighborhood, the wider the range of service settings that may fit into it without an image- or expectations-clash.

Some services may be in “isolated dislocation”; see p. 34 in the “Alphabetic Glossary of Terms” & Level 3b.

Any external service setting features that do not seem to be covered by another rating should probably be assessed here.

Some

Key Issues to be Determined

What is the overall physical character of the neighborhood in which the program is located?

What is the external physical character of the service setting?

Does the external physical character of the service setting match the general physical character of the other settings in the neighborhood?

If the service setting matches the neighborhood, does it enhance the image of the recipients? If the service setting does not match, what kinds of negative images about the recipients are conveyed thereby?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Tour of the neighborhood;

Tour around the service setting;

Pictures of the service setting & the neighborhood;

Architectural drawings; Direct interviews with service leaders & servers;

Written & oral descriptions & observations of program functions.

R1111 Setting - Neighborhood Harmony

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by the serious clash between the external appearance of the service setting & the general external appearance of other settings in the neighborhood. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as worthless, dangerous, etc.), the images projected by this service feature will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive setting-neighborhood harmony features may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the disharmony of the setting with its neighborhood impacts negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. it is significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive (the disharmony with the neighborhood caused by these setting features is rated here, while the age image of the features is rated under R1141 External Setting Age Image); or

b. it is severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if not to the other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of the degree of settingneighborhood harmony is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients ; or

b. the degree of setting-neighborhood harmony neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ image. Most likely, this is because the setting neither blends in nor clashes, because it stands in “isolated dislocation” (see “Alphabetic Glossary of Terms”). (This may incur significant penalties on other ratings.)

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the degree of harmony between the external appearance of the service setting & that of its neighborhood is highly conducive to enhancement of their image, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either:

a. setting-neighborhood harmony is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients. or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by the maximum harmony that has been achieved between the entire service setting exterior & its surrounding neighborhood that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

General Statement of the Issue

In our culture, certain functions are very likely to be carried out in specific areas or neighborhoods that serve similar or related functions. For instance, people typically reside in residential areas; government and other civic functions are usually located in a downtown or multipurpose area; etc. The fact that it is both culturally valued and expected for some service functions to take place in certain types of neighborhoods rather than others has important implications for the location of human service programs.

The recipients’ social image, sometimes even their competencies, and their potential for assimilation into and by the surrounding social systems, are affected in three ways by the degree of harmony between the nature of a human service program and its neighborhood.

1. If the nature of a program clearly matches the nature of its surrounding area or neighborhood, then such a match conveys a message of harmony with general cultural expectations, and the recipients of such a program are more likely to be positively imaged. Therefore, vocational training and sheltered work programs would optimally be located in areas where work functions are being carried out for non-devalued people, such as in industrial parks, business areas, or mixed areas; residential services would be in residential neighborhoods where non-devalued people live; schools would be where schools for valued people are found, usually in residential areas; etc.

2. People quite naturally expect to and do relate differently to people in different locales or neighborhoods. For example, typical citizens expect to, and are apt to, interact quite differently with each other in residential and recreational contexts than in business and industrial contexts. If people are confronted with a function being conducted that is out of character in a particular neighborhood, they are somewhat surprised and find it more difficult to act normatively. It is more role-valorizing for recipients if a service’s location facilitates normative types of relationships with other citizens.

3. Different types of resources tend to be found in different types of neighborhoods. In an industrial or business area, there are usually inexpensive eating establishments; in many residential neighborhoods, one is apt to be within walking distance of a church; etc. Thus, a program which is located in an appropriately matching neighborhood is also likely to be well-located in regard to relevant present or future community resources. And, as noted in R212 Availability of Relevant Community Resources, recipients are likely to meet and interact with typical citizens in those resources. (However, whether such proximity or interaction actually exists is rated elsewhere.)

Some programs have a rather narrow range of types of neighborhoods in which they are considered to “fit,” and others have a broader range. For instance, urban elementary schools are expected to be in fully or partially residential areas; in rural areas, the school may be located among the farms, or in a small town that may be the business hub of the farming area; colleges and universities may be in quiet suburban villages, in the very center of busy downtown areas that are a mix of businesses and residences, or in between residential areas and commercial ones. A training program in horticulture may be located in an area that is zoned industrial, or one that is zoned commercial, or in a relatively rural setting, and all three of these neighborhood types could be considered an appropriate neighborhood match for it.

This rating assesses the harmony between the neighborhood in which the service is located, and the program function that the service is perceived or purported to render, or apparently renders, even if what the service actually does is not what most observers would infer or perceive. For example, the major proclaimed program function of a sheltered work program may be to provide work training and work. Thus, a team conducting an assessment of such a sheltered work program would have to determine whether its work/work training function is harmonious with the neighborhood in which the work program is situated even if the “work program” provided little or no real work and work training, but fake work, arty crafts, and lots of recreation and education. Similarly, a convalescent home for elderly and impaired people may purport to offer a medical rehabilitation program and treatment, but in reality, it may provide little more than custodial care. In this case, the assessment team should rate the degree to which the apparent, popularly perceived, or purported residential medical program function blends in with the neighborhood in which the “convalescent home” is located.

The reason this rating requires a match between the neighborhood and the service function that appears to be or is purported to be provided, rather than between the neighborhood and what the service entity actually provides, is that this rating is concerned with images, and the relatively naive observer (e.g., a member of the public) will judge the appropriateness of the service’s location based on his or her perception of the nature of the service.

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance recipients’ social image--& thereby their social status, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles there should be complete harmony between the nature of a program that a human service appears or purports to provide, & the nature of its surrounding neighborhood.

R1112 Program - Neighborhood Harmony

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. This rating is concerned with whether a service program matches its neighborhood, and R1111 Setting-Neighborhood Harmony is concerned with whether the external appearance of a service setting matches the external appearance of other settings in the neighborhood. A setting can be harmonious or disharmonious with its neighborhood, regardless of what program it houses. Vice versa, a program can be harmonious or disharmonious with its neighborhood, regardless of how its setting blends in.

2. R1131 External Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue is concerned with the degree to which the appearance of the setting matches the nature of the program which it houses, regardless of the kinds of other programs that may be around it in the same or other settings.

3. There can be good program-neighborhood harmony in a certain location, but the location can be a problem for a service for other reasons. For instance, the neighborhood may have very poor conditions of access (rated by R2111 Setting Access Recipients & Families, and R2112 Setting Access Public), or few relevant resources (rated by R212 Availability of Relevant Community Resources). The neighborhood may convey all sorts of negative images of vice, poverty, dirtiness, and undesirability (rated by R1151 Image Projection of Setting Physical Proximity).

In this rating, only the match of the type of program being conducted with the type of neighborhood is considered.

4. The degree to which a neighborhood is saturated with congregations of devalued people-either from within the service being assessed, or from other sources and the presence or dearth in the neighborhood of assimilative resources, are both rated by R122 Service-Neighborhood Assimilation Potential. A neighborhood can be of the type that is a fitting match for the nature of the program, but still have very poor assimilation potential, and vice versa.

Suggested Guidelines for Collecting and Using Evidence R1112 Program - Neighborhood Harmony

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Some settings house services that are ambiguous in nature (e.g., work training), or that conduct several programs in one setting (e.g., schooling & work), in which case good program-neighborhood harmony might be (but is not necessarily) difficult to attain. However, when a service renders several distinct types of programs (e.g., residential ones & work training ones), then the different types of programs can be assessed separately, & the results either reported separately or combined into an overall score (see Appendix C of the Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Quality ).

The service function (e.g., work training) of the program is to be assessed here, & not the deeper societal function it may serve (e.g., keeping people dependent). Also, this rating assesses the degree of harmony between the neighborhood & the service’s purported or apparent program function, even if the actual program function conducted is not what the service purports or appears to do, e.g., if a purported work service actually conducts art therapy.

A difficulty in this rating is that the nature of a program is not entirely separable from whom it serves. This interaction between program & recipients has to be taken into account, but the greatest weight is given to the program function, not the nature & images of the recipients. In other words, this rating is concerned primarily with an appropriate match between a service program & its neighborhood, & only secondarily with whether the service recipients are “a good fit” with that neighborhood.

The more heterogeneous (mixed) the nature of the neighborhood, the wider the range of services that may fit into it without an image- or expectation-clash.

Some people are at much graver risk of being imaged in negative ways than others. Raters should give more weight to program-neighborhood combinations that reinforce already existing negative stereotypes of the recipients.

Some programs may be in “isolated dislocation”; see p. 34 in the “Alphabetic Glossary of Terms” & Level 3b. This may also incur penalties on other ratings.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

What is the nature of the program provided by the service?

What is the nature or general character of the neighborhood in which the program is located?

Does the nature of the program match the general nature of the neighborhood? In what way(s) do they clash?

If the program matches the neighborhood, does it do so in a way which is enhancing to the recipients’ image?

If the program does not match, what kinds of negative images about the recipients are conveyed thereby?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Observations of programs;

Tour of the neighborhood; Direct interviews with recipients, service leaders, servers, neighbors, & others; Program descriptions, statements of mission; Service brochures, news articles.

R1112 Program - Neighborhood Harmony

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by the serious clash between the nature of the program & the general character/ambience of the neighborhood. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as worthless, dangerous, etc.), the images projected by the program-neighborhood combination will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive programneighborhood harmony features may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

Level2.Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the program-neighborhood combination impacts negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. it is significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive; or

b. it is severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients, even if not to the other recipients.

Level 3 Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of the degree of programneighborhood harmony is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either:

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients; or

b. the degree of program-neighborhood harmony neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ image.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the degree of harmony between the nature of the program & its neighborhood is highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. program-neighborhood harmony is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients; or b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by the maximum harmony that has been achieved between the nature of the program & its surrounding neighborhood that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

112 SETTING AESTHETICS

An appreciation of beauty seems to be a universal innate human characteristic. It is therefore not surprising that most people desire beauty in their physical environments, and make efforts to beautify the places where they live, work, etc. For example, office workers spruce up their offices; factory workers paint and clean their work areas; teachers and students decorate their classrooms; families refurnish and remodel their homes; businesses embellish their showrooms and showcases; and so on. A beautiful environment also expresses appreciation of, and respect for, the “higher sensibilities” of the individuals who use or observe the environment.

The image, value, social status, dignity, roles, age, competencies, etc., that are attributed to a service’s recipients can thus be greatly enhanced if the service setting is an attractive one. Beautified service settings carry the positive messages that the users of such services deserve and appreciate attention to the beautification of their environment. On the other hand, drab or outright ugly settings carry the negative messages that recipients are insensitive to (perhaps even unconscious of) the presence or absence of aesthetically pleasing environments (perhaps because they are perceived in devalued social roles such as those of animal, vegetable, etc.), or that they are undeserving of an attractive service setting, perhaps because they are seen as of low social status or competency, or as recipients of a sour and minimal charity.

Not only is the image of setting users affected by the setting’s beauty, but their competencies and performance may be affected as well. An ugly, drab setting conveys certain clear, strong negative messages about the roles, value, and capabilities of users, which can depress their self-concept, alertness, and productivity within the setting. In contrast, attractive settings convey positive role messages to their users which are apt to elicit positive performance from them. And, of course, the aesthetics of a setting impact also upon perceivers.

Both the interior and exterior of a service setting can be made attractive. However, the aesthetic state of the interior of a setting has much more of an impact on recipients and servers, who are there most of the time, than on the public which is usually less likely to spend time inside a human service facility. On the other hand, the external aspects of a service setting have a more powerful impact on the image that the public holds of the recipients, and a lesser impact on the image and expectations that servers hold of the recipients, and on the recipients’ self-image as well.

Generally, a harmonious blend of colors, decor, style, etc., is more attractive than either (a) a nonharmonious one, or (b) monotony. Thus, a service should be sensitive to how the individual components of its beautification efforts combine overall. Furthermore, concern for the service setting’s aesthetics and efforts at beautification should be ongoing and routine.

It is irrelevant whether a particular style, design, decoration, etc., appeals to a rater’s personal tastes. Rather, raters must attend to two things. (a) Determine whether the service environment reflects a style which falls within the range of styles considered normative in the valued culture, even if only a significant minority of people might adopt such a style. In the very unlikely case that a service setting style does not fall within this range (which is more apt to happen in regard to external setting aesthetics than in regard to internal environments), raters will have the very difficult task of deciding whether the aesthetics of this style are apt to project an image of deviancy or value upon recipients in the eyes of most beholders. (b) Within the confines of a given culturally normative service setting style, raters must assess the degree to which the style is expressed aesthetically and tastefully, because coherent aesthetic expressions will in most cases cast positive images upon recipients, while incomplete, incoherent, or aesthetically deficient expressions will project less positive, or even negative, images.

Regardless of the style that is present, beauty is also enhanced by cleanliness and order, which contribute to a sense of aesthetic harmony. However, certain types of cleanliness are more related to physical comfort than to beauty, as explained on pages 81 (No. 4) and 313 (No. 1).

Service setting aesthetics are assessed by means of two ratings, one addressing the external, and the other the internal, beauty of a setting.

R1121 External Setting Aesthetics

General Statement of the Issue

This rating is concerned only with the external aesthetic features of a service setting, i.e., with those aspects of a setting (a) which are on the exterior of the setting (and facility if there is one), or (b) which are on the inside of the setting or facility, but are easily apparent to passersby on the outside (an example would be plants hanging in the windows, or candelabra visible from the outside at night).

A recognition of both the value of recipients, and of their sense of aesthetics, may be manifested through such exterior beautification efforts as: pleasing architectural style of the facility (if there is a facility); an attractive facility and facade; flower gardens and landscaped grounds; colorful, well-kept exterior equipment, such as swing-and-slide sets on a playground; ongoing maintenance of the outside of the facility (e.g., painting of buildings); seasonal upkeep, appropriate seasonal decorations etc.

Rating Requirements Chart 1121 External Setting Aesthetics

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance the social image of the people who use the service & thereby their social status, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles the exterior of a human service setting should be aesthetically pleasing.

R1121 External Setting Aesthetics

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. This rating is one of four which assess the images projected by the exterior of the service setting, the others being R1111 Setting-Neighborhood Harmony, R1131 External Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue, and R1141 External Setting Age Image.

The exterior of a setting may be highly aesthetically pleasing, and yet (a) be decorated in ways which are entirely inappropriate for the ages of the recipients (rated under R1141 External Setting Age Image), and/or (b) not resemble the way that analogous settings for valued people would be decorated and beautified (rated under R1131 External Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue).

Furthermore, a setting may be distinguished from other settings in its neighborhood by being uglier than they are, or by being very conspicuously more beautiful, either of which would be penalized on R1111 Setting-Neighborhood Harmony. However, this rating assesses the setting’s attractiveness regardless of how it compares with the attractiveness of neighboring settings.

2. There are several ratings that deal with the imagery of the interior of a setting: R1122 Internal Setting Aesthetics, R1132 Internal Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue, R1142 Internal Setting Age Image, and R1153 Image Projection of Setting Other Internal Physical Features. Since the rating at hand is concerned only with the exterior of the setting, it should not be confused with any of the internal setting ratings.

3. Aspects of the service environment which add to its comfort (R213 Physical Comfort of Setting) may or may not also add to its attractiveness, and vice versa.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Before coming to a final consensus on this rating, the team must make sure that all members are using the same definition of setting exterior for the program(s) being assessed.

The exterior of a setting includes anything which can easily be seen from the outside, even if it is on the inside of the facility, e.g., a chandelier hung from a ceiling may be visible through a window to passersby on the street.

Raters must consider what probable impact the aesthetic state of the service exterior would have on the sensibilities of most typical citizen observers. This requires that raters put aside their own personal preferences, & exercise discipline in judging whether beauty exists, whether the beauty issue is understood, & whether beautification efforts are made even if the results do not suit raters’ personal tastes. Thus, if the style of the service setting is fairly coherent, found reasonably often, & considered attractive by even a significant minority of members of the culture, it should be positively credited here.

Raters should give major weight to those aspects of the exterior of the service setting which are more visible & which are likely to have longer-lasting effects. E.g., a service should be credited more for attractively remodeling its exterior than for putting up short-term seasonal outside decorations.

Some devalued people are much more at risk of being seen as filthy, discardable, or in other ways dirt-imaged than others. Raters should give more weight to shortcomings in this area where such people are at stake.

Contrary to common human service claims, a great deal of beautification of the physical setting can be achieved at little or no cost in numerous & ingenious ways, if only a conscientious awareness of the issue & an ideological commitment to it exist.

Most human service settings, except perhaps those for valued people, are relatively drab, as characterized by the criteria of Level 3. However, many people’s expectations in regard to human service environment aesthetics are so low that evaluators particularly novice ones commonly assign Level 4 or 5 where only a Level 3 is warranted.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

Are the different aspects of the exterior of the service setting attractive? Unattractive?

Overall, would the service setting strike most observers as attractive or unattractive?

What evidence is there of ongoing efforts to beautify the exterior of the service setting? How extensive & effective are these efforts?

Is the season of the year properly reflected in the external decor?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Tour around the service setting; Direct interviews with service leaders & servers, & recipients; Possibly comments by members of the public.

R1121 External Setting Aesthetics

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by the aesthetic incoherencies, ugliness, &/or barrenness of the setting’s exterior. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as worthless, subhuman, destructive, etc.), the images projected by this service feature will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive external setting aesthetics features may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the lack of external setting beauty impacts negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. it is significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive; or

b. it is severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if not to other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of external setting aesthetics is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients ; or

b. the degree of external setting aesthetics neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ image. Perhaps the external appearance of the service setting may not strike observers as ugly on sight, but neither would it arouse their sense of aesthetics (many human service settings fall into this category); or the exterior of the service presents a very “bland” picture.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the attractiveness of the setting exterior is highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. external setting aesthetics is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by external setting aesthetics that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

R1122 Internal Setting Aesthetics

General Statement of the Issue

An attractive interior of a service setting reflects positively on its recipients, and is apt to enhance their image in the eyes of observers.

A recognition of both the value of recipients, and of their sense of aesthetics, may be manifested through such interior beautification efforts as: an attractive interior facility design (if there is a facility); a harmonious color and style scheme in furniture, decorations, paint, etc.; the presence of decorations and art objects such as plants, sculpture, paintings or posters and knickknacks; attention to the use of light and shade; appropriate seasonal decorations; ongoing maintenance and upkeep; regular cleaning and painting; and so on.

Rating Requirements Chart

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance the social image of the people who use the service & thereby their social status, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles the interior of a human service setting should be aesthetically pleasing.

R1122 Internal Setting Aesthetics

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. The interior of a service setting may be highly aesthetically pleasing, and yet (a) be decorated in ways which are entirely inappropriate for the ages of the recipients (rated under R1142 Internal Setting Age Image), and/or (b) project negative images for other reasons (rated under R1153 Image Projection of Setting Other Internal Physical Features).

2. Also, a setting interior can be consistent with its culturally valued analogues (rated by R1132 Internal Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue), but unattractive, and vice versa.

3. There are several ratings that deal with the imagery of the exterior of a setting: R1111 Setting-Neighborhood Harmony, R1121 External Setting Aesthetics, R1131 External Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue, and R1142 External Setting Age Image. Since the rating at hand is concerned only with the interior of the setting, it should not be confused with any of the external setting ratings.

4. Aesthetically pleasing service settings are not always comfortable (R213 Physical Comfort of Setting), e.g., the chairs in a school may be very attractive, but very uncomfortable to sit in. The reverse can also be true, i.e., some very comfortable settings may be quite unattractive. Carpets and curtains almost always add comfort, but whether they add beauty depends largely on their condition, color, special light effects, and upkeep. In contrast, elimination of dirt and dust contributes to both comfort and beauty, though not necessarily in equal degrees.

5. Any internal environmental features that result from recipients’ personal expressivity (e.g., handmade crafts displayed on the walls or tables), and which affect the aesthetic appearance of the setting, should be considered here as well as in R224 Service Support for Recipient Individualization.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Before coming to a final consensus on this rating, the team must make sure that all members are using the same definition of setting interior for the program(s) being assessed.

Raters must consider what probable impact the aesthetic state of the service interior would have on the sensibilities of most typical citizen observers. This requires that raters put aside their own personal preferences, & exercise discipline in judging whether beauty actually exists. Thus, if the style of the interior furnishings & appointments is fairly coherent, found reasonably often, & considered attractive by even a significant minority of members of the culture, it should be positively credited here.

Raters should give major weight to those aspects of the interior of the service setting which are more visible & are likely to have longer-lasting effects. E.g., a school should be given more credit for having its inside walls repainted (as long as the repainting will improve rather than detract from the aesthetics of the interior) than for merely having potted plants.

Some people are much more at risk of being seen as filthy, discardable, or in other ways dirt-imaged than others. Raters should give more weight to shortcomings in this area where such people are at stake.

Contrary to common human service claims, a great deal of beautification of the physical setting can be achieved at little or no cost in numerous & ingenious ways (e.g., with a few plants &/or wall hangings), if only there is a conscientious commitment to the issue.

If a service is rendered in a setting that has no facility, & therefore no interior, then this rating should not be applied, & the total score should be computed using the pro-rating method described on pp. 82-84 of the GuidelinesforEvaluatorsDuringa PASS,PASSING,orSimilarAssessmentofHumanServiceQuality (See “setting interior” on pp. 38-39 of the “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms” section.)

Most human service settings, except perhaps those for valued people, are relatively drab, as characterized by the criteria of Level 3. However, many people’s expectations in regard to human service environment aesthetics are so low that evaluators particularly novice ones commonly assign Level 4 or 5 where only a Level 3 is warranted.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

Are the different aspects of the interior of the service setting attractive/ unattractive?

Overall, would the interior of the service setting strike most observers as attractive/ unattractive?

What evidence is there of ongoing efforts to beautify the interior of the service setting? How extensive & effective are these efforts? Is the season of the year properly reflected in the internal decor? Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Tour of the interior of the setting; Direct interviews with service leaders, servers, & recipients.

R1122 Internal Setting Aesthetics

Criteria for Level Assignments

N.B. - If the service has no facility, & therefore no setting interior, then this rating would not be applied, & the service’s total score must be calculated using the pro-rating method (see pp. 82-84 of the 1983 Guidelines monograph).

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by the aesthetic incoherencies, ugliness, &/or barrenness of the setting’s interior. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as worthless, subhuman, destructive, etc.), the images projected by this service feature will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive internal setting aesthetics features may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the lack of internal setting beauty impacts negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. it is significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive; or

b. it is severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if higher level conditions prevail for the other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of internal setting aesthetics is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients ; or

b. the degree of internal setting aesthetics neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ image. Perhaps the internal appearance of the service setting may not strike observers as ugly on sight, but neither would it arouse their sense of aesthetics (many human service settings fall into this category).

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the attractiveness of the setting interior is highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. internal setting aesthetics is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by the interior setting aesthetics that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

Observers will have different expectations about what goes on in a given setting depending on that setting’s appearance, at least in technologically advanced or Westernized cultures. That is, both the outside and inside of a setting “say” this is a place where people live, or work, or go to school, or recreate, or receive medical services, or worship, etc. However, there may be a wide range of setting appearances that still fall within the range of what is culturally normative for settings that serve a particular function. For example, the kinds of places where people live may range in appearance from separate single family houses to large high-rise apartment buildings and complexes. However, all of these still “look like” residences, and would rarely be mistaken for places of work or schooling.

If the appearance of a human service setting matches the type of appearance that is expected and found in settings that house similar functions for valued people (i.e., its valued analogues), then the image of the people who use the service will not be harmed and may even be enhanced. If the setting’s appearance does not match cultural expectations for appearances of settings that conduct similar functions for valued people, then recipients are apt to be viewed as odd, unusual, and unlike valued people. Especially if the recipients are already devalued, poor setting appearance congruity with culturally valued analogues is apt to result in an even more negative perception of the recipients.

Thus, SRV calls for congruence between the appearance of a human service setting, and the appearances of culturally valued analogous settings. In other words, a human service setting should look like its culturally valued parallel, and should do so in the most recipient-enhancing fashion. The more recipients are at risk of being negatively imaged, the more important it is for a service to match the more valued out of several possible valued analogues.

For most types of services, it is usually relatively easy to determine whether the appearance of a setting has good congruity with culturally analogous settings, because most types of services have valued cultural analogues. For example, residential services should look like places where valued people live; work programs should look like places where valued people work; services which render medical treatment should look like places where valued people receive medical service; educational programs should look like typical schools and colleges; and so on. However, the congruity image of some service settings is extremely difficult to judge, usually for one of the following two reasons.

1. Lack or sparsity of valued cultural analogue for a service. For example, there are few culturally valued analogues for imprisonment, house arrest being one of the few examples.

2. Ambiguous nature of the service. The nature of some programs may be so ambiguous that it is practically impossible to determine the optimal setting appearance that would be congruent with a valued analogue for that type of service. Usually, this is due to the fact that different program functions are mixed within one service.

Any program without a culturally valued analogue should not attempt to mock-imitate the setting identity of some unrelated, dissimilar service, but rather, should match cultural expectations for the type of (unique?) program it is in the least image-impairing manner possible, even though some negative imaging of recipients may be unavoidable. For instance, a place of detention may be able to serve its function without certain features that unnecessarily make it look prison-like. Once again, it may come down to there not being a ready, or readily recognized, valued cultural analogue for certain combinations of settings. In that case, the service at issue is apt to be penalized on both setting appearance congruity with culturally valued analogue ratings, and on R131 CultureAppropriate Separation or Combination of Program Functions. At best it may receive a Level 3 on the two setting ratings at hand.

It frequently happens that what a human service purports to do or provide does not match with either what its recipients need, nor with what it actually does provide. For example, a long-term residential facility that provides extensive and specialized medical care and nursing as its major function may not at all be what most of the elderly people living in it actually need. They may only have needed various practical supports in order to continue living in their own homes, but because these were not available, they may have been forced into (even asked for) a nursing home. Or, despite its claims, statement of mission, license, etc., what is purported to be a nursing home may actually provide very little medical/nursing care. However, the following two ratings are intended to assess the congruity of t he setting’s appearance with the appearance of settings of culturally valued analogues that would match the service’s purported service/ program/ function , rather than its actual function, even if the purported function is neither realized nor what recipients really need. In the example above, one appropriate valued analogue for a nursing home would be an old-fashioned (i.e., more homey) hospital, even if none of the people in the nursing home needed medical treatment, and even if they did not receive any. Another example: an overnight shelter for homeless men of the street may only be intended to provide a place for people to sleep and bathe each night yet for some people who use it, it may in fact serve as their “home” for years. This does not mean that such a shelter has to look like the analogue of ordinary homes in the culture; as an overnight shelter, its appearance could legitimately match that of a hotel/motel, inn, boarding house, or even a truckers’ rest stop, where truckers can shower, sleep, and eat.

Of course, if the purported, or apparent, and real functions of a service are not the same, it may gain points on the two ratings here if its setting matches the expectations for its purported program function, but it may lose points on several other ratings (possibly R1252 Server-Recipient Image Match, R1231 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Social Value, R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition, R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs). Indeed, the fact that the service is not what it appears and/or claims to be is apt to result in a loss of vastly more points on other ratings than the service would gain from the image enhancement of its recipients that might conceivably be derived here.

The congruity of a setting’s appearance with its valued analogue is assessed by two ratings, one that looks at the external appearance of a service setting, and one that examines the service setting’s interior.

The narrative in italics below needs to be read only by raters who are assessing a prison or other detentive setting or arrangement.

Detentive settings--and prisons in particular--have little in the way of culturally valued analogues, as noted earlier. Also, such settings or arrangements are typically meant to be first and foremost for the benefit of society, and vastly less are they meant to address any “need” of the inmates, and/or to be of “service” to them, even if rehabilitation of the detainees is hoped for. Thus, PASSING cannot be expected to be an ideal instrument for assessing such arrangements, even if it can reveal a lot about them.

As regards assessment of the congruency of the internal and external appearance of such a setting with culturally valued analogues, raters should compare the setting with what it might look like if it tried to deviate no more than is absolutelynecessaryfrom culturally valued congregate residential facilities, such as gated communities, or college dormitories, and still play its detentive function.

General Statement of the Issue

This rating measures the congruity of the service setting exterior (see “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms”) with the appearances of valued cultural analogues to the service. There are four major aspects of a setting’s external appearance which bear on this issue.

1. The style of the exterior. The architectural style and design of a service setting should be typical of the style and design of settings which house analogous functions for valued people. For example, if a service is supposed to be a school, its outside should resemble that of other school buildings in typical society, rather than that of homes or businesses. If it is a place where people live, it should be of the same exterior style as typical houses or apartments, not the style of convents, office buildings, factories, prisons, etc.

2. The size of the setting. A human service setting should not look larger than analogous settings for valued people. For example, the outside of a group home should look no larger than a large family home. (However, size of the building is not the same as the size of the group i.e., numbers of people served therein.)

3. The exterior appurtenances to the setting. Any appurtenances to the exterior of the setting, such as additions, fire escapes, signs, fences, renovations, ramps, or other external modifications, affect how a setting is perceived, and may influence in subtle ways the appearance congruity of a setting.

4. The grounds of the setting. The grounds of the setting, including lawns, driveways and walkways, gardens, outdoor pools or recreation areas (except those enclosed by the facility, which are considered part of its interior), etc., should all be consistent in style, size, and design with those that would be found in the exterior of analogous services to valued people. Furthermore, even the mere presence of some of these things in the setting would have to be judged for consistency with valued settings.

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance the image of its recipients & thereby their age identity, social status, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles the exterior of a human service setting (including its style, size, any exterior appurtenances, & grounds) should match cultural expectations for the exteriors of settings that provide similar services or functions for valued people, & in as positive a way as possible.

R1131 External Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. This rating is one of four which assess the images projected by the exterior of the service setting, the other three being R1111 Setting-Neighborhood Harmony, R1121 External Setting Aesthetics, and R1141 External Setting Age Image. The four ratings should not be confused with each other.

2. The match between the interior of the service setting and cultural norms for similar settings for valued people is rated under R1132 Internal Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue.

3. A service may combine in one setting a number of program functions which are usually separate in normative society, or it may conduct some activities within a program which are not usually conducted in programs of that nature for valued people. These types of program mixes and program ( not setting) incongruities are covered and rated under R131 Culture-Appropriate Separation or Combination of Program Functions, rather than here.

4. Some services may provide a function which is not relevant to, or needed by, all or some of their recipients. For example, some elderly people living in nursing homes or similar establishments are not sick or even sickly, and do not need the medical and nursing care one expects a nursing establishment to provide. However, if a service that most people would be likely to view as a nursing home were in a facility that looks like one of its valued cultural analogues (e.g., a hospital), then it would rate highly on this rating. If it does indeed serve the “wrong kind” of recipient, it would be penalized under ratings such as R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition, R1231 Image-Related lntra-Service Recipient Grouping Social Value, R1252 ServerRecipient Image Match, and R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs.

Suggested

Some

Important Considerations About the Issues

Before coming to a final consensus on this rating, the team must make sure that all members are using the same definition of setting exterior for the program(s) being assessed.

Raters should assess the congruity of the service setting’s external appearance with that of normative settings in which valued analogues to the service’s function would be carried out.

Raters should consider the style & size of the facility & grounds, as well as any attached signs, renovations, building additions, outdoor equipment, lawns & grounds, etc.

It is conceivable that external setting features meant to make a setting more usable by people with certain impairments (rated by R213 Physical Comfort of Setting) could incur a penalty on the rating here.

Raters are to assess only the setting congruity image for the service(s) being assessed, not for other programs that may also be carried out in the same setting.

Some people are at much graver risk of being imaged in negative ways than are others. Raters should give more weight to setting features that reinforce already existing negative stereotypes of the recipients.

If a service mixes functions which are usually separate in normative society (e.g., recipients live & go to school in the same building), or if a service has no good culturally valued analogue, then good congruity image with culturally valued analogues will be hard to achieve.

In order to determine the level for this rating, raters can examine the service setting in isolation from its surroundings, i.e., ignoring the appearances & images of any neighboring facilities or sites.

Some

Key Issues to be Determined

What life functions (schooling, recreation, medical support, a place to live, etc.) are being carried out in the setting? If the setting provides more than one type of program, list them all.

What would settings that house similar life functions for valued people look like on the outside?

What function(s) would the exterior of the service setting suggest to a careful observer who is unfamiliar with the program?

In the exterior of a typical, normative analogue to the service being assessed (e.g., a place where typical people live, go to school, work, etc.), would an observer expect to find certain external design features, furnishings, &/or appointments that are not present in the service setting? Would an observer not expect to find any design features, furnishings, &/or appointments that are present in the exterior of the service setting?

In what ways does the match between the type of service & the external appearance of the service setting enhance or detract from the image of the people served? What are the positive or negative images/roles/stereotypes about the recipients that are projected by the service setting’s congruity or incongruity with its culturally valued analogue?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Program descriptions;

Observations of programs;

Direct interviews with service leaders, servers, & members of the public;

Inspection of exterior of service setting, including grounds & all appurtenances.

R1131

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by the very jolting incongruity of the external appearance of the service setting with the appearance of its culturally valued analogue(s). Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as subhuman, menaces, worthless, incompetent, contagious, etc.), the images projected by this service feature will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive features of external setting appearance congruity with culturally valued analogues may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the external setting’s lack of congruity with valued analogues impacts negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. it is significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive; or

b. it is severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if higher level conditions prevail for the other recipients.

Level3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of external setting appearance congruity with culturally valued analogues is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either:

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients; or

b. the degree of external setting appearance congruity with culturally valued analogues neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ image.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the degree of congruity between the external service setting & its culturally valued analogues is highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. external setting congruity with valued analogues is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipient ; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by the external setting appearance congruity with its culturally valued analogue(s) that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

General Statement of the Issue

This rating measures the congruity of the service setting interior (see “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms”) with the appearances of interiors of valued cultural analogues to the service. There are three major aspects of a service setting’s internal appearance which bear on this issue.

1. The design of the interior. The interior design of a facility should be typical of the interior design of settings which house analogous functions for valued people. For example, if people reside in a setting, its interior should look like that of one of several relevant types of residences (e.g., an apartment), rather than like a business office, factory, public toilet, etc.

2. The internal appointments. Appointments such as decorations, drapes or curtains, wallpaper, etc., should be consistent with those that one would find in similar settings for valued people in the larger culture.

3. The interior furnishings. The type and style of furnishings in a human service setting should be typical of the type and style of furnishings that would be found in analogous settings for valued people. For example, one expects to find beds only in residences, hotels, or hospital services; if there were beds in a work or school service for devalued people (rather than perhaps a cot in an infirmary), then typical cultural expectations would be violated, and the image of the recipients served in that setting would be put at risk, if not actually impaired, e.g., they might be seen as sick patients. Similarly, certain types of desks, chairs, and tables are usually found only in educational programs, and it is unexpected, incongruous, and odd to find them (at least in any numbers) in other types of settings.

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance the social image of its recipients & thereby their age identity, social status, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles the design, furnishings, decorations, etc., of the interior of a human service setting should match cultural expectations for the interiors of settings that provide similar service or functions for valued people.

R1132 Internal Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. This rating is one of four which assess images projected by certain aspects of the interior of the service setting, the others being R1122 Internal Setting Aesthetics, R1142 Internal Setting Age Image, and R1153 Image Projection of Setting Other Internal Physical Features. They should not be confused with each other.

2. The match between the service setting’s exterior and the exteriors of analogous valued settings is measured in R1131 External Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Before coming to a final consensus on this rating, the team must make sure that all members are using the same definition of setting interior for the program(s) being assessed.

Raters should assess the congruity of the service setting’s interior with that of normative settings in which valued analogues to the service’s function would be carried out.

It is conceivable that internal setting features meant to make a setting more usable by people with certain impairments (rated by R213 Physical Comfort of Setting) could incur a penalty on the rating here.

Raters are to assess only the setting interior’s congruity with valued analogues for the service(s) being assessed, not for other programs that may also be carried out in the same setting.

If the setting is one in which other non-assessed programs also take place, the rating should only be applied to those parts of the setting interior that are controlled/used by the program(s) being assessed.

The appearance of parts of the service setting interior in which recipients spend a great deal of time, & over which the assessed service has extensive or total control, should be given greater weight in rating assignment.

Some people are at much graver risk of being imaged in negative ways than are others. Raters should give more weight to images that reinforce already existing negative stereotypes.

If a service mixes functions which are usually separate in normative society, or if a service has no good culturally valued analogue, then good congruity with culturally valued analogues will be hard to achieve.

When services serve larger numbers of people than do normative analogous “services” to valued people, they are apt to have at least some furniture &/or appointments in the setting which are culturally inappropriate.

If a service is rendered in a setting that has no facility, & therefore no interior, then this rating should not be applied, & the total score should be computed using the pro-rating method described on pp. 82-84 of the Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Quality. (See “setting interior” on pp. 38-39 of the “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms” section.)

Some Key Issues to be Determined

What life functions (schooling, recreation, medical support, a place to live, etc.) are carried out in the setting? If the service provides more than one type of program, list them all.

What would settings that house similar life function(s) for valued people look like on the inside?

What function(s) would the internal appearance of the service setting suggest to a careful observer who is unfamiliar with the program?

In the interior of a typical, normative analogue to the service being assessed (a place where typical people live, go to school, work, etc.), would an observer expect to find certain design features, furnishings, &/or appointments that are not present in the service setting? Would an observer not expect to find any design features, furnishings, &/or appointments that are present in the interior of the service setting?

In what ways does the match between type of service & the internal appearance of the service setting enhance or detract from the image of the people served? What are the positive or negative images/roles/stereotypes about the recipients projected by the service setting’s congruity or incongruity with its culturally valued analogue?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Program descriptions; Observations of programs;

Tour & inspection of the interior of the service setting; Direct interviews with service leaders, servers, & recipients.

Criteria for Level Assignments

N.B. - If the service has no facility, & therefore no setting interior, then this rating would not be applied, & the service’s total score must be calculated using the pro-rating method (see pp. 82-84 of the 1983 Guidelines monograph).

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by the very jolting incongruity of the internal appearance of the setting with the internal appearance of its culturally valued analogue(s). Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as subhuman, menaces, worthless, incompetent, contagious, etc.), the images projected by this service feature will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive features of internal setting appearance congruity with culturally valued analogues may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the internal setting’s lack of congruity with valued analogues impacts negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. it is significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive; or

b. it is severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if not to other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of internal setting appearance congruity with culturally valued analogues is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients; or b. the degree of internal setting appearance congruity with culturally valued analogues neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ image.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the degree of congruity between the internal service setting & its culturally valued analogues is highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. internal setting congruity with valued analogues is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by the internal setting appearance congruity with its culturally valued analogue(s) that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

113 SETTING AGE IMAGE

Some setting appearances in our culture are associated with certain age groups. When the age image presented by a setting matches the actual ages of the people served by the setting, then cultural expectations are met, and recipients’ image is likely to be enhanced, or at least not damaged. When the appearance of a setting does not match cultural expectations for settings for people of the same age as the recipients, then: disharmony is introduced, and disharmony often elicits negative responses from observers; attention is drawn to the incongruency, and observers (consciously or unconsciously) will therefore question a situation to which they otherwise might not have paid any undue attention; and (c) the probability is increased that the recipients who use the setting will be perceived negatively.

In order to enhance the social image of its recipients, a human service should achieve a match between the age image of its setting, and the ages of its recipients, that is at least the same as (and optimally, even more image-enhancing than) that which prevails in society generally. In other words, to be role-valorizing, the appearance of a human service setting would underline the positive aspects of the chronological age identity of the recipients who use the setting.

Many settings that are not specifically for people of a certain age are nonetheless used by people of that age. For instance, people of all ages may attend a church, or use the library, or go to a movie theater, or an ice cream parlor. But the appearance of such settings does not usually have an image of a specific age, though any spaces of such settings that are dedicated to people of a certain age (such as a children’s area in the library) might. Even in a family home used by people of all ages, the presence of children there is indicated mostly through furnishings, decorations, and use of color in certain areas such as a bedroom or playroom, rather than by having everything built smaller and lower-down, as might be the case in a setting specifically for children, such as a day care center. Thus, age-appropriateness or age-inappropriateness of a setting should not be equated strictly with built-in features, nor should it be expected that all settings must display age-specific imagery for all the ages of all the people who use it.

A setting can convey harmful age images about its recipients by being either age-degrading or inappropriately age-upgrading. Age-degrading takes place when people are imaged and interpreted as being younger than they are; inappropriate age-upgrading takes place when people are imaged and interpreted as being significantly older than they are. Ordinarily, it is more damaging to a person to be age-degraded than to be age-upgraded, unless the age-upgrading images the person as much older than he or she is, or as being outright aged. For example, it may be somewhat beneficial for a retarded young man to be served in a setting that looks like it is for somewhat more mature adults, but it would not be beneficial for the same young man to be imaged as either younger than he is, or as aged.

People particularly at risk of having their age images distorted are mentally, and sometimes physically, impaired people, who are usually presented as younger than their ages; and elderly people who are often imaged as children.

The two ratings in this section (R1141 External Setting Age Image and R1142 Internal Setting Age Image) assess the age-appropriateness of the exterior and interior of a service setting.

General Statement of the Issue

This rating measures the age image about recipients that is projected by the external appearance of the setting. Three aspects of a setting’s external appearance bear on its age image.

1. The external style of the setting. The external architectural style and design of a setting should be typical of the external style and design of settings in which valued people would typically be found who are of the same age as the recipients. Thus, if the building serves as a school for children, it should look on the outside like it is for children rather than like it is for adults; if it is an industry for adults, its exterior should look as if it were designed for use by adults, not by children; etc.

2. The permanent or semi-permanent external appurtenances and other features of the setting. External appurtenances, such as additions, signs, fences, renovations and other external modifications, often alter how a setting is perceived, and may detract from the age image of an otherwise age-appropriate setting.

3. Temporary features of the exterior of the setting. There may also be other features of the setting exterior which convey an age image, but which are only temporary, such as seasonal décor, or even materials lying on the grounds that may be picked up at the end of the day. However, the permanent or semi-permanent features are more difficult to change, and are therefore given more weight than temporary ones in assigning a rating level.

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance the social image of its recipients & thereby their age identity, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles the exterior of a human service setting should accurately reflect the recipients’ age, if possible even bringing out the positive aspects of their age.

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. The internal age image projected by a service setting is rated under R1142 Internal Setting Age Image.

2. This rating is one of four which assess the images projected by the exterior of the service setting, the other three being R1111 Setting-Neighborhood Harmony, R1121 External Setting Aesthetics, and R1131 External Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue). They should not be confused with each other.

a. It is possible for the exterior of a setting to be quite attractive (R1121 External Setting Aesthetics), and yet at the same time inconsistent with the ages of its recipients.

b. The consistency of the setting’s exterior with cultural standards of appearance for the same types of settings for valued people, regardless of its age image, is measured in R1131 External Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue. For example, whether an educational setting looks on the outside like an educational setting for valued people in the culture is measured by R1131; the rating at hand measures whether an educational setting for children looks on the outside like it is for children, whether one for adolescents looks on the outside like it serves adolescents, whether one for adults looks on the outside like it serves adults, etc.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Before coming to a final consensus on this rating, the team must make sure that all members are using the same definition of setting exterior for the program(s) being assessed.

Raters should evaluate the service setting only in relation to the programs being assessed, not in regard to other programs that may be located in the same setting.

Imagery conveyed by setting features that are more difficult to change such as built-in features should be given greater weight than imagery conveyed by easilychanged features, such as decorations, or even furniture.

Some setting appearances give off a very strong message that they are used by children. Other setting appearances give off a very strong message that they are meant to be used by adults. Yet other setting appearances give off messages that they might be used by people of a wide range of ages. Most often, when a service setting’s appearance is incongruent with the ages of the people it serves, it is because the setting appears to be for younger people. Less frequent, but also possible, is that a service setting would appear to be for people older than those it serves.

A service setting that is practically stripped of culturally normative artifacts (such as decorations) which ordinarily convey messages about the ages of the setting’s users would probably receive neither the highest nor lowest level here, except under very unusual circumstances.

Some people are at much graver risk of being imaged in negative ways than others. Raters should give more weight to setting features that reinforce already existing negative stereotypes of recipients. E.g., certain devalued groups are especially likely to be perceived & interpreted as younger than they really are, & therefore, to be served in ageinappropriate settings. Especially in regard to these groups of people, services should “bend over backwards” to enhance the age-image of their recipients, & raters must keep the degree of this image risk in mind when they make their level assignments.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

How old would an observer think the recipients were, if the observer looked only at the design & appointments of the exterior of the service setting?

Does the age image of the exterior of the service setting match the recipients’ ages, &/or enhance the positive aspects of their age identities? Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Recipient records;

Observations of recipients; Direct interviews with service leaders, servers, & recipients.

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by the extremely age - degrading incongruencies between the external appearance of the setting & the ages of the people served. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as childish, eternal children, incompetent, etc.), the images projected by this service feature will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive external setting age image features may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, external setting age imagery impacts negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. it is significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive; or

b. it is severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if higher level conditions prevail for the other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of the external setting age image is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients ; or

b. the external setting age image neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ image. E.g.: the setting is age-ambiguous, perhaps because it is virtually stripped of features which carry any age image messages (which would probably rate poorly on R1121 External Setting Aesthetics); the setting looks as if it could be used by people of all ages.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the age image of the external appearance of the service setting is highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either:

a. external setting age image is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level5.Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by the total age-appropriateness of the setting’s exterior that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

General Statement of the Issue

This rating measures the age image about recipients that is projected by the internal appearance of the setting. Three major aspects of a setting’s internal appearance bear on its age image.

1. The physical structure of the setting interior. There are certain internal structural elements of a physical facility which project age images about its users. Usually, these features have to do with the size and height of various built-in and/or permanent parts of the structure itself.

2. The interior furnishings of the setting. The type and style of furnishings within a human service should be consistent with the type and style of furnishings that would be found in other settings for valued people of the same age as the recipients.

3. The internal appointments and decorations of the setting. Any internal appointments of the setting, such as decorations, drapes or curtains, wallpaper, etc., should be consistent with the type of internal appointments one would find in settings for valued people of the same age in the larger culture.

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance the social image of its recipients & thereby their age identity, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles the interior of a human service setting should accurately reflect the recipients’ ages, if possible even bringing out the positive aspects of their age.

R1142

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. This rating is one of four which assess the images projected by the interior of the service setting, the other three being R1122 Internal Setting Aesthetics, R1132 Internal Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue, and R1153 Image Projection of Setting Other Internal Physical Features. They should not be confused with each other.

a. It is possible for the interior of a setting to be quite attractive and, at the same time, inconsistent with the age of its recipients. Thus, this rating is not the same as R1122 Internal Setting Aesthetics.

b. The match between the setting’s interior, and cultural expectations for the interiors of analogous services to valued people, is rated by R1132 Internal Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue. For instance, the degree to which the inside of a work setting looks like the inside of a factory, foundry, business, etc., for valued people in the culture is rated by R1132, while the degree to which it looks like it is for adults or for children is assessed by the rating at hand.

c. R1153 Image Projection of Setting Other Internal Physical Features assesses imagery other than age-related imagery that the setting conveys about recipients, e.g., that they are strong, or subhuman animals, or menaces, or healthy, etc.

2. There may be objects sitting or lying around that do convey an age image that are either possessions of recipients, or equipment/materials owned by the service. The age images they convey as part of the environment are rated here, while R142 Image-Related Personal Possessions rates all possession images, not only age-related ones, and not only the obviously displayed ones; and R145 Image Projection of Miscellaneous Aspects of a Service rates all image impacts not covered in other ratings.

3. This rating is only concerned with age image issues. A physical feature may be ageappropriate but not challenging to recipients’ growth and development. Thus, the feature might receive positive credit on the rating at hand, but not on R214 Challenge/Safety Features of Setting. Also, an internal feature that projects an age-inappropriate image onto recipients may interfere with the exercise or development of their competencies, which would also be rated under R214.

4. When an environment is virtually barren of any features that ordinarily convey cues to observers as to what ages the setting’s users are, this may be penalized on numerous other ratings. For instance, such an environment may convey that its users are animalistic, or do not deserve a pleasant environment, assessed by several other image-related ratings. Such an environment may also not be competency-stimulating, not engage curiosity or activity, etc., assessed by several competency-related ratings. Most likely, such an environment would receive a Level 3 on the rating at hand unless, even in its barrenness, it still conveys some age-related cues.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Before coming to a final consensus on this rating, the team must make sure that all members are using the same definition of setting interior for the program(s) being assessed.

Raters should evaluate only the program(s) being assessed, not other programs that may be located in the same setting.

Imagery conveyed by setting features that are more difficult to change such as built-in features should be given greater weight than imagery conveyed by easily-changed features, such as decorations, or even furniture.

Some people are at much graver risk of being imaged in negative ways than are others. Raters should give more weight to service features that reinforce already existing negative stereotypes of the recipients. E.g., certain devalued groups are especially likely to be perceived & interpreted as younger than they really are, & therefore, to be served in age-inappropriate settings. Especially in regard to these groups of people, services should “bend over backwards” to enhance the age image of their recipients, & raters must keep the degree of this image risk of recipients in mind when they make their level assignments.

When a program serves people of (especially widely) different ages together in the same setting, it is more challenging to avoid sending age-inappropriate messages about some or all recipients.

If a service is rendered in a setting that has no facility, & therefore no interior, then this rating should not be applied, & the total score should be computed using the pro-rating method described on pp. 82-84 of the Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Quality. (See “setting interior” on pp. 38-39 of the “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms” section.)

See No. 4 under “Differentiation From Other Ratings” for rating internal environments that are so barren as to contain few or no age cues.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

How old are the recipients in the service being assessed?

How old would an observer think the recipients were, if the observer looked only at the design, furniture, & decorations in the interior of the service setting?

Does the age image of the interior of the service setting match the recipients’ age identities in an image-enhancing way?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Tour of the interior of the service setting;

Recipient records;

Observations of recipients;

Direct interviews with service leaders, servers, & recipients.

R1142 Internal Setting Age Image

Criteria for Level Assignments

N.B. - If the service has no facility, & therefore no setting interior, then this rating would not be applied, & the service’s total score must be calculated using the pro-rating method (see pp. 82-84 of the 1983 Guidelines monograph).

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by extremely age - degrading incongruencies between the internal appearance of the setting & the ages of the people served. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as childish, eternal children, incompetent, etc.), the images projected by this service feature will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive internal setting features may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, internal setting age imagery impacts negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. it is significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive; or

b. it is severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if not to other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of the internal setting age image is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients ; or

b. the internal setting age image neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ image.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the age image of the internal service setting is highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. the internal setting age image is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by the total ageappropriateness of the setting’s interior that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable. Perhaps the age image projected for children & young adults is even slightly more mature than the real ages of the recipients.

114 MISCELLANEOUS IMAGE ASPECTS OF THE PHYSICAL SETTING

In addition to such features as the setting’s beauty, its congruity with culturally valued analogues, its age image, etc., there are yet three other features of the physical setting of a service which can affect the recipients’ image.

1. The history of the setting in which a service is either rendered or headquartered carries images of its past which are apt to transfer to the people who now receive the service.

2. The images associated with other settings and sites that are near to the service setting are apt to transfer (at least to some degree) to both the service setting itself, and more importantly, to the recipients who use the setting.

3. There are various remaining physical features of the interior of the setting/facility which do not relate to its congruity with valued analogues, age image, beauty, history, or any other rating already covered, but which still carry some kind of message about the social value, status, roles, ages, competencies, etc., of the recipients of the setting.

These three physical setting features are covered by the following three ratings.

General Statement of the Issue

This rating is concerned with the images that might be conveyed (usually unconsciously) by the physical proximity of a service setting to certain other settings and locations, but excluding other human services (rated by R121 Image Projection of Program-to-Program Juxtaposition). These images may derive from the appearance, age image, functions, history, or other image associations of nearby buildings and sites.

Proximity of a service to another setting requires at least one of the following spatial relationships.

1. Location in a setting. For example, a human service may rent space in a building where there are a number of other bodies and organizations.

2. Location around a setting. For example, a service may be so big that it encloses yet another separate setting, as would be the case if a service surrounded a cemetery.

3. Location next to a setting.

4. Location near to a setting. A service might be located a few houses away, or a city block away, or in the same general neighborhood as a number of other settings

Unfortunately, it is common to find programs for devalued people close to settings and locations which convey negative images and associations to recipients. Services are frequently located: in or on the edges of poor run-down sections of town; in districts associated with sexual vice; near settings associated with or reminiscent of death; close to settings associated with or reminiscent of garbage or animality; etc. Services (at least for devalued people) are much less frequently located in more highly valued locations.

Services should be located close to settings and locations which are not only generally positively valued in the culture, but also are enhancing to the age images of the recipients.

Images may also transfer to a human service from the appearance of its neighboring settings. For example, if a house looks very menacing, or if a setting is very dilapidated, then these visual images will transfer negatively onto the neighboring settings, such as a human service next door or across the street.

The history of settings proximate to a human service can also convey images that may transfer to the nearby service setting.

Often, negatively-imaging service locations result from unconscious devaluation, and from both past and present perpetuation of negative imagery on the part of citizens, service founders and funders, service planners, administrators, regulators, city councilors, zoning boards, legislators, etc. However, in this rating as in all others, only the fact of any favorable or unfavorable images is to be rated, and not the reasons why.

Rating Requirements Chart

R1151 Image Projection of Setting--Physical Proximity

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance it recipients’ images, social status, age identity, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles, a service should be located next & near to other locations which have positive image associations, & which do not demean the image of the recipients.

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. The rating at hand is concerned only with the service’s proximity to positively and negatively imaged sites and locations other than human services, while R121 Image Projection of Program-to-Program Juxtaposition rates the image associations to a service that derive from its proximity to other human service programs.

2. This rating does not take into account the history of the service setting being assessed (R1152 Image Projection of Setting History), but it does examine the history of the area in which the service is located, as well as that of its neighboring sites. The history of the building in which the program itself is located would be rated under R1152 Image Projection of Setting History.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

This rating is concerned with the service’s proximity to any setting other than another human service program, which is covered by another rating.

Proximity of a service to a setting is defined as the service being in, around, next, or near to that setting.

Not all negatively imaged locations carry equally negative messages. For example, settings which symbolize crime, death, worthlessness, & garbage convey much more pernicious messages than those which symbolize childishness & frivolity. The more negative the image associations, the more weight should raters give them.

Some people are at much graver risk of being imaged in negative ways than others. Raters should give more weight to negative image juxtapositions that reinforce already existing negative stereotypes of recipients.

Some settings are so near to each other & architecturally undifferentiated that they cannot easily be told apart, as where a human service shares the same setting or facility with a number of other bodies. In such instances, image transfer is especially apt to take place.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

What are the ages of the recipients of the service?

Ignoring other human service programs, what is the service located:

a. next door to?

b. across the street from?

c. in the same facility as?

d. in the same neighborhood as?

What are the histories of the sites & settings which are proximate to the service?

What positive & negative images are associated with the sites & settings (other than human service settings) that are next & near to the service?

Do any of these images diminish or enhance the image of the recipients?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/ Data About the Issues

Tour of the neighborhood, by foot & by car;

Tour of the surrounding area by car;

Documents on the origin & development of the service & its location;

Direct interviews with service leaders, servers, local historians, local citizens.

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by the imagery of settings (other than human service settings) in close proximity to the service being assessed. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as worthless, subhuman, dangerous, etc.), the images projected by this juxtaposition will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive setting proximity features may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones, such as of vice, death, contagion, corruption, decay, menace, much greater dependency, impairment, incapacity, etc., than is true of recipients. For many services, this will be true if they are located inside of, around, next, or very near to: cemeteries, morgues, funeral parlors; zoos, pet stores, animal control & shelter facilities, animal research laboratories, pest exterminators; garbage dumps, recycling plants, sewage facilities, sanitation departments; decayed areas, abandoned sites, districts that cater to sexual vices; fenced-in, guarded areas such as highsecurity research facilities.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the service’s proximity to other (non- human service) sites impacts negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. it is significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive. E.g.: there are very negative images, such as those in Level 1, associated with settings & locations in the service’s surrounding neighborhood, but these settings & locations are only in intermediate rather than very close proximity to the service; or

b. it is severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients, even if not to other recipients

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of the setting’s physical proximity to other sites is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 fo r any recipients ; or

b. the setting’s physical proximity to other sites neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ image.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the service’s proximity to positively imaged settings other than human service settings is highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. setting proximity is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by service proximity to positively imaged locations other than human service settings that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

General Statement of the Issue

People’s image can be affected by the history of the setting in which they receive a service. As with many other issues in SRV and PASSING, one can see this principle in operation even outside of human services. For example, if a house has been the site of a murder (especially in the recent past), it may be difficult for the owners to sell it, even if the price is considerably reduced. On the other hand, places which have positive histories (e.g., the former homes of prestigious people) tend to be viewed as desirable settings, are often high-priced, and may even be maintained as museums or historical landmarks.

This same phenomenon is an important consideration in human services. To be rolevalorizing, services should be located in settings which are not burdened with negative histories, but which hopefully even have positive ones, so that the positive historical images of a setting would transfer to its (devalued) users, and would engender perceptions of these recipients as filling valued social roles, being rightful members of society, being of high status and competency, etc. Service settings with negative image histories only confirm widespread negative perceptions about the roles, social status, ages, competencies, etc., of devalued people.

One problematic scenario is a service setting for devalued people that was previously used by another group of devalued people. In such a case, the negative images and stereotypes associated with the previous devalued occupants are apt to be “inherited” by, and become associated with, the new group of devalued users. This is especially harmful if the former devalued users of the setting were stigmatized by a different or even more devalued condition than the current users. For example, if a program for blind adults moves into a building that used to house a service for retarded people, the blind recipients become more likely to be perceived as unintelligent, incompetent, or eternal children negative images frequently associated by the public with retarded people.

Sometimes, a service may be located in a site/setting which has neither a positive nor negative history attached to it, due to one of the following circumstances.

1. The site may never have been used before, e.g., a group residence for physically impaired people is built in a new housing development, on a tract of land which was previously undeveloped.

2. The setting may have been used at one time, but has been vacant for so long that any images of its history have vanished from public memory.

3. The function(s) for which the setting was previously used have relatively neutral associations in the culture.

If the service is located in a setting with a neutral history in the sense of the above three points, it should probably receive a Level 3 (see also “Suggested Guidelines for Collecting and Using Evidence”).

Rating

of Setting History

SRV Requirements

The history of a human service site/setting for people at imagerisk should convey not merely neutral images, but very positive & enhancing ones, about the recipients’ competencies, social status, ages, similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles.

R1152 Image Projection of Setting - - History

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. R1151 Image Projection of Setting Physical Proximity takes account of the histories of settings which surround and are nearby the service setting, but does not rate the history of the service setting being assessed, as is done here.

2. The setting’s history should be assessed regardless of what the setting looks like now, which is rated in R1121 External Setting Aesthetics, R1131 External Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue, and R1141 External Setting Age Image.

Suggested

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Even if the history of a service setting is not generally well-known, it can still have some image impact on the recipients of the service. Furthermore, the choice of a setting with a negative, albeit not wellknown, history may indicate a lack of appreciation on the part of the responsible service personnel for the “conservatism corollary” of SRV, & for the importance of “bending over backwards” to avoid taking any risks with the image of devalued people (see “conservatism corollary” on p. 30 in the “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms”).

The more obvious the history of a setting is, the more weight should it be given.

Some devalued groups are much more at risk of being imaged in certain negative ways than are other people. Raters should give more weight to negative history images that reinforce already existing negative stereotypes about the recipient group.

If a service is located in a setting which has a rather neutral history, it should probably be rated at Level 3.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

For what purpose(s) was the service facility/setting/site built & used in the past, especially the more immediate past?

Are there any positive or negative images associated with the histories of the service facility/setting/site?

If the service setting was previously used for another human service, what are the negative images & perceptions commonly associated with the previous group of users? Are any of those images different from those usually attributed to the devalued recipients currently using the setting?

How old are the recipients in the service?

Does the history of the service setting convey any images which are inconsistent with the ages of the current recipients? If so, is the impact positive or negative?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Documents on the origin & development of the program;

Local area (e.g., county) records on that particular area;

Direct interviews with service leaders, servers, recipients, local historians, local residents.

R1152 Image Projection of Setting - - History

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1 Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by the history of the service setting. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as subhuman, menaces, worthless, incompetent, contagious, etc.), the images projected by this service feature will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive setting history features may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the setting’s history impacts negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. it is significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive; or

b. it is severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients, even if not to other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of the setting’s history is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either:

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients ; or

b. the setting’s history neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ image. E.g., the service setting was never used for another purpose.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the history of the service setting is highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. setting history is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by the history of the service setting that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

General Statement of the Issue

As stated in all the other setting image ratings, a human service should strive to avoid those setting features which jeopardize the social image of its recipients, and instead have features that enhance positive perceptions about recipients’ value, status, roles, competency, etc.

In addition to all the other internal and external aspects of a service setting, there are still a few internal features not covered by other setting ratings such as certain elements of the setting’s internal design, furnishings, decorations, other appurtenances, and appearance which convey positive or negative messages about recipients.

A particular physical feature may be required in order to enhance the competencies of recipients, but still project negative images. An example might be a residence for profoundly impaired people who are self-abusive, who are not toilet-trained, and who have other destructive and disruptive behaviors. In such a service, it may be necessary to have furniture, wall, and flooring materials that are (and look) abuse-resistant and easy to clean, and to have an environment that is relatively barren of things which could be picked up and misused by recipients. This rating does not penalize a service for setting features that are genuinely required by the identities of the recipients, as long as these features do not unnecessarily project negative images. As with all ratings, whether setting features are required by outside authorities (such as regulatory bodies) is irrelevant. However, special setting features that may be needed to serve certain recipients do not always have to be highly obvious or stigmatizing, and whatever detrimental messages are conveyed by such features should be as minimally negative as possible. Efforts to minimize the negative images of necessary features should be credited as if they were efforts designed to enhance positive images.

SRV Requirements

As much as possible, the internal physical features of a human service setting that are not covered by other image ratings should convey positive images about its recipients’ social status, competency, membership in the society, age identity, similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles.

R1153

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. This rating is one of four which assess the images projected by the interior of the service setting, the other three being R1122 Internal Setting Aesthetics, R1132 Internal Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue, and R1142 Internal Setting Age Image. They should not be confused with each other.

a. Internal features may be both analogue-congruent and age-appropriate, yet still convey other negative or positive images.

b. R1122 Internal Setting Aesthetics assesses whether the service is attractive and wellmaintained, without regard to the negative imagery inherent in whatever is beautified and beautifying. For example, a service might be credited on R1122 Internal Setting Aesthetics for being clean and brightly painted, yet down-rated here if it conveys unnecessary medical images. Of course, it is possible for any feature to be both ugly and negatively imaging, or beautiful and positively imaging, and thus to be down-rated or credited on both this rating and R1122 Internal Setting Aesthetics.

2. R145 Image Projection of Miscellaneous Aspects of Service assesses any imagery that derives from a multitude of sources other than the physical features of the environme nt such as from various activities, rules and regulations.

3. Recipient image can be affected by virtually any internal feature, including those rated under the competency-related ratings such as R213 Physical Comfort of Setting, R214 Challenge/Safety Features of Setting, and R215 Individualizing Features of Setting. However, in this rating, only the image impact of various internal physical features is at stake; any competency impact such features may also have is rated by R213, R214, or R215.

4. Any external setting features that do not seem to be specifically covered by a rating that assesses external setting features should probably be assessed under R1111 Setting- Neighborhood Harmony.

Suggested Guidelines

for

and Using Evidence R1153 Image Projection of Setting - - Other Internal Physical Features

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Before coming to a final consensus on this rating, the team must make sure that all members are using the same definition of setting interior for the service/program(s) being assessed.

This rating covers imagery projected by any internal setting feature that is not already specifically covered by other internal physical setting ratings.

Imagery that is more difficult to change such as from built-in features should be given greater weight than easily-changed ones, such as decorations, or movable furniture.

Some people are at much graver risk of being imaged in negative ways than are others. Raters should give more weight to service features that reinforce already existing negative stereotypes of the recipients.

If a service is rendered in a setting that has no facility, & therefore no interior, then this rating should not be applied, & the total score should be computed using the pro-rating method described on pp. 82-84 of the Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Quality. (See “setting interior” on pp. 38-39 in the “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms” section.)

Some Key Issues to be Determined

Are there any physical features in the interior of the facility which are not covered in any other setting image ratings, & which convey culturally (de)valued images?

What is the effect of these images on recipients’ social images?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Tour & observation of the interior of the setting;

Direct interviews with service leaders & servers.

R1153 Image Projection of Setting - - Other Internal

Physical Features

Criteria for Level Assignments

N.B. - If the service has no facility, & therefore no setting interior, then this rating would not be applied, & the service’s total score must be calculated using the pro-rating method (see pp. 82-84 of the 1983 Guidelines monograph).

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by the messages contained in various other internal setting features. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as animals, objects of ridicule, dangerous, incompetent, etc.), the images projected by these service features will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive other internal setting features may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, other internal setting features impact negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. they are significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive; or

b. they are severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if not to other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of the other internal physical features of the setting is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients ; or

b. other internal physical setting features neither significantly diminish nor significantly enhance recipients’ image.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the various internal features of the service setting are highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but fall short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. the imagery of internal setting features is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by imagery associated with various features of the physical setting that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

OVERARCHING CONSIDERATIONS SHARED BY THE THIRTEEN RATINGS UNDER THE RUBRICS

12 IMAGE-RELATED SERVICE-STRUCTURED GROUPINGS, RELATIONSHIPS, & SOCIAL JUXTAPOSITIONS, & 22 COMPETENCY-RELATED SERVICE-STRUCTURED GROUPINGS & RELATIONSHIPS

The following introductory text is applicable to both the seven image-related servicestructured social groupings, relationships and juxtaposition ratings, and the six competency-related service-structured social groupings and relationships ratings. Raters must be sure to read this material before reading, and especially before applying to a service, any of these thirteen ratings; and they must keep in mind that the terms “group” and “grouping” refer to both the total grouping of recipients, as well as the sub-groupings, that are arranged or controlled by the service. The terms “group” and “grouping” include not only all those arrangements that put two or more people into juxtaposition or contact, but also those that serve recipients singly, separately, or one at a time. For instance, if each recipient of a service were served in an isolated cell, each would be considered to be what in PASSING is called a “(sub-)grouping of one.”

Every program structures certain relationships and juxtapositions among and between people, including among its recipients; between its recipients and the servers; and between recipients and any other persons, such as members of the public or recipients of other services. Groupings of more than one person set up not only social juxtapositions, but usually also social interactions and relationships. The terms “intra-service” and “extra-service” (groupings, relationships, or juxtapositions, as the case may be) will be used in various ratings to signify any such arrangements that respectively involve only recipients and servers of the program being assessed, or involve people in addition to recipients and servers. Some of these arrangements have an impact on recipients’ images, while others affect recipients’ competencies. However, while recipients’ competencies are affected in a direct way only by groupings and relationships with others that they actually experience, recipients’ image can be affected not only by social groupings, juxtapositions and relationships that actually do take place, but also by those that are mistakenly perceived by others to exist.

Every possible kind of service-mediated juxtaposition and (perceived) social association or relationship is assessed by a rating under the rubrics 12 and 22:

Juxtapositions of recipients with servers in the service being assessed are rated by R1251 Server-Recipient Image Transfer and R1252 Server-Recipient Image Match.

Groupings of recipients within the same program being assessed are rated by R1231 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Social Value, R1232 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Age Image, partially by R122 Service-Neighborhood Assimilation Potential, and by R2211 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Size and R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition.

Juxtapositions and (perceived) associations of recipients with people other than fellow recipients and servers of the program being assessed are rated by R121 Image Projection of Program-to-Program Juxtaposition, R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships, partially by R122 Service-Neighborhood Assimilation Potential, and by R222 Competency-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships.

Additional competency-related ratings assess interpersonal interactions (R223 Life-Enriching Interactions Among Recipients, Servers, & Others), individualization of recipients (R224 Service Support for Recipient Individualization), and sexual identity and behavior (R225 Promotion of Recipient SocioSexual Identity). However, the latter three ratings deal more with relationships than with groupings.

A reminder: the term “server” as used in PASSING refers not only to paid service workers but also to unpaid ones (e.g., volunteers), regardless whether there are only paid or only unpaid servers in the service, or whether there is a mixture. (See p. 37 in the “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms” section.)

In every service, a decision has to be made as to what would be the optimal size of the grouping(s) of recipients. If it is determined that a recipient should be part of a group of more than one, then what has to be determined next is with how many more persons the recipient should be associated and/or served, i.e., how large should the grouping be. However, the image impact of a grouping of a certain size may be very different from its competency impact, i.e., the optimal grouping size for purposes of image-enhancement may be larger or smaller than what it would be for competencyenhancement.

In addition to size considerations, whenever it is determined that it would be advantageous to the recipient to be served with additional people, it has to be resolved who those other people should be, i.e., whether they should be of the same age, and if not, whether younger or older than the recipient; what competencies they should have or be perceived as having; what needs; what conditions; etc. This is the issue of grouping composition .

The thirteen ratings at issue here assess only groupings, juxtapositions, and relationships of recipients of the program( s) being assessed that are arranged, controlled, or otherwise mediated by the program( s) being assessed . A program is considered to control or mediate a grouping, juxtaposition, or (perceived) relationship for its recipients even if any such arrangement is a result (a) of instructions from higher levels of the service organization, or (b) of funding, regulatory, or legal requirements imposed from outside on the service entity, as noted on p. 62 of the Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Qua lity (Wolfensberger, 1983; see footnote 6 on p. 4). In the case of “a” above, the practices are still under the control of the serving entity even if it is a public one; in the case of “b,” a service could conceivably resist the imposition of an inappropriate grouping or juxtaposition by not accepting funds from that body, and even by choosing not to exist.

Also, readers are reminded that both SRV and PASSING are concerned only with the programmatic implications of a particular relationship, grouping, or juxtaposition, not with any economic, administrative, political, or religious arguments that may bear on such decisions. In fact, it is not uncommon for programmatic and economic rationales to clash, but nonetheless, only the programmatic features must be rated. Thus, where programmatic benefits are traded off for alleged economic, political, or ideological ones, a program quality assessment instrument such as PASSING should reflect any resulting program quality loss, as noted in the section of the aforementioned Guidelines ) entitled “Guidelines for Assigning Rating Levels,” pp. 62-63.

Yet further, a service not only arranges and at least partially controls intra-service recipient and server-recipient groupings, relationships and juxtapositions, but also has at least some influence on certain groupings and juxtapositions that involve its own recipients with recipients or servers of other services, or members of the public. These arrangements are therefore also assessed by various PASSING ratings. Not assessed by PASSING are any such arrangements over which the service being assessed has no influence.

Whatever groupings, relationships and juxtapositions a service arranges or tolerates, these either are derived from, or at least communicate, certain assumptions and theories about the recipients and their needs. This is the case even if these assumptions and theories are not consciously held, communicated, or received. For example, in terms of intra-service recipient groupings, an early childhood education project that serves together in one room 15 youngsters, including one or two severely impaired children, is probably based on such assumptions as: education of children at an early age is important and effective; integration of impaired and non-impaired children can be beneficial for both; segregation is not only unnecessary, but outright undesirable; etc Similarly, in regard to extraservice recipient groupings, a group residence that arranges for all of its residents’ activities that take place outside the home to take place with the devalued recipients of other services for devalued people is probably based on such assumptions as: impaired people are more like each other than like other people, they “belong” together, they need to be protected from people in open society, valued members of society will reject impaired people who try to participate in activities with them, etc. To the degree any assumptions about such issues are of an empirical nature, SRV will likely have something to say about them.

One type of intra-service contact or juxtaposition is that between recipients and servers, assessed by the two R125… ratings. The various roles and functions in which servers engage also reflect service assumptions about what recipients need, and what identity people should have who provide a service to a particular group of recipients. For example, where (quasi-)medical personnel are carrying out a social recreation service to elderly citizens, there is probably a basic assumption that old age is equated with sickness. One can make the further inference that this assumption is so strong (though perhaps unconscious) that it overrules other assumptions or doubts about the appropriateness and competency of (quasi-)medical staff conducting such a program.

Whatever are the assumptions and rationales that underlie recipient groupings and juxtapositions, or that are voiced, observers will be inclined to assume that recipients are grouped and juxtaposed at least in part because of who and what they are. Such inferences made by observers will certainly have an impact on recipients’ image, but may also have direct and indirect ramifications to recipient competencies. However, of all imaginable such competency-related impacts, only the more direct ones are assessed by PASSING, namely by the two ratings in the 221 cluster.

Because so many different kinds of groupings, relationships, and juxtapositions are at stake under the 12 and 22 headings, raters must be able to very clearly distinguish the following from each other: the recipients and recipient groupings of the program(s) being assessed; programs other than the one being assessed, both within and without the same serving entity; recipients of such other programs and serving entities; servers of the service being assessed; servers of other services; members of the public and any other persons to whom the program or the recipients may relate or be juxtaposed, where the service being assessed has influence on such arrangements; and any such relationships and juxtapositions that are beyond any control or influence by the service.

At the beginning of an assessment, the assessment team as a whole should discuss who the recipients seem to be, and what the recipient groupings seem to be. However, it sometimes happens that this does not become entirely clear until during the assessment perhaps not even until the conciliation. This is why as noted on pp. 71 and 74 of the 1983 Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Quality before team members do their individual ratings, and then once again at the beginning of the conciliation, the team needs to review who the recipients are, and what the recipient groupings are. Lack of clarity about the grouping(s) being assessed can be one reason why individual team members’ initial rating levels may differ from the team’s ultimate conciliated levels.

Specifying who are the people who constitute the recipient grouping(s) to be assessed can be tricky. For instance, the team may be assessing only part of a service (e.g., one classroom of a school, one unit of a nursing home); there may be high turnover of the recipients of a service, or they may vary in number across time, even while an assessment is taking place; a service may arrange multiple kinds of groupings for different occasions; the groupings among recipients may be different from their groupings with non-recipients; it may not be totally clear which groupings or juxtapositions are arranged, mediated, or controlled by the service being assessed; or a service may be vague and even misleading in communicating who its recipients are. As explained in point No. 23 on p. 66 of the aforementioned 1983 Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Quality , families, service workers, labor unions, industries, and even society itself, may all benefit from a service even though they are not recipients thereof.

To facilitate the determinations to be made by raters, the following guidelines should be observed.

1. It is important to note that there is a big difference between a recipient grouping that is composed of the same individuals across time, and one that is composed of the same type of individuals. For example, a long-term residence for five elderly people may serve the same individuals for years, and sub-groupings in bedrooms, for activities, etc., may also be fairly stable. A service such as a special classroom for impaired children may serve mostly the same people during the course of a school year, sub-grouping them in fairly stable ways, but perhaps gaining or losing a few students at various times during the year. Still, they may all have the same needs or conditions, and therefore be of the same “type.”

2. Where there is relative stability in both numbers and type of characteristics of people served, then the grouping(s) should be considered to be that number and composition which are typical or average. In other words, minor, modest, or infrequent variations are ignored.

3. Where there is rapid turnover of individual recipients, but where the number of recipients remains relatively the same, then the main problem for raters is to determine whether the type of person served i.e., the composition remains relatively the same. For example, every day, a soup kitchen might serve about 200 poor, homeless, often drifting people, but only a proportion of these may be “regulars,” while others may come only occasionally (such as when they run out of money a few days before their welfare check arrives), and yet others may come only once or a few times (such as when they are passing through town). The question thus is whether the composition of the recipient grouping is essentially the same except perhaps for a few days in the year, even though it is not the same individuals who make up the 200.

4. Where the number of recipients (rather than the grouping composition) vacillates significantly, a different rating challenge is posed. For example, an emergency shelter may house different numbers of people at different times of the month or year If the change in size is rare, then raters should probably ignore it in those ratings that deal with group size, and rate the usual or average number of service users. However, if the change in size is significantly frequent, then it should be taken into account in assigning a rating level. One way to proceed is for raters to determine what quality implications the typical size of the grouping has, and then adjust the rating level according to any quality impacts made by the atypical (but relatively frequently recurring) recipient grouping size. For example, if a service would have received a certain level for its usual recipient grouping size, raters might find that the vacillation in size impairs quality so much as to warrant a lower level. Conceivably, in some services, the vacillations in group size could also contribute to improvement in service quality, and hence its rating level.

While more details on what constitutes the respective grouping(s) to be assessed are provided in the respective ratings, even these additional instructions will not always make it simple to determine what the grouping at issue is. Teams may sometimes have difficulty resolving which piece of evidence goes into which of the ratings that deal with groupings, relationships, and social juxtapositions. But as long as the evidence has to do with what the service being assessed controls or mediates, it will be considered in at least one or more of the groupings, relationships, and social juxtapositions ratings.

A final point is that while each of the thirteen ratings at issue here examines one or a few aspects of groupings, relationships, and social juxtapositions separate from the others, in “real life” i.e., in actual service practice the different aspects are encountered in combination, and in interaction with each other.

12 IMAGE-RELATED SERVICE-STRUCTURED GROUPINGS, RELATIONSHIPS, & SOCIAL JUXTAPOSITIONS

This section constitutes the introduction to the seven ratings related to the images of servicestructured groupings, relationships, and social juxtapositions.

Recipients’ image will be affected by the following service-structured groupings, relationships, and social juxtapositions: the nearness of one human service program to another; the number of recipients served and/or grouped together in one program, setting or neighborhood; the composition of intra-service recipient groupings and sub-groupings; the nature of recipients’ social involvements with members of the public, or with recipients or servers of other human services; the identities of servers; and the degree of “match” between the identities of the servers, the nature of the program, and the needs of the recipients.

People’s social image will be affected by who they are perceived to be; in turn, this perception is strongly shaped by who people are believed to resemble, who they are believed to associate with, and even only whom they are perceived to be juxtaposed to. People are often judged by the company they keep or are perceived to keep, even if they do not have much say about their company, even if they really do not associate with those with whom they are thought to associate, and even if other people make such judgments about them quite unconsciously. If the people who are believed to be associates, representatives, or near-carbon copies of a party have positive social images, it is very likely that positive characteristics will be attributed to the party itself. On the other hand, when a party is (perceived as) associated with, or as being more or less the same as, people who have negatively valued images and characteristics, then that party is at risk of also becoming negatively imaged as a result, especially if the association or identification is frequent or intimate, or is perceived as such.

People may be perceived to be associated with others by being grouped together, by being engaged in some sort of relationship, and/or by merely being juxtaposed. Thus, in order to be maximally role-valorizing, it is very important that the various types of groupings, relationships, and social juxtapositions which human services mediate for their recipients convey strong positive (or at least not negative) messages about recipients’ identities, roles, ages, status, competencies, and miscellaneous other characteristics. For example, if a service deploys people who are medicallytrained and have medical professional identities (e.g., physicians, nurses) to serve people who do not have major medical needs, and/or in a program that does not provide services that are unequivocally medical in nature, then a negative image of sickness is conveyed about the recipients. Similarly, if the service expends great efforts to develop, encourage, and support friendships and other relationships of its (devalued) recipients with non-devalued or positively valued people (including other recipients, recipients’ family members, advocates, co-workers, neighbors, fellow citizens), then the (devalued) recipients are apt to be positively imaged. Services which are juxtaposed to valued programs for valued people (and in valued locations, though this is covered in earlier ratings) will generally contribute to a positive image of the people they serve, while services that are juxtaposed to devalued programs for devalued people (and in devalued locations, as covered in earlier ratings) will tend to do the opposite.

Readers are reminded that they need to be familiar with all the material covered under the earlier heading entitled “ Overarching Considerations Shared by the Thirteen Ratings Under the Rubrics 12 Image - Related Service - Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions, & 22 Competency - Related Service - Structured Groupings & Relationships” on pp. 133 -136; as well as the material in “12 Image - Related Service - Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions,” p. 137 .

General Statement of the Issue

This rating is concerned with the image transfer that is apt to result from physical proximity of one human service or service program to one or more other services or programs for ( valued or devalued) people operated either by the same service entity, or by different ones, even if these programs do not serve recipients on these juxtaposed premises (see definition of “program” on pp. 34-35 of the “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms”).

Usually, service programs are valued or devalued because they serve valued or devalued people. However, services may also be valued or devalued on account of what kind of service they provide. At least, the combination of type of service and clientele can give them a mixed image. On the other hand, some types of programs are generally highly valued, even if they may serve a devalued clientele.

Thus, in judging any image transfer that may take place from other programs in proximity to a program being assessed, raters must consider both how valued or devalued are the recipients of these other programs, and how valued or devalued are the other programs in and of themselves.

Juxtaposition of one program to another requires at least one of the following spatial relationships.

1. Location in a setting. For example, a human service may rent space in a building where there are a number of other service programs.

2. Location around a setting. For example, a program may be so big that it encloses yet another program.

3. Location next to a setting.

4. Location near a setting. A program might be located several buildings away from, or one block away from, or in the same general neighborhood as a complex of human service programs.

When one program is located in close proximity to another, the images associated with each are very likely to transfer to the other, especially if members of society are already predisposed to view the two (or more) juxtaposed programs or groups as somehow similar. This image transfer will occur even if the juxtaposed programs do not provide direct services to people, because such a service would still be seen as representative or symbolic of the group of people served. An example would be where the administrative offices of two services are juxtaposed, but where one or both of the services are actually rendered elsewhere. Recipients’ image is particularly apt to be affected when a service to one group of devalued people is juxtaposed to a service that is either devalued or serves people who have a different kind, or a more severe degree, of devalued condition; or when people who are at risk of being age-degraded are juxtaposed to programs for distinctly younger people. Thus, services to devalued people should: (a) avoid locations near other services that are either devalued or serve people whose social image is poor, and/or whose image would otherwise jeopardize that of the recipients of the service; and (b) if there is any program-to-program juxtaposition at all, the juxtaposed programs should be ones that improve the social image of the devalued recipients in the program at stake.

If a program being assessed serves non-devalued people, then its recipients are much less at image risk from any juxtaposition to devalued programs or programs for devalued people. Such a service for non-devalued people will usually only be negatively imaged by a program juxtaposition to programs for devalued people under the following three conditions: (a) the service is already imagetainted, and is juxtaposed to other services that enlarge that image taint; (b) the service is valued, but is juxtaposed to several programs for very devalued people; and/or (c) any of the above juxtapositions are very close.

For rating purposes, it makes no difference whether the juxtaposed programs are operated by the same service provider or by different ones

SRV Requirements

In order to improve the social image of its recipients & thereby their age identity, social status, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles services should avoid locations in, around, next, near, or otherwise close to other service programs that either are devalued, or serve devalued recipients. When such services are located close to any other human service programs, optimally these other programs would be ones whose image, & the image of their recipients, will add social value to the recipients of the program at issue.

Services to valued people should be conscious of the fact that their recipients may suffer image loss if they are located very close to certain programs for devalued people, & especially to more than one such program.

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1.R1151 Image Projection of Setting Physical Proximity is concerned with the image derived from a service’s nearness to any sites, settings, or groups of people other than human service programs.

2.R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition, as well as a number of image-related ratings, deal with the variety of devalued people who are being served within the program being assessed, while the rating at hand concerns only the juxtaposition of two or more distinct programs to each other, even if these programs do not serve recipients on their sites.

3.The proximity of several services for devalued people to each other also can affect the competencies of recipients. For instance, the greater the number and variety of other devalued people in the same setting or its environs, the less likely it is that (devalued) recipients will encounter positively valued models in the service setting or its environs; such valued role models are much more likely to be available to (devalued) recipients who are served in proximity to valued people. However, whether recipients in the program being assessed actually come into contact, share in activities, etc., with recipients of other juxtaposed programs is not rated here, but is covered under R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships and R222 Competency-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships.

4. If there are a number of direct services juxtaposed to each other within close proximity, then R122 Service-Neighborhood Assimilation Potential will be affected, especially if some or all of these programs are services to devalued people. However, the rating at hand is not concerned with the effect of any program juxtapositions on the neighborhood population’s willingness and/or ability to assimilate service recipients, as is R122.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Local perceptions of what is “near” & “far” may be somewhat (but not entirely) relative. Thus, in some sparsely populated or rural areas, places which are actually some distance apart (e.g., 2 “neighboring” farms that are separated by a mile of farmland) may be associated with each other, while in densely populated urban areas, settings located that far away from each other might be considered to be very distant. Thus, raters should bear in mind the relevant local conceptions of distance & nearness.

Some devalued groups are much more at risk of being negatively imaged in certain ways (e.g., as childish, dangerous) than are other devalued groups. Raters should give special consideration to program juxtapositions that reinforce already existing negative stereotypes about recipients.

The juxtaposed services/programs do not have to provide a direct service to recipients on site in order for image juxtaposition to exist, & for image transfer to take place. A program need only be representative, or perceived to be representative, of a particular group of recipients in order for images from other nearby programs to be transferred onto the group of people it represents.

Some Key Issues to be Determined Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

What are the (devalued) conditions/identities of recipients? How old are the recipients?

If a program does not provide direct service to people on site, can it be seen as somehow representative of a group of people? Would members of the public be likely to associate it with the group of people it represents or claims to benefit?

Are there other services or programs in the same service setting or its neighborhood? If so, what is the nature of these other programs? Are they valued or devalued in society? What are the ages & conditions of the recipients of these other programs? Are they valued or devalued in society? How are they imaged in society?

What is the impact on recipients’ image of being juxtaposed with these other programs for devalued or valued people?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Recipient records;

Tour of the service setting;

Tour of the neighborhood;

Direct interviews with recipients, servers, service leaders, & members of the public.

R121 Image Projection of Program - to - Program Juxtaposition

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by the proximity of the assessed program to other devalued programs for devalued people. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as subhuman, incompetent, dangerous, etc.), the images projected by this juxtaposition will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive program-to-program juxtapositions may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, program-to-program juxtaposition impacts negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. it is significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive; or

b. it is severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if not to other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of program-to-program juxtaposition is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients ; or

b. program - to - program juxtapositions neither significantly diminish nor significantly enhance recipients’ image.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the service’s proximity to other human service programs is highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. program-to-program juxtaposition is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

In regard to Level 4b, where all or most recipients are devalued, the service would have to be juxtaposed to mostly positively-imaging other programs, though it might also be in proximity to a somewhat marginally-imaged one. Where all or most recipients are valued, the service would have to be juxtaposed to mostly positively-imaging other programs, though it could also be in proximity to negatively-imaging human service programs if they are few in number &/or not too close.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & the leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by the program’s location in relation to other programs that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable. Regardless of whether recipients are people whose social image is at risk or are non-devalued/valued people, the program being assessed may be juxtaposed only to positively-imaging other programs, & not to any image-impairing ones.

A program for valued people may earn a Level 5 even if it is juxtaposed to no other programs at all, and as long as consciousness of the issue is present among service leaders.

R122 Service - Neighborhood Assimilation Potential

Readers are reminded that they need to be familiar with all the material covered under the earlier heading entitled “ Overarching Considerations Shared by the Thirteen Ratings Under the Rubrics 12 Image - Related Service - Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions, & 22 Competency - Related Service - Structured Groupings & Relationships” on pp. 133 - 136; and the material in “12 Image - Related Service - Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions,” p. 137 .

General Statement of the Issue

This rating is concerned with the likelihood that the number and type of (devalued) people present in a service will be absorbed and integrated into the non - devalued social systems of the surrounding neighborhood. The “social systems of the neighborhood” include not only any people who reside there, but also all the people who spend much time in the neighborhood, such as people who own businesses in the neighborhood, people who work in offices there, shoppers, visitors, etc. When devalued people are congregated together in large numbers, and especially when their condition is a highly devalued one, and/or when they have clearly noticeable devalued physical appearances, the likelihood is very much reduced that the surrounding non-devalued population will be willing or even able to assimilate them into the social mainstream.

Assimilation potential further declines if devalued people are congregated together in areas in which either the numbers of readily available community resources, or the numbers of non-devalued people, are not sufficient to absorb the number of devalued people present even if these people did not have highly devalued identities.

Image obstacles due to congregation of devalued people are primarily a problem to the extent that people see or know about the service and/or its recipients. Thus, congregation is usually only a neighborhood rather than a community problem, unless the community is so small, or the congregation of devalued people so large, as to make the congregation image-burdensome to the community in general. This could happen at least in parts of even very big communities if they contained gargantuan congregations of devalued persons, as some do.

Six important factors are discussed below which will affect the willingness and ability of a neighborhood/community to assimilate devalued service recipients: (a) the number of devalued people present in the service being assessed; (b) the potentially integrative resources in the neighborhood/community; (c) the number of non-devalued people available to conduct the assimilation; (d) the proportion and types of devalued people in the neighborhood/community in addition to recipients of the service being assessed; (e) how much the people to be assimilated are (de)valued; and (f) the degree to which the devalued people’s devalued characteristics are obvious, which usually means how visible these characteristics are.

1. The number of devalued people congregated in the service being assessed. The larger a congregation of devalued individuals, the more likely it is to draw negative attention, and the less likely is it that any surrounding non-devalued population and its generic resources will be able or willing to absorb them

2. The presence of potentially integrative community resources, and the impact of recipient group size upon them. The larger a grouping of devalued individuals, the more likely it is that the assimilation capacity of generic resources (such as stores, restaurants, banks, etc.) of the neighborhood will be overwhelmed. As mentioned elsewhere in PASSING, in order for devalued people to learn and practice normative and valued competencies, it is essential that they have access to the places where good models for these behaviors (such as typical, valued people) can be found. Neighborhood resources are some of the most immediately available and useful places where valued models are often found. If the number of devalued people in the neighborhood/community is too large, there simply may not be enough resources in the neighborhood to assimilate them. Raters must also consider the degree to which recipients of a program actually or potentially use the available relevant resources, and therefore place an assimilation “demand” on them. For instance, patients in an acute care hospital are not likely to make use of the resources surrounding the hospital, while at least some patients in a long-term medical rehab facility might.

3. The number of non -devalued people who are available within reasonable proximity to (potentially) transact assimilation. If a service is located in an area that is very sparsely populated, or totally unpopulated, then there will be no one available to assimilate the recipient group, even if that group is very small. Also, if the majority, or even all, of the population of a neighborhood are devalued themselves (as is the case in some sections of large metropolitan areas), then there are not enough valued people available in that neighborhood to assimilate the service recipients.

To some degree, a large number of non-devalued potential assimilators can “make up for” a shortage of potentially assimilating resources, since it is people (including people in and using the resources), not resources themselves, that do the assimilating. But the presence of a large number of resources cannot “make up for” a lack of an assimilating non-devalued population. For instance, in some poor neighborhoods, there are plenteous resources but no non-devalued population at all, only many other devalued people.

4. The proportion and type of other devalued people in the neighborhood besides the recipients of the service being assessed. If, in addition to the recipients at issue, there are other devalued individuals, groupings, programs, and services in the neighborhood which do, or might, place assimilation demands upon the non-devalued population and its resources, then the assimilation potential of that neighborhood will be even further reduced. This is particularly apt to happen if the neighborhood is a relatively small one, and/or if the proportion of devalued persons in it is already relatively large. Also to be considered are the degree of deviancy both of the recipients of the service being rated, and of the other devalued people present, as the issue becomes sharper the more devalued either group is. Furthermore, assimilation stresses on an area and its population may well come from services (a) so scattered that they do not constitute program juxtaposition, and/or (b) so segregative as not to constitute any kind of person juxtaposition, to the service being assessed. Thus, implicit (i.e., potential) as well as actual current demands upon assimilation potential are included in the rating here.

5. The degree of (de)valuation of the condition(s) of the people present. The greater the degree of “deviantness” of the devalued condition(s) of the people present in the service being assessed and its neighborhood, the less willing any non-devalued population will be to accept and assimilate them. For instance, a program has a much more serious (potential) image obstacle to contend with if it serves convicts on probation than low-achieving adolescents from poor families. Relatedly, a threat may not only be imagined by potential assimilators, but the behavior of the recipients of a service may already have been aggressive, violent, or criminal, so that a threat is both perceived and real.

6. The obviousness of the devalued characteristics of the devalued people. Other things being equal, the non-devalued neighborhood population (if any) will be less tolerant of the presence of people whose devalued characteristics are very obvious than it will of people who do not have obvious devalued appearances. Thus, services to people with very obvious devalued characteristics often cannot afford to congregate as many recipients together as can services to people whose deviancy is less obvious.

The critical issue in this rating is not any one factor listed above, but their combination Thus, it is not just the number of recipients served in the same spot, nor the number of (other) devalued people in the neighborhood of the service, nor the number of non-devalued people present in the service neighborhood, nor the number of resources available in the service area to potentially assimilate recipients, nor the degree of devaluation that recipients experience; rather, the issue is the combination and balance or imbalance that all these factors create in a given service instance as it affects the neighborhood’s/community’s ability and willingness to assimilate the (devalued) recipients in the program being assessed.

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance recipients’ social image & thereby their social status, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles a service should maximize the likelihood that the surrounding non-devalued neighborhood population & its resources will adaptively integrate & assimilate its recipients, by: (a) locating in a neighborhood that is sufficiently populated by nondevalued people; (b) avoiding locations where there are already other congregations of devalued people; (c) keeping recipient groupings small in numbers; & (d) taking into account the degree to which recipients are devalued by society, when determining how many recipients to congregate together.

R122 Service - Neighborhood Assimilation Potential

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1.R212 Availability of Relevant Community Resources assesses the presence of relevant potentially integrative resources which can be reached with relative ease by the recipients of the service. It does not assess whether this quantity of resources is sufficient to assimilate all the devalued people in both the program being assessed and in the surrounding neighborhood. For example, the resources in the neighborhood around a particular service may be abundant, so the service would rate well on R212 Availability of Relevant Community Resources; but their potential for assimilating devalued people may be extremely overburdened by the presence of other nearby programs that serve large numbers of people, so the service would be penalized on the rating at hand.

2.R121 Image Projection of Program-to-Program Juxtaposition focuses on the image transfers likely to take place among the program being assessed, and other programs nearby. While the image of any recipients of nearby services is a consideration in the rating at hand, this rating does not assess inter-recipient image transfers. The rating at hand does assess the image barriers to social integration that may be posed by congregations of devalued people (a) who may be too far away from the program to constitute program juxtaposition, and/or (b) who are nearby even if they are not served in any human service program.

3.R2211 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Size rates the effect that the number of recipients grouped together in a program has on their competency enhancement within and by the program, but not the impact on the potential ability and willingness of the surrounding non-devalued population to absorb them.

4.The rating at hand only assesses whether there are certain preconditions to the assimilation and integration of recipients by valued people. The degree to which personal social integration of recipients with non-devalued people in the neighborhood actually takes place would be assessed by R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships and R222 Competency-Related Other Recipient Contacts & PersonaI Relationships. Even in the absence of image barriers, there may be little or no such integrative contacts and relationships.

5.The fact that recipients project a certain visible positive or negative personal impression is one of the factors considered under this rating, while the service’s efforts at enhancing whatever impression recipients do project is rated under R141 Service Address of Recipient Personal Impression Impact.

Suggested Guidelines for Collecting and Using Evidence

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

This rating only assesses whether certain pre-conditions to integration exist. Even where all the favorable preconditions to recipient assimilation exist, actual integration may not take place, & is not assessed here.

It takes fewer people with highly obvious &/or extremely devalued conditions to begin to strain neighborhood assimilation potential than it does people who are less devalued, &/or who do not have obvious devalued characteristics.

Some people are at much graver risk of being imaged in negative ways than are others. Raters should give more weight to images that reinforce already existing negative stereotypes of the recipients.

Adverse community reaction per se towards a service for devalued people does not necessarily constitute relevant evidence for this rating, unless such reactions are clearly a result of the image obstacles created by too large a congregation of devalued people.

When a team assesses only one or several, but not all , components of a larger service system, the question arises whether to take into account only the number of people in the service component being assessed, or the number of people in the service system as a whole. The guidelines in such an instance are as follows:

1. First, determine if the service component being assessed is on a site that is contiguous with other (non-assessed) components of the larger service entity. If it is not i.e., if there is distinct physical separation between the assessed component & the other components of the agency then the other components &/or the whole service entity should be treated as if they were separate services, & thus, separate congregations of people. They may not be close enough to constitute any additional assimilation demands on the surrounding neighborhood.

2. If 2 or more service components are all located on virtually the same physical site, then all these components on this site should be treated as if they were a single congregation. If this were the case, the criteria of the rating would be applied to all the service components together at that site, rather than merely to the unit being assessed.

However, even services that do not share the same contiguous site with the program being assessed but are nonetheless physically near to it still need to be taken into account for this rating, because any congregations of devalued people within the surrounding neighborhood are of concern.

In some locales, the neighborhood & the community might be one & the same (see pp. 30 & 34 in the “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms”).

Some Key Issues to be Determined

How many people are served by the program being assessed?

What are their devalued or impairing conditions?

Do people in the program have obvious or noticeable devalued appearances?

Are any other devalued people served in the same setting (e.g., in the same building, on the same campus) as the program being assessed? How many?

How many & what type of other devalued people live &/or are served in the same neighborhood as the program being assessed?

What are the devalued/impairing conditions of these other people?

Do these other devalued people have obvious or noticeable devalued appearances?

What is the likely social response to having that many devalued people of those types & appearances together in that neighborhood?

What is the size of the potential assimilating population (i.e., the nondevalued population)?

How many potentially integrative relevant community resources are present in the neighborhood around the program being assessed?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Tour of surrounding neighborhood, both by car & on foot;

Demographic maps of community & neighborhood;

Recipient records;

Observation of recipients;

Direct interviews with recipients, servers, service leaders, members of the public.

R122

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways because there is a gross imbalance between the ability of the non-devalued population & its resources to absorb devalued people, & the number & type of devalued people present in the area.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, service-neighborhood assimilation conditions impact negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. they result in a significant imbalance between the ability of the non-devalued population & its resources to absorb devalued people, & the number & type of devalued people present in the neighborhood, but not as bad as in Level 1; or

b. they are severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if not to other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of the service-neighborhood assimilation potential is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients ; or

b. service-neighborhood assimilation potential neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ image.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the potential for assimilation of (devalued) recipients by the non-devalued neighborhood is good, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. service-neighborhood assimilation potential is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. optimal preconditions for recipients’ assimilation exist, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of & committed to the issue at stake; and the number of devalued people congregated together or nearby is small enough, & the available non-devalued population & its resources are abundant enough, to constitute optimal preconditions for the potential assimilation of (devalued) people by the nondevalued neighborhood.

OVERARCHING CONSIDERATIONS SHARED BY THE FOUR RATINGS UNDER THE RUBRICS

123 IMAGE PROJECTION OF INTRA-SERVICE RECIPIENT GROUPING COMPOSITION, & 221 COMPETENCY-RELATED INTRA-SERVICE RECIPIENT GROUPINGS

The instructions under this heading are in addition to those given earlier for all ratings with the prefix 12 and 22 on pp. 133 - 136

One of the primary means by which a service structures relationships among and for its recipients is the way in which it groups its recipients within its program(s). Such groupings are referred to in PASSING as “intra-service recipient groupings.” Intra-service recipient groupings have an effect on both recipients’ competencies and recipients’ image. The following material is applicable to both the two image-related intra-service recipient grouping ratings (R1231 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Social Value and R1232 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Age Image), and the two competency-related intra-service recipient grouping ratings (R2211 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Size and R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition). Raters must be sure to read this material before reading, and especially before applying to a service, any of these four intra-service recipient grouping ratings.

Because there are so many factors that play a role in how a service grouping impacts on its members’ image and competencies, there can be no single or simple “formula” for the most rolevalorizing grouping. Thus, service groupings that include only devalued people need not always receive a low level on every image and competency grouping rating; and service groupings that include both valued and devalued members are not always enhancing of image and competency, and need not always receive a high level on every grouping rating. The identities of the grouping members, the purpose of the service, culturally valued analogues for addressing the particular need at issue all these and more have to be taken into account, as the specific grouping-related ratings will further explain.

There are five intra-service grouping practices that are unfortunately common and that tend to impact negatively on either the images and/or the competencies of devalued people.

1. Grouping together people who have different types of devalued conditions.

2. Grouping together people who all have the same devalued condition, but with a disproportionate number having a considerably more severe degree of that condition.

3. Grouping a large proportion of devalued people with a much smaller proportion of valued ones, rather than the other way around.

4. Grouping together devalued and/or dependent people of very disparate ages so as to interfere with either image- or competency-optimization.

5. Grouping people in ways that violate the norms for groupings by sex in culturally valued analogous contexts.

All these will be elaborated on in the various image-related and competency-related intraservice group ratings, as they apply to either image or competency enhancement or degradation.

The intra-service recipient grouping of the program being assessed consists only of those people who receive the program being assessed. It does not include other people who may also be present in the service setting, but who either do not receive any service, or who receive a service other than the one provided by the program being assessed. It also does not include the people who deliver the service, volunteers, or other people who may engage in activities with the recipients of the service being assessed, but who are not themselves recipients. For example, the intra-service recipient grouping of a segregated special education class in a regular school would include only the students in the segregated class, not the other students in school even though they might use the same lunch room, might come to the special class to offer tutoring, etc. The intra-service recipient grouping of a psychological counseling program consists of the people who receive the counseling offered by the serving entity.

Raters should keep in mind that a service may also divide its recipient population into smaller sub-groups for some or all activities, e.g., a school may group its students into classrooms; and within each classroom, the students may be sub-grouped still further into yet smaller groupings such as reading or math groups. Some services also serve recipients in a series of different groupings (e.g., college students may be part of a different grouping of students for each of their courses during a semester), which is rated by the four intra-service recipient grouping ratings. Alternatively, or in addition, some services arrange for recipients to participate in many activities and events with other people, including recipients of other programs/services, which is rated by the two other recipient contacts and relationships ratings (R124 and R222).

When the service operates in its own site/setting that is not shared with other programs, it is usually fairly easy to tell what the intra-service recipient grouping is. However, it may be harder to tell what the intra-service recipient grouping is when a program being assessed is part of a larger service agency, or shares its premises with other services. The points below deal with such situations.

1. Assessment of a single program or component of a multi-component service entity. When a team assesses only one of a number of program components run by a multi-component serving entity, it must judge how the grouping and any sub-groupings of the recipients served in that one component alone affect the image and competencies of those same recipients. For example, if raters assess one group home of a residential service agency that also operates a number of other group homes and apartments, they would assess only how the residents are grouped or subgrouped in that one home. If raters assess only one classroom of an entire school, they would rate the grouping of students in that classroom, as well as any sub-grouping of students (e.g., for reading, math, etc.) within that classroom.

2. Assessment of two or more, but not all, of the multiple components operated by a multicomponent serving entity. When a team assesses two or more, but not all, of the programs operated by a serving entity that provides three or more programs, then the team has to judge the effect on recipients’ image and competencies of the recipient grouping within each individual program that is being assessed, as well as of any sub-groupings within any of the assessed programs. For example, if a team assesses three wards of an institution that has 20 wards, then it would rate the effects of the grouping of residents into and within each of those three wards, as well as the effects of any sub-grouping within each of those wards, such as perhaps in groups of six people per bedroom. If raters assess two special education classes in a school with 15 classes, then they would rate the effects of the grouping of students within each of the two classrooms separately, and of students in any sub-groupings within each classroom, such as in reading groups.

N.B. - - As also explained elsewhere, when only some of the components of an agency are assessed (as in numbers 1 and 2 above), then the image and competency impacts on the recipients of the component(s) being assessed that result from the presence of other non-assessed components of the serving entity would be assessed by ratings other than the intra- service recipient grouping ratings. For example, they might be covered by one or more of the following: R121 Image Projection of Program-to-Program Juxtaposition, R122 Service-Neighborhood Assimilation Potential, R124 ImageRelated Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships, R222 Competency-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships.

3. Assessment of all components operated by a multi-component serving entity. When a team assesses all of the several components operated by one serving entity, then they have the potentially very formidable task of judging the effects that all of the following have on recipients’ image and competencies: (a) the total population of (potential) recipients served by the entity as a whole; (b) the way in which recipients are sub-grouped out of the total recipient population into each of the distinct programs; and (c) the way in which recipients are possibly further sub-grouped within each of these programs. For example, if a team assesses an entire vocational services agency which provides numerous different programs, then it would rate the image and competency impacts of the agency’s recipient population, as well as the sub-grouping of recipients into each component.

All of the above situations and guidelines are complicated by the fact that it is sometimes difficult to tell whether a particular grouping is merely a sub-grouping of a larger program, or constitutes an entirely distinct program. So when there are sub-groupings within a larger grouping, raters may first have to determine whether they are dealing with a single program to be assessed, or multiple programs. If it appears that they are dealing with multiple programs, they then have to decide as a team (if it has not already been decided for them by a higher authority) which of two courses of action to pursue:

a. evaluate only one of several programs of the same service; or

b. evaluate all the programs at issue, in which case a further decision must be made whether to:

b1. conduct a separate assessment of each program, as explained on pp. 110-115 in the 1983 Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Quality (see footnote 6 on p. 4); or

b2. assess the separate but related programs as if they were one, as also explained on p. 111 of the 1983 Guidelines .

Whether a decision is made to treat the pattern of groupings and/or sub-groupings as a single program rather than multiple programs, or to assess several distinct programs as if they were a single program, raters will have to make a judgment as to how much weight to give to the image and competency impacts of the different groupings/sub-groupings. In all likelihood, the grouping/subgrouping in which recipients spend the greatest proportion of their time in the program will have the greatest impact on competency, while the grouping/sub-grouping with which recipients would be most immediately and strongly identified by a naive member of the public will have the greatest image impact.

Raters must be sure to refer to the aforementioned 1983 Guidelines monograph for guidance on applying PASSING in any situation other than the assessment of a single-component serving entity. Especially, Appendix C in the Guidelines , pp. 109-124, entitled “Special Procedures for MultiComponent, Multiple Team, Concurrent, Systems, and/or Repeat Assessments,” will be helpful whenever a team is assessing more than one component of a service entity, and has to determine these grouping issues.

Any competency impacts on the recipients of the programs being assessed that come from other programs in the same or nearby settings would be rated under R222 Competency-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships. Image impacts on the recipients of the programs being assessed that come from other programs located in the same setting or neighborhood would be considered under R121 Image Projection of Program-to-Program Juxtaposition, R122 ServiceNeighborhood Assimilation Potential, and possibly R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships. Additionally, people who are not recipients of the same program, but with whom recipients might come into contact as a result of events that the service being assessed arranges/sponsors/controls, would be rated under R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships and R222 Competency-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships.

Raters may need to refer back to this section during the conduct of an assessment.

123

Readers are reminded that they need to be familiar with all the material covered under the two earlier headings entitled: “Overarching Considerations Shared by the Thirteen Ratings Under the Rubrics 12 Image - Related ServiceStructured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions, & 22 CompetencyRelated Service - Structured Groupings & Relationships” on pp. 133 -136, and “Overarching Considerations Shared by the Four Ratings Under the Rubrics 123 Image Projection of Intra - Service Recipient Grouping Composition, & 221 Competency - Related Intra - Service Recipient Groupings” on pp. 155 - 158; as well as the material under “12 Image - Related Service - Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions” on p. 137.

Because the recipient members of an intra-service grouping are so intimately associated with each other, the image of each recipient can be strongly affected (positively or negatively) by that of other recipients in the same grouping. This is especially apt to be true in programs that serve recipients on a regular, frequent, or even daily basis, e.g., residences, educational programs, work programs. Two characteristics of the members of a service grouping are the most likely to affect the image of group members.

1. The perceived social value of the members of a grouping. The perceived value of the members of a group depends heavily on two characteristics of the majority of members of that group.

a. The type of (devalued) conditions of the majority; e.g., if a program grouping is composed only or mostly of people who each have widely differing types of devalued conditions, then the negative images associated with each type of condition are apt to transfer to members of the group who have any of the other types of devalued conditions, thus imaging all recipients as much more deviant than they really are.

b. The degree or “severity” of a characteristic or condition of the majority; e.g., if people within a program grouping have widely differing degrees of the same devalued condition, then the images associated with whatever degree of this condition the majority of the group has are apt to transfer to the rest of the group.

Optimally, in terms of this factor, and if other factors can be ignored, it is most imageenhancing for a minority of devalued people to be grouped with a large majority of people who are highly valued, or at least non-devalued. Less image-protective, but least worst, is a minority of more severely devalued people grouped with a large majority of less devalued ones who have the same devalued condition or identity, rather than the other way around. However, even one severely imaged-tainted member can have a large impact upon an entire group.

2. The ages of recipients in the group. If the age range of the members of a grouping is not consistent with the age configuration encountered in culturally valued analogous contexts or services, then as discussed previously, many or all the members of the group are apt to be seen as deviant. Some such age configurations cause some members to be inappropriately imaged as older (even aged), while other configurations result in some members being inappropriately imaged as younger. For example, when retarded people between the ages of four and 18 are educated together in the same classroom, then the age image of the older members is severely degraded. Group members are particularly likely to be injured by inappropriate age configurations if these reinforce negative role stereotypes (e.g., the eternal child, or second childhood) already held of them.

Optimally, in terms of this factor, and if other factors can be ignored, it is most imageenhancing for devalued people to be grouped with a large majority of people whose age image is positive and competent, and is also within the range of what is culturally valued for the particular type of service being rendered.

The two ratings in this cluster assess the image transfers to recipients that result from the above two dimensions. The rating which assesses the first dimension is called R1231 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Social Value; the rating which assesses the second dimension is R1232 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Age Image.

R1231 Image Projection of Intra - Service Recipient Grouping - - Social Value

Readers are reminded that they need to be familiar with all the material covered under the two earlier headings entitled: “Overarching Considerations Shared by the Thirteen Ratings Under the Rubrics 12 Image - Related ServiceStructured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions, & 22 CompetencyRelated Service - Structured Groupings & Relationships” on pp. 133 -136, and “Overarching Considerations Shared by the Four Ratings Under the Rubrics 123 Image Projection of Intra - Service Recipient Grouping Composition, & 221 Competency - Related Intra - Service Recipient Groupings” on pp. 155 -158. As well, readers should have read the material under the two headings “12 Image - Related Service - Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions” on p. 137 , and “ 123 Image Projection of Intra - Service Recipient Grouping Composition” on pp. 159 -160.

General Statement of the Issue

The social value image projected by the intra-service recipient grouping is an issue that has both image and competency dimensions. Therefore, there is a parallel competency rating to this image rating, namely R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition, and some of the text of this rating will make reference to that parallel rating.

A human service should so group (and sub-group) its recipients as to enhance their social image; at the very least, program groupings should not (further) impair their members’ image, especially in instances where members are already at high image-risk.

There appears to be an almost overwhelming tendency to group devalued people in ways which harm, or at least do not enhance, their image. The five grouping practices explained below are particularly apt to do so.

1. Grouping together of recipients who have different types of devalued conditions. People who are socially devalued for different reasons carry different types of social images and stereotypes. For example: mentally retarded people are commonly seen as child-like, unable to learn and develop, dependent, sick, etc.; prisoners are apt to be viewed as menaces, cunning, dangerous, and so forth; people who are blind are frequently stereotyped as pitiful, extra-sensitive in touch and hearing, and as associated with guide dogs, white canes, and tin cups; elderly people are seen as dependent, child-like, unproductive, worthless, sick and near-dead, etc.; mentally disordered people are seen as uncontrolled, manic, dangerous, sex-crazed, unresponsive, sick, and so on. When people who are devalued for one reason are grouped together with people who are devalued for other reasons, then the different negative images associated with each devalued condition are apt to transfer to the members of the group who have the other devalued condition. Consequently, all of the devalued people in such a grouping are very likely to become burdened with yet additional, and usually quite preventable, negative images and stereotypes, and thus to become even more devalued.

2. Grouping together of people who have the same type and degree of devalued condition. Services typically group together people who have the same type and degree of one devalued condition, such as blindness, cerebral palsy, or mental retardation. Often, services group people in this way in order to address their competency needs (assessed by the two ratings under 221 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Groupings). However, any congregation of devalued people enlarges their deviancy image, and also conveys or reinforces the idea that such people “belong together with their own kind.” (N. B. - Grouping together only people with the same type and degree of devalued condition will almost always rate a Level 2, though sometimes even Level 1.)

3. Grouping together of recipients with the same devalued condition, but where a large proportion have a more severe degree of that condition. When a program serves a small number of mildly impaired or otherwise devalued people with a larger number of more severely impaired or devalued ones, then the image of the mildly impaired members is apt to be extremely negatively affected because they will be attributed with some of the more negative images and stereotypes associated with the more devalued members who are more numerous. Furthermore, such groupings usually do not even help to improve the image of the more severely devalued people, because the proportion of less devalued members is too small to be able to benefit the image of the more severely devalued ones.

4. Grouping together of a small (or insufficient) number of non -devalued people with a larger number of devalued people . In recipient groupings that are composed of both devalued and nondevalued people, it is at best not enhancing, and at worst very damaging, for the valued or nondevalued members to be outnumbered by the devalued group members. For example, if only 5 or 10 (or even 20) of the 40 children in an early childhood education program are non-impaired, not only is it unlikely that their positive image will be sufficient to overcome the negative images of the impaired children in the program, but to the contrary: their own valued image is apt to be endangered. On the other hand, if only 5 or 10 of the 40 children were impaired, and the rest were not impaired or otherwise devalued, then the image of the overwhelming majority of the children in the program would be very positive, and could probably easily compensate for the negative social images of the few impaired children, who would probably be image-enhanced without any (or at most negligible) image loss on the part of the non-devalued members.

It is only image-enhancing to group together valued and devalued people (No. 4), or people who have different degrees of severity of the same devalued condition (No. 3), by “grouping upward,” i.e., the large majority of group members are more valued/competent, and the less valued/competent members comprise a sm all minority . When the devalued condition involves a competency deficiency, this means that only a few competency-impaired recipients should be grouped within a larger proportion of recipients who are (or at least appear to be) less impaired or unimpaired in the competency at issue. The same principle of “grouping upward” applies where the devalued condition involves some other deviancy or devalued identity.

5. Groupings that do not conform to patterns for grouping by sex in culturally valued analogous services. Within certain contexts in valued society, people are also grouped by sex. If a human service does not adhere to the practices of its culturally valued analogue for grouping of recipients by sex, then its recipients’ image is apt to be impaired, and most ordinary people would view the recipients as odd, perhaps licentious, etc.

Violation of cultural norms for grouping by sex usually poses a greater image risk for devalued people than for valued ones, especially where the devalued people are also at risk of being seen as promiscuous, having poor impulse control, and/or incapable of raising or supporting any children they beget. Ordinarily, it is culturally acceptable and consistent with the conservatism corollary to opt for sex-separated programs even where sex-integrated programs are more normative. However, where the cultural norm is clearly one of sex-separation, having a program that serves both sexes is at best image-marginal, and may even be outright negatively imaging.

Based on the above analyses, a program grouping or sub-grouping that seeks to enhance its recipients’ image, or at least to avoid further impairing it, should: (a) emulate culturally valued practices in analogous services for valued people (or at least practices that are image-protective for recipients) in regard to grouping its recipients by sex; and (b) be composed of a large proportion of people who have a more positive social image and a much smaller proportion of people whose social image is worse. Optimally, devalued people would even be adaptively associated within program groupings and sub-groupings with mostly other people who are positively valued, so that the positive social images of these valued members would transfer to the devalued ones. Where this type of program grouping or sub-grouping is achieved, it would also not be harmful for a very small proportion of the devalued members to have different devalued conditions.

Obviously, some services make no sense if they are offered to both valued and devalued, nonimpaired and impaired people. For instance, only homeless people need shelter, not ones who have homes; only sick people need medical attention, not those who are healthy; only illiterate people need literacy training, not those who can already read and write; etc. Thus, it makes no sense for the recipient grouping of every service to consist of both valued and devalued, non-impaired and impaired people. If a grouping is composed only of devalued people, it should at least be so constituted that: (a)the more impaired or more devalued recipients are in the small minority, while the less impaired or less devalued ones comprise the large majority, as noted earlier; and (b) people with different types of devalued conditions are not grouped together within the same program grouping or subgrouping.

For this rating, only those images are relevant that may result from recipients’ associations with fellow recipients within the program grouping( s) that is/ are being assessed (See also “Differentiation From Other Ratings.”) Thus, the grouping(s) assessed by the rating at hand will be the same as those that will be assessed for the two competencyrelated grouping ratings (R2211 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Size and R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition), and for the rating of R1232 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Age Image.

SRV Requirements

If at all possible, the program grouping of a human service should enhance the image of recipients & thereby their social status, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles; & at the very least it should not demean their image thereby. Groupings consisting entirely of devalued members should be avoided, & especially so grouping together people with different types of devalued conditions, or where the majority of members have conditions that are significantly more devalued than the rest.

Optimal groupings for image purposes are those with a very small minority of devalued members.

As well, a service grouping should emulate culturally valued practices in analogous services for valued people in regard to grouping of people by sex. Where there are multiple such valued analogues, the more conservative one is usually optimal for image purposes in the case of devalued recipients.

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. The image projected by the age range within a service grouping is assessed by R1232 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Age Image, whereas this rating assesses the image transfers that are apt to take place as a result of recipient characteristics other than ag e .

2. The rating here is concerned only with image transfers among people within a program grouping or sub-grouping, while R121 Image Projection of Program-to-Program Juxtaposition rates the image transfers likely to take place across programs or services.

3. The composition of an intra-service recipient grouping is one factor that affects how readily and easily others will assimilate its members, which is rated by R122 Service-Neighborhood Assimilation Potential. However, there are two reasons why this rating is not “folded into” R122.

a. There are other factors in addition to this one that affect assimilation potential, such as the numbers and kinds of other people in the neighborhood of the service, and the amount of neighborhood resources.

b. The image projected by a grouping affects observers in other ways, in addition to their willingness to assimilate. For instance, servers as well as members of the public will be more inclined to do bad things (or have others do bad things) to service recipients who are devalued and who are grouped and congregated together “with their own kind”; or who are imaged as having yet additional devalued conditions by being grouped with people who are devalued for different reasons; or who are imaged as much more impaired than they are by being grouped with more severely impaired people, all of which are addressed by the rating at hand.

4. A grouping that consists only of people who are devalued whether for the same or different conditions, whether with the same or different degrees of severity of the condition is penalized here, even though it might not be on R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition if it is well composed to allow for recipient competencies to be enhanced.

5. Sometimes the image issue at stake in regard to groupings by sex may clash with the competency issues, assessed under R225 Promotion of Recipient Socio-Sexual Identity. Here, only the image issue is rated, and in any case, image problems in this regard are usually only an issue in a small number of instances.

6. This rating is only concerned with the association of recipients with their fellow recipients in the same program grouping(s) being assessed. Service-structured associations of recipients with other people who are not recipients of the program being assessed are rated by R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships and R1251 Server- Recipient Image Transfer. If some, or even all, activities of the program groupings or sub-groupings being assessed are conducted with recipients of other programs (perhaps other services run by the same serving entity), then the image transfer to recipients from the shared activities with these other programs would have to be rated under R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships, and possibly R121 Image Projection of Program-to-Program Juxtaposition and R122 Service-Neighborhood Assimilation Potential.

R1231 Image Projection of Intra - Service Recipient Grouping - - Social Value

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Before coming to a final consensus on this rating, the team must be sure that all of its members are using the same definition of the recipient grouping being assessed.

This rating only covers image transfers among recipients within the program grouping(s) being assessed.

In most, but not all instances, the devalued conditions that human service agencies deal with include competency impairment. Thus, image decisions about groupings of people with the same devalued condition usually involve judgments as to the most image-supporting range & degree of members’ competencies.

Groupings of only people who are devalued are penalized here, but some may be more severely down-rated than others. E.g., if the more devalued members constitute a significant proportion of the grouping, or if the grouping mixes people with different devalued conditions, this is more negatively imaging to recipients than being grouped only with people of about the same type and degree of devalued condition.

The percentage of program time during which image-affecting intra-service juxtapositions occur should be considered.

Some people are at much graver risk of being imaged in negative ways than are others. Raters should give more weight to service practices that reinforce already existing negative stereotypes of the recipients.

Whereas the image of devalued people is very easily impaired by their association with other devalued people, the image of valued persons is usually not as easily impaired by such associations. Even when valued people’s image is harmed by such associations, it is not likely to be as greatly impaired as is the already perilous image of devalued people. Probably the only circumstances in which valued people will suffer image loss because of such associations occur when (a) the devalued persons are severely devalued and are in the majority, &/or (b) the valued persons engage in devalued activities with devalued associates.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

What is/are the program grouping(s) being assessed?

What are the different types of impairing/socially devalued conditions (if any) that recipients in the grouping(s) have? What are the degrees of severity of these conditions?

What are the negative images held by society about people with these different types &/or degrees of conditions?

If very devalued & less devalued people are served together, what is the relative proportion of each in the total grouping?

Are there any non-devalued or non-impaired recipients in the program grouping(s) being assessed? If so, what proportion of the grouping do they constitute?

Does the balance or imbalance between the number of nondevalued or less devalued members of the grouping(s), & the number of more severely devalued members, create a positive or negative image about the grouping(s) as a whole? How positive or negative is it?

In analogous services for valued people, are the sexes served together, separately, or either way? Do(es) the program grouping(s) being assessed adhere to or violate such normative practices?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Recipient records;

Program descriptions, statement of mission;

Observation of recipients in the program; Direct interviews with recipients, servers, & service leaders.

R1231

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by the composition of the program grouping(s) or sub-grouping(s) being assessed. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as incompetent, contagious, outcasts, etc.), the images projected by this service practice will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive grouping features may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones. This will be the case where there is:

a. a very image-damaging mix of people with different types of devalued conditions, or b. a large number of more devalued recipients with a small number of less devalued recipients

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the social value projected by the grouping(s) being assessed impacts negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. it is significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive; or

b. it is severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients, even if not to other recipients

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of the social value projected by the intra-service recipient grouping(s) or sub-grouping(s) is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients; or

b. the social value projected by the intra-service recipient grouping(s) neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ image.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the composition of the program grouping(s) or sub-grouping(s) being assessed is highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. this aspect of intra-service recipient grouping composition is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by the composition of the grouping(s) or sub-grouping(s) being assessed that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

R1232 Image Projection of Intra - Service Recipient Grouping - - Age Image

Readers are reminded that they need to be familiar with all the material covered under the two earlier headings entitled: “ Overarching Considerations Shared by the Thirteen Ratings Under the Rubrics 12 Image - Related ServiceStructured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions, & 22 CompetencyRelated Service - Structured Groupings & Relationships” on pp. 133 -136, and “Overarching Considerations Shared by the Four Ratings Under the Rubrics 123 Image Projection of Intra - Service Recipient Grouping Composition, & 221 Competency - Related Intra - Service Recipient Groupings” on pp. 155 -158. As well, readers should have read the material under the two headings “12 Image - Related Service - Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions” on p. 137 , and “ 123 Image Projection of Intra - Service Recipient Grouping Composition,” on pp. 159 - 160.

General Statement of the Issue

In our culture, people of different ages are usually served in different programs, or in different sub-programs within the same program, even if these people have similar service needs. For example, illiterate adolescents would not typically receive literacy education in the same program as children aged 3-5, nor even in the same setting. And, except in family-like living situations, children and adults are rarely mixed in the same residence or any other “program” in our culture. If people are grouped together in violation of valued age analogues, negative image associations are likely to be formed or reinforced. Thus, human services should structure recipient groupings in ways which match cultural standards for age grouping in similar programs for valued people and do so in the most image-enhancing way. This often (not always!) means that recipient groupings should consist of people who are of approximately the same age range.

When a person is already at grave risk of being perceived as younger than he or she really is, grouping that person together with younger people confirms the existing negative stereotype. For example, because elderly people are already perceived as “in their second childhood,” trivial, dependent, and so on, their image is worsened when they are served in the same program (or even the same facility) as young children. At the same time, the younger devalued persons in such a mixed age grouping are likely to be viewed by others (even by servers) the way that the older members are typically perceived. So, children or mature adults who are served together with elderly people will probably be attributed (though perhaps unconsciously) with all the negative associations typically (though often also unconsciously) attached to elderly people, including those of helplessness, hopelessness, stubbornness, being near death, etc.

Reviewed below are a few of the instances in which people of widely different ages do get grouped together in valued society, and it is only when a program matches these culturally valued analogues that it might serve value-jeopardized people of distinctly different ages within the same grouping without impairing their image.

1. The family is a valued societal grouping in which people of all different ages may be found together. However, there are usually some critical differences between this valued cultural analogue and that of a residential service grouping of recipients. For one thing, in valued society it is very rare for both the younger and the oldest members of a family group to be under the control of yet other family members although this is usually the case in human service groupings. For example, when elderly parents move in with their adult child’s family, they are usually not supervised by their son or daughter, although the latter very probably supervise their own children. If a son or daughter were in a position of control or supervision over his or her parents, it would be seen as odd at best, and the supervised parents would come to be perceived as incompetent, “in their second childhood,” etc. Thus, the common human service practice of mixing people of different ages together in one residential program with the rationale that such a grouping is analogous to a family is usually neither true nor consistent with SRV, especially when all members of the recipient group are under the supervision of a worker perhaps even a worker who is considerably younger than some (or even all) of the group members. (However, the workers’ age relative to that of recipients would be rated under R1252 Server-Recipient Image Match.)

2. Whenever people of different ages who are not related to each other are served together in the same program in valued society in a context other than the family (as in hotels, vacation resorts, certain places of entertainment), then it is only for a short period of time, such as a few hours, days, a week, or a month. Thus, the longer that people of widely different ages are served together, the less consistent will it usually be with valued cultural analogues, and the more likely is it that negative images of differentness will be conveyed about at least some of the people so served.

3. In normative adult work, skills training, and social/recreation/leisure-time programs, it is common to find adults of all different ages. However, rarely are children grouped together with the adults in such programs; and within some such programs, the adults may even be sub-grouped into more age-coherent groupings, much as is the case in educational services for children, adolescents, and young adults. For instance, in competitive rowing, the crews of the main competitions are almost entirely young adults, but then there are competitions for mature adults who are called “masters,” and for “seniors.”

4. Mixing of people of widely different ages within the same program grouping might not be very image-problematic as long as the few members of the group who differ in age from most others appear to be of approximately the same age as the other members. For instance, a 6-year old retarded boy who is very small for his age might be retained for a year or even two in an education program with 4- to 5-year olds without appearing to observers to be older than the others, and without drawing negative attention and image loss thereby.

Programs that group together recipients of different ages in the absence of valued cultural analogues will probably not be able to earn Level 4 or 5, and maybe not even Level 3.

For this rating, raters should consider only the images that may result from recipients’ associations with other recipients within the service program grouping( s) that is/are being assessed , not the images that derive from their associations with anyone else. (See also “Differentiation From Other Ratings.”) Thus, the grouping(s) that will be assessed here are the same as those that will be assessed for R1231 Image Projection of lntraService Recipient Grouping Social Value, and for the two competency-related grouping ratings (R2211 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Size and R2212 CompetencyRelated Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition).

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance or defend the image of recipients & thereby their age identity, social status, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles a human service should group the people it serves according to cultural norms for grouping of people by age in similar functions or services to valued people.

R1232 Image Projection of Intra - Service Recipient Grouping - - Age Image

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition focuses on whether the grouping of people within the program allows for recipients’ competencies to be addressed, regardless of the image conveyed by the grouping.

2. R121 Image Projection of Program-to-Program Juxtaposition rates the image transfers likely to take place across programs or services, not within programs, as does this rating.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Before coming to a final consensus on this rating, the team must make sure that all members are using the same definition of the recipient grouping for the program(s) being assessed.

This rating only covers the image projection of recipients within the program grouping(s) being assessed.

Raters must take into account cultural standards for grouping of people by age in similar services & functions of/to valued people.

Some people are at much graver risk of being imaged in negative ways than others. Raters should give more weight to practices which reinforce an already existing negative stereotype about the recipients at stake. For instance, members of some devalued groups (e.g., mentally retarded ones) suffer more image harm from being grouped with younger people than with older ones; while other devalued people suffer more image harm by being grouped with old people because the latter are stereotyped as senile or near death.

There is an interaction between the devalued condition of a party & its age that has to be taken into account, e.g., being a 19-year old delinquent is more devalued than being a 19-year old who is unable to walk.

Raters must not be distracted by the size of a grouping here, but must attend only to the age range among its members.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

What is/are the program grouping(s) being assessed?

What is the age range of the recipients served in the grouping(s) being assessed?

What is the cultural analogue to the program(s) being assessed?

How are valued people grouped by age in culturally analogous functions or services?

Does the grouping of recipients by age within the program(s) being assessed match the way in which valued people in culturally analogous functions & programs are grouped?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/ Data About the Issues

Recipient records;

Program descriptions & statements of mission;

Observation of recipients in the program;

Direct interviews with recipients, servers, & service leaders.

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by the very non-normative mixing of people of different ages within the program grouping(s) or sub-grouping(s) being assessed. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as childish, incompetent, eternal children, senile or near death, etc.), the images projected by this service practice will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive grouping features may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the age range of the grouping(s) being assessed impacts negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. it is significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some aspects may be somewhat positive; or

b. it is severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if not to other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of the age range of recipients in the program grouping(s) or sub-grouping(s) is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients ; or

b. the age range of recipients in the program grouping(s) neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ image.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the age image projection of the intra-service recipient grouping is highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. this aspect of grouping composition is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by the age range of recipients within the program grouping(s) or sub-grouping(s) being assessed that no further significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

R124

Readers are reminded that they need to be familiar with all the material covered under the earlier heading entitled “Overarching Considerations Shared by the Thirteen Ratings Under the Rubrics 12 Image - Related Service - Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions, & 22 Competency - Related Service - Structured Groupings & Relationships” on pp. 133 - 136; and the material in “12 Image - Related Service - Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions” on p. 137 .

General Statement of the Issue

Recipient contacts and relationships with people other than fellow recipients and servers of the program(s) being assessed is an issue that has both image and competency dimensions. Therefore, there is a parallel competency rating to this image rating, namely R222 Competency-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships, and some of the text of this rating will make reference to that parallel rating.

As mentioned, the images of service recipients are affected by their juxtapositions to, and interactions with, others. This rating is concerned specifically with those direct personal juxtapositions and interactions that are arranged or mediated by the service being assessed for its recipients with persons who are neither servers nor fellow recipients of the service being assessed.

SRV implies that when a person is placed into a direct personal juxtaposition, grouping, or interactive contact with others, this should enhance the image of the person, or at least not seriously impair it. Generally, direct personal juxtapositions and interactions of one or more devalued persons with each other tend to be image-degrading. Most likely, the only time such a juxtaposition can be imageenhancing to a devalued person is if the person is juxtaposed to several other persons who have the same devalued condition, but to a lesser degree . Otherwise, the less devalued person(s) are apt to be viewed as being like the more devalued one(s). Juxtapositions to persons with different impairments or different devalued conditions carry very high risks that the negative image of each will be transferred to the others, to the detriment of all parties. This is why in most cases, the juxtapositions and interactions assessed in this rating need to be with valued or at least non-devalued persons.

Of course, the image transfer issue is of very special importance to people who are already devalued, or at high risk thereof. For them especially, the maximum positive image transfer is likely to occur when they are integrated by and with valued people in open society, in valued activities and valued settings One could call this “real integration.” There are also rationales in favor of the social integration of devalued people into valued society that do not derive from SRV; these must not be confused with rationales for integration that have to do with its contribution to a positive social image for people, or to their competencies, and via either to more valued roles. The competency impacts get assessed in PASSING by several other ratings with the prefix 22.

Some image-related ratings deal with preconditions and facilitators of image-or competency-enhancing social interactions, whereas this rating assesses the degree of feasible imageenhancing actual direct personal social juxtapositions and interactions of recipients. However, the only image transfers of concern in this rating are those which are apt to result from service - mediated (i.e., facilitated, arranged, or inhibited) interactions of recipients with people who are neither servers nor recipients of the program( s) being assessed Examples of such people would be members of the public (including those who might be recruited by a service provider specifically for the purpose of integration with recipients), recipients and servers of other programs, recipients’ independent advocates, friends, family members, etc. This rating does not assess recipients’ associations with servers of the program(s) being assessed, nor with recipients within the same program grouping; these are assessed by other ratings (see “Differentiation From Other Ratings”).

There are four factors that play important roles in how social juxtapositions and direct personal interactions can impact on the images of service recipients, or for that matter, anyone.

1. The image of the people (in this case, other than fellow recipients or servers of the assessed service) with whom recipients interact For image reasons alone, a human service should do everything within its power to develop and encourage interactions and relationships of its recipients with (more) valued people. People who are physically attractive, hold prestigious jobs, have high levels of education, are smart, are known to be honest and ethical, are respected by their neighbors, are active members or even officers of valued organizations, etc. they are apt to be more highly valued than people who are physically unattractive, are unemployed or hold jobs with low prestige, have not completed elementary or high school, are suspected of cheating their employers or the government, do not get along with their neighbors, and so on. Further, the higher the attributed social image and value of the people with whom a service helps recipients to interact, the more the recipients’ social image will be improved by these associations. Thus, the more image-jeopardized recipients are, the more a service to them should promote their juxtapositions and interactions with valued and even highly valued people. For example, ignoring other considerations for the moment, a prison work-release program for people who had been convicted of minor offenses would do better image-wise to place its recipients in jobs with well-trained computer programmers, or in an accounting firm, rather than with “rehabilitated” former prisoners, other people in similar work-release programs, or poor uneducated workers in a municipal sanitation department.

This rating is not intended to deny the importance of contacts and relationships that a (devalued) person may have with other people who are not, or not very highly, valued. For example, many retarded people have spent practically all their lives with no one but other retarded people, such as in institutions and segregated schools. Thus, a retarded person with such a background is likely to have some, or even many, friendships with other retarded people. If servers were to try to put an end to such a relationship, especially if it is a long-term one, then the relationship discontinuity and personal suffering that could result would probably far outweigh any image benefits of breaking off the relationship. (Also, the service would probably be penalized under R223 Life-Enriching Interactions Among Recipients, Servers, & Others.) Similarly, a recipient might have a relationship with a person whose social image is only marginal, but who contributes a great deal to the person’s competency development. Thus, social image issues are not always the overriding priority in a recipient’s life. Nonetheless, the social image of people with whom the recipients interact must be determined (and assessed) apart from any other consequences that may derive from these relationships. In other words, even if raters have to down-rate a service-arranged contact or relationship because of the image issue, they should not negate whatever other benefits it may have, and these may actually be credited on other ratings.

2. The image of the activities in which recipients participate with (more) valued people. The image of the service-mediated activities in which recipients participate with people other than servers and fellow recipients of the same program can also affect recipients’ image. Thus, services should strive to have their recipients not only interact with valued people, but also do so in highly valued and imageenhancing activities.

3. The timing of activities that a service mediates for its recipients with (more) valued people may also have an effect on images. Even valued activities with valued people can lose some of their value if they are carried out at times that are not congruent with culturally valued analogues. For instance, even an elegant Christmas party with many valued people is apt to be seen as peculiar if it is arranged for the middle of July, since Christmas occurs in December

4. The image of the settings in which the interactions take place. Not only will interactions in valued activities with (more) valued people other than servers and fellow recipients of the same program improve recipients’ social image, but valued environments for these service-mediated interactions and activities will have a positive image impact as well. Services should maximize support for imageenhancing recipient interactions with valued people at open, integrated events in valued settings.

Some social juxtapositions involve personal interactions, and some do not, in that people are present in the same setting maybe even close together but without interacting. Direct interactions can be expected to be vastly more image-impactful than other types of juxtapositions, but even mere personal juxtapositions (without interactions) can nonetheless affect image.

As noted elsewhere in PASSING, residential services especially tend to exert much control over the lives of their recipients, more so than other types of services usually do. And it is not unusual for many devalued people in residential services to end up totally isolated from contacts with valued people except perhaps some staff. In fact, some such services not only fail to arrange or mediate any such contacts, but even exert effort to prevent such contact from occurring. However, as far as imagery is concerned, having contacts with parties that are negatively imaged is worse than having no contacts at all.

This rating rewards a service that - -within its purview - -mediates imageenhancing recipient juxtapositions and interactions, and penalizes a service that either mediates, or fails to combat, image - impairing such contacts of recipients with any people outside the recipients and servers of the program being assessed. A service that takes a laissez-faire, “hands-off” approach towards mediating image-enhancing juxtapositions and interactions for recipients is also penalized if the recipients are already devalued and/or isolated, or at risk thereof.

In order to receive a Level 4 or 5 on this rating, a service would have to arrange and support direct personal interactions of its recipients with valued people. However, as mentioned, certain juxtapositions and interactions of devalued recipients with other devalued persons can also constitute an image-upgrading for the recipient(s). For instance, if a school arranged for a severely retarded pupil to engage in an activity with mildly retarded people (e.g., a weekend camping trip), this would make the severely retarded person appear to be less retarded, and constitute a slight image upgrade for that person.

SRV Requirement s

To the degree that its recipients are image-jeopardized, a human service should enhance or defend its recipients’ images--& thereby their age identity, social status, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles by encouraging, supporting, & where appropriate, even developing & structuring, juxtapositions & direct personal relationships of its recipients (a) with (more) valued persons, (b) in valued activities, (c) that take place at valued times, & (d) in valued settings.

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. R121 Image Projection of Program-to-Program Juxtaposition only rates the proximity of the service setting to other programs for devalued people, not whether the recipients of the different programs ever have any actual contact with each other, as would this rating.

2. The rating at hand assesses the image transfers to recipients that take place as a result of service-mediated contact of recipients with people who are definitely not recipients of the program(s) being assessed, while R1231 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Social Value is concerned only with the images projected onto recipients by their juxtaposition in groupings and subgroupings with other fellow recipients of the program(s) being assessed.

3. Similarly, any contact that recipients of the program(s) being assessed have with recipients of programs run by different service-providing entities is rated here, rather than under the intraservice recipient grouping ratings.

4. The rating at hand does not assess recipient contact with people who fill server roles in the program( s) being assessed , which is covered by R1251 Server-Recipient Image Transfer. However, if the service mediates contact of its recipients with servers in and of other services, that would be rated here. For instance, the service might encourage staff from a place that once served one of its recipients to visit the recipient regularly, and this interaction may or may not be imageenhancing.

5. If raters assess only one or some, but not all, the programs of a larger agency that runs additional programs, then any service-mediated contact by recipients of the program(s) being assessed with recipients or servers of the other programs run by the same agency would be assessed here, rather than in the two image projection of intra-service recipient grouping ratings (R1231 and R1232).

6. The images projected by the activities that are provided for and engaged in only by the recipients of the program( s) being assessed are rated by R132 Image Projection of Program Activities & Activity Timing, while the rating at hand assesses only the images projected by service-mediated activities for its recipients with other people who are not recipients or servers of the same program. For example, the image of such activities as in-classroom lessons and class field trips for an education program for impaired children would be rated under R132 Image Projection of Program Activities & Activity Timing. The images of intramural or inter-school sports, after-school clubs, etc., in which the educational program might engage its students with other students or nonstudents would be assessed here.

7. A service is only assessed here for the image-relevant activities that it arranges or facilitates, or fails to pursue, or inhibits or prevents. Not considered anywhere in PASSING are any such image-relevant or integrative activities that a recipient engages in on his or her own initiative, or that are mediated by some person or body other than the program being assessed, except to the degree that the program being assessed might encourage/facilitate or inhibit/prevent such pursuits. For example, even though a service itself did not actually initiate an image-enhancing advocacy relationship for one of its recipients, a service would be credited for supporting such a relationship by such measures as preparing the recipient for the advocate’s visits, making sure the recipient is ready on time and dressed properly for the advocate’s visit, perhaps providing transportation for the recipient to visit his or her advocate’s home, etc.

8. When recipients interact with valued people, such interactions often involve both image and competency dimensions (R222 Competency-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships). For example, a young retarded man may be involved in activities, and with people, that contribute to his image enhancement, but do not improve his competencies. On the other hand, a devalued person might be involved in activities, and with people, from which he or she derives enormous competency benefits, but which do not contribute to his or her image improvement, or even detract therefrom. Thus, the two ratings must be distinguished, and even where an involvement clearly contributes to both, it may not do so in equal degrees.

9. R223 Life-Enriching Interactions Among Recipients, Servers & Others assesses whether the service promotes and encourages positive interpersonal interactions e.g., civil, open and honest, friendly and welcoming, etc. among various people in the service, and with others. It does not examine whether such interactions be they nasty or quite positive, or anywhere in between are image-enhancing or image-degrading, as does the rating at hand.

10. When people are served in a location that is physically isolated from valued society (which might have implications to R2111 Setting Access Recipients & Families, R2112 Setting Access Public, and R212 Availability of Relevant Community Resources), that makes it less likely that social integration with valued people will occur. But it is a mistake to assume that such a service can do nothing to pursue such image-enhancing contacts, though of course it is more difficult for a service thusly located to do so

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

While a large number of other ratings cover preconditions to/facilitators of image-enhancing interactions, this rating measures whether imageenhancing service-mediated personal juxtapositions or interactions are actually taking place, regardless of the preconditions that exist.

Only recipients’ juxtapositions & interactions with people other than servers & other recipients of the program being assessed are rated here, & only to the extent that the program facilitates/inhibits such.

This rating is concerned with the image impact of service-mediated direct personal juxtapositions & interactions of program recipients with the persons mentioned above, & not with the placement of programs for recipients into the community.

The more valued the people with whom the recipients are associated, the more valued the activities in which they interact, the more normative or even valued the timing of the activities, & the more valued the settings in which contacts take place the better for the recipients’ image.

Some recipients are at much graver image-risk than others, & can be negatively imaged by interactions with certain people, in certain activities, at certain times, & in certain settings, that would not negatively image other people. Raters should give special weight to such service practices that reinforce an already existing negative stereotype about a group of recipients.

The image benefits to devalued people of servicemediated social contacts must be rated here apart from any competency effects that such contacts might have.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

What is the proper purview of the service, & what actions can it be expected to take in regard to this issue?

Who are the people other than servers & fellow recipients of the same program with whom the recipients have service - mediated contacts? What are their social roles, status, perceived competencies, etc.? What images are associated with them?

List all the various service - mediated activities in which the recipients participate with people other than servers & fellow recipients of the same program. What is the nature & timing of these interactions? What are the images associated with these activities? How much interaction is there vs. merely juxtaposition?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Observation of the program in operation; Activities schedules, logbooks, & program plans; Recipient records & individual program plans; Direct interviews with recipients, their families, & service leaders.

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

Even though a service has less control over those of its recipients’ juxtapositions & interactions that are transacted outside the context of service delivery, it still can usually exert at least some legitimate influence even on these, especially with certain recipients (e.g., retarded, passive, or withdrawn ones), & in certain types of services, such as residential ones. Thus, a service should exert whatever such influence is within its purview. Furthermore, services should be especially sensitive about occasions on which their recipients are likely to interact with devalued recipients or servers of other services because services do usually have a great deal of control over these types of juxtapositions & interactions.

If the service being assessed has no conceivable purview as regards the issue in this rating, then this rating should not be applied, & the service’s total score should be computed using the pro-rating method explained on pp. 82-84 of the Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Quality.

Some

Key Issues to be Determined

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

What are the contexts & settings of these servicemediated contacts? What are the images associated with these contexts & settings?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

R124 Image

- Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships

Criteria for Level Assignments

N.B. - As explained on p. 13 in “The Rationales for the 5 Rating Levels, and Guidelines for Assigning Levels to Ratings,” if the service being assessed has no purview in regard to this rating issue, and if it does not act outside its purview in ways that are either detrimental or beneficial to recipients, then this rating would not be applied. Instead, the service’s total score is pro-rated, as explained on pp. 82-84 of the 1983 Guidelines monograph (see footnote 6 on p. 4).

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by their service - mediated juxtapositions, interactions, & relationships with people other than servers & fellow recipients of the same program(s). Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as menaces, contagious, non-belonging, etc.), the images projected by this service practice will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive service-mediated contacts may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones. This will usually be the case when service - mediated contacts of recipients who are themselves devalued take place with other people of very devalued identity , &/or interactions even with mildly devalued other people take place in very devalued activities &/ or settings .

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the service-mediated contacts & other relationships of recipients with people who are neither fellow recipients nor servers of the program(s) being assessed impact negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. they are significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some practices may be somewhat positive; or b. they are severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if higher level conditions prevail for the other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of the service-mediated contacts of recipients with people other than servers & fellow recipients of the same programs is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients; or

b. service practices in this regard neither significantly diminish nor significantly enhance recipients’ image. Perhaps the recipients are not devalued, & the social juxtapositions & interactions mediated by the service do not contribute significantly either to their image enhancement or image degradation.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the service-mediated contacts of recipients with people other than servers & fellow recipients of the program(s) being assessed are highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but fall short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. service practices in this regard are mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5 (valued interactors, valued activities, valued setting) but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by service-mediated interactions of recipients with valued people other than servers & other recipients of the same program(s), in valued activities & settings, that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

125 SERVER IMAGE ISSUES

Readers are reminded that they need to be familiar with all the material covered under the earlier heading entitled “Overarching Considerations Shared by the Thirteen Ratings Under the Rubrics 12 Image - Related Service - Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions, & 22 Competency - Related Service - Structured Groupings & Relationships” on pp. 133 -136; and the material in “12-Image Related Service - Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions” on p. 137.

Because a person’s social image is so heavily affected by that of his or her associates, and particularly those with whom the person has frequent and/or intimate contact, it is very important that human service recipients be associated with people whose social image enhances theirs, or at the very least does not jeopardize recipients’ image. Because observers are apt to strongly (though perhaps unconsciously) associate recipients with their servers, the image of servers will affect the recipients in two ways: (a) their image will transfer to the recipients with whom they work or are associated, thereby enhancing or diminishing recipients’ image; and (b) they model appearances and images to their recipients, thereby affecting the personal image that recipients themselves will eventually project, which can eventually also become converted to competency impacts.

This section includes two ratings which measure different aspects of the image transfer from servers to recipients: one that assesses the perceived social value image of servers derived from such factors as their appearances, histories, and devalued or valued status; and one that assesses the match of the image identity projected by the servers with both the identity of the recipients being served, and culturally valued analogues for the service.

In applying these two ratings, raters may not make allowances for any laws that may prohibit exercising social influence to discourage the employment of certain workers with devalued recipients, or that may encourage or even mandate the juxtaposition of negatively-imaging servers with devalued recipients. Program concepts should always precede rather than merely follow the law, and it is not uncommon for laws to violate human rights or do other kinds of harm to recipients.

For the following two ratings, raters should apply the rating criteria to any persons who meet the definition of “server” (see p. 37 in “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms”), i.e., servers who are in or under the control of the service being assessed, whether they are paid or not. Any persons present and working in the service who do not meet that definition and who are not service recipients should be rated under R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships.

Readers are reminded that they need to be familiar with all the material covered under the earlier heading entitled “Overarching Considerations Shared by the Thirteen Ratings Under the Rubrics 12 Image - Related Service - Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions, & 22 Competency - Related Service - Structured Groupings & Relationships” on pp. 133 -136; and the material in “12 -Image Related Service - Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions” on p. 137 .

General Statement of the Issue

This rating is concerned with the social image of servers that is derived from the following three server characteristics: their personal appearances; their personal histories; and their personal social roles and status.

1. Server personal appearance. Servers whose personal appearance is not valued (due to mannerisms, grooming, sloppy dress, stigmata, etc.) are apt to impair the image of recipients, in contrast to servers whose appearance is more culturally valued.

2. Server personal history. One’s background can be either positively valued by the culture or negatively valued. Though usually less obvious than appearance, a server’s background can definitely add positive or negative images to recipients’ identities. Even a server’s meritorious past engagements, if they were with devalued people, could have a negative image impact on the server’s current recipients.

3. Server personal social roles and status. Not only because of their appearance and history, but also for other reasons, servers may be socially valued or devalued and even cast into deviant social roles, sometimes for the same reasons as recipients themselves are cast into such roles. Servers who are themselves devalued (for whatever reason) will usually have at least some negative image impact on their devalued recipients.

There are at least three unfortunate social results of having servers with poor social images in services for devalued people.

1. When a devalued person serves other devalued people, it is inevitable that members of the larger society will conclude (consciously or unconsciously) that the persons being served are of low value. For instance, recipients are seen as expendable, or at least less important than other and valued people in the society, when physicians who do not have a license to practice in the community (usually because of inadequate training or skill, language problems, alcoholism, drug addiction, physical or mental problems) are permitted to practice in services to devalued people; or when teachers who are not considered capable enough to teach typical children are put in charge of special classes. Thus, an association of devalued servers with devalued recipients further devalues both of them even more, but particularly so the recipients. This devaluing perception is apt to lead fellow citizens to behave toward the devalued recipient in ways that are not role-valorizing.

2. When devalued persons serve upon other devalued people, or when they socialize primarily or even extensively with each other, a climate or subculture of deviancy is almost inevitably created. This can have competency repercussions (as discussed under R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs, and/or R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use), but it also has image effects, such as to enlarge rather than reverse the devalued status of those within such a subculture.

3. At any given time, a person generally has the potential for forming only a limited number of social ties and meaningful relationships. Usually, people fill their “relationship vacancies” with others whom they encounter in their social systems. The greater the percentage of devalued persons in an individual’s social systems, the higher the likelihood that devalued persons will fill that individual’s relationship vacancies. Thus, by surrounding (devalued) recipients with devalued servers, the chances for each group to interact and develop relationships with socially valued persons are lowered, and the perceived deviancy of both groups is likely to be increased. Again, this can have image impacts as well as competency ones, as rated in R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships, and in R222 Competency-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships, as well as in the two image-related and two competency-related intra-service recipient grouping ratings (R1231 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Social Value, R1232 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Age Image, R2211 Competency-Related IntraService Recipient Grouping Size, and R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition).

It follows that instead of there being mutual benefits, both devalued recipients and devalued servers may actually lose when they are juxtaposed within a service if not in each concrete instance, then certainly in the long run of societal processes. SRV thus generally discourages the deployment of devalued people as servers for devalued recipients, and instead implies that as much as possible, devalued recipients be surrounded by valued servers, and that devalued servers be deployed with valued recipients instead, so as to gain social value thereby.

People are apt to have more difficulty with the SRV implications embodied in this rating than with most others, due to at least five reasons.

1. There is very little awareness of the fact that the image of devalued recipients is affected by the identities and images of their servers.

2. Many people including in human services are not even alert to the fact that certain servers do have a devalued image in the eyes of the general public. Without sensitivity to this issue, they may see nothing wrong with many negatively-imaging personnel-related service practices.

3. Because service workers are as likely as the general public to devalue many kinds of people (in the present context, primarily recipients), and because their training has typically taught them to be even less aware of their own devaluations than are members of the public, they have often contributed systematically to the juxtaposition of devalued servers with devalued recipients, and/or to other personnel patterns which cast negative images on recipients. Therefore, they may have much to be defensive about in regard to the deviancy-perpetuating impact of these kinds of juxtapositions.

4. The presence of devalued servers in services to devalued people sometimes brings with it clinical, administrative, financial, and other benefits, many of which are immediate or short-term in nature. For example: (a) many services for impaired people are convenient job placement outlets for rehabilitation agencies; (b) work with some devalued recipients is considered of low demand, so the job may not get done unless poorly-trained people get recruited, or people for whom it is hard to find other jobs; (c) the fact that devalued workers who may be considered unemployable elsewhere find remunerative jobs with devalued recipients may be seen as a great achievement; (d) devalued workers may be willing to work with devalued recipients at lower wages than valued workers; (e) devalued servers may be seen to “expiate their sins” by working with devalued people; (f) devalued persons can sometimes compensate symbiotically for each other’s impairments (e.g., a deaf person “becomes” the eyes for a blind person, and the blind person the ears for the deaf one); (g) devalued workers who have become successful can serve as models to devalued recipients; and (h) devalued servers, otherwise demoralized, may be challenged and hopefully ennobled by working with devalued people. Classically in human services, clinical and short-term issues such as these override the long-term systemic and image issues. Unless one is disciplined to think systemically and in terms of long-term impacts, one is very poorly prepared to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of having valued and devalued servers, or even to be aware that what appears to be a short-term benefit may have a devastating long-term impact. In most instances, it is not even a question of what benefits the specific recipients in the agency being assessed may derive from a particular devalued server, but of what the entire class of recipients, or even of other people like the recipients, will experience over the long run as a result of whatever server-recipient juxtapositions may exist in the service today.

5. Services have impacts not only on their recipients, but on many other parties as well. PASSING, however, attempts to assess the likely SRV impact of a service on recipients. This presents difficulties to people who view work in services to devalued people as a right. To say that anybody should be permitted to work with any devalued group of people implies that devalued people exist in order to provide job opportunities for servers, rather than that servers should act in the best interests of devalued recipients. At least in the application of PASSING, whenever there is a conflict between the welfare of a recipient group and that of a group of servers, the latter must give way, especially since in most instances, only a relatively small number of servers are at stake in this issue, while a large number of recipients are affected.

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance the image of their service recipients & thereby their social status, & ultimately their social roles--the (a) personal appearances, (b) personal histories, & (c) personal social roles & identities of servers should be positively culturally valued.

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. There may be instances in which servers who have certain types of impairments may be able to provide a programmatic element that is not likely to be provided by a non-impaired person. For example, in a residential program for people who have been addicted to drugs, a worker who was once addicted to drugs him or herself and has overcome the addiction may provide a powerful role model that other servers without that history cannot. However, the competency impact that can be expected from the presence of such servers on the recipients is not rated here, but under R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use, and/or R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs. Even there, there must be plausible rationales for why such competency impacts can be expected.

2. R1252 Server-Recipient Image Match is concerned with the image conveyed by the degree of harmony between the identities of the recipients in the service, the competencies and identities of the servers, and the culturally valued service analogue. It is not concerned with the social image that the servers may project apart from their match with the recipients and the program.

3. The image impact of the presence of people who are not servers of the program being assessed is considered under R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships. Only the images projected by people who are servers in the program being assessed are considered by the rating at hand.

4. What servers may be formally (i.e., officially) or informally (i.e., unofficially) called by the service is not rated here, but under R1252 Server-Recipient Image Match and R145 Image Projection of Miscellaneous Aspects of a Service.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Greatest weight should be given to the image of the servers most closely associated (in terms of both intimacy & duration of contact) with recipients of the program being assessed. Images of servers in parallel branches of the same service entity would only be considered in relation to the amount of contact that such servers have with these recipients. However, the image of servers further up in the service entity’s hierarchy should be taken into account, even up to the highest executive level. Here, too, both the amount of contact of such people with the program, as well as the visibility of their image & its likely impact on observers, should be taken into consideration.

At least generally, the more obvious image problems of servers should be given greater weight because they are more apparent to observers. E.g., raters should be particularly sensitive to the presence of servers who display bizarre mannerisms, are beset by severe communication problems, &/or are “drop-outs” from the larger culture.

Raters should not merely consider whether servers would be overtly/consciously (de)valued in the eyes of the larger community, but also whether unconscious (de)valuations are likely to take place. For instance, many members of the public may not be able to verbally express their negative feelings when they see that a service to devalued people is disproportionately staffed by elderly workers; but in a society which devalues elderly people, any such staffing pattern must be assumed to contribute to the transmission of a devaluing image onto a group of already devalued recipients.

Some devalued groups are much more at risk of being negatively imaged than are others. Raters should give more weight to negative image juxtapositions that reinforce existing negative stereotypes about the recipients. For example, a server image of promiscuity & sexual vice is much more apt to be problematic & to transfer to recipients who are young retarded women than to recipients who are blind children.

The image of devalued servers is enhanced if they work with valued recipients, but since PASSING is essentially concerned with the quality of service provided to recipients , not that provided to servers, any such server benefits are not rated in PASSING.

The images projected by servers can also have indirect competency impact on service recipients (e.g., through the power of modeling & imitation), though such impacts are credited or penalized under other ratings.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

How are servers in the service dressed & groomed?

Do any servers display culturally devalued characteristics, e.g., physical, personality, emotional?

Were/are any servers themselves formerly or presently recipients of human services to devalued people?

What kind of positive or negative images are conveyed by the appearances & histories of the servers?

How are the servers valued or respected in the community, neighborhood?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Observations of servers’ dress, grooming, posture, social graces, mannerisms, stigmata, etc.; Personnel records & job descriptions; Impressions from members of the public, neighbors, recipients’ family members, friends, & others; Direct interviews with servers & service leaders. (It may require very diplomatic but persistent probing in interviews in order to determine server deviancy.)

R1251

Criteria For Level Assignments

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by the image(s) attached to the servers. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as worthless, incompetent, expendable, etc.), the images projected by this service practice will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive server image features may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image of servers impacts negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. it is significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some aspects may be somewhat positive; or

b. it is severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if not to other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact on recipients of the servers’ image is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either : a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients . Perhaps the positive & negative images of servers approximately balance out, such as many of the teachers in an education program for impaired adults having some positive personal appearance, but some also having obvious negative ones; or b. the image of servers neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ image, such as service workers who project an “ordinary” appearance, neither highly valued or glamorous, but not marginal or devalued either.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image projected by servers is highly conducive to the enhancement of recipients’ image, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. server image is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients; or b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by the positive image of servers that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

R1252 Server - Recipient Image Match

Readers are reminded that they need to be familiar with all the material covered under the earlier heading entitled “Overarching Considerations Shared by the Thirteen Ratings Under the Rubrics 12 Image - Related Service - Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions, & 22 Competency - Related Service - Structured Groupings & Relationships” on pp. 133 -136; and the material in “12 Image - Related Service - Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions” on p. 137 .

General Statement of the Issue

In order to enhance the recipients’ image, servers’ identity and role image must be consistent with the real identities of recipients, the nature and function of the service (as a place to live, go to school, work, etc.), and very importantly, its culturally valued analogue(s). If the service identity and role image of the servers do not clearly match normative cultural expectations as to what servers in that type of service for people with that kind of identity should be and do, then the recipients are likely to be perceived as odd at best, and very negatively at worst.

A person’s service role identity and image is largely comprised of the following four characteristics: (a) the server’s role in the service, e.g., as teacher, nurse, friend, advocate, boss, parent; (b) the name of the server role(s), e.g., reading therapist, tutor, Grade III Corrections Officer, mentor, houseparent, home health aide; (c) the server’s (professional) training, background, and work experience; and (d) the server’s age and sex. These four dimensions will deeply affect the social image of the recipients.

In order for servers’ role identity and image to be consistent with both recipients’ identities, and with normative, valued analogues to the service, the servers’ (professional discipline) identity, age, sex, marital status, and the functions that servers play in the service, should all be similar to what one could commonly expect to find in similar situations with valued people in typical society in other words, in the culturally valued analogues. As well, servers should be people who not only have, but more important to this rating, also appear to have , the special knowledge and expertise, life experiences, age identity, and talents to be able to address the needs of the recipients. (However, the actual competency of the programming itself would be rated under R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs and/or R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use.)

For example, it would be culturally appropriate and normative to find predominantly medically-identified and -imaged personnel in what is clearly, unequivocally, and aptly a medical service to persons with major medical conditions, e.g., skin burns. It would be culturally inappropriate for an educational service not related to health to be staffed primarily by nurses, nurses’ aides, “therapists,” and physicians, thus imposing an image of sickness and disease upon the educational service and its recipients. In such a situation, recipients who are not sick would be negatively-imaged as sick because they would be receiving non-medical service at the hands of medically-identified workers. Nor is it even likely that the appropriate and needed developmental activities and programs would be implemented, despite what may be the best of intentions.

In order to determine what server identity would be most enhancing to the image of recipients, the nature of the service, the image risk of recipients, and certain aspects of SRV all must be considered. Conceivably, a recipient group might be realistically imaged in more than one way, in which case the more valued image would be preferred, and servers should be so selected as to match and reinforce that image. For instance, a group of severely retarded children with some medical problems might be imaged with some legitimacy as either “sick,” “patients,” “in need of medical treatment,” or as “children” “growing up” who “need to learn” and “be schooled” while some of their medical conditions are also being addressed. A developmental model would usually project a more positive image about such children than a medical one, and thus, their residential service workers should be primarily “parent”-imaged, not “nurse”-imaged; their developmental staff should be primarily “teacher”-imaged, not “therapist”-imaged; etc. While it is true that persons in a number of different service role identities can contribute to the quality of a particular service, persons whose service identity and role image is not highly consistent with the recipients’ identities, the nature of the service, and its culturally valued analogues should only participate in supportive and/or consultant capacities.

Also, people whose service identity is that of a teacher should be teaching rather than counseling or “therapizing”; people who are counselors should provide counseling , not work training; etc. And people who are actually teaching art or dance should be called art teachers and dance teachers, not art therapists and dance therapists.

The major constraints on the choice of server identity image are as follows: (a) the competencies of the servers should match their image, i.e., a person imaged as a teacher should be able to teach well; (b) normative communication processes and needs should not be violated, i.e., there is no outright deception, such as calling teachers therapists or vice versa; and (c) competent service is not withheld, e.g., the medical needs of the severely retarded children with medical problems cited above as an example would be addressed by normative recourse to medical services.

A related point is that as mentioned earlier, in our culture, one rarely expects to find very young adults in supervisory positions over middle-aged or elderly people, especially in certain settings such as residences. Thus, servers should be, or appear to be, of an age vis-à-vis the recipients that is congruent with culturally valued analogues. For example, in residential services to children, servers who fill the “parent” role should be at least of child-bearing and child-rearing age, and possibly even around mid-life, depending on the ages of the children.

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance recipients’ social image & thereby their age identity, social status, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles the age of servers, & their service role identity & image, should be well matched to: the identity of the recipients, the nature of the service, & the culturally valued analogues for valued people in typical society.

R1252 Server - Recipient Image Match

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. This rating is concerned only with the degree of harmony of the training identities, service roles, and ages of the people who serve in the program, with recipients’ identities, the nature of the service, and its culturally valued analogues. It is not concerned with servers’ personal appearance, deviancies, or histories, as is R1251 Server-Recipient Image Transfer.

2. This rating is also not concerned with the competencies or skill levels of the service workers, nor with how effective servers are in promoting recipient growth and development. These two programmatic aspects would be rated under R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs and/or R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use.

3. The official names of service roles (such as job titles) are rated here for how they do or do not match recipients’ identities and the culturally valued service analogue(s). Other images, if any, conveyed by the official names of server roles, and any images conveyed by any such unofficial names, are rated under R145 Image Projection of Miscellaneous Aspects of a Service.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Raters should give great weight to the service role identities, & the images projected thereby, of people in publicly more visible service roles, such as agency director. Also, great weight should be given to servers who have more direct contact with recipients.

Even otherwise positivelyimaged servers can do image damage to certain recipients if they are not seen as being an enhancing match with the type of service & type of person served.

Some people are at much graver risk of being imaged in negative ways than are others. Raters should give more weight to service practices that reinforce already existing negative stereotypes of the recipients.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

What are the major identities of the recipients in the service (age, impairments, competencies, other characteristics)?

What is the nature of the service, in normative, culturally familiar, terms?

What would be its culturally valued analogue(s)?

What are the professional training, backgrounds, work experiences & cultural image identities of service workers?

What are the names of server roles?

How old are servers? How old are recipients?

What roles would the uninformed general public say that the servers in the service play?

In what roles do the servers view themselves vis-à-vis the recipients?

Do the roles that the servers fill match the recipients’ identities in a way that accords with culturally valued analogues?

Do the roles that the servers fill match the nature of the program in a way that accords with culturally valued analogues?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/ Data About the Issues

Job descriptions & requirements;

Personnel records;

Recipient records;

Agency & program descriptions;

Direct interviews with recipients, servers, service leaders, & members of the public.

R1252

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by the total inconsistency of servers’ identities & roles with the recipients’ identities, &/or with the nature of the service. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as subhuman, dangerous, near-dead, etc.), the images projected by this service practice will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive serverrecipient image match features may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the mismatch between server & recipient identity impacts negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. it is significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some aspects may be somewhat positive; or

b. it is severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if not to other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of the match of server identities to both recipient identities & the nature of the program is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients ; or

b. the degree of match of server identities to the nature of the service & to recipients neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ image.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the congruity of servers’ identities with the identities of the people served & the nature of the service is highly conducive to the enhancement of recipients’ image, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either:

a. server-recipient image match is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipient s; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by the match of the servers’ identities with recipients’ identities & the nature of the service that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

13-IMAGE-RELATED SERVICE-STRUCTURED ACTIVITIES & OTHER USES OF TIME

In any culture, certain activities and patterns of time use are more valued than others. In Western cultures, valued patterns include: productive activity for a good portion of the day; fairly regular schedules; activities that are consistent with expectations for one’s age group; three meals a day; five- to six-day school or work week; celebration of holidays on the days on which they occur, or on which most other members of the culture observe them; conduct of various life functions ordinarily in separate locations, at separate times, and with people in different roles; a significant but not excessive exercise of one’s autonomy and rights; etc. One need only reflect on how much a person’s identity and reputation in Western cultures depends on the person’s occupation to realize how strong an image determinant one’s activities can be.

If a human service is to protect and enhance its recipients’ social image, it must utilize programs, activities, and related time use patterns that are valued by the culture, and encourage recipients to practice activities and observe schedules that reflect positively upon them. Among other things, this means that a human service would: provide age-appropriate activities for its recipients; operate on a normative and age-appropriate schedule; neither separate nor combine within its programs life functions which are usually not separated or combined for valued citizens; and encourage and support recipients in the adaptive exercise of age-appropriate and culturally normative rights. Furthermore, if recipients are already socially devalued, time use patterns may even have to lean toward the more positively valued side of the continuum.

Imagery is especially apt to be conveyed about a person by the more “visible” patterns of time use. For example, a person will be more strongly imaged by his or her daily and weekly activities and schedules than by life routines that are much less frequent. Thus, services should especially try to convey positive messages about recipients via their daily and weekly activities, programs, and more obvious patterns of time use.

General Statement of the Issue

In valued Western society, various life functions are usually conducted in certain places and times, and by people in certain roles, and not in others. In other words, some life functions are separated from each other, and some are combined, at least in part and occasionally. A minority of valued people now work in the same place where they live, such as some farmers and shopkeepers, and the growing number of people who work full- or part-time from their homes, as via computer. However, most people still perform their work apart from other things that they might do they do not generally manufacture auto parts in their home or school, or get their teeth fixed where and while they manufacture auto parts; people go to educational programs in order to learn how to read and write they are less likely to receive formal academic literacy instruction in their place of work; people go to a physician, clinic, hospital, or other health service for medical care they do not ordinarily receive it as part of their religious instruction; people learn how to cook and keep house in their homes (and, to a very circumscribed degree, in some secondary or vocational schools) they do not do so in a dental service, and rarely in connection with their work; etc. Such separate life functions are ordinarily not mixed, unless there are unusual, highly specific, and/or usually short-term circumstances, such as in emergencies, or when a person is extremely ill or physically incapacitated for a short time. If typically separate life functions are combined without such fairly solid cultural sanctions, and/or for long periods of time, then the people whose life functions are thusly combined will be negatively imaged as unlike other members of society, as strange or non-belonging, possibly as incompetent or of low value, etc.

Therefore, in order to improve the social image of its recipients, a human service should not mix program functions which are not mixed or combined in similar “services” to valued people. A residential program should primarily conduct domiciliary-type activities, not school-, church-, or clinic-type functions. A medical service should provide medical treatment, rather than marital counseling, music education, or recreation. A work program should primarily be a place for people to work and learn job skills. If a human service does combine life functions, it should do so in the same way these functions are combined in its culturally valued analogues.

Culture-alien combinations of program functions are rarely encountered in services to valued people, or even just to “ordinary” ones. As a consequence, the culture-appropriate separation of program functions, or culture-appropriate combination thereof, does not draw attention to such recipients, and is simply taken for granted.

However, when the service is one to devalued people, then functions being combined in a culture-alien way are apt to lead to more than just amusement. Since the recipients are already at image risk, their already devalued image is apt to be confirmed or even worsened. For instance, devalued people who are at risk of being seen as peculiar and outsiders are apt to be harmed by a culture-alien combination of program functions which is peculiar and outside the practices of valued society.

A human service to devalued people may combine two or more distinct life functions without doing violence to its recipients’ image only under three specific conditions. (a) If these same functions are usually combined in open, valued society for valued people, i.e., if the service is legitimately and validly one whose culturally valued analogue also combines different life functions. (b) If the form of the combination has valued analogues in valued society, especially as regards location, program schedules, and server identity, i.e., if the service entity provides the additional service in the “right” place, at the “right” time, and with the “right” kind of servers which usually means in a different place, at a different time, and with different servers than the other program(s) it currently provides. (c) If the combination of functions does not image-jeopardize a group of people already at imagerisk.

It is more image-impairing to devalued people to have life functions combined for them which are normatively separated for other people, than to have normatively combined functions separated. One reason is that devalued people have historically been segregated into the fewest points of contact with the rest of society as possible; this has been one of the dynamics which has led to the creation of institutions and other service centers in which a number of life functions are conducted all in one place. Because devalued people are already at risk of such exclusion and segregation, a combination of life functions in services to them can be dangerous to their image even if these same functions might sometimes be combined within valued society.

Of course, a service that operates one type of program may perceive a legitimate need in its recipients’ lives for other types of services. For example, adults who attend a work program might need to learn how to read, to balance a budget, as well as how to get and hold a job. Thus, recipients of a program may very well be in need of another or an additional kind of service. However, in order to protect its recipients’ image, a service entity being assessed should provide only those service functions that are under its purview. In the example just given, it would be best for the image of the recipients of a work service if the work service provided during the work day only those functions which would ordinarily be addressed by and in a work service, i.e., working, or learning an activity by which to earn a living, developing other work disciplines, and so on.

The separation of life functions is especially critical in residential services because domiciliation is the life function that is probably most distinct from all other life functions in our society. That is, people do pray at home, but usually go to weekly worship services and religious study at another time and place, and/or rotate through the homes of the members of a prayer group. People do recreate at home, but such recreation is only of a limited variety And so on.

Institutions for devalued people (especially if they are segregated) have been notorious for not separating the domiciliary function from other functions. On top of domiciliation, they usually provide many or even all other life functions which are conducted by valued people in a variety of settings. Thus, the institution becomes not just a place where people live, but also where they work, go to school, play, shop, worship, receive medical services, are incarcerated, even die and are buried.

Raters may notice that the levels are a bit different for this rating than for others. This is because this rating is not polar like the others, where a service can do positive or negative things, or both. In this rating, a service aspires to no more than what would be inconspicuous if the recipients were valued people.

Rating Requirements Chart R131 Culture-Appropriate Separation or Combination of Program Functions

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance the social image of recipients--& thereby their age identity, social status, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles human services should separate or combine programs for different life functions in ways which match valued cultural analogues.

Life functions which are typically separated in culturally valued analogues should also be provided & conducted separately in human service contexts, & the same with functions that are typically combined.

R131 Culture - Appropriate Separation or Combination of Program Functions

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. When a service non-normatively combines functions which are typically separate in society, this is often expressed in the physical setting which then no longer resembles its valued analogues. Any incongruity of setting appearance due to the programs or functions that are conducted therein is rated by R1131 External Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue and R1132 Internal Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue.

2. R121 Image Projection of Program-to-Program Juxtaposition rates only the images that may transfer to recipients because of the program’s proximity to other programs. It does not rate the image conveyed by a service non-normatively mixing more than one program function within it, as does this rating.

3. Sometimes, a service entity provides more than one distinct service or program in the same location. If the other programs operating in the same location are distinctly different programs that serve different recipients than the program(s) being assessed, then the fact that these other programs take place in the same location as the program(s) being assessed would be rated under R121 Image Projection of Program-to-Program Juxtaposition, R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships, and R222 Competency-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships.

4. If a service does not combine functions which typically are combined in valued society, this may draw some attention, but it is not as striking as combining functions which are typically separate. It therefore has less of an image impact, but it may have a competency effect. For instance, a hospital that does not contain a chaplaincy office or a chapel, or a school that does not have a band, may limit recipients’ exercise or development of specific competencies, but would not image recipients negatively. But this might be penalized on a competency rating, most likely R232 Intensity & Efficiency of Time Use.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Sometimes different service entities provide different services in the same building or campus. That constitutes program-to-program juxtaposition, & therefore would be rated on R121, rather than here. It also might lead to contacts among the recipients of the different services, which would be rated under R124 & R222 (see No. 3 in “Differentiation From Other Ratings”).

If a single service entity provides more than one distinct service or program in the same location to the same recipients, that would be rated here. If the distinct services are offered to different recipients, then it would be rated under R121, & possibly R124 & R222, as above (see No. 3 in “Differentiation From Other Ratings”).

Some people are at very grave risk of being negatively stereotyped as not belonging with valued members of society, & as deserving or “needing” segregation. Raters should give greater weight to culturally-inappropriate non-separation of functions where such people are at stake. Furthermore, even if the program functions that are combined in the service being assessed are also sometimes combined in ordinary society, such nonseparation may still have to be penalized here if it jeopardizes the images of people who are already at risk.

Residential programs sometimes have an office within the residence in which administrative business is conducted. If so, only the business affairs of that one residence should be conducted from that office, not the administrative business of an entire agency or residential services system, just as ordinary apartment complexes in ordinary society often contain an office in which the business of that apartment complex is conducted. If non-residential business is conducted within the residence, then the service would be penalized on this rating.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

What is the legitimate service purview of the program(s) being assessed?

What is the culturally valued analogue to the service(s) being assessed?

What is the area of recipients’ life functions that the program(s) being assessed address(es)? (If more than one, note all the different areas of functioning.)

Are these functions typically separate in the valued culture? Are they typically combined, at least in part?

Does the service mix life functions that are typically separate in the valued culture? Does it separate functions that are typically combined?

If so, what is the resultant image projected on recipients as a result of life functions within the service being combined or separated?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Program descriptions; Activity schedules & logbooks; Individual recipients’ program plans; Observations of the program in operation; Direct interviews with recipients, servers, & service leaders.

R131 Culture - Appropriate Separation or Combination of Program Functions

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by the fact that the program combines several major life functions that are usually separated in valued society. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as incompetent, menaces, non-belonging, etc.), the images projected by this service practice will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive service features in this regard may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

N.B. : Only inappropriate combinations would merit a Level 1. Inappropriate separations would score higher. Also, it is unlikely that a non -residential program would merit a Level 1.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the separation &/or combination of functions in the service impacts negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. it is significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some aspects may be somewhat positive; perhaps only a few major life functions are inappropriately combined, or perhaps the combination occurs in a non-residential service; or

b. it is severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if not to other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of the combination or separation of life functions is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the degree of culture-appropriate separation or combination of functions within the program is highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. service practice is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by cultureappropriate combination or separation of life functions, that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

General Statement of the Issue

The use of time in a service is an issue that has both image and competency dimensions. Therefore, there is a parallel competency rating to this image rating, namely R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use, and some of the text of this rating will make reference to that parallel rating.

The image considerations of SRV require that human service activities, and the timing of these activities (including schedules, routines of the day, week, month, and year, length of time spent in activities, and order of activities), meet three criteria: (a) match cultural expectations for valued members of the society, regardless of age; (b) match cultural norms for the age group of the person(s) involved; and (c) avoid reinforcing existing negative images, or otherwise harming the social image, of the recipients who engage in them. In other words, there should be a positive and harmonious imageenhancing match among: a person’s age; cultural expectations for activities and activity timing for people of that age, and for people in general; and that person’s activities and routines. This relationship might be illustrated as follows:

This rating only assesses the images projected by the activities and activity timing conducted within or by a human service program for its own recipients. (Raters must be familiar with the concept of recipient groupings discussed under “Overarching Considerations Shared by the Four Ratings Under the Rubrics 123 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition, & 221 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Groupings” on pp. 155-158, and must be clear what recipient grouping(s) they are assessing.)

Below, we will explain the relationship to cultural norms of the activities, and the timing of these activities, that are conducted within and by a human service for its recipients.

1. The type of activities that the service conducts for its recipients should be the same as, or similar to, those in which valued persons in the society of the same age as recipients would typically participate. Expectations as to the kinds of activities that are appropriate for persons of a given age are usually quite clear, widely understood, and nearly always adhered to. For example, adults are expected to be engaged in some type of productive work during the daytime hours, while children are expected to be engaged in education and play. Also, although everybody from infancy through old age “plays,” the games and rules that are normative and valued differ for different age groups.

Furthermore, there are certain activities which, although they are both age- and cultureappropriate, may nonetheless drastically impair the image of individuals who are already devalued, or whose image is at risk because they reinforce pre-existing negative social perceptions. The activities, routines and rhythms provided by the service for its recipients should avoid such negative image reinforcements.

2. The timing of the activities a human service provides for its recipients should also adhere to both general cultural standards, and to any variations for different age groups. Within a given society, there are some expectations about how all members of the culture, with very few exceptions, should use their time. For instance, and in contrast to the customs of certain other cultures, people in North America eat three major meals a day instead of two, four, or five.

Certain cultural rhythms of the year are violated almost only by human services, such as not observing holidays on the official holiday day, and celebrating all the birthdays of everyone who was born in a given month on one day at the beginning of that month, both of which have been disconcertingly common in human services. (This practice is, of course, also rated under R224 Service Support for Recipient Individualization.)

However, other cultural expectations in regard to the use of time vary for different age groups; patterns of time use that are typical or even valued for people of a certain age become imagedegrading when they are engaged in by persons of different (usually older) ages. For example, young children in our culture often take afternoon naps, but a young adult who cannot or will not work a full day without an afternoon nap is highly likely to be viewed as immature.

Furthermore, while any number of activities may fall within the range of what is expectable for the recipients’ age group, it is only appropriate or valued to engage in certain of these activities at specified times. An example might be young and middle-aged adults spending most of their day playing chess and solving crossword puzzles, rather than doing these in the evenings and other times not typically devoted to work.

Accordingly, bedtimes, rising times, starting and ending times, break times, mealtimes, holiday times, vacations, etc., should be of reasonably culturally normative timing and duration, and consistent with cultural expectations for the recipients’ ages. Especially, they should not be atypically early, late, or long merely in order to simplify agency routines, or for the sake of servers’ convenience. The length of learning and working hours should be within the range of those in comparable culturally valued settings. Adult work which would be expected to commence at a certain time in valued society should begin at the same hour in a human service. It is especially important that developmental services for children begin at least as early and end at least as late as the cultural norm for the school day, and that activities within these hours are scheduled in a sequence that approximates typical school routines.

There are some patterns of activity timing that, though they are within the broad range of the culturally acceptable, are still somewhat unusual; and though they may be within the normative range for individuals, they are rarely if ever imposed on entire groups. For example, some individuals in our society sleep during most of the day because they work a night-time job. But entire groups of people do not usually engage in such non-normative routines, except in rare circumstances, such as some in the armed forces or during emergencies. Otherwise, they are apt to be viewed negatively. For example, if adults eat supper and go to bed at unusually early times, they are apt to be seen as odd or childish.

Timing of activities also includes the balance among different types of activities, even if these activities are both age- and culturally-appropriate. For instance, while recreation is a culturally sanctioned activity for people of all ages, there are certain time periods in which it is more legitimate than others, such as during vacation and after working hours for adults, and during recess and after school hours for children. Similarly, total inactivity or highly idiosyncratic pursuits are not valued for anyone of any age if they constitute a major part of a person’s activities. Rather, these are only tolerated if they comprise only a certain portion of a person’s time, or under very unusual circumstances, e.g., if one engages in these for only a short period of time, if one is extremely wealthy, or is an artisan, actor, writer, or champion athlete.

Certain culturally normative activities and rhythms are often denied to certain recipients in less obvious ways. For example, our culture accords its citizens the privilege of occasionally breaking routine for short periods, perhaps even for the sake of achieving some solitude. Some people who share the same abode may take a vacation together, and some apart from each other, but in residential human services, the residents may not get one or either of these opportunities.

Materials or equipment are used even required to carry out many activities. For instance, the activity of “playing computer games” requires a computer; the activity of “carpentry” or of “laying bricks” require certain tools; and so on. If the equipment used in the carrying out of service activities is owned by the recipients, then the imagery of such equipment is rated under R142 Image-Related Personal Possessions. If the equipment is owned by any other parties, including by the service being assessed, then it is rated here.

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance the social image of recipients--& thereby their age identity, social status, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles a service should engage its recipients in activities, schedules, routines, & activity timing patterns & rhythms which all (a) positively match cultural expectations for such things for people in general, & for people of the same age as recipients, & (b) avoid reinforcing already existing negative stereotypes about recipients.

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. This rating is concerned only with the image issues of service activities, routines, rhythms, or other timing of activities. It does not rate whether recipients are actually apt to improve their competencies as a result, which is assessed by R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs or R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use. For example, playing children’s games may help mentally impaired adults learn the rules of fair play, but would be penalized here, though it could be credited under R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use and/or R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs.

2. This rating assesses only what recipients actually do in the service, not the name of the service, nor what the servers may say is done. For example, adults might actually be involved in productive work which, however, is called “recreational therapy.” The same would hold true if the reverse were the case, i.e., if what was called “work” was actually crayoning in coloring books. The official name of the activity would be rated under R1432 Serving Entity, Program, Setting, & Location Names, the unofficial one under R145 Image Projection of Miscellaneous Aspects of a Service.

3. R131 Culture-Appropriate Separation or Combination of Program Functions assesses whether the service combines programs and activities in ways in which they are not usually combined in valued society, or that are otherwise image-impairing to recipients. Thus, a service to adults might provide, arrange, and/or mediate only highly adult-imaged and otherwise positive-imaging activities for its recipients, and therefore not be in violation of the rating at hand, but nonetheless combine all these positively-imaged activities in non-normative ways, and thus be penalized on R131.

4. The rating at hand assesses only the images projected by the activities that are conducted within and by the service being assessed for its recipients. The images of any service-mediated activities that recipients participate in with people other than, or in addition to, fellow recipients and servers of the program being assessed are rated by R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships. For example, at a sheltered workshop, the images of the work, work day schedule, and weekly/monthly/yearly routines provided for recipients would be assessed here, and not any it might arrange with recipients of other service programs that would be assessed by R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships.

5. It may be difficult for raters to tell whether some activities that a service conducts are only for its recipients, or for both its recipients and other people who are not its recipients. An example might be a community center whose programs are open to attendance by anyone in a certain neighborhood or community, and where the boundary between recipients and others is therefore very poorly defined. In such instances, all persons who actually attend the program’s activities should be considered recipients, and all other people are to be considered “others.”

Any activities which such a service conducts or arranges with other services or bodies, and in which its own recipients also participate, would be assessed by R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships, and possibly by R121 Image Projection of Program-to-Program Juxtaposition.

6. Some services provide or conduct hardly any activities. An example might be an office that merely distributes money (e.g., a regular government check) to people; the only activities in which it may engage its recipients are an interview in which they have to prove eligibility, and a regular appointment for them to pick up their check and sign their name upon receipt. Similarly, a referral service may interview recipients, perhaps administer some tests, and then refer them to other programs. Even if the activities conducted by the program for recipients are very modest in amount, and even if the service only supports, encourages, enables, and/or reinforces (rather than actually provides) certain activities for its recipients, such activities are nevertheless relevant to this rating, and the service is assessed on those that are within its purview. This might include scheduling appointments for recipients, suggesting that recipients engage in certain activities and discouraging them from participating in others, etc.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

This rating covers only activities conducted in & by a service for its own recipients.

Compare the activities, routines, & rhythms provided by the service being assessed with:

a. cultural standards for activities, routines, & schedules for similar types of programs (e.g., residential, work, educational, etc.) for valued persons; &

b. cultural standards for activities & schedules for people of the same age as recipients.

Some people are at much graver risk of being imaged in negative ways than are others. Raters should give more weight to practices that reinforce already existing negative stereotypes of the recipients.

Some activities that might be typical or even valued for valued people in the culture become extremely image-damaging to some devalued people who engage in them. Thus, raters must be sure to take into account the degree to which recipients are at certain image risks, & may have to down-rate a service for a normative practice here if it is negatively imaging to its imagejeopardized recipients.

Raters should note that sometimes, one or a few persons in a service are engaged in an ageappropriate activity, even though the major activities identified with & provided by that service are age-inappropriate. For instance, a young adult in a recreation program for impaired people may be learning to play chess while most other recipients are engaged in children’s games & activities.

A service might provide, arrange, or mediate no activities at all for its recipients, e.g., perhaps the service is one that merely sends out printed information in response to phone or mail requests, or only sends out a monthly check to recipients. In such cases, this rating should not be applied, & the total score for the service should be computed using the pro-rating method described on pp. 8284 of the Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Quality.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

How old are recipients in the service?

What are the activities that the service provides to recipients?

What are the schedules & routines in which the service engages recipients daily? Weekly? Monthly? Yearly?

Do the activities, schedules, & routines for recipients correspond to those that are expected/valued for people in general in the culture?

Do the activities, schedules, & routines for recipients correspond to those that are expected/valued for typical people in the culture of the same age as the recipients?

Are the recipients people who are already at risk of being perceived negatively by the society? If so, what deviancy roles & images are often associated with them?

Do the images projected by any program activities or timings contribute to, or play into, existing negative stereotypes, even if the activities or timings themselves are not devalued?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Activity lists, plans, logbooks, & schedules; Program descriptions; Recipient records & program plans; Observations of recipients in the program, with special emphasis on their: activities; arrival & departure times; meal & break times; weekly, monthly, yearly schedules; Direct interviews with servers, service leaders, & recipients.

R132 Image Projection of Service Activities & Activity Timing

Criteria for Level Assignments

N.B. - If the service provides, arranges, or mediates no service activities for recipients, then this rating would not be applied, & the service’s total score is pro-rated as explained on pp. 82-84 of the 1983 Guidelines monograph (see footnote 6 on p. 4).

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by the activities, &/or their timing, that the service provides or arranges for recipients. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as subhuman, incompetent, societal outcasts, near death, etc.), the images projected by this service practice will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive service practices in this regard may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones. This is apt to be the case if recipients are very devalued people, and if any of the following is true:

a. service-provided activities are extremely devalued for persons of any age in the culture, e.g., virtually total inactivity;

b. service-provided activities are severely age - demeaning to recipients who are already at great risk of being child-imaged;

c. service-provided activities otherwise reinforce & perpetuate extremely negative cultural images of recipients as worthless, incompetent, contagious, menacing, etc.;

d. neither the service-provided activities nor their timing is extremely devaluing by themselves (as above), but in combination they suggest extreme deviancy.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, service activities & activity timing impact negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. they are significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some practices may be somewhat positive; or

b. they are severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if not to other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of the service-provided activities & their timing is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either ;

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients; or

b. the images of service activities & their timing neither significantly diminish nor significantly enhance recipients’ image.

Level4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the activities provided by the service & their timing patterns are highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but fall short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. activities & their timing are mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by the activities, routines, & rhythms provided for recipients by the service that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

R133 Promotion of Recipient Autonomy & Rights

General Statement of the Issue

A culturally normative and adaptive exercise of personal autonomy and rights can contribute to one’s competency; as well, in some societies, it is so valued that not exercising autonomy and rights incurs major image cost. This rating deals primarily with the images conveyed by the assessed program’s promoting, or failing to promote, the exercise of recipient autonomy and rights. (How this impacts on competency might be assessed by several other ratings, especially R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs, and/or R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use.)

As to autonomy, typically, greater autonomy is both accorded to children as they grow up, and also expected of them. As to rights, some rights are accorded regardless of age. Only under highly specific circumstances is it permissible to abridge an adult’s autonomy, or any person’s rights; and such abridgements are always injurious to a person’s image, and sometimes (but not always) also to a person’s competence.

At the very least for image protection, SRV requires that a human service uphold the autonomy and rights of its recipients in ways which are consistent with cultural values (not merely the laws), and recipients’ ages, by (a) encouraging and enabling recipients to develop adaptive personal autonomy, (b) extending maximum feasible culturally appropriate and valued rights to recipients, and (c) assisting and supporting recipients in the responsible exercise of their rights. This would mean that, taking into ac count a person’s impairments, l imitations, and identity , a recipient should as much as possible have the same amount of control over his or her actions, decision-making, and indeed entire life as any other person of comparable age in the culture, and should not be exposed to rules and regulations that are excessive, or that the person’s impairments, limitations, and identity do not truly require. In some regards, the service-providing entity should even be on the positive and optimistic side of the normative range, e.g., actively encouraging recipients to exercise their rights.

However, a maladaptive exercise of one’s autonomy and rights is not only injurious to self and others, and perhaps to community and society, but also incurs an image loss. Accordingly, the exercise of rights and autonomy should be governed by discipline, self-control, and a sense of responsibility to oneself and others; it should be tempered by kindness, and tolerance for an imperfect world. Generally, people learn these things as they mature, gain greater life experience, and thereby internalize cultural ideals for social behavior.

Services are challenged to be extremely conscientious in their approach to this issue, and to rigorously determine the degree of autonomy that both is practical or most adaptive for each individual recipient, and to which he or she is entitled. Conditions which limit a recipient’s autonomy should be imposed only for highly individualized reasons which are genuinely consistent with the recipient’s welfare, and/or with the welfare of others. On the other hand, total license to do anything would be as inappropriate for human service recipients as for other people, and the granting of unlimited autonomy to some recipients may be tantamount to depriving them of the necessary structure and supports which they (and possibly fellow recipients) require in order to function adaptively or even survive. In fact, allowing full autonomy to some recipients may constitute service neglect and/or breach of service responsibilities. To demand good judgment and responsible exercise of autonomy from those who are incapable of it ranges from unwise to irresponsible to sadistic. A human service should neither deny, nor act as if it denied, that autonomy and rights can be exercised either adaptively or maladaptively, and it should distinguish between license on the one hand, and responsible exercise of autonomy and rights on the other.

The existence of certain image risks must be taken into account in the extension and/or exercise of autonomy and rights. For instance, a person with a record of embezzlement, fraud, or sexual abuse would probably incur serious image risk by engaging in activities and occasions that constitute temptations and opportunities to commit the same offenses yet again, even if participation in such activities is within the person’s “rights.”

Whenever rights are restricted, close attention should be paid to the critically important principle that the least restrictive alternative should always prevail. Also, various safeguards should be implemented, not only over the processes to be followed in order to restrict a person’s autonomy and/or rights, but also after such restriction has taken place, e.g., periodic review of a determination to restrict freedom, fair hearing procedures, or independent advocates for recipients whose rights are being restricted.

Depending on the purview of the service, it may also be incumbent upon the service to take certain actions when its recipients experience an inappropriate abrogation of their autonomy and rights by other parties. A genuine commitment to this issue requires that within its purview, a service provide the degree of socio-behavioral support needed by each recipient in order for him or her to exercise the highest appropriate and feasible degree of adaptive autonomy. However, the degree of support necessary for a given recipient should be ascertained at a role-valorizingly challenging level.

One rights issue is that of ownership of possessions. As explained in No. 1 on p. 243 in R142 Image-Related Personal Possessions, poverty and devaluation tend to go together, and many devalued people either start out poor or end up that way, for many reasons. Relevant to this rating is that human services may prevent their recipients from acquiring any possessions, or may strip them of their possessions, in many ways, both obvious and covert:

a. One obvious way is to charge fees (which can be very high) for service.

b. Another is to require that (potential) recipients rid themselves of their possessions in order to obtain needed service, such as requiring (poor) people to reduce what they own before they can receive financial assistance; or if they manage to save some money, they have to “spend down” in order to maintain their eligibility for assistance.

c. A more subtle form of possession-stripping is to place elderly people into residential settings which provide them with so little space that they have to get rid of almost their whole lifetime of collected possessions in order to be able to move in.

d. Another subtle form is to maintain people as recipients in services that they do not really need, and yet for which they must pay.

e. Another common subtle form is to not sufficiently protect recipients’ belongings from theft by servers or others. In some services, so much theft may take place that recipients feel forced to decide not to carry or even acquire any possessions, for fear of having them stolen.

For people who have been systematically made and/or kept poor, as have most devalued people, it is critically important that services bend over backward to counteract these tremendous, powerful, and relentless dynamics, and that services to such persons take whatever measures, and exert whatever advocacies, are within their proper purview to at least prevent recipients from being separated from their possessions, even if they do nothing to actually help recipients gain possessions. Accordingly, a service should not only eschew practices that are possession-stripping, but should exert strong advocacy on behalf of recipients vis-à-vis other agencies that do. Particularly if recipients are poor, competency-impaired, and/or in other ways vulnerable, a service should try to protect recipients from people and services that would steal, extort, squander, or otherwise reduce or inhibit its recipients’ possessions.

R133 Promotion of Recipient Autonomy & Rights

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance recipients’ image & thereby their age identity, social status, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles a human service should extend, support, & enable maximum feasible culturally valued rights & appropriate autonomy for its recipients, & should support & enable them to exercise their rights & autonomy responsibly & adaptively, taking into account recipients’ ages, legal status, competency, & preexisting image risks.

R133 Promotion of Recipient Autonomy & Rights

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. This rating is concerned only with the imagery conveyed by the service’s extension, promotion, or denial of appropriate autonomy and rights to recipients. Whether and to what degree the service promotes competency enhancement via autonomy (e.g., initiative, greater independence, self-reliance) would be rated by other ratings, such as R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs and/or R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use. Sometimes, a practice that rates low on the rating at hand may rate high on R232, and vice versa.

2. This rating deals with anything that can be interpreted as violating the right to possessions, such as stripping people of their possessions. But promoting the acquisition of possessions of recipients is assessed by R142 Image-Related Personal Possessions (for possessions that contribute to image enhancement) and R232 Competency-Related Personal Possessions (for possessions that contribute to competency enhancement). R142 and R233 also assess whether, within its purview, the service provides sufficient space for recipient possessions.

3. Some services strip recipients of most or all rights for programmatic reasons, e.g., as part of a regimen of returning rights as a reward for good behavior, and to teach responsibility, and that actions have consequences. The latter must not be automatically assumed to be programmatically wrong, or to be an unjustified violation of rights, and might earn credit on R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs. Nonetheless, such practices do injure the image of the recipients, and thus do incur a penalty on this rating.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Raters should consider the service’s extent of commitment to, support for, & enablement of, appropriate recipient freedoms.

Whether the service permits recipients to have any possessions at all, or to be stripped of their possessions, is assessed here. Devalued people are very likely to be subjected to many & sometimes subtle dynamics that will tend to strip them of their possessions. Thus, where devalued recipients are served, the service should bend over backwards & exert whatever efforts are within its purview to defend recipients from being so stripped, or even being rendered poor or without possessions.

Raters should not confuse norms or customs with rights, nor an established cultural right with what they want to see become such a right.

Some people are at much graver risk of being imaged in negative ways than are others. Raters should give more weight to service practices that reinforce already existing negative stereotypes of recipients.

There could conceivably be some conflict between benefits to a service provider, & recipient autonomy & freedom. E.g., a service provider may deny to recipients freedom of movement so as to protect itself against lawsuits; it may censor letters & phone calls to prevent recipients from saying negative or even untrue things about the service; etc. However, this rating (& all of PASSING) measures the quality of service provided by a service provider to a recipient, & not the welfare of the service entity, as legitimate a concern as it may be.

The law sometimes violates certain human, cultural, & even constitutional rights. E.g., in the US, elderly persons who have neither given their consent nor been declared incompetent have been committed to, & detained in, nursing homes; they may lose government benefits if they absent themselves for even a few days; & unless they are formally discharged, they may never set foot again on free soil. It is wrenching that raters will occasionally have to determine when a service that adheres to the law thereby violates human rights. Some favorable consideration should be given if servers are deeply conscious of any discrepancy between legal requirements & recipients’ rights, & if they aggressively advocate for recipients.

Raters must consider the service purview in determining what to credit or penalize it for on this issue. If the service has no conceivable purview, then this rating is not applied & the pro-rating method is used (see pp. 82-84 of the Guidelines for Evaluators DuringaPASS,PASSINGorSimilarAssessment of Human Service Quality.

Some

Key Issues to be Determined

How old are the recipients?

What are recipients’ impairments, conditions, identities?

How much/what kinds of autonomy are valued people in the culture of the same age as the recipients permitted to exercise?

What rights, privileges, & freedoms does the service accord recipients?

Has the service engaged in practices & policies which strip its recipients (even in subtle ways) of their possessions?

What steps are within the legitimate purview of the service to protect recipients from being stripped of their possessions? Which steps (if any) has it taken or not taken to defend recipients against this?

What cultural rights (if any) does the service deny to recipients? What actions has it taken to address these abridgements?

What rules & regulations does the service place upon recipients? Are there areas in which recipients are not now allowed autonomy? Are these restrictions necessary or unnecessary?

Do the imposed restrictions benefit the agency at cost to the recipients? Do they benefit others at cost to an individual recipient?

What safeguards & due process measures are employed?

What supports are available within the service to promote the exercise of recipient autonomy & rights?

Does the service provide access to, & assistance with, external resources for the procurement of recipient rights?

Within its purview, does the service monitor the quality of other services its recipients receive, & take appropriate actions if recipients’ rights are abridged in these other services?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Recipient records; Observations of the program in operation; Records of recipient committee meetings; Records & guidelines on use of punishments, “time-out,” confinement, & exclusion; Written rules & regulations for recipients; Direct interviews with recipients, servers, service leaders, recipients’ family members, recipients’ advocates.

R133

Criteria for Level Assignments

N.B. - As explained on p. 13 in “The Rationales for the 5 Rating Levels, and Guidelines for Assigning Levels to Ratings,” if the service being assessed has no purview in regard to this rating issue, and if it does not act outside its purview in ways that are either detrimental or beneficial to recipients, then this rating would not be applied. Instead, the service’s total score is pro-rated, as explained on pp. 82-84 of the 1983 Guidelines monograph (see footnote 6 on p. 4). However, there are very few types of services that do not have at least some purview in regard to this issue.

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways due to the fact that little or no concern exists for the culturally normative legal & human rights or autonomy of recipients. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as menaces, subhuman, incompetent, etc.), the images projected by this service practice will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive service practices in this regard may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, service practices in regard to this issue impact negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. service conditions are significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some practices may be somewhat positive; or

b. service conditions are severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if not to other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of service practices regarding recipient rights & autonomy is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients . E.g., the steps beyond the minimum that the service has taken are balanced off by some shortcomings that are not so serious as to warrant a Level 1 or 2; or

b. service practices in this regard neither significantly diminish nor significantly enhance recipients’ image. E.g., the service does not deprive recipients of autonomy & rights, nor of opportunities to exercise these, but neither does it provide any encouragement for such exercise.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the program’s extension & support of culturally normative autonomy & rights is highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. service practices are mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by the service’s address of autonomy & rights that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable. In order to warrant this level, a service would have to do all of the following:

a. accord each recipient the full rights & autonomy that would convey a positive image, to which he or she is entitled by the culture, & which he or she is capable of exercising; and

b. continually & actively encourage further exercise & active adaptive assertion of their rights by recipients; seek & provide opportunities for the expression & practice of imagerelevant autonomy; a nd

c. intervene actively & adaptively to the limits of its purview when recipients’ image - related autonomy &/or rights are being unnecessarily or unfairly abridged by others; and

d. guide & counsel recipients in abstaining from an excessive or perverted exercise of rights & autonomies that lowers their image in the eyes of others, & risks eliciting rejection.

14 IMAGE-RELATED MISCELLANEOUS OTHER SERVICE PRACTICES

In addition to all the image-related dimensions of a service that have been covered by the previous ratings that have to do with the service’s physical setting, groupings, and program activities, there are several additional service features and/or practices which can convey image associations to and about recipients. These features include the following: the personal appearance of recipients; recipients’ own possessions; the language used by the service to and about recipients; the service name(s); the service’s funding sources and fund-raising mechanisms; and any other part or operation of the service that might embody an image, and that is not included under any of the above categories.

At least some of the service features and practices assessed by these six ratings may have some (mostly an indirect) competency impact on recipients, e.g., the language used by servers towards recipients can create role expectancies for recipients that might either lead to greater competencies, or inhibit competency-development. However, there do not exist any competency-related equivalent ratings to the image-related ones in this section. All the major SRV-related competency effects assessed in PASSING have been placed into the three categories of physical settings, groupings and other relationships, and activities, programs, and related time use.

General Statement of the Issue

The “impression” that a person makes on others has an enormous impact on how that person will be viewed and responded to by other people. This is especially true of first impressions. The personal impression that a person presents gets judged not only against general cultural norms and values, but also against cultural expectations for people of a given age, and to some degree, sex. That is, a man in his 30s is not only expected to be dressed cleanly and neatly, and in clothes appropriate for a male, but also like an adult and not like a boy. Females tend to be judged a bit more severely than males.

At least seven separate factors combine to make up the total personal impression that an individual projects. Most of these factors have both an age-appropriate and a broader cultureappropriate dimension, and each is examined below.

1. Posture. Posture includes not just a person’s carriage, but also his or her way of walking, sitting, and in fact overall physical bearing. A very stiff, stilted walk, or a hunched-over back, is not valued no matter how old the person is; people of all ages except the youngest infants are expected to hold their head erect; crawling is only valued for young children; etc.

2. Expressive mannerisms, social graces, and personality expression. It is normative and expected for children to be somewhat awkward, clumsy, not to speak as clearly nor to be as familiar with etiquette as adults, etc. On the other hand, adults are expected to be graceful, polite, to use good manners, and so on. Other mannerisms are devalued regardless of the person’s age, such as bizarre, stereotypic, and repetitive behaviors (e.g., rocking, finger-snapping, hair twirling), selfdestructive or self-mutilatory behaviors, and extremely slow or fast physical movement. Friendly demeanor also plays a big role.

3. Stigmata of impairment. Impairments, and the physical manifestations that may accompany them, are devalued in most cultures no matter how old a person is: physical anomalies, albinism, limps, symptoms that may be associated with certain impairments or syndromes, etc.

4. Other bodily characteristics or stigmata of differentness. There are yet other physical differences, some of which may not be due to an impairment, that are nonetheless devalued regardless of a person’s age, e.g., facial disfigurement, acne, obesity, bizarre gestures. A person’s height, shape, skin, etc., may also play a role.

5. Dress. Certain aspects of dress are valued or devalued regardless of a person’s age. Positively valued aspects include clothes that are clean, whole, well-fitting, fashionable, and appropriate to the season. Also, certain aspects of dress are considered appropriate only for people of a certain age or sex.

6. Grooming. Some aspects of grooming are valued for everyone in the culture, including cleanliness, neat hair that is fashionably styled, clean and trimmed fingernails, whole and clean teeth, etc. On the other hand, certain components of grooming are valued only for people of certain ages

7. Miscellaneous. Other miscellaneous qualities of the impression a person presents might also make an impact, such as body odor.

An individual’s personal image is so important that it can be the crucial determinant of whether people will even want to approach or be close to the person. For example, when people encounter someone who has strong body odor, they are apt to try to maintain some distance from that person. Similarly, people who are dirty, and dressed in shabby, ill-fitting clothing will most likely not convey a good impression to others. In fact, if devalued people present a poor personal image, this may merely confirm a pre-existing perception that such people are “less than,” or “not as good as,” others in the society, sharply increasing the likelihood that others will reject them. However, if (devalued) people present a positive, culturally valued personal image, it is much more likely that they will be responded to positively by members of the society. Therefore, in order to enhance the image of recipients’ roles, status, competencies, etc., it is fundamentally important that, within the appropriate sphere of its purview , a service pay very conscientious and systematic attention to the personal impression conveyed by its (potentially devalued) recipients, and especially to their appearance and grooming.

In order to optimize a recipient’s personal impression and the image it conveys, within its proper purview a service should provide a recipient with (a) teaching and reinforcement of positive personal appearance, (b) exposure to models of appropriate and valued appearance, (c) access to various procedures and supports that can enhance appearance, and (d) advocacy vis-à-vis other bodies and people regarding improvements in recipients’ personal appearance. To some degree, several competency ratings, such as R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs, R225 Promotion of Recipient Socio-Sexual Identity, and R233 Competency-Related Personal Possessions, also assess whether a service addresses these things. However, in this rating, the image impact issue is foremost.

What, and how much, a service should do to address the appearance of its recipients will vary depending on the type of service (residential, work, school, etc.) and its purview, the type of recipients served, and other circumstances. For example, in a work setting for adults, staff may set a dress code, comment on employees’ clothing, give verbal instruction on better appearance, and give various reinforcements to recipients for dressing well. In a school, there might also be a dress code, and lessons might focus on the importance of posture, being clean, how to dress, and even how to walk; students might conduct study projects (e.g., matching colors, fabrics, styles) on dressing and grooming; there might be a supply of tasteful clothing items in case a child lacks them or loses some; etc. In a residence, people may be told what styles and colors are flattering to them and what is appropriate for certain occasions and seasons; people may be taught how to bathe, and to launder and iron their clothes; etc.

Instruction in positive personal appearance should also focus on the visible signs (and resulting social impediments) of impairment as well. Along these lines, it is important to recognize that sometimes, a visible stigma may be much more socially damaging than the underlying impairment. For instance, wearing an obvious hearing aid can be a greater social barrier to finding and holding a job than being hard of hearing. Some stigmata (e.g., extreme height) are virtually insurmountable, but virtually all can at least be compensated for by various image-enhancing juxtapositions; others can be reduced; many can be eliminated. Past failures to attend systematically and intensively to the reduction of stigmata are in good part due to the fact that servers have not been oriented to social interpretation and imagery. Thus, it is not good enough to just teach non-ambulatory people to walk they must also be helped to as much as possible develop a normative gait. It is not sufficient to teach deaf persons to speak they must also be helped to modulate their tones of voice, if possible. Retarded people must not only be taught to dress themselves they must also be taught and assisted to dress appropriately; and so on.

Also, beyond direct teaching and reinforcement of appropriate appearance, servers themselves should demonstrate and model both positive appearance, and their consciousness and understanding of the issues at stake. Thus, servers should exhibit the same positive qualities of personal impression (cleanliness, neatness, stylishness, age-appropriateness, different dress suited to different occasions, and so on, all rated under R1251 Server-Recipient Image Transfer) that they would try to inculcate and support in their recipients.

Additionally, recipients need to have access to various procedures and “tools” in order to maintain a positive personal impression. Procedures that might be enhancing of a recipient’s personal impression range all the way from regular visits to the barber or hairdresser, to regular teeth cleaning, to an ongoing physical exercise regimen, to a special diet, to physical therapy, surgery, or other medical operations. Similarly, tools and supports that might be enhancing of a recipient’s personal appearance may include everything from personal toilet articles (such as soap, shampoo, hairbrush, comb, toothbrush), to sufficient and appropriate clothing, and means for laundering them, jewelry, mirrors, prosthetic equipment such as false teeth, artificial limb, eyeglasses, hearing aid, braces, wheelchair, etc. However, the particular means and techniques which are appropriate will vary, depending upon recipients’ ages, sex, needs, and the nature of the service, and are infinitely more important in residential than in non-residential settings, because most of the work that one does on one’s personal image takes place in one’s residence (for instructions on where different such tools and resources for impression management are rated, see No. 3 in the “Differentiation From Other Ratings” on p. 239).

However, merely because a recipient’s personal impression could be much improved does not mean that it is within the proper purview of the service being assessed to take the necessary steps to bring about the improvements. A service should exert whatever advocacy measures are within its proper purview to see to it that other people and bodies that are involved in the recipients’ lives, and that do have a relevant purview in this regard, take the appropriate measures to enhance recipients’ personal impression. For instance, staff of an education or work service might contact a recipient’s place of residence or physical therapy program to raise any concerns they may have about the recipient’s appearance.

For some types of services, and with some types of recipients, it may be well within their purview to apply measures that are somewhat coercive in order to achieve positive personal appearance for recipients. For instance, residential services for children and adolescents clearly have it within their legitimate purview to require that the children do or do not wear certain clothes, and do or do not groom themselves in a certain style. Educational services for youngsters and adolescents also have this type of legitimate control, though to a lesser degree than do residential services. Even in regard to valued adults, employers often impose a certain dress code; and where the adults at stake are impaired in competency, it is well within the purview of most work and residential services to also impose certain requirements and restrictions in regard to dress and grooming. In fact, where people are served who are impaired in competency, just about any kind of service might be in a position to make certain requirements of recipients in regard to grooming, dress, etc., because by definition, recipients are in the service because of their limited competence, and are supposed to be helped by the service to increase their competence. Therefore, they may not be fully capable of making a free and informed choice, or not be fully cognizant of all the costs and consequences, as to what and how much they would like to eat, how they will dress, whether they have dental work done, etc.

R141 Service Address of Recipient Personal Impression Impact

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance recipients’ social image & thereby their age identity, social status, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles a human service should exert maximum efforts to see to it that the personal impressions that its recipients convey are as positively culturally valued, & as enhancingly age-appropriate, as possible.

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. For some people, enhancement of the personal impression they convey may be one of their most overriding needs. For example, poor personal appearance may impair their health and their ability to be normatively productive during the day, inhibit the ability and willingness of typical people to get close to them, diminish their participation in integrative activities and environments, etc. Especially if a significant proportion of service recipients not even necessarily a majority, but a sizeable minority present negatively valued personal impressions, then one can say that a major need is for image enhancement in this area. In such instances, there may be overlap between the evidence examined for this rating and for R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs, though the levels that the service achieves on the two ratings may differ.

2. This rating is not the same as R224 Service Support for Recipient Individualization. It is possible, for example, for a group of recipients to be dressed highly age- and culture-appropriately, and yet all be dressed alike, or to each be dressed differently, and still inappropriately.

3. The presence or absence of appearance-enhancing tools and other supports can give raters a strong indication of whether servers are aware of, and sensitive to, the issue of recipients’ appearance, and the extent of service efforts to actively support and address the issue. The presence of such equipment is rated under either R142 Image-Related Personal Possessions, R233 CompetencyRelated Personal Possessions, or R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use. If the necessary procedures and tools are not present, a service cannot receive a very high level on this rating. Thus, this rating may be constrained by R142, R232, and R233, as explained on pp. 66-67 of the 1983 Guidelines (see footnote 6 on p. 4 of PASSING).

4. While the appearance of servers may provide raters with some evidence of servers’ sensitivity to the importance of modeling appropriate appearances for the recipients, the appearance of servers per se is only rated under R1251 Server-Recipient Image Transfer.

5. Certain recipients have the right to exercise autonomy over their appearance, and will resist any service efforts to improve it, perhaps to their own great detriment. Again, it is service efforts along these lines that are assessed here, while enhancing the exercise of recipient autonomy and rights in regard to personal appearance is rated under R131 Promotion of Recipient Autonomy & Rights. It is therefore conceivable that a service could get a high level on both this rating and R131, even where (some) recipients project a devalued appearance.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Some Key Issues to be Determined

Consider the nature of the service (residential, work, etc.) & the type & amount of control it can reasonably exert on this issue. It is the agency’s commitment & efforts along these lines within its appropriate purview, not its degree of success, that is to be assessed.

The personal impression projected by recipients may result from the efforts of parties other than the service being assessed, e.g., another service, or recipients’ families. Recipients’ appearances are probably mostly due to actions taken in their places of residence. A service cannot be credited or penalized for recipients’ personal image projections that are the result of others’ efforts, only for the measures the service itself is taking along these lines, including trying to overcome the negative influence & actions of others.

Despite extensive consciousness & efforts of the service, some recipients might opt for appearances, postures, grooming, etc., which project a negative image. Thus raters must determine whether the negative aspects of recipients’ personal images are due to recipient decisions, rather than to shortcomings in the strategies used by the service being assessed, including use of more coercive measures that actually are under its purview.

The vast majority of societally devalued people could benefit from personal impression enhancement measures. Devalued people are also much less likely to receive needed services (e.g., medical, dental) that would improve their personal image.

More severely impaired people may sometimes present more challenges in terms of valued appearance, because they tend to have more, & more serious, stigmata.

Some people are at much graver risk of being imaged in negative ways than are others. E.g., some devalued groups are likely to be perceived, & therefore dressed, groomed, etc., as younger than they are. Raters should give more weight to service practices that reinforce already existing negative stereotypes of recipients.

If the service being assessed has no conceivable purview as regards the issue in this rating, then this rating should not be applied, & the service’s total score should be computed using the pro-rating method explained on pp. 82-84 of the Guidelines for EvaluatorsDuringaPASS,PASSING,orSimilar AssessmentofHumanServiceQuality.

What is the actual sphere of influence & legitimate purview of the service in recipients’ lives in regard to this issue?

How old are the recipients in the service? Compare the real ages with how old their appearance “says” they are. Do they match?

Are there aspects of the general appearance that recipients present which would be considered odd, bizarre, offensive, ugly, devalued, etc.? Would you suspect that there was something different or “wrong” with the recipients merely by looking at them? By seeing several together in a group?

Are there aspects of recipients’ appearance that give an impression of high positive value?

Even for recipients who present a good impression, how much yet better might their appearance be?

What has the service purposely done to address its recipients’ personal social impression, especially for more challenging recipients:

a. How much direct teaching & reinforcement of this issue has been provided?

b. How much exposure to models of appropriate valued appearance has been provided?

c. How much access to relevant procedures & supports has been provided?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Recipient records, especially regarding past attempts to correct impairments, shape mannerisms, etc.; Agency documents that delineate the purview of the service & its appropriate range of authority & influence; Observation of recipients’ dress, grooming, posture, social graces & mannerisms, jewelry, prosthetics, stigmata, etc.;

Evidence (visual, oral, written) of aggressive advocacy by the service on the recipients’ behalf vis-à-vis the relevant parties in other spheres of the recipients’ lives (e.g., staff in other human services, recipients’ physicians), so as to improve recipients’ personal image; Direct interviews of recipients, servers, & service leaders.

R141 Service Address of Recipient Personal Impression Impact

Criteria for Level Assignments

N.B. - As explained on p. 13 in “The Rationales for the 5 Rating Levels, and Guidelines for Assigning Levels to Ratings,” if the service being assessed has no purview in regard to this rating issue, and if it does not act outside its purview in ways that are either detrimental or beneficial to recipients, then this rating would not be applied. Instead, the service’s total score is pro-rated, as explained on pp. 82-84 of the 1983 Guidelines monograph (see footnote 6 on p. 4).

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by the personal impression projected by a significant number of recipients, and awareness, effort, & commitment to this issue that are within the proper purview of the service are absent or very low. Consciously or unconsciously, servers may even foster a culturally devalued personal impression for recipients, & service resources that might enhance recipients’ positive personal appearance are very scarce. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as worthless, incompetent, dangerous, etc.), the images projected by service practices will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive service practices in this regard may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, poor service address of recipient personal impression impacts negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. it is significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some practices may be somewhat positive; or

b. it is severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if not to other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of the level of awareness, effort, & commitment of the service to recipients’ personal impression, is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients ; or

b. service practices on this issue neither significantly diminish nor significantly enhance recipients’ image. E.g., perhaps the personal impression presented by recipients causes them only minimal image risk, but there are very few efforts made to address it.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the effort & commitment by the service regarding recipients’ personal impression is highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either : a. service practices in this regard are mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients E.g.: although servers have done a great deal within their own program, they have not fully exercised the influence which is within their appropriate purview on other actors & services in the recipients’ lives; perhaps there is consciousness about, & efforts at address of, all but a few fairly minor areas of appearance; or b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and the service has done virtually everything in its purview to enhance recipients’ personal impression, & thereby their image, so that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

General Statement of the Issue

Personal possessions is an issue that has both image and competency dimensions. Therefore, there is a parallel competency rating to this image rating, namely R233 Competency-Related Personal Possessions, and some of the text of this rating will make reference to that parallel rating, and is also relevant to it. Also, certain possession issues are addressed in R133 Promotion of Recipient Autonomy & Rights.

The first and most powerful message that possessions give is an image message. That is, the first thing that will strike an observer is whether possessions are of high quality or shabby, whether they are appropriate to the owner’s age, whether they convey a specific valued or devalued role (such as doctor, postal carrier, musician, “eternal child,” burglar, etc.), and similar messages and observers will notice these things before they notice whether the possessor uses them competently, or for greater competency. Thus, possessions are primarily an image issue, though they do have a competency dimension, as noted.

As problematic as it may be, in Western societies possession of personal property is one of the most universally accepted criteria of status. Indeed, the kind and quantity of possessions one owns can play an almost status-defining role. One is more valued if one owns more, and if one’s possessions are obviously of high quality or unique. On the other hand, if one is nearly or totally without possessions, or owns cheap and junky items, then negative images are conveyed (such as that one is irresponsible or wasteful, cannot be trusted to take care of material things, or belongs to the lower social classes) unless perhaps one has made a free decision to renounce possessions for ideological reasons.

There are three reasons why personal possessions are important to a party’s image, especially if the party is devalued. The first reason is also relevant to the competency dimension of possessions, assessed by R233 Competency - Related Personal Possessions.

1. It is unfortunately true that if devalued people are not involuntarily poor to begin with, they are highly likely to become so, especially once they become recipients of formal organized human services. There are many factors that contribute to this sad reality, some of which are the following:

a. many devalued people come from generations of people who have always been poor;

b. many devalued people are considered to be unemployable;

c. few devalued people receive a good wage when they do work;

d. devalued people often spend their youth in programs that neither challenge them nor prepare them with the skills, disciplines, and motivations to pursue remunerative occupations as adults;

e. many devalued people are never taught to conserve material goods generally, including possessions;

f. via numerous ways, some human services may actually strip recipients of whatever wealth or goods they may possess. (Such stripping is assessed by R133 Promotion of Recipient Autonomy & Rights.)

2. A second reason why culturally valued possessions are especially important for devalued people is that if devalued people have had any possessions at all, these have often been of low quality to begin with, or second-hand or worn out by the time the devalued person obtained them. For example, poor and impaired persons have often been clothed with only other people’s cast-offs.

3. Third, a person’s possessions also affect the person’s role images. For example, certain possessions can image the owners as younger than they really are, thus casting them into a child-like role, perhaps even one of eternal childhood, while the possessions of adulthood convey an adult role image.

Thus, it is important that a human service promote, support, encourage, protect, and sometimes depending on its legitimate purview even provide for its recipients possessions that are culturally valued and age-appropriate (hence image-enhancing or -protective), both in quantity and in type, especially where devalued people are at stake.

Whether recipients have any possessions at all, are permitted or encouraged to have possessions, etc., affects both image and competency. However, quantity of possessions is so strongly tied to social image that it is rated here rather than under R233 Competency-Related Personal Possessions.

In order to fully support image-enhancing personal possessions for recipients, a service will often have to provide some space for these possessions. For example, someone who owns a large collection of artwork needs sufficient space to hang and display it Obviously, the type and amount of space needed depends on the service’s purview.

Built-in furniture (rated under R215 Individualizing Features of Setting) in a residence can be an obstacle to ownership of image-enhancing possessions. First of all, the furniture usually belongs to the residence, not the resident. Secondly, it prevents a recipient from bringing his or her own furniture. And built-in furniture is often less attractive and hence image-degrading than normative, free-standing furniture. It may also limit options for possession display.

Different services have different purviews, and therefore different types and degrees of responsibility to extend supports for culture-appropriate and valued possessions. It falls within the purview of many services to: (a) model the ownership of appropriate possessions; (b) model and teach a reasonable approach to possessions; and (c) provide other normative forms of suggestion, guidance, and encouragement regarding possessions. Residential services must exercise much more responsibility and concern in this regard than any other kind of service, because obviously, people tend to use and keep more of their possessions in their residence than in any other place. Also, in one’s domicile, one usually puts at least some possessions “on display,” which usually requires a lot of space.

In non-residential services, other kinds of possessions would be emphasized. For instance, in vocational and educational services, what recipients display on their desks, their work tools, school workbooks, etc., should project positive images on them, and their staff could bring and display possessions that set positive role examples for the recipients.

The following section in italics addresses issues that only arise in the assessment of services explicitly based on a value system that teaches detachment from, and depreciation of, possessions, and that may even exalt (voluntary) poverty, perhaps in order to show that a person’s worth is not tied to his or her possessions. Obviously, because most cultures place a high value on possessions, and because SRV implementation would be referenced against cultural norms and values, a service that is based on such a value system may have difficulty adhering to its guiding ideology while being maximally role -valorizing at the same time. However, most such services can still be extensively role -valorizing as long as they meet the following criteria.

1. The value system of the service can positively appeal to some prevailing relevant values in the larger society. For example, detachment from possessions that leads to frugality, conservation of material goods, and sharing of one’s goods is valued in Western societies, whereas detachment from possessions to the point of nudity is not.

2. Detachment from possessions may be taught and modeled by the servers, but it must not be imposed on recipients.

3. Relatedly, recipients should be defended against being stripped by others of their possessions, and contrary to their own wishes (assessed by R133 Promotion of Recipient Autonomy & Rights).

4. The service should emphasize age -appropriateness in whatever possessions recipients do have.

5. If the service’s recipients are people who are devalued and/or poor, especially if they have been poor for much of their lives, it must at least permit (and would optimally even support) recipients to obtain possessions of which they may have been deprived, in order to allow them the experience of having and keeping things, perhaps for the first time in their lives, and thus to choose whether to surrender such possessions voluntarily.

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance its recipients’ image & thereby their age identity, social status, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles a service should do the following within its appropriate purview: (a) encourage & support its recipients to acquire, own, manage, maintain, & preserve a culturally normative quantity of possessions that are both culturally valued & appropriate to their ages; (b) its servers should model the possession of valued & age-appropriate objects; & (c) it should provide adequate space for recipients to keep, & perhaps display, image-enhancing possessions.

R142 Image - Related Personal Possessions

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. This rating does not assess images conveyed by any items that belong to the service (agency-owned equipment, furnishings, etc.), even though the recipients may use these articles in the course of their activities. The image of such agency-owned items is rated under R145 Image Projection of Miscellaneous Aspects of a Service.

2. There are any number of reasons why recipients may lack possessions: a background of poverty, theft by servers, etc. However, if the service being assessed prevents recipients from acquiring possessions, fails to protect recipients from being stripped of possessions by others, or even itself does or permits things that strip or separate recipients from their possessions, then it would be penalized under R133 Promotion of Recipient Autonomy & Rights. But the quantity of, and the images projected by, recipients’ possessions are rated here.

3. There are a number of distinctions that must be made between this rating and R233 Competency-Related Personal Possessions.

a. R233 Competency-Related Personal Possessions rates whether recipients have possessions that are conducive to their acquisition and exercise of competency, and regardless of the amount, or image, of those possessions. Conceivably, the imagery associated with competency-enhancing possessions might not be very positive. For instance, the service may encourage adult recipients to purchase children’s lunchboxes, in order that they may learn to pack a lunch. While recipients’ competencies may indeed be enhanced by the use of such lunchboxes, their image would still be demeaned by the age-inappropriateness of childish lunch pails. Thus, the same possession may rate low on one personal possessions rating and high on the other.

b. Whether within its purview the service promotes ownership of image-related possessions is rated here. Whether within its purview the service promotes ownership of competency-related possessions specifically is rated under R233 Competency-Related Possessions.

c. Whether, within its purview, the service provides space for recipients to keep, store, and/or display their image-related possessions is rated here. Whether within its purview the service provides space specifically for competency-related possessions (e.g., prosthetic devices) is rated under R233 Competency-Related Personal Possessions.

d. Whether the service supports recipients, or even teaches them, to take care of their possessions is assessed under R233 Competency-Related Personal Possessions.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Raters should consider the nature of the recipients & of the service (e.g., residential, work, etc.), & the type & amount of control the program can reasonably be expected to have over this issue. The type of service being assessed also has implications to the amount of storage space for image-related possessions that it can be expected to provide. E.g., a hospital in which people stay for a brief time while having their long-term residence elsewhere would not be expected to provide much space for possessions.

In congregate living in general, & especially in certain types for devalued people, it is common to provide very little space for recipients’ possessions, often as a result of fiscal constraints or for administrative/staff convenience. However, a service would still have to be down-rated for such practices.

If there is insufficient space in the service for recipients to bring & store their possessions, then there will obviously be a limit on how many possessions recipients can realistically own, or at least have while they are at the service site.

Built-in furnishings are likely to prevent a high rating level both on this rating & on R215 Individualizing Features of Setting.

Raters must keep in mind that one could be very wealthy (e.g., in paper assets or real estate) & yet have few portable possessions that require space; & that a service might deny a recipient purview-appropriate space for image-related possessions, even if the recipient has vast wealth elsewhere.

Some people are at much graver risk of having no possessions, &/or of having possessions which are imagedemeaning. Raters should give greater weight to shortcomings which enlarge such pre-existing risks for recipients.

Recipient possessions that are more visible (e.g., that recipients display, or that they carry with them quite frequently) should ordinarily be given more weight than those which are less visible. Especially where devalued people are at stake, even one or a few highly visible image-impairing possessions are apt to cancel out the benefits of any less visible image-enhancing possessions.

In many types of services, it is quite appropriate, & indeed important, for servers to contact other people (e.g., family) or services active in the recipients’ lives, & request their participation in addressing the issue at hand.

If the service being assessed has no conceivable purview as regards the issue in this rating, then this rating should not be applied, & the service’s total score should be computed using the pro-rating method explained on pp. 82-84 of the GuidelinesforEvaluatorsDuringaPASS,PASSING,orSimilar AssessmentofHumanServiceQuality.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

What is the actual sphere of influence of the service in regard to recipients’ personal possessions?

Who are the recipients? Are they people who, either individually or as a class, have been subjected to experiences & dynamics that are apt to result in their impoverishment?

How old are they?

What kinds of things (if any) do recipients own & use in the service?

What images about the recipients are conveyed by the possessions that the service encourages or provides?

Do the images conveyed match recipients’ ages?

What does the service do to support the acquisition & display of recipient personal possessions which carry valued images? E.g., does the service provide adequate space for the recipients to keep, store, &/or display personal possessions?

How much space would a service of this type to valued people in society provide for its recipients’ possessions? Does this service being assessed provide at least an equivalent amount of space for its recipients?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Salary/ allowance (where appropriate) paid to recipients; Observations of recipients’ personal spaces (e.g., bedrooms, work areas), & of what recipients carry with them;

Recipient records;

Modeling, reinforcement, & encouragement by servers; Direct interviews with servers, service leaders, & recipients.

R142 Image - Related Personal Possessions

Criteria for Level Assignments

N.B. - As explained on p. 13 in “The Rationales for the 5 Rating Levels, and Guidelines for Assigning Levels to Ratings,” if the service being assessed has no purview in regard to this rating issue, and if it does not act outside its purview in ways that are either detrimental or beneficial to recipients, then this rating would not be applied. Instead, the service’s total score is pro-rated, as explained on pp. 82-84 of the 1983 Guidelines monograph (see footnote 6 on p. 4).

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by the service’s practices in regard to the amount &/or nature of recipients’ personal possessions. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as subhuman, menaces, eternal children, incompetent, etc.), the images projected by this service practice will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive service practices in this regard may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, service practices in regard to this issue impact negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. service conditions are significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some practices may be somewhat positive; or

b. service conditions are severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if not to other recipients.

Level3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of service practices in regard to the nature &/or amount of recipient possessions is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients . E.g., recipients who are at image risk have been helped to have generally imageappropriate possessions, but the service still allows or supports a few highly visible possessions which are not appropriate to recipients’ ages, & these negate the benefit of the more positively-imaging ones, & thus balance out; or

b. service practices in this regard neither significantly diminish nor significantly enhance recipients’ image.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the service practices relating to the amount &/or nature of recipients’ possessions are highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but fall short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. service practices are mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients . E.g.: there is a distinct though modest image deficiency in recipients’ possessions, & the service is not very concerned with the issue, but the recipients are not very much at risk; recipients who are at risk have some sporadic imageimpairing possessi ons, & the service is making a moderate attempt to raise recipient consciousness; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by the service’s address of their personal possessions th at no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

143 IMAGE PROJECTION OF LANGUAGE & LABELING PRACTICES

The terms “language” and “labeling practices” as used in PASSING refer to types of communication that are spoken, written, and enacted (by gestures, signs, code, etc.), and include both the content and the form of a communication.

When a communication is addressed to people (e.g., in a letter, conversation, or speech), it is called “direct address.” When a communication is about, rather than addressed to, a party (e.g., people discuss a recipient, a brochure describes a service and its recipient group), it is called “indirect address.” Both direct and indirect forms of address are assessed in the following two ratings.

Language is a universal symbol system which people use to communicate, and it carries extremely powerful messages to its recipients. Two ways in which language communicates are of special relevance here: (a) it can provide factual, cognitive information, as when a person gives a traveler directions on how to get from one place to another; and (b) it can convey (consciously or unconsciously) a judgment or vivid affective message about a phenomenon, so that recipients of the communication are apt to form a very positive or very negative mental image of the phenomenon communicated about, sometimes before they even actually encounter it. Both factual, cognitive information and affective messages can be conveyed by the content of a communication ( what is said, written, etc.) and its form ( how it is said, written, etc., e.g., tone of voice, demand or query).

PASSING addresses the cognitive element to some degree, but it pays special attention to the valueand affect-laden imagery conveyed by language and labeling.

All of the above implies that the language which people use to communicate to or about other people carries messages both to the person being communicated to, as well as to observers. For example, when a teacher tells a pupil that “you are smart and have done good work,” a certain message is conveyed both to the student him or herself, and to all the other students who witness the teacher give the compliment. This is true of language used not only about recipients, but also about many entities connected to recipients, such as their services, facilities, organizations, etc. For example, a very different impression about an organization and the people it employs is conveyed by the name “Progress Industries” than by “Happiday Haven.” In fact, businesses and industries such as automobile manufacturers often expend enormous cost and efforts to devise organizational and product names that (often unconsciously) convey positive and avoid negative messages or images, because they are fully aware that the messages associated with the industry and product names will transfer to the product itself, and hence how it sells.

SRV requires that, as much as is possible and honest, the language and labeling practices of a human service convey very positive images about its recipients, and about other people like its recipients, such as perhaps about a whole class of devalued persons. Optimally, the language and labeling practices of human services would meet the following six requirements.

1. Interpret persons as filling positively valued social roles , such as those of human being, citizen, worker, student, friend, roommate, etc., rather than negative ones, such as animal, vegetable, menace, object of dread, pitiable figure, sick patient, convict, parolee, etc.

2. Enhance the social status of a person or group This can be done by language which is considerate, by polite forms of address and respectful tones of voice, by service and location names which reflect high social prestige, etc.

3. Be appropriate to, and respectful of, people’s ages. For example, only children and services to them should be referred to with words such as “kids” or “children”; these terms should not be used in reference to adults or elderly people, or services to them.

4. Convey and facilitate identification with devalued people, rather than physical or social distance or separateness from them. For example, use of terms such as "we" and "us" to include both recipients and servers, and warm and caring tones of voice rather than coolness or even hostility, convey that the speaker/writer identifies with the devalued people being communicated about, and makes it easier for other people to identify with such persons. Similarly, service names should capitalize upon positive values such as community, family, and togetherness, rather than emphasizing isolation and separateness.

5. Convey the impression that the person or group is competent, or can become more so. This could be done, for example, by referring to the impaired recipients of a work program as “trainees,” “workers,” and “employees.” In the same way, inclusion of such words as “reliable,” “precision,” and “dependable” in the name of such a service would convey the messages that the recipients of the service are reliable, precise, and dependable, rather than lazy, unsafe, incapable, etc.

6. Lastly, language and labeling practices should generally emphasize the positive life circumstances and attributes of recipients , rather than the negative ones. For instance, it is not rolevalorizing to use language which equates a person with his or her impairing condition, service site or funding source, prosthesis, prognosis, diagnosis, etc. Program names often convey negative messages about the characteristics and life conditions of their recipients.

However, as we shall reiterate, such efforts should not be misleading, or outright deceptive, as by concealing or denying the existence of problematic conditions of recipients to parties that should know about them. As long as a condition is devalued, then naming it (as by including it in an agency name, or as an adjective for a person who has that condition) will automatically attract at least some degree of negative image. However, there may be very good reasons some derived from other SRV considerations, some derived from non-SRV considerations for using the name of a devalued condition in these ways, and these reasons will often outweigh the concern with the negative imagery that such terms will draw. Therefore, the fact of any such negative attention or imagery must be acknowledged, but this fact does not mean that such negatively-imaged terms should never be used in the same way that other service practices that may carry an image or competency cost may nonetheless be justified for non-SRV reasons or competing SRV reasons, even as the fact of the respective image or competency cost must be recognized by PASSING.

Also, as of the date of this edition of PASSING, there prevails much outright craziness in human services regarding the language used to identify individuals and classes that have devalued conditions, and to a lesser degree, the language used to name services and programs. Claims are made that certain uses of language are image-impairing (e.g., that using an identifying adjective before the word person, as in “blind person,” is degrading, and that the adjective must always come after, as in “person with blindness”) when there is no reason or evidence to sustain the claim. Services are given names that totally obscure what the service is and does, and whom it serves, and though this can be problematic, it is probably not an SRV issue. One thing that may be happening is that people dislike a particular language use, and then mistakenly conclude that because they dislike it, it must be conveying a negative image to the general public.

Raters should keep in mind that terms get changed not because they truly convey a more positive image while being honest, but merely because they are popular or unpopular. In fact, the more au courant term may be more image-problematic than the one that is rejected as outdated, demeaning, etc. For instance, some efforts to address and refer to devalued people and their services are so contrived, artificial, awkward and unnatural, and/or removed from reality, as to elicit ridicule, which reveals the image problems with it. Raters must therefore not grant legitimacy to invalid claims, nor be ruled by whatever is the current “politically correct” idiom, if these are problematic in terms of honesty and clarity of communication, consistency with reality, and total image impact.

General Statement of the Issue

In order to enhance the image of people who are socially devalued, the language and labeling practices that human service personnel use to and about individual recipients, a recipient group as a whole, or people like their recipients, should be appropriate to the recipients’ ages, and should convey messages that are as positive as honestly possible.

In regard to age-appropriate address, the rules for address in North American society are (fortunately) relatively simple. Address by first name is accepted for both children and adults for even the most casual acquaintances, except in a relatively small number of specific settings, or in relationships in which considerable status differential prevails, e.g., employee to employer, young child or adult to elderly person. It is also accepted to use the more status-conveying form when in doubt.

However, the issue is more challenging in regard to some other dimensions of address and labeling that might convey meaning about a party. For instance, some information that may on occasion need to be conveyed about devalued people is inherently not very positive even though it is factual, e.g., that people cannot see or hear, have broken the law, are old, are ill, or have intellectual deficits. SRV does not require that unpleasant, negatively valued facts about devalued people be denied, hidden, or covered up with language; however, it does require that servers “bend over backwards” to use the least stigmatizing, most positively enhancing and/or compensating terms, tones of voice, labels, etc., while conveying what needs to be conveyed. SRV also implies that negative information not be conveyed if it is irrelevant to the communication, or to the party being communicated with, since it is apt to prejudice the recipient of communication against the party being communicated about.

As noted in the introduction to the two 143 Image Projection of Language & Labeling Practices ratings, raters must not grant legitimacy to invalid claims about what is or is not enhancing language, nor be ruled by whatever is the current “politically correct” idiom even when promoted with good intentions if these are problematic in terms of honesty and clarity of communication, consistency with reality, and total image impact. A prime example of a supposed language “improvement” that actually made things worse image-wise is to change from “Down’s syndrome” to “Down syndrome” (the spelling with the apostrophe-s is the way a vast number of medical syndromes are named i.e., after the person or persons who discovered or delineated it whereas the spelling without these is both unlike the standard practice, and also carries the negative image of down, in contrast to up).

Tone of voice is also a consideration. It can convey not only respect, deference, amusement, tolerance, anger, impatience, etc., and their opposites; it can also convey age image messages. For instance, even if an adult male is referred to as “Mr. Jones,” the tone of voice of something said to Mr. Jones may give the impression that the speaker sees him as an immature child.

Thus, altogether, communications to and about recipients should convey dignity, respect, and consideration; and impress upon the listener the value and worth of the recipients, rather than devalued status.

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance recipients’ social image--& thereby their age identity, social status, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles servers should address & discuss their recipients in a fashion that is as enhancing as possible, consistent with reality, communication needs, cultural norms, & recipients’ ages.

R1431 Image Projection of Personal Labeling Practices

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. R1431 Image Projection of Personal Labeling Practices is concerned only with the ways in which servers communicate to and about (potential) service recipients not with the names of the service, its programs, its location, etc., as in R1432 Serving Entity, Program, Setting, & Location Names.

2. Service language referring to entities other than the recipients (e.g., service activities, job titles, etc.) are not rated here but under R145 Image Projection of Miscellaneous Aspects of a Service.

3. Although the quality of server interactions with the recipients may be related to the types of language and labeling that servers use to and about recipients, the former is specifically rated under R223 Life-Enriching Interactions Among Recipients, Servers, & Others.

4. Server language practices other than to or about recipients (e.g., servers using crude words, being unable to speak the prevailing tongue, etc.) are not rated here, but perhaps in R1251 ServerRecipient Image Transfer or R223 Life-Enriching Interactions Among Recipients, Servers & Others.

Suggested Guidelines for Collecting and Using Evidence R1431 Image Projection of Personal Labeling Practices

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

The language used by service personnel in different positions must be given different weight, according to the following guidelines.

1. Service personnel who have more direct contact with recipients are likely to have more of an impact with their language practices than others with less contact.

2. Some personnel (e.g., board members, public relations staff) have more public visibility & attributed prestige as representatives of the agency.

3. Some servers are perceived as models of appropriate & acceptable behavior, e.g., the principal, staff development director, & union representative in a school.

Therefore, raters should give greater weight to both positive & negative language when it is used by people in the above categories.

Some people are at much graver risk of being imaged in negative ways than are others. Raters should give more weight to service practices that reinforce already existing negative stereotypes of the recipients.

In order to assess the degree to which servers are consistent in their language practices & have fully internalized the issue, their behavior in the presence of raters must be compared to practices evidenced in brochures, news releases, articles written by staff, agency reports, etc.

It may sometimes be necessary to use terminology which, though accurate, does carry images that are negative or neutral at best. Where it is necessary to use such language in order to communicate realities about a person’s life, these should convey as minimally negative messages as possible.

People today have a hard time striking a balance between avoiding unnecessary negative messages about recipients, & communicating unpleasant facts honestly & relevantly. The result is often nontransparent communication, or outright babble, or the use of “politically correct” euphemisms that can be outright counterproductive, as when they elicit ridicule or scorn from members of the public.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

How old are the service recipients?

What language do servers use to address (potential) recipients?

What language do servers use to refer to (potential) recipients?

What tone(s) of voice do servers use in speaking to/about (potential) recipients?

How are (potential) recipients referred to & labeled in writing?

Do the labels, forms of address, & tones of voice that servers use in speaking to & about (potential) recipients match the cultural standards for valued people of about the same ages as the recipients?

What positive & negative images are conveyed about (potential) recipients by the language used by servers?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Agency & program descriptions & plans;

Service brochures, public education & publicity materials;

Recipient records;

Individual recipient program plans;

News clippings; Correspondence;

Observations of interactions between servers & recipients;

Direct interviews with servers, service leaders, & recipients.

R1431 Image Projection of Personal Labeling Practices

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by the extremely negative & demeaning language used to & about recipients, conveying messages of subhumanity, vice, death, contagion, corruption, decay, menace, worthlessness, non-belongingness, much greater dependency, impairment, or incapacity than exists, etc. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as worthless, subhuman, dangerous, etc.), the images projected by this service practice will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive practices may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones. This is probably the case if very negatively-imaging language is used by both the following:

a. even a small number of servers who have high visibility & credibility in the eyes of the public, such as service administrators, public relations personnel, etc.; and

b. at least a significant minority of personnel who do not have quite as high visibility & credibility as representatives of the service, but who do have a great deal of contact with the recipients, such as direct servers.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the personal labeling practices of the service impact negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. they are significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some practices may be somewhat positive. This level should be assigned if even a significant minority of servers who are in highly visible or credible positions, &/or who are in frequent contact with recipients, use inappropriate but not devastating language; or

b. they are severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if not to other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of the use of personal & labeling to & about recipients is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients . E.g.: mixed in with efforts to introduce/maintain positive practices are some that are so unrealistic as to risk ridicule; although servers address recipients in ways which are appropriate to their ages & which do not equate them with their needs or impairments, tones of voice may belie a lingering perception of recipients as somewhat younger than their ages, or as of somewhat less value than other people; or

b. personal labeling practices neither significantly diminish nor significantly enhance recipients’ image.

N.B. - It is admittedly difficult to specify what a Level 3 for this rating would be.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the personal labeling practices in the service are highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but fall short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. the personal labeling practices are mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipient ; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by positive personal labeling practices of the service that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable. E.g., not only do servers speak to & about recipients in a sincere, respectful, & age-appropriate manner, but they have even reviewed all their agency literature & records for inappropriate language, & have corrected inappropriate labeling with more enhancing terms.

General Statement of the Issue

The names of service entities, programs, settings, and locations should convey positive messages about the people whom they serve, and about devalued people in general, but as noted, should do so without being deceptive and misleading, which is apt in the end to have negative results rather than positive image impacts.

For the purposes of this rating, the following five kinds of “names” should be considered.

1. Name of service -providing or governing entity. Most services are governed or administered by a larger body, especially if the service is one of a number run by an organization. For the purposes of this rating, the full, official name of the governing organization or sponsoring body of a program is to be considered the serving entity name. For example, if raters are assessing a special education class for impaired children that is run by the Midtown Public School District, then “Midtown Public School District” constitutes the service-providing entity name; if a day program for elderly people is operated by a psychiatric institution, even if the institution is actually located elsewhere, then the name of the institution is considered the service-providing entity name; if a service is run by a free-lance clinician or proprietary provider, whatever is the official incorporated name (as appears on its stationery, for instance) is the service-providing entity’s name; etc.

2. Program name. Sometimes, the name of a program is the same as that of its sponsoring body, especially when a service runs only one program. Often, within a service, different programs have different names. If a team were assessing only the pre-vocational training program of a school system, then the name of the pre-vocational training program would be the program name.

3. Setting name. Most services are rendered in some type of setting, such as a house, school, factory, campground, etc. Sometimes these settings have names which may or may not be the same as the name of the programs which take place in them. For example, an educational program for severely and profoundly retarded teenagers may be located in the Palm Grove Elementary School, which would then be considered a setting name for that service; a work program for mentally disordered adults might be located in the Eastwood Industrial Park, which would be a setting name; a residential program may be provided in a house that has no name, and thus, that service would not have a setting name, although it may have a serving entity, program, and/or location name; etc.

4. Location name. The location name of a service is (a) the street address (e.g., 120 North Main Street, 13 Felon Avenue, 1100 Tallow Blvd.), (b) neighborhood or subdivision name (e.g., Foxhill, End-of-the-Line, East Side), and (c) town or city (e.g., Camden, Creep Falls, Royal Harbor) in which the service is located. Thus, a service could have three or more location names to be rated. If a service is not rendered in one spot e.g., a program which sends itinerant teachers out to students’ homes then the address of its headquarters or central office is to be considered the location name.

5. The acronyms formed by any of the official serving entity, service, program or location names, even if the service or servers do not use this acronym, or even if the acronym is not official. For example, the acronym of a parent resource service that is officially named Parents Information Group is PIG, even if its members try to avoid using the acronym.

The images evoked by these names should be judged in relation to both societal norms, as well as the norms of the area in which the service is located. The meaning impact of these names will depend upon the following seven factors.

1. The obvious and undisguised cultural meaning or message of some terms must be considered. For example, the term “rapist” conveys certain presumedly factual information, is widely understood to do so, and carries strong negative associations. Thus, a program name such as “Rapists’ and Voyeurism Rehabilitation Center” is apt to become an image obstacle to the rehabilitation and appropriate forms of social integration of sexual offenders. On the other hand, such terms as “education” and “work” also convey certain presumedly factual information, and are widely culturally valued. Thus, the use of these terms in the name of just about any day service to children or adults would be enhancing to the recipients. Unless it is absolutely necessary (usually, only in order to convey truly needed factual information), the use of terms with culturally devalued meanings in the name of a program or service should be avoided in favor of positively-imaged, or at least neutral, terms.

A service might be named for a person or family, but one who is image-tainted. A worst-case example would be the Adolf Hitler Military School for Delinquent Boys (Hitler was the Nazi dictator in Germany who launched World War II) But less infamous, perhaps only locally-known, examples do occur.

2. The name of a human service should be consistent with the type of name (if any) that might be applied to similar services for ordinary citizens In some instances, this would mean avoidance of any names altogether, e.g., a residence would be referred to by its location name only, such as 221B Baker Street, because (with minor regional exceptions) ordinary homes in our culture are rarely named, although apartment complexes sometimes are. In other cases, it might mean the adoption of the name of a highly respected individual, e.g., the Kennedy Child Development Center or Albert Schweitzer School. (In the US, Kennedy usually refers to former President John F. Kennedy.) However, while schools often carry the name of a famous person, industries rarely do, unless the person was the industry’s founder. So, for instance, it would be incongruous to call a sheltered work operation the Harry S. Truman Occupational Center (Truman was also a former US president).

3. Many typical services, programs, and settings in our society carry names which convey a clear image of the age of the people who use them. For example, the terms “high school” or “college” generally indicate young people in their teens and twenties; “elementary school,” “child guidance center,” “boy scouts,” and “girl scouts” all imply services to children; and “kindergarten,” “child development,” etc., are terms applied to services for young children. Services sometimes have names which are not congruent with the ages of their recipients, and which are sometimes age-degrading. For example, adults are often served in residential programs labeled “foster care” (a term which is associated with infants and children), while infants and children may be living in “boarding homes” (a label largely associated with adults). The child-related term “day care” is very age-degrading when it is attached to programs that serve mature adults or even elderly persons. Sometimes, ageinappropriateness of service names results from the fact that recipients in a service are of widely different age groups. (The grouping issue itself is rated elsewhere; see No. 6 in the “Differentiation From Other Ratings.”) A common example of this practice is the placement of impaired adolescents (sometimes even young adults) into programs that take place in elementary schools for children. Furthermore, even a term with an adult image, such as “college,” can be age-degraded if additional terms are attached to it, or if it is incorrectly spelled in a childish manner. For example, the label “kollege,” and especially “kiddie kollege,” clearly conveys an image of childishness.

4. The meaning of some names differs from locale to locale, or from region to region . The name “developmental center” in some cities marks a program as serving impaired people, while in another community, all services for young children may be called “child development centers.” Similarly, “Noble Industries, Inc.” could ordinarily be a highly enhancing name for a sheltered workshop for mentally retarded individuals. However, if the name has become inextricably associated with other mental retardation services (e.g., “Noble Home,” “Noble Center,” “Noble School”), as it is in some areas, then the industry would be clearly identified as deviancy-related by an otherwise enhancing term in its name.

5.The other image associations of a term , especially in association with certain (devalued) classes of people. Some names may be appropriate or common within a given area, but may nonetheless have negative impact on human service recipients because of certain image associations. For instance, in a part of town known as “Cottonwood,” a number of typical programs, resources, streets, etc., may be called “Cottonwood,” e.g., the Cottonwood Laundromat. However, if a work service for impaired people in that area of town is called “Cottonwood Industrial Center,” there is nonetheless the risk of some image loss to the recipients, because of historical stereotypes that devalued people belong “out in the woods” and far away from the rest of society, and because cottonwood trees are not always valued (because they shed their seeds in a cottony fluff). Similarly, location of a residence for severely impaired children in the town of “Sinking Springs” constitutes a clearly negative image for those children, even though all the people who live in that town would have the same name in their address.

6.The history of a service name , or of a particular sponsoring body, may also convey various image messages. For example, the service name “state school” is not in and of itself a negative name, but it now carries negative image associations because of its historical attachment to scandalous, large, and segregated institutions. Similarly, other names and components of names are negatively imaging, especially to certain groups of devalued people, because of their historical associations with human services to devalued people. These include such terms as: haven, home, village, acres, opportunity, hope, happy, sun, friendship, care, rest, -side, heights, view, crest, center, etc.

7. Lastly, “clang associations” can be expected to occur to people when they see or hear certain official service, program or location names. This refers to the phenomenon that one word may sound like, or evoke, another word, e.g.: Toomey Highrise (for the elderly) sounds like “tomb-y”; Van Duyn Nursing Home sounds like “dyin’“; a residence called Emmaus House is apt to be called “the mouse house” by many people; the word “alpha” evokes the association “omega” and “tat” often evokes “tit”; the acronym “OKEY” (for Overland Kindergarten for Exceptional Youth) brings to mind “DOKEY”; “TIP” for “Telephone Information on Programs,” a telephone agency referral service, evokes “TOP”; etc.

PASSING would rate the positiveness or negativeness of the image of even a misleading name. Thus, a service that called itself “Intensive Rehabilitation Center” would get a positive level on this rating even if it were a snake pit. But some names can be so exaggeratedly positive as to elicit ridicule, perhaps exemplified by “Seventh Heaven” or “Elysian Fields,” and because they elicit ridicule, such names would be down-rated here.

While services should eschew misleading names, as mentioned above, PASSING does not assess any discrepancy between what a service name proclaims, and what the service actually does, or the content it delivers. For instance, a service may call itself “self-advocacy,” but actually be a social club, rather than an organization that conducts advocacy or teaches people how to advocate for themselves. A service may be called a “child advocacy center,” but do no advocacy, only compile statistics on child contacts with the criminal justice system. A service may be called “day habilitation,” but provide no habilitation at all, merely TV-watching and games-playing to keep people occupied. (These are all non-fictitious examples.) The only way in which such a discrepancy could be rated in PASSING is if the service name was inconsistent with the kinds of names that would be given to its culturally valued analogues in valued society (see No. 2 on the preceding page).

Rating Requirements Chart R1432 Serving Entity, Program, Setting, & Location Names

SRV Requirements

The names & acronyms (if any) of a human service-providing entity, its programs, its facility, & its setting or location, & the images & associations they evoke, should be as culturally valued as is honestly possible so as to promote a positive image of the age identity, social status, & social roles, of the people served.

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. This rating is concerned only with the official names of the service entity, program, setting, and location, any acronyms thereof, and image associations to these. Sometimes, a program may adopt an official name, but be called by service personnel something totally different, perhaps by an outdated name. For example, an institution may now be officially named the “South Side Center,” but staff may still call it the “state home and hospital.” Any nicknames that are used/promoted by servers, but are not part of the current, official name of the service are not rated here, but might be considered under R145 Image Projection of Miscellaneous Aspects of a Service.

2. The names of the bodies which coordinate or regulate the service being assessed are rated under R145 Image Projection of Miscellaneous Aspects of a Service, rather than here. For example, a group residence may be regulated, licensed, and funded by the state Department of Mental Retardation. The name “Department of Mental Retardation” would thus be rated under R145, and if it is a service funder, then also under R144 Image Projection of Service Funding.

3. Any logos or similar graphic representations of the service are rated under R145 Image Projection of Miscellaneous Aspects of a Service.

4. Any signs that bear the name, acronym, or logo of the service would probably be rated under a number of ratings, including R1131 External Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue, and R1111 Setting-Neighborhood Harmony. Here, only the official name is rated, regardless of whether it appears on any sign. Where there has been a name change, and the signs, letterhead, etc., have not yet been changed, the old name might be rated under R145 Image Projection of Miscellaneous Aspects of a Service, as might any unofficial names or acronyms on any signs.

5. Raters should also make the distinction between any image that may be elicited by the history of a label or name , which is rated here, and image association due to the history of the service setting itself, which is rated under R1152 Image Projection of Setting History.

6. A service name might be age-inappropriate for at least some recipients because recipients have been grouped in ways which violate culturally valued analogues. For example, a place named King’s Day Care Center for both children and dependent adults would be quite positive if it served only children, but it projects negatively on its adult recipients. In instances such as these, the service would probably be down-rated both on this rating and on R1232 Image Projection of Recipient Grouping Age Image, and possibly R2212 Competency-Related Intra- Service Recipient Grouping Composition.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

There are 5 different types of names to be considered in this rating: service entity names; program names; setting names; location names; acronyms.

In regard to the above, raters must consider (a) the obvious undisguised meaning of names, (b) whether similar services to valued people are named in like fashion, (c) the age images of the names, (d) the local/regional meaning of the names, (e) other image associations of a term or name, (f)the history of the names, & (g) any “clang associations” to the names.

Program names should be given greatest weight, since they are most apt to immediately affect recipients’ image. Setting names are of second highest importance. Serviceproviding entity names would usually carry lower weight, unless such names & program names are identical. If the program being assessed is in the same location as the administrative headquarters of its service-providing agency, then the agency name will have greater impact on recipients’ image than it would if the 2 locations were separate Location names would usually carry lowest weight of all. Service acronyms should ordinarily be given less weight than the official program & service entity names, unless the acronym is more commonly used, more widely known, & more widely promoted than the official names.

Service names may have been selected in a conscious attempt to underline the devalued status or impairing condition of the recipients. E.g., a service may deliberately choose the name “Home for Crippled Children” in the belief that the name can induce desirable feelings of pity, & will incline people to donate money & other gifts to the service. While knowledge of how & why a particular name was chosen may shed important light on the service’s ideology, raters must not take these rationales into account. E.g., no matter how otherwise desirable & appropriate a location on Gallows Hill may be, the location name cannot be enhancing to any service located there.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

What is the official name/acronym of the service-providing or governing organization?

What is the official name/acronym of the program(s) being assessed?

What is the official name (if any) of the setting in which the program(s) take(s) place?

What is the street address of the service?

What is the name of the town/city in which the service is located?

Is there any other name/acronym of the location or neighborhood of the program being assessed?

Do any of the above elicit positive or negative clang associations?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Articles of incorporation & by-laws; Agency letterhead stationery; Program descriptions; Tour of the neighborhood; Street & area maps; Direct interviews with members of the community;

Direct interviews with service leaders & servers.

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

Some people are at much graver risk of being imaged in negative ways than are others. The degree to which recipients are at risk should be taken into account in determining the impact of a name, & raters should give more weight to service practices that reinforce already existing negative stereotypes of the recipients.

The intent of this rating is not to reward names that deny recipients’ identities or problems, nor to hide the atrocities that a service may commit, but only (a) to avoid adding unnecessarily to any negative images that recipients may already have; & (b) to enhance recipients’ image, to the degree to which this can realistically be accomplished by names. In order to determine whether a negative name is “unnecessarily” negative, raters would first determine whether a culturally valued analogue exists to the type of names at issue. If there is such an analogue, then any negative components of the name are probably unnecessary. If there is no good culturally valued analogue for names of the type of service being assessed (such as a prison), then raters should try to determine if a more enhancing or less stigmatizing but still honest & accurate name could be substituted for the negative one. If so, then the name can be judged to be unnecessarily negative.

It may be very difficult to find enhancing or even innocuous names for some services. But even services as difficult to label constructively as detentive ones could have much more positive names than many such programs currently do, such as “Retraining & Rehabilitation Center.” Also, although a service’s identity & the identities of its recipients may constrain the degree of positiveness of the program & service name, neither service nor recipient identity would ever necessitate a less than at least neutral setting &/or location name. Thus, negative setting & location names must be down-rated no matter what recipients’ conditions might be.

If a service name “promises” one thing, but the service does or delivers something entirely different, this is only assessed by PASSING if the service naming is incongruous with its culturally valued analogues. Otherwise, such a discrepancy is not rated by PASSING.

Raters must overcome any personal predilections & agendas, & rate names in terms of their reasonably inferrable image impact on the (mostly local) public.

R1432 Serving Entity, Program, Setting, & Location Names

Criteria for Level Assignments

N.B. - It is particularly difficult to give rigid guidelines for Levels 1, 2, & 3, because raters must consider not only the inherent message in a name, but also how much recipients are at risk, the local & historical contexts of a name as spelled out previously in the rating narrative, plus how closely a particular name is associated with recipients, e.g., via program, setting, service entity, or location. Thus, raters must be sure to attend to the principle of each level.

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by meanings & images conveyed by the official service, program, setting, &/or location names, their acronyms, or clang associations to any of these. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as subhuman, dead or dying, worthless, dangerous, etc.), the images projected by this service practice will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive naming features may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, service, program, setting, &/or location names impact negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. they are significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive; or b. they are severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if not to other recipients. This is most likely to happen where a service includes recipients with different devalued conditions/identities, or very different levels of the same impairment.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of the names of the service entity, program, setting, &/or location is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients ; or

b. the names neither significantly diminish nor significantly enhance recipients’ image.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the names of the service, program, setting, &/or location are highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but fall short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. service, program, setting, &/or location names are mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by serving entity, program, setting, & location names that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

R144 Image Projection of Service Funding

General Statement of the Issue

Distinct and strong images can be conveyed by the source of the funds that support a human service (e.g., public, private, foundations); the names, acronyms, and abbreviations (if any) of the funding bodies and funding categories from which the funds are appropriated; and the means by which the funds are raised. The perceived value of recipients of a service would be enhanced if all of the above images implied that recipients were rightful members of the culture, competent, of high status, filled valued social roles, etc. Funding of human services is more likely to do these things if: (a) whenever possible and appropriate, it is provided as a publicly-recognized right; (b) it is ageappropriately imaged; and (c) it does not carry the taint of other negative images, such as vice, incapacity, separateness, etc.

1. Funding as a matter of right. A very negative image juxtaposition to (devalued) recipients occurs when a program which could reasonably be expected to be provided within a given culture on the basis of justice and therefore as a right (such as education and quality health care) is funded instead by monies, and through agencies or individuals, that carry with them the taint of pity and “charity.” This is particularly problematic if analogous programs and services for valued people are publicly funded as a matter of right. For instance, the image of impaired children is demeaned if educational services for them are supported by sources that obtain their funds through appeals to pity for “these poor, helpless unfortunates,” while education for typical children is financed in an objectified and matter-of-fact way through public monies, such as property taxes. Most “charity appeals” are powerful forces in perpetuating the negative perceptions that afflicted people do not deserve services as a matter of right, are pitiable, should beg, should be grateful, have to please their donors, etc.

2. Age imagery of funds. The age-identity (if any) of the funding for services to devalued people should be as appropriate as possible. For example, financial support to an education program for impaired teenagers and adults should not come from the Department of Elementary Education, but from Secondary and Adult Education, Vocational Education, Rehabilitation, etc. Similarly, fund-raising appeals for services to mostly adults should not select yearly “poster children” to represent the cause, because such appeals may be outright deceptive, or at least perpetuate the negative perception that impaired adults are really only big children, that elderly people are in their “second childhood,” etc.

3. Miscellaneous other symbolisms attached to funds. Funding for human services should also be free of other negative image associations, such as to incapacity, vice, sin, corruption, criminality, etc. When fund-raising efforts are required in order to finance services, they should be conducted in the most dignity-conferring ways possible, such as holding a dinner with lecture, raffling a highly valued object, etc.

In contrast to privately-run services, public ones (i.e., ones that are operated by some level of government) are usually funded by what might be called “generic taxes,” such as income, property, or sales taxes. These are generally imaged as “rightful,” and therefore as not negative, but they are not as positively imaged as at least certain private funding or fund-raising efforts. However, even government-run services funded by non-deviancy-imaged taxes can be deviancy-imaged by the names of the funding channels and categories. Also, in some locales, a tax levied on the purchase of tobacco and alcohol may be specially dedicated to funding certain services; such a tax is often referred to as a “vice tax,” and carries an image taint. As well, some locales use the proceeds from state-run lotteries and other gambling to fund certain services, rather than fund them from generic taxes, and this can also carry an image taint.

Where public monies are involved, they should be as generic as possible, and not be tied to a deviancy-associated/-bestowing/-suggestive label, or otherwise suggest that the people who are subsidized with such funds are more impaired and dependent than they really are. For example, it would be less injurious to the image of adults who have major long-term impairments that prevent them from working full-time if they were supported by insurance, pensions, or even unemployment compensation, rather than by “welfare,” “old-age” assistance, “aid to the totally and permanently disabled,” “developmental disabilities allowances,” “crippled children” monies, etc.

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance the image of its recipients & thereby their age identity, social status, perceived similarity to valued people, & ultimately their social roles the funds, funding sources, funding labels & abbreviations, fund-raising drives, & other funding images & associations to a human service should (a) project an image of recipients as rightful members of the society who should receive the needed service as a right, (b)be age-appropriate, & (c) avoid other negative images.

R144 Image Projection of Service Funding

Differentiation From Other Ratings

The images associated with any coordinative or regulatory bodies of the service being assessed are rated by R145 Image Projection of Miscellaneous Aspects of a Service. However, sometimes one of a service’s funders, or its only funding body, is the same as its licensing, coordinative, and/or regulatory body. In that case, the images associated with such a body would be rated both here and under R145.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

The “visibility” of the images associated with a service’s funding has more impact on the development of attitudes towards impaired & devalued people than the amount of money or the percentage of total operating funds involved. Even if a service received the majority of its funds from a relatively positivelyimaged source, but collected the remaining small percentage through highly publicized crass appeals to pity, by portraying its recipients as extremely dependent, & so on, the highly negative imagery associated with that small portion of its money is likely to have much more of an effect on the public’s attitudes than the positive imagery associated with the rest of the service funds. Therefore, the more visible & obvious the imagery associated with funding of a service, the more weight should raters give to it. However, even if the majority of the public is unaware of these funding sources, images are still conveyed. E.g., even less visible imagery would likely affect the expectations that servers hold for the recipients, & to some degree the recipients themselves.

Raters should give greater weight to images associated with service funding that reinforce already existing negative stereotypes about the recipient group, but keeping in mind that some negative images (e.g., menace, death-related) are much worse than others (e.g., child, pity).

Some Key Issues to be Determined

What are the sources of funds for the service?

What are the funding categories or names of these sources?

What are the acronyms or abbreviations of the funding categories or sources?

Are there images associated with these sources?

Do any of the service’s funds come from public sources? If so, are they generic sources or deviancy-specific ones?

What are the ages of the recipients in the service?

Are all the sources of the service’s funds appropriate to the ages of its recipients?

Does the service conduct, sponsor, endorse, profit from, or engage in fund-raising campaigns to raise money for its operation? If so, what kinds of images are associated with these campaigns & methods?

How “visible” are the images associated with the service’s funding, i.e., is the public aware of the service’s funding source(s), labels, etc.? Are the servers aware? Are the recipients aware?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/ Data About the Issues

Income statements; Agency & program budgets; Grant proposals; Agency & service descriptions; Fund-raising brochures;

Direct interviews with servers, service leaders, & the public.

R144 Image Projection of Service Funding

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by unnecessarily negative images associated with the service’s funding. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as incapacitated, outcasts, vice-ridden, near death, dangerous, etc.), the images projected by this service practice will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive funding imagery features may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, service funding imagery impacts negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. it is significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some practices may be somewhat positive; or

b. it is severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if not to other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of the service’s funding & funding-related practices is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients . Perhaps positive visible practices are balanced out by negative visible ones; e.g., a service has a moderately positively-imaged funding source, & a moderately negatively- imaged one, & these approximately balance each other out; or

b. service funding imagery neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ image.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the service’s funding & funding-related practices are highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but fall short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. service practices are mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by the service’s funding & funding-related practices that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

General Statement of the Issue

This rating assesses the imagery of all the miscellaneous aspects of a service which are not specifically addressed by other image ratings The sources of such imagery are so many that it is impossible to list them all. Thus, raters must be alert to any imagery sources not mentioned already that occur in, around, and/or in association with a service, and must be sure not to overlook any merely because they are not explicitly listed in this, or some other, image rating. However, some possible imagery sources that would fall under this rating are listed below.

1. Informal/unofficial or former names of the program, service, or service-providing entity, but only if used by the service or servers , e.g., the staff of an agency which is now officially called the “Social Rehabilitation Institute” still widely call it by its former name, “the County Reformatory”; service staff of an early intervention program for impaired children called “Precious Little Ones Pre-school” refer to their agency as “the school,” rather than by its acronym “PLOP.”

2. Unofficial or informal names of server roles, such as assistant, therapist, guard, housemate, but again, only if used by the service or servers.

3. Use of names for certain activities (not official program names), e.g.: servers informally refer to recipients’ work as “work therapy,” meal time as “feeding time,” etc.; activities of residents of a group home are referred to by their positively-imaged, culturally typical names, such as going for a hike, leisure reading.

4. The logo and letterhead of the program, service, and/or agency, e.g.: the logo of an association for impaired adults is a child’s stick figure drawing; the logo of a medical center for children shows children running, dancing, and leaping.

5. Image identity of bodies that coordinate, regulate, and/or license the service. Some services are under the legal regulatory authority of other bodies, usually a public body such as a division of government. As well, there may be councils or other organizations which are empowered to coordinate the delivery of services of a certain type or to a certain group of people within a region. Sometimes, a service organization participates on a voluntary basis under some kind of coordinative umbrella. The images of such bodies may convey messages about the recipients in the services they oversee, e.g.: day programs for mentally retarded adults are regulated and licensed by a state’s Children’s Services Division; a service coordinating body in a region is the Council on Mental Health, Mental Retardation, Drug Abuse, and Alcoholism; a Provincial Ministry of Education regulates the delivery of educational programs to impaired children.

6. The images conveyed by publicity and other similar materials developed and/or used by the service, e.g.: the title of a film which the service produced about its adult recipients is called “One, Two, Buckle My Shoe,” and its descriptive brochures include pictures of people lying naked on the floor; advertisements for a work program show pictures of recipients at work and receiving paychecks.

7. The image of materials owned and used by the service, not by the recipients, and that are not already rated under R132 Image Projection of Service Activities & Activity Timing. Recipients may own things that they use in the service, rated under R142 Image-Related Personal Possessions; and the service may own materials and equipment. Some such materials may be used with recipients in service activities, and some may not be. For instance, an adult education program may have and use children’s primers to teach literacy. A physical therapy program for older women who have had strokes and need to practice motor coordination may have and use adult-imaged materials such as fancy cookie-makers and kitchen appliances, knitting needles, small chessmen and chessboards, to practice fine motor movements. However, other service-owned materials may not be essential to, or even used in, program activities, e.g., the items in a staff development library; or a pet who belongs to an assisted living facility, and is only occasionally used as part of a “pet therapy” program.

8. The image of any (other) program processes not covered by other ratings. An example is the imagery that the ratio of servers to recipients can convey, e.g., that they require intense supervision when they do not.

of Miscellaneous Aspects of a Service

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance the image of its recipients & ultimately their social roles-- all the miscellaneous aspects of a service not already covered by other ratings should convey very positive messages about recipients’ social roles, status, value, ages, competencies, etc., & should avoid reinforcing negative stereotypes & perceptions. Included herein are informal or unofficial names for the service or servers, but only if used by the service or servers; service logos; program procedures; regulating/licensing/ coordinating bodies; materials used & owned by the service; brochures, etc., that describe the service; & so on, as long as these are not covered by other image ratings.

R145

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. The proximity of a service setting to people, places, symbolisms, and/or other programs is rated under R1151 Image Projection of Setting Physical Proximity and R121 Image Projection of Program-to-Program Juxtaposition.

2. Imagery associated with the history of a service site is rated under R1152 Image Projection of Setting History.

3. Imagery of other aspects of the interior of the physical facility and setting is rated under R1153 Image Projection of Setting Other Internal Physical Features.

4. Image associations to recipients which are a result of their contact with other people are rated under R1231 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Social Value, R1232 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Age Image, R1251 Server-Recipient Image Transfer, R1252 Server-Recipient Image Match, or R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships, depending on what role the other people play in recipients’ lives. However, as noted, any images projected onto recipients as a result of server-recipient ratios (e.g., that recipients need a lot of supervision) would be rated here.

5. The imagery conveyed by the language used to and about recipients is rated under R1431 Image Projection of Personal Labeling Practices, and/or R223 Life-Enriching Interactions Among Recipients, Servers, & Others, while that conveyed by the official names and acronyms of the service and its location is rated under R1432 Serving Entity, Program, Setting, & Location Names.

6. The names of many different things are rated here, including unofficial or informal names of the service and/or of server roles that the service or servers may use, names of service activities, and names of bodies that coordinate and/or regulate the service.

7. Images and symbolisms associated with a service’s funding are rated under R144 Image Projection of Service Funding.

8. The images projected by the program’s activities and schedules provided or arranged by the service for its recipients are rated by R132 Image Projection of Service Activities & Activity Timing, as are images projected by the materials used to carry out those activities.

9. The images associated with the things which recipients actually own are rated under R142 Image-Related Personal Possessions.

10. Services usually own certain materials that are used as part of recipient activities, which are assessed as part of R132 Image Projection of Service Activities & Activity Timing. Such items might be competency-enhancing even if not image-enhancing, and therefore might receive a higher level on R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use than on R132. But services also usually own other materials that are not part of recipient activities, such as training materials for service workers, or equipment for maintaining and repairing the facility. The image of such items is rated here.

Suggested Guidelines for Collecting and Using Evidence

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Practically everything has an image!

Some people are at much graver risk of being negatively imaged than are others. Raters should give extra weight to images that reinforce already existing negative stereotypes about the recipients.

Raters should probably determine the level for this rating last, because it is likely that much of the evidence that would be weighed in this rating may come up in earlier discussions on a number of other ratings.

Raters must be especially conscientious about differentiating this rating from the many other image-related ratings with which it might be confused, & must be very careful not to unfairly rate a service twice (here & on another image rating) for the same practice.

Raters should fully expect to find at least some phenomena that would be assessed by this rating; it would be very unusual for there not to be any relevant evidence for this rating on any given assessment. However, should that occur, then the service should be assigned a Level 3 on this rating.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

How old are the recipients in the program?

What kinds of negative &/or positive images & symbolisms are associated with various aspects of the service, such as: nicknames & former names of the program or serving entity that are used by servers; names of program activities; its logo & letterhead; its regulatory, licensing, or coordinating bodies; printed materials (e.g., descriptions, advertisements) about the service; its products; program processes; service-owned materials; any other service features not specifically addressed by other image ratings?

What is the effect on recipients’ image of the association of these images with the service?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/ Data About the Issues

Tour of both the exterior & interior of the setting;

Service/agency brochures, descriptions, letterhead;

Observations of the program in process;

Program descriptions & plans;

Individual recipient records & plans;

Direct interviews with recipients, servers, service leaders, members of the public.

R145 Image Projection of Miscellaneous Aspects of a Service

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. Considering their image risks & needs, recipients are strongly (though perhaps totally unconsciously) imaged in severely damaging ways by various service aspects not covered by other ratings. Especially where recipients are already societally devalued, & are very much at risk of being very negatively stereotyped (as subhuman, menaces, near dead, incompetent, non-belonging, etc.), the images projected by these service features will have a serious negative impact on them, even if these same images would have a less serious impact, or even no impact, on other (even other kinds of devalued) people. Even the presence of some positive miscellaneous imagery features may be irrelevant as long as the images which communicate most decisively to the general public are the very damaging ones.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, miscellaneous service aspects impact negatively on recipients’ image in one of two ways:

a. they are significantly damaging to the image of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some aspects may be somewhat positive; or

b. they are severely damaging (as in Level 1) to the image of a significant minority of recipients , even if not to other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the image impact of various service aspects not covered by other ratings is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients; or

b. the service practices & features at issue neither significantly diminish nor significantly enhance recipients’ image.

Level 4. Considering recipients’ image risks & needs, the imagery of various service aspects not covered by other ratings is highly conducive to the enhancement of their image, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. such imagery is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. image enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and recipients’ image is apt to be so enhanced by various aspects of the service not covered by other ratings that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

As noted in the definition of Social Role Valorization (pp. 39-40) of the “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms”), the two major avenues towards valued social roles are a valued social image, and competencies. The more of either of these a party possesses, the more that party is likely to have access to social roles that are valued by society; and in turn, the more valued social roles the party holds, the more that party will likely have access to and will be granted the good things of life. The first section of PASSING (all the narratives with the prefix “1”) covered the enhancement of recipients’ social image, or at least the defense of their image against further degradation. This section is on the improvement of recipients’ personal competencies, or at least the defense of their competencies against (further) loss.

Note that all the ratings in this section of PASSING that emphasize how a service can affect the competencies of its recipients are to the end of valued social roles for recipients, and ultimately to the good things of life for them, rather than being concerned with competency for its own sake.

As used in SRV and PASSING, the term “competencies” refers to more than just specific skills and behaviors. For the great majority of devalued people, the following are the major competency areas in which they are likely to need enhancement and maintenance of their skills and performance (the list is not meant to be exhaustive): (a) bodily integrity, including the prevention/reversal of physical impairments, and the development and preservation of health and physical abilities; (b) bodily strength, agility, and stamina; (c) self-help skills, including walking, eating, toileting and personal hygiene, dressing, and grooming; (d) the capacity to project a positive personal appearance; (e) communication skills; (f) intellectual ability, skills, habits, and disciplines, knowledge, reasoning, curiosity, mental engagement, prudent risk-taking, foresight; (g) motivation, initiative, drive, stickto-it-iveness, planning, organization and time management; (h) competent exercise of personal autonomy and control, including responsibility, self-control and self-mastery, anticipation and acceptance of the consequences of one’s actions; (i) adequate volitional control over one’s impulses and movements; (j) confidence, self-possession, the ability to be decisive; (k) social and relationship skills, including social graces, “manners,” etiquette, friendliness, consideration for others, the capacity to enter into and maintain adaptive relationships with others; (l) the unfolding and expression of the self, one’s individuality and uniqueness.

A whole host of human service structures and practices can advance skills, secure opportunities, support people’s abilities to obtain and sustain normative experiences and valued social interactions, and provide other competency supports.

Enhancement of the personal competencies of devalued people is fundamentally important to their role-valorization for several important and interrelated reasons.

1. The more competent a person is, the greater is the number and the wider is the range of socially valued roles that the person will be able to fill. For instance, a wider range of potential work roles is open to, and possible for, a person who can read, write, do math, and perform hard bodily labor, than for one who is illiterate and incapable of such labor. Also, certain specific competencies are necessary in order to perform many valued roles. For instance, in order to fill the role of university professor, one needs to be able to: read, speak, and write; conduct research; teach; participate in faculty meetings and perform committee work; correct students’ work; etc. If one is to be a member of a choir, one has to have hearing and voice, be able to learn to sing on key, and possibly even to read music, or at least follow the choir-master. In order to fill the role of firefighter, one needs to be able to: handle heavy equipment; rise from sleep and get dressed in heavy protective clothing in a very short period of time; work cooperatively with others under very stressful conditions; etc. While some valued roles do not require a great many competencies, there are others that are entirely dependent on prerequisite competencies.

2. Personal competency in and of itself is a highly valued attribute, one which is strongly associated in the Western cultural value tradition with such virtues and/or ideals as individual selfsufficiency, productivity, etc. Therefore, the more competent a person is, the more that person is likely to find social acceptance and recognition by others, have access to valued roles and life conditions, attain economic opportunities, and so on.

3. The more skillful a (devalued) person is, the better able the person will be to function and interact in a normative way in typical societal contexts and with valued people. In turn, other people will be more able or even inclined to engage in interactions with a (devalued) person who possesses the requisite skills for interacting in normative ways, in typical contexts. People can be impaired in their ability to interact with others both by a lack of what might be termed “social competencies” (e.g., ability to communicate; familiarity with acceptable social routines, expectations, and behaviors), and by a lack of what might be termed “instrumental competencies,” such as abilities to function as independently as possible, to engage in productive work, to care for oneself, and so forth. Thus, both social and instrumental competencies should be preserved and enhanced in order to facilitate the person’s normative interactions with valued people.

4. Society will be more accepting of the devalued differences of people who have compensatory skills and competencies. People who have at least adequate competencies may thus be able to counterbalance any of their real or perceived differences which would tend to set them apart from others in a negative way, and perhaps even cause them to be viewed as deviant. This phenomenon illustrates the “conservatism corollary” of SRV (see p. 30 of “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms”; also later referred to by some people as the “deviancy-competency hypothesis”), which among other things says that people who have (or are at risk for) certain devalued characteristics are less apt to be perceived as deviant if they possess compensating valued characteristics.

5. Competency can be a defense against future loss of valued roles and status. That is, people who once possessed at least certain competencies and then lost them will usually retain some of their former social status, and still occupy valued roles, almost in homage to who and what the person used to be. Often, their former valued roles will still be ascribed to them to at least some degree. This helps explain why people will usually treat much better a person who used to be an ordinary, well-functioning human being, but who has become profoundly mentally impaired as a result of an accident, than they will a person who has always been profoundly retarded.

6. The development and exercise of competencies is a natural mode of growth of human beings; that is, during much of life, we are developing and moving towards greater not lesser levels of competency. Being more competent thus represents a higher state of actualization of human potential.

All of the above points imply that the enhancement of a person’s competencies is apt to bring about the enhancement of a person’s status and social roles which is the goal of SRV.

Another rationale, but one that falls outside the scope of SRV, is that competency enhancement is the very core of the mission of the great majority of formal organized human services. It is what most service workers are supposed to be trained to do: to teach, habilitate, restore, etc. It is the major stated reason for the existence of most services. Even more importantly, any service that is supposed to have a competency enhancement mission but fails to enhance recipients’ personal competencies may actually do harm by contributing to recipients’ non-development, life-wasting, deterioration, or even destruction.

Competency enhancement is a relevant concern especially of any service where at least one of the following four conditions are present:

a. where children are served, as all children can be viewed as being in need of competency development, at least until they have attained normative adult levels of variety and extent of competencies;

b. where people are served who are impaired in valued/adaptive competencies in relation to cultural expectancies for their age and sex, perhaps so much so that they are at high risk of social devaluation;

c. where there is a specific perhaps narrow competency area, the improvement of which is the special province or purview of the service, e.g., general health or a specific aspect thereof, physical fitness, and athletic prowess are the competencies that would be the special concern of an athletic club;

d. where recipients have no competency impairment but wish to increase their skill or knowledge in a particular area, e.g., improve in a sports area or get a more skilled job.

Any or all of these four circumstances may be present in some services, e.g., an education program for young impaired children meets three of the above four conditions (a, b, and c), a vocational training program for adolescents meets two of the four (b and c), and a recreation program meets two of the four (c and d). Indeed, it is very difficult to conceive of any kind of human service that either does not have a stated goal of some kind of competency enhancement in the broadest sense (see above), or that does not actually affect the competencies of its recipients/participants, even if its explicitly stated goals do not mention it.

For the above SRV reasons, all aspects of a human service should strive to maximize the likelihood of recipient competency enhancement, unless argued otherwise by image considerations of equal or greater weight, or by moral precepts that outweigh the empirical ones of SRV.

Fifteen service aspects which affect primarily the competencies (rather than primarily the social images) of its recipients have been identified, and are discussed and addressed in the following fifteen ratings, which are grouped as to their relevance to the physical setting of a service, the recipient groupings and other interpersonal relationships that the service structures and fosters, and the programs and activities that the service provides to recipients.

21 COMPETENCY-RELATED PHYSICAL SETTING OF THE SERVICE

The physical setting in which a service is rendered can have a tremendous impact on the competencies that its recipients are enabled to develop, maintain, and refine. In fact, the importance of the physical environment in shaping human behavior is probably vastly underestimated by the majority of people. Particularly for people who are impaired or limited in competencies, it is fundamentally important that the service capitalize upon the potential for competency development that is inherent in the physical environment.

Six ratings address major dimensions of a physical setting which can affect the competency development of the recipients who use it: the ease of access to the service for recipients and their families; the ease of access to the service for members of the public; the availability of relevant community resources in close proximity to the service; the physical comfort of the setting; the features of the environment which are challenging to (or in contrast, overprotective of) its users; and the degree of individualization fostered by the physical environment.

211 SETTING ACCESS

In order to make good use of their time and energy, people should be able to easily get to a service, as well as leave it easily once they have completed their business there. If people are not able to get to and from a service setting easily, then the service is likely to be unused, under-used, or (needlessly?) difficult to use. This will be true not only for recipients, but also for the public or relatives of recipients, who are less apt to come to the setting to visit, render volunteer services, transact integration, etc. And, as discussed elsewhere in PASSING, it is difficult or even impossible for people to learn how to conduct themselves in a socially appropriate manner if they do not have access to the people who will model, expect, and reinforce socially adaptive and valued behaviors.

For purposes of PASSING, access to a setting is defined in terms of speed and convenience , which are usually determined by a combination of six factors: (a) how near the service is to the people who would (potentially) come to it, e.g., to its (potential) recipient population, to recipient families, and to one or more population clusters, such as a town or city; (b) the number and variety of transportation means and routes by which people could come to and from the service; (c) the cost of travel to and from the service; (d) congestion of traffic en route to and from the site; (e) convenience of parking around the service, and of (dis)embarking from other transportation means; and (f) the safety of the means of access to and from the setting, and of certain aspects of the area around the service setting itself.

1. Nearness of the service to people who would (potentially) come to it. The closer a service setting is to the population from which its recipients are drawn, the more likely it is that recipients will actually use the service, and that they will be able to get to and from it easily. The distance from where recipients live to a needed service may create such hardships that the (potential) recipients may either have to do without the service, or else be forced to undergo significant dislocations (both physical and social) in order to use it. For example, blind or deaf children in some areas of North America must leave their families and home communities if they are to receive an education, because the only special school programs available to them are in residential institutions located far away from where they live. Similarly, some drug rehabilitation programs and nursing homes serve people from all over the country, thus forcing at least some recipients to leave family, friends, and known places behind when they have a need that could be addressed by such services. Such dislocations are more commonly harmful than helpful not only to recipients, but also to their families.

As well, the closer a service setting is to a population concentration (e.g., a city, town), the more likely it is that there will be plenty of people who could potentially interact with service recipients, and that the other five factors which contribute to speed and convenience of access will also be present. For example, more members of the public will be available for potential social integration of recipients if a service is located in a population center than if it is located in a sparsely populated rural area. Relatedly, there are more likely to be public transportation systems, major roads, expressways, and so on. All of this means that services located in, or at least near, congregations of people are potentially more likely to be more visited by members of the public, and to be able to draw on them for various purposes.

2. Number and variety of means and routes of access to and from the site. The more, and the more diverse, ways there are for people (including recipients and their families) to get to and from a service, the more likely it is that they will do so. Thus, location of a service near various means and routes of transportation (such as bus depots, local bus routes, train stations, taxi stands, subways, good roads, and especially major expressways) greatly increases the likelihood that it will be used or visited, and that recipients will be able to participate in an integrated fashion in community life.

3. Cost of means of access. If the various means of transportation by which people can get to and from a service are relatively inexpensive, people are more likely to use them than if they are costly.

4. Congestion of traffic. Not only must there be means by which people can get to and from the service setting, but traffic on the way to and from the service should not be so congested that one must anticipate slow and/or nerve-wracking travel in getting there and back. For example, a multipurpose center for poor and elderly people may be located near the intersection of two freeways; however, local traffic may be so heavy that there are frequent and lengthy traffic jams on the two roads.

5. Parking and (dis)embarking convenience. A service should have sufficient parking space for recipients, their families, and visitors, and it should not be so expensive that the cost would dissuade people from coming to the service. For example, a sheltered industry for impaired adults may only provide a free parking lot big enough for staff to park their cars, so that anyone else coming to the service has to park some distance away, or in an expensive lot in the neighborhood. It should also be easy for people to board and disembark from their means of transportation at the service. Speed and convenience of access are increased by such things as curb-cuts, shelters in which people can wait for buses, and places for cars to pull right up to the front door of the service and depart without intricate maneuvering.

6. Safety of access and neighborhood. If people are to come to a service, it is important that they feel safe in doing so. Safety of access can be affected by such features as street lights, traffic barriers, information signs, crosswalks and crossing guards, stop signs, traffic signals, audible signals for visually impaired individuals, manually-operated (push-button) traffic controls for physically impaired or infirm people, sidewalks, curb-cuts, and so on. The risk of being accosted or assaulted in the area of the service is also a factor to be considered here. It can scare away at least certain people from the service.

Although all of the six factors described above will have a great deal of impact on how speedy and convenient the access to and from a given service is, sometimes one or two of these factors can outweigh all the others. For example, if a service is very far away from any population centers, or from where its recipients and their families must come, then even the presence of all the good roads, free and ample parking, and inexpensive transportation that one could want does not change the fact that it would still entail a long trip for most people to get there. Similarly, rapid door-to-door school bus transportation for every student in a school will make access at least tolerably good for pupils, even if the public transportation is poor or expensive, if there are no parking facilities around the service, etc. Or, if a program is located very near to a sizeable population cluster, and if there are many good roads and a reliable, cheap public transportation system that stops close to the service, then there is probably good (though perhaps not ideal) access to the service for the public, even if parking is inconvenient or somewhat expensive. Generally, access to and from a service in an urban area is better for recipients who live within the urban area itself than it is for those who come from the outlying parts of the service region. Thus, much depends not only on the nature of the transportation and other access options, but also on where the recipients come from. A rater’s judgment as to how much weight to give to the different access factors also has to take into account the numbers of people likely to be affected.

Access is assessed by two ratings, one concerned with access by/for recipients and their families, the other access by/for the public. For each, raters must examine the global access picture for a service, and take into account the relative importance of the presence or absence of each of the six desirable factors, the fact that these six factors are not equally impactful on recipients/families and on the public, and the fact that access for families and the public is not of the same importance for all services. For example, speedy and convenient access for families is probably more important for a school program for young children than it is for a drop-in after-school recreation center for adolescents. Similarly, it is more important that a prison be easily accessible to family members than to members of the general public.

NOTE : Speed and convenience of access to a service setting is not the same as what may be called “physical accessibility” of a setting, e.g., to people in wheelchairs. Service setting features such as ramps, wide hallways and doorways, are rated elsewhere in PASSING (R1111 Setting-Neighborhood Harmony, R1131 External Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue, R1132 Internal Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue, and R213 Physical Comfort of Setting).

General Statement of the Issue

This rating assesses speed and convenience of access to the service setting to and from their homes or home communities for both (a) the recipients of a service and (b) recipients’ families (or people who function in a family role vis-à-vis recipients), in relation to the six access factors discussed above under “211 Setting Access.” People who are functioning as family to the service recipients may include relatives, former foster parents, certain citizen advocates, etc., and will sometimes be referred to in text as “families.”

The term “home community” here refers to the place that is a recipient’s home in a real rather than the technical or legal sense. For example, perhaps a person was born in City X, but (was) moved from there to City Y a few years after birth, and has lived in City Y ever since. In that case, City Y is really the person’s home, not City X. Similarly, if the parents of an impaired child sent the child to an institution in another province or state soon after the child was born, with hardly any visits to the parental home, then the institution’s location may well be more “home” to that person than the place in which his or her family lives.

When services are located near the home communities of their recipients and recipients’ “families,” then it is more likely that recipients’ “family members” will be able and willing to come to the service to visit the recipient, and that recipients themselves will be able to return home, and/or visit their “families.”

Visits by family members are much more important and likely for some programs than others, and are particularly important for children’s services. For example, schools frequently host parentteacher conferences, “parent nights” for families to tour the facility at various times in the academic year, plays which family members may attend, and so on; people who are in hospitals or other medical services can benefit greatly from frequent visits from their families and friends; residential services can have family visitors at holidays and birthdays, for overnight stays, etc.

It is especially important that services to recipients who are physically impaired (e.g., people who use wheelchairs) have conditions of access which make it convenient for them to board and disembark from their means of transportation at the service. For example, the parking spaces right in front of the service entrance could be reserved for wheelchair vans; there should be sufficient sidewalk or patio space for perhaps several people in wheelchairs to wait comfortably and safely, e.g., out of the rain. Such features can even be desirable in services to other people. (See No. 1 in “Differentiation From Other Ratings” for how the issue covered by this paragraph is different from those covered by R213 Physical Comfort of Setting.)

Often the ordinary means of access in a locale are not usable by (potential) recipients. For example, if impaired people cannot get onto public buses, then the presence of bus lines near the service does not improve access for recipients who are impaired. On the other hand, some services provide their own transportation (such as door-to-door limousine or taxi service) to bring (potential) recipients and/or family members to and from the service. However, it should be noted that in some areas, such special transportation for impaired people can be so extremely expensive or cumbersome to use that it does not greatly improve access for such people.

Generally, a recipient’s current or previous home is with his or her family, and thus access to a service is often (though not invariably) the same for recipients as for families. An exception might be a school where access for children is by school bus, but access for families is by other means which can be much less speedy and convenient.

Also, while the recipients of many human services do not have private auto transportation, or are not licensed to drive, availability and convenience of parking may still be a relevant concern, because their families may have cars.

Access--Recipients & Families

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance recipients’ competencies, & thereby their social roles, a service setting should be speedily & conveniently accessible for its (potential) recipients & their families, or people functioning as family to them. This means that it should be located close to the population it is intended to serve, with various major & affordable transportation routes & means available, sufficient parking/embarking space, uncongested access, & reasonably safe access to & from the service.

R2111 Setting Access Recipients & Families

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. What is typically referred to as “physical accessibility” of a setting to people with physical impairments (e.g., can people in wheelchairs get in the door, and from the lower to the upper levels) is not assessed by this rating. Such physical accessibility of a service setting itself is rated under R213 Physical Comfort of Setting. However, this rating does assess the presence of various factors in the immediate environs of the service which facilitate speedy and convenient access for such current or potential recipients, such as curb-cuts at crosswalks on the sidewalks around the service, crossing signals that are helpful to blind people (where blind recipients are served), etc.

2.The presence of airports, railway stations, and regional bus depots may not be as relevant to members of the public as to (some) service recipients. The degree to which these things should be rated here, or under R2112 Setting Access Public, or both, should be judged against two criteria.

a. Is the service one that caters primarily to local recipients, or to recipients from far away maybe even very far away, as might be the case for a specialized medical clinic?

b. Would the relevant public that might interact with the recipients use the above means of transportation?

For some services, the presence of such means of transportation would be largely irrelevant.

3.There will often be overlap in much of the evidence that raters review for this rating and for R2112 Setting Access Public. For example, a service may be located near its largely rural recipient population, and provide special transport to bring recipients to and from the service; however, it may be far away from any sizeable population clusters, and there may be no public transportation from the nearest town or city to the service. Thus, the service would probably score higher on this rating than on R2112 Setting Access Public. The opposite could also be true, i.e., access conditions to a service could be much better for the general public than for the recipient population, as would be the case if public transportation were present, but not available to, or usable by, physically impaired recipients.

4.This rating is not concerned with how close the service is to potentially socially integrative community resources (R212 Availability of Relevant Community Resources), even though services located close to population centers will very likely also be close to such resources.

5. In this rating, it does not matter if transportation for recipients is segregated, as long as transportation is available to them, and is speedy and convenient. Depending on the extent of a service’s purview and responsibility, the fact that the available transportation may be segregated might be a consideration under other ratings, such as R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships, and R222 Competency-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships.

6. For recipients with certain identities and/or competency impairments, a modest degree of hardship or inconvenience in access to a service setting could be competency-enhancing. For example, it could be very growth-inducing for the impaired adult employees of a sheltered workshop (but less so for their families) to have to walk several blocks from the bus stop to their place of work, especially if this walk involved crossing busy intersections and finding one’s way through convoluted streets. Thus, the desirability of ease of access may sometimes conflict with the desirability of programmatic challenge. However, regardless of whether shortcomings in access speed and convenience were purposely planned in order to contribute to recipients’ competency enhancement, or whether they are merely “accidental,” real speed and convenience are all that is assessed here. A service may receive credit on some other rating (such as R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs or R214 Challenge/Safety Features of Setting) for challenges posed by less-than-speedy or convenient access.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Speed & convenience of service access for recipients & families depends on the following 6 factors:

a. nearness of service to homes & home communities of recipients & their families;

b. number & variety of transportation means & routes;

c.cost of transportation;

d. congestion of traffic;

e. parking/embarking convenience;

f. certain safety features of access.

As regards safety, a service may be optimally located to serve an unsafe neighborhood, but the lack of safety would still prevent it from obtaining a high level.

Access conditions may, however, be different for families than for recipients. E.g., a service may have a fleet of vehicles for transporting recipients, but these are not available for families who have to rely on their own means, or public transit. For some kinds of services, recipient access is more important, & should be given greater weight; for certain other services (e.g., a nursing home), family access is more important.

A rater’s judgment of the speed & convenience of recipient access to a service in a particular locale should not depend on how speedy & convenient access is to anything else in that locale, but on abs o lute standards of speed & convenience. For example, in a large city with very heavy traffic & a poor public transportation system, it may be fairly typical for people to spend more than an hour in traffic on their way to & from work every day, or to have to pay high fares. That everyone must suffer such inconveniences in order to get around in the city does not change the fact that access is indeed slow & inconvenient. Similarly, if buses run frequently but cannot be used very well by the impaired people coming to the service being assessed, then public transportation may not be considered fully convenient. Because speed & convenience of access must be assessed in relation to ideal criteria, not local norms, a Level 5 on this rating can probably only be attained by a few services in a very few locales, such as: (a)programs that serve a very small geographic area in which access is quite good, such as a neighborhood center that serves only people from that neighborhood who can get easily to the service; (b) services in large urban areas that have very extensive & inexpensive public transport systems, very good roads favorably connecting to the service, & easy & free or inexpensive parking.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

How close is the service to the (potential) recipients that it serves?

Does the service provide transportation to bring (potential) recipients & their families to & from the service? Can they afford it?

What other means of transportation are available for (potential) recipients & their families to get to & from the service? Is it affordable?

How close is the service to various major transportation routes, such as highways, roads, bus lines, train stations, airports?

How close is the service to local bus stops & taxi stands?

How expensive is taxi, bus, subway & train transportation? Are they usable by impaired people? How regularly do they run? How dependable are they?

How congested are the routes of access to the service?

Is there sufficient parking/embarking space available at the service?

How safe is transportation to, & the neighborhood around, the service?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Geographic, demographic (population distribution), & transportation route maps; Public transportation schedules; Tour of the neighborhood around the service, by car & on foot; Observation of sidewalks, crosswalks, street lighting, etc.; Direct interviews with service leaders, servers, recipients, & family members.

R2111 Setting Access Recipients & Families

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. The development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is apt to be severely impeded or impaired (even if unintentionally), due to the fact that access to & from the service for recipients &/or their families is very slow, difficult, &/or inconvenient, thus constituting a serious hardship for many recipients &/or families.

Level 2. The setting access conditions for recipients & families have a negative impact on the competencies of the recipients in one of two ways:

a. they significantly impede or impair the competency or competency development of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive; or

b. they severely impede or impair (as in Level 1) the competency or competency development of a significant minority of recipients , even if not of other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ competency risks & needs, the competency impact on recipients of the setting’s access to recipients & families is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. Most likely, this is because there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients . Perhaps the presence of some positive access conditions combines with negative conditions so that the access picture in its totality is neither very positive nor very negative.

Level 4. Access to & from the service for recipients & their families is highly conducive to the competency enhancement of recipients, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. setting access for families & recipients is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients; or

b. the likelihood of competency enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and the potential for development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is so enhanced by access to & from the service for all recipients & their families that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

R2112 Setting Access Public

General Statement of the Issue

In this rating, speed and convenience of service setting access is assessed for members of the public in relation to the six access factors discussed above under “211 Setting Access.” For the purpose of this rating, the “public” is defined as anyone who is neither a recipient nor server of the service being assessed, and who is not a “family member” of recipients of the assessed service. Thus, the public could include ordinary citizens, recipients and servers of other services, associates of recipients who, however, are not or do not function as their family, etc.

As mentioned earlier, access for the public is desirable in order to increase the likelihood that recipients will come into contact with valued persons, which can have a great many benefits in terms of recipient competencies. If a service is far away from a population cluster where valued people live, if there are no major roads or other routes of access near the service, if public transportation in the area where the service is located is poor or very expensive, if traffic on the way to and from the service is heavily congested, if parking around the service is poor, and/or if getting to and from the service is not safe then members of the public are much less likely to come to the service to visit, volunteer, or in any other way interact with the recipients there.

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance recipients’ competencies, & thereby their social roles, a service setting should be speedily & conveniently accessible for members of the public, so as to increase the likelihood that such people will interact with recipients, will volunteer to the service, etc. This means that it should be located close to population centers with various major & affordable transportation routes & means, sufficient parking/embarking space, uncongested access, & reasonably safe access to & from the service.

R2112 Setting Access Public

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. What is typically referred to as “physical accessibility” of a setting to people with physical impairments (e.g., can people in wheelchairs get in the door, and from the lower to the upper levels) is not assessed by this rating. Such physical accessibility of a service setting itself is rated under R213 Physical Comfort of Setting. However, this rating does assess the presence of various factors in the immediate environs of the service which would facilitate speedy and convenient access for impaired people who are neither recipients nor family members, such as curb-cuts at crosswalks on the sidewalks around the service, crossing signals that are helpful to blind people, etc.

2. The presence of airports, railway stations, and regional bus depots may not be as relevant to members of the public as to (some) service recipients. The degree to which these things should be rated here, or under R2111 Setting Access Recipients & Families, or both, should be judged against two criteria.

a. Is the service one that caters primarily to local recipients, or to recipients from far away maybe even very far away, as might be the case for a specialized medical clinic?

b. Would the relevant public that might interact with the recipients use the above means of transportation?

For some services, the presence of such means of transportation would be largely irrelevant.

3. There will often be overlap in much of the evidence that raters review for this rating and for R2111 Setting Access Recipients & Families, but the two ratings may yield different rating outcomes. For example, a service for physically impaired people might be located in the middle of a densely populated city in which there is frequent and inexpensive public transportation to all points in the urban area; however, it may serve recipients who come from a great distance away, and who cannot use the public transportation system because the buses are not modified to allow physically impaired people to board. Thus, the service would probably score higher on the rating at hand than on R2111 Setting Access Recipients & Families. The opposite could also be true, i.e., access conditions to a service could be much better for recipients and their families than for the public, as might be the case if a service provided special transportation to its recipients.

4. This rating is not concerned with how close the service is to potentially socially integrative community resources (R212 Availability of Relevant Community Resources), even though services located close to population centers will very likely also be close to such resources.

Some

Important Considerations About the Issues

Speed & convenience of service access for the public depends on the following 6 factors:

a. nearness of service to a population cluster;

b. number & variety of transportation means & routes;

c. cost of transportation;

d. congestion of traffic;

e. parking/embarking convenience;

f. safety of access.

A rater’s judgment of the speed & convenience of access for members of the public to a service in a particular locale should not depend on how speedy & convenient access is to anything else in that locale, but on absolute standards of speed & convenience. For example, in a large city with very heavy traffic & a poor public transportation system, it may be fairly typical for people to spend more than an hour in traffic on their way to & from work every day, to have to change buses in order to get anywhere, or to have to pay high fares. That everyone must suffer such inconveniences in order to get around in the city does not change the fact that access is indeed slow & inconvenient. Thus, the commonness of such an experience does not justify assigning the service a high level. Because speed & convenience of access must be assessed in relation to ideal criteria rather than to local norms, a Level 5 on this rating can probably only be attained by a few services in a very few locales, such as large urban areas that have extensive & inexpensive public transport & very good roads.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

How close is the service to population cluster(s)?

What means of transportation are available for members of the public to get to & from the service? Are they affordable?

How close is the service to various major transportation routes, such as highways, roads, bus lines, train stations, airports?

How close is the service to local bus stops & taxi stands?

How expensive are taxi, bus, subway & train transportation? How regularly do they run? How dependable are they?

How congested are the routes of access to the service?

Is there sufficient parking/embarking space available at the service?

How safe is transportation to, & the neighborhood around, the service?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/ Data About the Issues

Geographic, demographic (population distribution), & transportation route maps;

Public transportation schedules;

Tour of the neighborhood around the service, by car & on foot;

Observation of sidewalks, crosswalks, street lighting, etc.;

Direct interviews with servers, service leaders, & members of the public.

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level. 1. The development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is apt to be severely impeded or impaired (even if unintentionally), due to the fact that access to & from the service for members of the public is very slow, difficult, &/or inconvenient, thus constituting a serious hardship for many.

Level 2. The setting access conditions for the public have a negative impact on the competencies of the recipients in one of two ways:

a. they significantly impede or impair the competency or competency development of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive; or

b. they severely impede or impair (as in Level 1) the competency or competency development of a significant minority of recipients, even if not of other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ competency risks & needs, the competency impact on recipients of the setting’s access to the public is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. Most likely, this is because there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients

Level 4. Access to & from the service for members of the public is highly conducive to the competency enhancement of recipients, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. setting access for the public is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality but there are either some minor shortfalls in access to members of the public generally, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of the public, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3; or

b. the likelihood of competency enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and the potential for development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is so enhanced by access to & from the service for members of the public that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

R212 Availability of Relevant Community Resources

General Statement of the Issue

A human service can promote its recipients’ competency enhancement by being located where there is ready availability of a wide range of what are here called “community resources,” i.e., facilities which provide some kind of service to the members of a community, such as eating establishments of different types, a wide range of shopping options, libraries, post offices, religious nurture centers, and recreational facilities. There are at least two interrelated reasons why ready availability of community resources is important and should be rewarded.

1. Community resources afford many opportunities for integration. Ordinary/valued people in society, such as are usually found in ordinary community resources, provide models of valued roles and behaviors; therefore, recipients are more likely to have access to models and other influences for competency enhancement in such resources.

2. People can learn and practice a wide range of very useful competencies where community resources are abundant and easily available, including how to get to and from the resources, how to obtain (perhaps pay for) the services that the resources provide, how to interact with other resource users and with workers in the resources, how to conduct themselves in a socially appropriate manner in many different contexts, etc. In large part, this is because community resources challenge their users to act normatively through their physical structures, by the expectancies that other people in these resources have for anyone they encounter therein, through the modeling of other resource users, and through other opportunities afforded by and at such settings.

This rating assesses whether resources are: (a) relevant (i.e., potentially integrative or otherwise developmental), (b) of a wide range and variety , and (c) within speedy and convenient access of the service. Each of these is discussed below.

1. Relevance of resources. In order to receive credit here, whatever resources are available need to be relevant to the identities and needs of the recipients of a service. If the available resources are of no relevance to recipients, it is highly unlikely that recipients will use them, or that much relevant learning or integration would take place even if the resources were used. Relevance of resources requires a good match of the nature of the resources with (a) the ages of the recipients, and (b) the nature of the human service program. Thus, resources that are likely to be used by children are relevant to them; for young adults, resources that are relevant to them and their pursuits; for mature adults, resources that are relevant to them Similarly, if a service is residential in nature, it should be located within speedy and convenient access of resources that people would expect and use near their homes; work settings should be located near resources that would be used by workers, including during lunch breaks and upon leaving work; etc.

2. Wide range of resources. The wider the variety of relevant resources that are readily available to the service, the greater the potential opportunities for recipients of the service to be exposed to a variety of valued models, and to learn and practice appropriate behaviors in different contexts. Therefore, a work service that is located across the street from five restaurants that are all of one type is in a less desirable location (in terms of this rating) than if it were located near a variety of eateries as well as various stores, etc.

3. Speed and convenience of access to resources. Access to relevant resources may be facilitated if the service is near to resources, if bus or other transportation from the service to resources is available, if there are sidewalks so that people may safely walk to resources, etc. Good access to resources is particularly important for devalued people for several reasons. Devaluation, poverty, and impaired mobility are highly interrelated in our culture, and therefore, devalued people usually have less money to spend on expensive transportation, they often do not have cars (or whatever is the normative form of adult transportation), and they often do not have driver’s licenses even if they have access to an automobile. Furthermore, some have less capacity, experience, or skill at using public transportation than do typical people in the community. In consequence, while typical people with a wider range of experiences, resources, and other (e.g., financial) means may be able with relative ease to get to resources that are some miles away, access to even slightly distant resources would pose a major obstacle for certain devalued people. As with access to a service, so should recipient access from the service to relevant resources be practical, speedy, and convenient.

Not credited under this rating are resources that are not open to the general public. For instance, a canteen restricted to the recipients of a sheltered work setting would not receive credit here. However, a resource on the premises of a service that is also made available to the public on a reasonably frequent basis (as perhaps an auditorium or gym of a school for children who are impaired or in trouble) would receive credit.

R212 Availability of Relevant Community Resources

SRV Requirements

A service should be located near & within easy access of a wide variety of relevant community resources that are used by nondevalued citizens in the community, in order to increase the likelihood of recipients’ competency enhancement, & thereby the enhancement of their social roles.

R212 Availability of Relevant Community Resources

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. This rating must be distinguished from R2111 Setting Access Recipients & Families and R2112 Setting Access Public, which measure access to and from the service for potential and actual recipients and members of the community. For instance, access to a service may be relatively poor considering where recipients must come from, and yet access from the service to resources may be relatively good.

2. This rating does not rate to what degree a service gets its recipients to actually make use of the available resources. Depending on the nature of the recipients and the purview of the service, this might be rated under R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships and R222 Competency-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships.

3. Whether the number and variety of available relevant resources is sufficient to assimilate the number of recipients served in the program being assessed is not rated here, but by R122 ServiceNeighborhood Assimilation Potential.

4. This rating assesses whether recipient access to community resources is speedy and convenient; but whether such resources and their grounds present obstacles to sensorily and physically impaired people is not rated anywhere by PASSING. There are several reasons for this, and they mostly have to do with keeping PASSING manageable. In order to assess the issue adequately, one would need to consider the specific physical and sensory impairments of recipients not only in relation to the presence or absence of barriers in the easily available resources, but also in relation to the quantity and range of such resources. Furthermore, in many services for devalued people, there can be frequent and dramatic changes in clientele and in their conditions; and yet further, there are some recipients who are too impaired to use even a barrier-free resource without additional physical and social supports such as an able-bodied person to assist the impaired person in getting in and out of the place. It appeared impossible to solve problems such as these without introducing considerable complexity and confusion as to the boundaries of various ratings. Thus, where this issue is a very significant one for a particular service, it should be addressed in its own right apart from PASSING. However, if a service campaigns for removal of architectural barriers within community resources, and for better physical accessibility of community facilities to impaired people generally, then it could be credited under R133 Promotion of Recipient Autonomy & Rights.

5. Where the resources around a service being assessed are other human service programs (e.g., a recreation center for impaired people, a medical clinic for poor people), these should be rated under R121 Image Projection of Program-to-Program Juxtaposition.

6. If there are resources within or near a service being assessed that are segregated (in the sense of being restricted to use by members of a devalued group), then any use of such a resource by the recipients of the service being assessed, or other contact by these recipients with the devalued users of that segregated resource, might be penalized under R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships, and/or R222 Competency-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships.

7. The presence of certain resources within a service setting might also constitute a violation of R131 Culture-Appropriate Separation or Combination of Program Functions.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

In determining whether the available resources are relevant, & whether access to them is speedy & convenient, raters should consider (a) recipients’ ages, (b)the type of service, (c) the physical & mental condition of recipients, & (d) whether the cost of access from the service to the resources is within the financial means of the recipients.

Look for different types of resources: groceries, restaurants, drug stores, hardware stores, dry cleaners, laundromats, department & variety stores, banks, post offices, libraries, theaters, parks, museums, churches, doctors/dentists, hospitals, schools, etc.

Not credited here is the presence of segregative resources, either within or outside of the service being assessed.

Only the presence of relevant resources within easy access is rated here, not their adequacy to absorb the number of recipients in the service being assessed.

This rating measures only the presence or absence of potentially integrative resources, & the degree to which they could be used by the recipients. Where such resources are absent, the service will receive a low level. Additionally, a service could receive a low level on this rating if whatever resources are present are (a) too far away for access to them to be speedy & convenient; (b) lacking in relevant variety; or (c) intended for use only by devalued groups.

Some valued parties seek places to live that are far removed from people & resources, e.g., a “hideaway” in the mountains. However, for valued parties, the opportunities that resources can afford for social integration & for development/exercise of competency are rarely as important as they are for devalued people. Thus, even an otherwise valued location would still be down-rated for a service to devalued people if it were far from relevant community resources.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

How many & what type of relevant resources are nearby?

How relevant are the available resources to the needs of the recipients? To the nature of the service?

How far is the service from the different types of relevant resources?

What needed relevant resources are not present nearby?

What means of transportation are available for the recipients to get from the service to relevant resources?

How expensive & dependable is the available transportation?

How safe is the area between the service & resources?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Tour of the community;

Tour of the neighborhood;

Schedules & route maps of bus & other means of transportation;

Observation of sidewalks, street lighting, crosswalks, etc.;

Direct interviews with servers, service leaders, & recipients.

R212 Availability of Relevant Community Resources

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. The development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is apt to be severely impeded or impaired (even if unintentionally), due to the very poor availability of relevant community resources. E.g.: community resources are virtually absent; resources can be gotten to, but only at high cost of time, effort, or money; resources are closer, but still too far or very difficult for the kind of recipients of the service being assessed to reach; resources are present, but are almost totally irrelevant to the needs of the recipients.

Level 2. The poor availability of relevant community resources has a negative impact on the competencies of the recipients in one of two ways:

a. it significantly impedes or impairs the competency or competency development of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive. E.g.: there is a very limited variety of relevant physical resources near the service; available resources require significant but not extraordinary efforts to reach; or

b. it severely impedes or impairs (as in Level 1) the competency or competency development of a significant minority of recipients , even if not of other recipients. E.g., because of an inappropriate recipient grouping, the available community resources are totally irrelevant to a significant minority of recipients, & resources that would be relevant to them are far away & difficult to get to.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ competency risks & needs, the competency impact on recipients of the availability of relevant community resources is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 fo r any recipients ; or

b. the availability of relevant community resources neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ competency.

Level 4. The availability of a range of relevant community resources around the service is highly conducive to the competency enhancement of recipients, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. conditions are mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or b. the likelihood of competency enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and the potential for development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is so enhanced by the presence of a wide range of easily available relevant community resources that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

General Statement of the Issue

R213 Physical Comfort of Setting

According to most cultural standards, physical comfort consists of circumstances that please the senses, and that afford one a feeling of well-being, security, contentment, and ease. Comfort is given to the sense of taste by food that is nourishing, good-tasting, suitably hot or cold, plentiful, and varied. (Where meals are served, the quality of the food is to be rated here.) The sense of sight is comforted by a setting that is neither too bright nor too dark. In order to be comfortable to the ears, a setting should be free from loud and/or distracting noises (such as humming lights or a noisy fan), and yet generally not be so sound-absorbent that sounds are muted by the environment before they can be distinctly heard. There should be no unpleasant odors in the environment that offend the sense of smell. An environment could be comfortable to the sense of touch via various types of furniture, pillows, soft or supportive places to sit, beds that are neither too soft nor too hard, carpeting, air conditioning or air flow, humidifiers, and sufficient warmth in colder months.

In order to be comfortable, an environment must also allow the people in it to accomplish their activities with reasonable ease, and should not make unpleasant demands on their bodies while they do so. At the same time, comfortable environments would afford people options for a feeling of well-being, at least within the constraints of the functional purposes (productivity, learning, etc.) of the setting.

There are at least three SRV-relevant benefits of comfortable settings, some of which have image as well as competency impacts.

1. They invite and attract (“lure”) people, and/or motivate them not to leave prematurely. (In the case of human services, these people would also be potential integrators.)

2. They help to maximize the productivity, efficiency, and effectiveness of users, by allowing them to attend to tasks (such as conducting their work, transacting relationships, etc.) from which they might otherwise be distracted if their attentions and energies were focused on achieving greater comfort. As well, by reducing other demands and distractions, physically comfortable settings may help their users to achieve the full potential benefit of the service rendered.

3. They confer value upon, and enhance the image of, their users. However, this rating is concerned with how comfort affects competencies broadly defined; image effects of the setting’s degree of comfort are rated elsewhere (see No. 2 in “Differentiation From Other Ratings” section).

Most facilities and services for valued citizens are fully expected to be physically comfortable. Especially in the places where they live, people usually strive to have comfort-enhancing features such as carpeting, comfy furniture, drapes (both to shield the light and to add warmth in winter), air conditioning or fans in summer and adequate heat in winter, plentiful and good food, and pleasant odors, if any odors at all. Similarly, it is expected that attention will be paid to the comfort of workers in work settings. Even in such inherently uncomfortable settings as foundries, workers can be provided with lunchrooms, showers and lockers, padded seating, and possibly specialized equipment such as noise reduction devices and breathing masks.

As mentioned elsewhere in PASSING, the quality of a person’s place of residence is apt to have much more of an effect on the person’s life than any other services in which the person typically spends less time, and which typically exert less control over the person than does the residence. Thus, it is especially important that residential services be physically comfortable. Raters who assess a residential program should try to identify with the recipients and ask themselves, “Would this setting be comfortable if I had to live here? If I ate most of my meals here? If I slept and bathed here?” etc. Uncomfortable conditions that may be bearable in settings in which one does not spend a great deal of time may quickly become intolerable in a residential setting.

Physical Comfort of Setting

SRV Requirements

In order to increase the security, productivity, & competencies of service recipients, & possibly also their image, & thereby to enhance their social roles, a human service should be provided in as comfortable a setting as possible.

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. Raters must be sure to separate this rating from R1121 External Setting Aesthetics and R1122 Internal Setting Aesthetics.

a. To some degree, the comfort of a setting can be affected by certain aspects of cleanliness. For example, if one can feel and hear grit crackling under one’s feet while walking over a dirty floor, one might experience discomfort; one might be reluctant to sit on a soiled or stained chair, or a couch which breathes dust when one brushes against it; the smell of ashes in unemptied ashtrays may be offensive; one might lose one’s appetite even for good-tasting food if one knew that it had been cooked in a dirty kitchen; discovering that the doorknobs feel sticky might make one hesitate to touch anything else; etc. However, only those aspects of service setting cleanliness that are directly relevant to people’s perceived comfort will be considered in this rating; other aspects of cleanliness are more relevant to a setting’s beauty and visual appeal, and should be rated under either R1121 External Setting Aesthetics or R1122 Internal Setting Aesthetics.

b. Furthermore, there could be at least some degree of physical comfort in an unattractive environment, e.g., the temperature could be well-regulated, the furniture might be extremely comfortable, and there may be a sound-absorbing ceiling, even if the setting were bare, painted with drab colors, etc. It is likewise conceivable that a beautiful setting might be extremely uncomfortable, e.g., a well-decorated classroom might nonetheless be suffocatingly hot (both in winter and summer), have no carpeting or other sound-absorbing materials, and have chairs and tables that are too small for the students who use them.

2. Any image issues that might be conveyed by a setting’s physical comfort or its lack (that the recipients are insensitive to heat or cold, do not appreciate good food, etc.) should be rated under either R1153 Image Projection of Setting Other Internal Physical Features or R145 Image Projection of Miscellaneous Aspects of a Service, depending on the source of the images.

3. Some settings may have features that in addition to being uncomfortable also feed preexisting negative stereotypes. For instance, if a nursing home smells of paint, this can be uncomfortable; but if it smelled of urine or feces, this would feed into negative stereotypes about aged people as discardable excrement, incompetent, and in their second infancy. This would also incur a cost on R145 Image Projection of Miscellaneous Aspects of a Service.

4. Recipient comfort conditions may differ from those of the servers. For example, there may be carpeting and air conditioning in the servers’ bedrooms in a group home, but not in those of the impaired residents. Much less frequently, recipients may experience better comfort conditions than servers; e.g., servers and recipients may both eat at a facility, but the recipients may receive much better food than do the servers. Raters should be sure to assess in this rating only the physical comfort for recipients Some differences in comfort level for servers and for recipients, and the meaning of these differences, may need to be rated under R223 Life-Enriching Interactions Among Recipients, Servers, & Others.

5. In residential settings, bedrooms being shared would only be rated here if they are crowded or otherwise distinctly uncomfortable; any deindividualizing elements of such bedrooms would be rated under R215 Individualizing Features of Setting.

6. Some features which make a setting more comfortable may also reduce the amount of challenge that it presents to its users, and vice versa. Thus, this rating must be distinguished from R214 Challenge/Safety Features of Setting, and raters should keep in mind that, depending on the mission of the service and the type of people served, a challenging environment may be more important than a very comfortable one in some instances, and vice versa in others.

Suggested Guidelines for Collecting and Using Evidence R213 Physical Comfort of Setting

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Raters should try to empathize with the recipients of the service, & try to experience the setting as they do.

Attention should be paid to the presence of desirable factors as well as to the absence of noxious ones. Shortcomings should be given greater weight if they: (a) occur in settings in which recipients spend a lot of time (such as residences); (b) occur in settings which exert a great deal of control over recipients’ lives (such as residences); &/or (c) reinforce already existing negative stereotypes of recipients.

Odors are an issue in physical comfort. Particularly damaging are bodily or excrement odors in residential settings for devalued people.

It is important to distinguish between the real comfort or discomfort which people may feel, & enforced e.g., legally imposed & therefore arbitrary “standards” of comfort. Even if it were required of all people, in all services, in all settings to maintain their thermostats at uncomfortable temperatures, the fact that everyone would be uncomfortable does not take away from the fact that the discomfort is real. Therefore, the actual physical comfort of the people in the service being assessed is all that raters should attend to.

Settings which (potentially) serve people with certain physical & sensory impairments might also need to have special structural features, such as ramps, widened toilet stalls, suitable elevators, & sound-enhancing materials in the walls & ceiling, in order to be fully comfortable to their users.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

In what ways is the service setting comfortable or uncomfortable in terms of: sight? smell? hearing? touch? taste? feeling tone?

Does the lack of comfort in the setting interfere with people’s attending to the purpose of the service, e.g., doing their work, learning, etc.? In what ways?

Would analogous settings for valued people have comfort features which are not present in the setting?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Tour of the setting;

Observations within the setting;

Observations of people in the program;

Direct interviews with servers, service leaders, & recipients.

R213 Physical Comfort of Setting

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. The development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is apt to be severely impeded or impaired (even if unintentionally), due to the fact that physical comfort in the service is so poor that it would probably be perceived as intolerable, very hard to tolerate, very distracting, or interfering with service processes, or extremely objectionable at best, by even a sizeable minority of recipients or fellow citizens who might be placed into such circumstances.

Level 2. Conditions of physical discomfort of the setting have a negative impact on the competencies of the recipients in one of two ways:

a. they significantly impede or impair the competency or competency development of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive.; or

b. they severely impede or impair (as in Level 1) the competency or competency development of a significant minority of recipients , even if not of other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ competency risks & needs, the competency impact on recipients of the physical comfort of the setting is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients ; or

b. the degree of comfort neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ competency. Perhaps no comfort-irritants are present, but neither are any amenities.

Level 4. The degree of comfort in the service being assessed is highly conducive to the competency enhancement of recipients, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. comfort conditions are mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. the likelihood of competency enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and the potential for development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is so enhanced by the extensive degree of physical comfort in the service that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

R214 Challenge/ Safety Features of Setting

General Statement of the Issue

The physical environment of a service can either provide, or reduce, risks and challenges and resultant opportunities for learning and development. SRV requires that, in order to elicit adaptive recipient behavior, growth, and new abilities, the setting of a service should (a) as much as possible, be at least normatively challenging and risky for its recipients, and (b) at the same time provide truly needed safety features, to the degree that this can be accomplished via the physical environment. These elements have both competency and image implications; the emphasis in this rating is primarily on competency, while the image impacts would be assessed by one or more of the image-related physical setting ratings (see No. 1 in “Differentiation From Other Ratings”).

1. Degree of challenge presented by the physical setting. There are many ways in which a physical setting can challenge recipients to learn, grow, or perform. For example, a service may be built on a hill, thus necessitating that people negotiate the winding road and walkway that lead up to it; there may be stairwells which people might (learn to) climb if they are to reach certain areas of a building; with a typical swimming pool, people must learn how deeply to venture into it, which end of the pool to enter and leave, and how; etc.

In part, this point is derived from a corollary to SRV that is often called “the dignity of risk.” This corollary is based on the premise that there is, in fact, dignity in taking risks, and that life without risk even when such risk occasionally results in misfortune or tragedy is unnatural, infantilizing, and non-developmental. Thus, when (devalued) people are presented with risks, they are not only being accorded an opportunity to grow (sometimes literally by leaps and bounds), but are also being accorded the dignity that comes from taking a chance a dignity that a person usually retains even in the event of failure. As well, if people are overprotected from the opportunities to learn from their mistakes, to take risks, and occasionally even to fail, they will become less and less able to cope adequately with difficult and challenging situations, and may eventually become habitually incompetent, or at least less competent than they could have been. For example, if one has always showered where the water temperature was pre-set, one will not have learned how to achieve the right mix of hot and cold without scalding or freezing oneself.

2. Prudent safety features of the setting. At the same time, a setting should not be underprotective when protection is genuinely needed. Prudent safety measures and installations, including ones which would typically be found in the service’s valued analogue should be present in human service settings. When recipients have real limitations, or when a situation is inherently dangerous, and they are not given adequate, needed protection, neither their competencies nor image are enhanced. Instead, a person may come to harm in a situation which was not only preventable, but which also was not really a growth opportunity because the person was not prepared to learn from the incident, did not have the requisite skills to meet the challenge with a good chance of success, and so on. These types of needless, preventable, and non-growth-producing incidents and accidents only serve to reinforce widespread negative stereotypes about people with impairments: that they are incapable, cannot learn, “need” to be sheltered and segregated, etc.

A lack of challenging/risky features in the physical setting of a service may spring from a desire (on the part of service planners, designers, administrators, etc.) to either overprotect the recipients from any risks inherent in the environment, to protect the environment from the recipients, or to protect themselves from public outcry or lawsuits. On the other hand, a lack of appropriate safety features in the environment may be due to a number of both benevolent and ill-intended approaches to the recipients, or to a misunderstanding on the part of servers either of the principle of the dignity of risk or of the individualization demands of SRV. Both types of errors may also result from (a) the failure of servers to know and understand their recipients, or (b) the inheritance of a facility designed for different purposes or people. Regardless of the reasons, the fact that the environment is nonnormatively overprotective or under-protective of recipients would be down-rated.

This rating is concerned only with the built - i n (including affixed) physical features of the setting, its premises, and its major appliances and equipment, which usually are not very readily changed or moved.

of Setting

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance recipients’ competencies, & thereby their social roles, the major & practically built-in physical features & appliances in the setting of a human service should encourage recipients to learn, perform or sustain normative or at least more advanced behaviors, & to incur normative risks of living. Such physical features should (a) challenge the users of the setting to take risks & move to their next level of development, & at the same time, (b) adequately protect users from undue dangers.

R214 Challenge/ Safety Features of Setting

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. Virtually every environmental feature that has to do with developmental challenge or protection also conveys some image message about the recipients’ competency, social roles, and status. These image issues are to be rated under R1153 Image Projection of Setting Other Internal Physical Features, if they derive from internal features; or under R1111 Setting-Neighborhood Harmony or R1131 External Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogue, if they derive from external setting aspects.

2. This rating measures only those overprotective or unsafe features of the setting which are fairly built-in, or which are associated with major appliances of the setting. Any programmatic measures of the service (as opposed to physical features) which bear on the degree of either challenge or of safety to which recipients are exposed would be rated under R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use. Such measures are not rated here even if their intent is to overcome challenge/safety features that are built into the setting.

3. Further, the presence of any overprotective or under-protective program-related materials that are readily changed (i.e., not built-in) and owned by the service would be rated under R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use. The presence of overprotective or underprotective personal possessions of recipients would be rated under R233 Competency-Related Personal Possessions, and the images attached to any such possessions would be rated under R142 Image-Related Personal Possessions.

4. Sometimes, an overprotective or dangerous environment for some recipients may result from an inappropriate grouping together of recipients with markedly different levels of skills and habits. Thus, an environmental feature which is needed and normatively protective for some recipients may constitute overprotection for others. The inappropriateness of the environment for some or all recipients is rated here; however, the inappropriateness of recipient groupings per se is not rated here, but under both R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition, and R1231 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Social Value.

5. Some features which make a setting more comfortable may also reduce the amount of challenge that it presents to its users, and vice versa. Thus, this rating must be distinguished from R213 Physical Comfort of Setting, and raters should keep in mind that, depending on the mission of the service and the type of people served, a challenging environment may be more important than a very comfortable one, or vice versa.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Consider typical physical environment “standards” for challenge & safety in comparable settings for nondevalued (& especially unimpaired) people.

Raters often err by assuming that all environments should be “normal,” rather than as challenging as possible while also prudently safe, considering recipients’ identities & functioning. Both servers & raters can only resolve the issues of how much safety & challenge the environment should provide if they thoroughly understand the recipients & their identities.

Raters should always be skeptical when recipients are interpreted to them by servers as incapable of facing reasonable risks, or as incapable of learning to do so. It is useful to remember that some of the same persons who were once housed in totally sheltered institutional settings are today living in normatively risky community environments, because the attitudes & insights of human service personnel have changed, not the nature of recipients. As well, it is difficult to know what the true potential of recipients is unless they are given opportunities to demonstrate what they can do.

If genuinely needed adaptations have been made in the setting in order to meet the mobility needs of physically impaired people (e.g., ramps, support rails in toilet stalls), then these features are not considered overprotective & are therefore not penalized here. However, if the presence of these features in a setting also denies justifiable challenge (e.g., the option to use the stairs & regular toilets) even to only some other recipients, this denial of challenge is rated here.

Even if unreasonable & unnecessary competencyimpeding overprotective measures are imposed on the service by some external body (e.g., funders, regulators), they are still rated.

If the service setting being assessed is one where recipients never are (e.g., a telephone counseling service, a program that delivers hot lunches to people in their homes), then the setting can hardly be either overor under-protective for them . Therefore, this rating would not be applied, & the service’s total score should be computed using the pro-rating method explained on pp. 82-84 of the Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Quality.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

What are the needs/ impairments/conditions of the recipients?

Are there any more-or-less built-in aspects of the setting which reduce the risk of injury to recipients? If so, are any recipients thereby denied risks which they would be capable of facing?

Are there any more-or-less built-in aspects of the setting which reduce the risk of injury to them by recipients? If so, are there any recipients for whom these features would not be needed?

Are there any major appliances or major modifications or renovations in the setting which reduce the opportunities for recipients to take risks, experiment, & grow?

Are there any features of the setting or its major appliances that are dangerous to recipients? Are any recipients genuinely endangered by failure to install safety & protective features?

Has the service tried to make an otherwise normatively challenging & risky physical setting feature less risky for recipients? In what ways?

Has the service tried to make an otherwise non-challenging physical setting more challenging? In what ways?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Tour of the setting exterior by car & on foot;

Tour of the interior on foot; Architectural plans, drawings, photographs;

Direct interviews with servers, service leaders, & recipients.

R214 Challenge/ Safety Features of Setting

Criteria for Level Assignments

N.B. - If the service setting is one where recipients never are, then this rating would not be applied, & the service’s total score is pro-rated, as explained on pp. 82-84 of the 1983 Guidelines monograph (see footnote 6 on p. 4).

N.B. - Particularly in this rating, level assignments must take into account the mental and bodily competencies, frailties, health problems, presumable growth potential, etc., of the recipients.

Level 1. The development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is apt to be severely impeded or impaired (even if unintentionally), due to the fact that the physical features of the setting are:

a. severely underprotective of, &/ or hazardous to, the safety of recipients. E.g., the setting poses a clear, immediate, & appreciable danger to recipients’ safety, such as rotting broken stairs or lack of a banister or lack of any fire or smoke alarms; &/or

b. very unnecessarily overprotective in instances where recipients could be expected to take proper precautions, or could be taught proper use of the physical features of the setting which are considered potentially dangerous.

Level 2. The setting challenge/safety features have a negative impact on the competencies of the recipients in one of two ways:

a. they significantly impede or impair the competency or competency development of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive. The setting has more than one definitely overprotective built-in feature, but these are not so extensive as to constitute major limits to recipients’ growth or performance; or

b. they severely impede or impair (as in Level 1) the competency or competency development of a significant minority of recipients , even if not of other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ competency risks & needs, the competency impact on recipients of the challenge/safety features of the setting is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipient s ; or

b. challenge/safety features neither significantly diminish nor significantly enhance recipients’ competency.

Level 4. The safety & challenge features of the physical setting are highly conducive to the competency enhancement of recipients, but fall short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. challenge/safety features are mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients . Perhaps there are a few very minor physical features that remove either an appropriate challenge/risk or a prudent safety feature from recipients; or

b. the likelihood of competency enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and the potential for development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is so enhanced by the challenging yet reasonably safe nature of the physical setting that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

R215 Individualizing Features of Setting

General Statement of the Issue

In Western society, the development and expression of one’s individuality (including one’s personality, unique talents and abilities, personal beliefs and preferences, etc.) is highly valued and is related to competent identity. Therefore, if a human service is to be social role-valorizing, it must support the development and expression of the individuality of each of its recipients, especially so if they are devalued people, because historically, such people have been treated both within and outside of human services in a very deindividualizing, even dehumanizing, fashion, sometimes in order to make it easier to control and manage them. Accordingly, to the maximum degree that recipients’ identities and conditions permit, structural and quasi-structural features of the physical setting should elicit and support recipients’ individuality, and facilitate programmatic efforts to help each recipient develop and express his or her own uniqueness. Indeed, the physical environment of the service should make almost irresistible positive role demands upon recipients to develop and express their own separate identities (personality, interests, talents, skills, etc.) keeping in mind that if thereby the bounds of what is acceptable in society are exceeded, an image cost is incurred.

This rating examines only four relevant structural or quasi - structural aspects of a service setting: (a) the presence of well-defined, adequate spaces for personal functioning of each recipient within the setting (e.g., a bedroom, office, work station, desk); (b) options for recipient privacy; (c) movable furniture in recipients’ areas; and (d) any major features and appointments of the physical environment that bear on individualization and that are not more appropriately covered under R213 Physical Comfort of Setting.

1. Presence of well-defined personal spaces for each recipient. Each recipient in a service should have one or more well-defined areas that the person can legitimately call and treat as his or her own, unless the service is of a type (e.g., a walk-in counseling office) that would not be expected to have such spaces even if it served very privileged people. In residential services, people should have their own beds, and sometimes their own bedrooms (though not necessarily always). In school and work settings, personal functioning spaces for recipients are usually less stationary than they are in residences. However, in many non-residential settings, it would be appropriate for each regular recipient to have a locker. Also, in at least some businesses, workers have their own offices, desks, chairs, or work areas, etc. Similarly, students usually have their own desks.

2. Options for privacy of recipients. There should be options provided by the physical setting for recipients to have privacy if they so desire and if their identities/conditions permit it. However, in only a very few rare instances would recipients’ identities be such that not even a small degree of privacy would be feasible and consistent with SRV. For example, in residential services, bedrooms almost always should have doors or some other type of barrier. As well, where there is more than one toilet, bath, or shower in a bathroom, these should be as private as those for valued people if recipients’ identities permit, keeping in mind the SRV guideline of “as much as possible.” Furthermore, options for privacy can even be extended to many kinds of settings in which it is often denied. For instance, some people do not work well if they have to work in large open spaces with a lot of other people. Provision of special separated nooks and tables, or offices with doors that can be closed or partitions that can be raised, would allow such persons greater privacy in order to enhance their productivity, progress, or feeling of well-being.

3. Mobility of furnishings. In typical society, it is largely taken for granted that in most settings, a person may manipulate his or her physical environment at least to some degree in order to provide him or herself with opportunities to express or discover personal preferences, allow for privacy, distinguish him or herself from others, and even merely vary the environment in order to feel more content. In fact, when people find themselves in settings in which they would ordinarily expect to be able to move the furnishings, but the setting prevents them from doing so, it can be unsettling and disturbing so much so that some people would refuse to stay in the setting if they could help it. Thus, in order for a setting to allow for greater individualization of the people who use it, furniture should generally not be built-in or otherwise immovably fixed, and especially not if the setting is a residential one.

4. Major features and appointments of the environment that bear on individualization and are not primarily related to the comfort of users. Most of the major features and appointments of the environment that are related to the individual identity of people functioning therein are probably issues of physical comfort, and should be rated under R213 Physical Comfort of Setting. However, there may be some that are not related to comfort that could be rated here, e.g., in a work setting, every worker has some wall space to post pictures, art work, seasonal décor, etc.

Individualizing Features of Setting

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance recipients’ competencies, & thereby their social roles, the structural or quasi-structural aspects of the physical setting should maximally elicit & facilitate, rather than inhibit, individualization & selfexpression of recipients, by providing: (a) well-defined personal life spaces for each; (b) options for the maximally feasible recipient privacy that recipients’ condition(s) permit; (c) movable furnishings; & (d) other major setting features & appointments that bear on individualization.

R215 Individualizing Features of Setting

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. Any environmental features such as ramps and widened doorways that are meant to make a setting more usable by physically impaired recipients are rated under R213 Physical Comfort of Setting. However, certain such adaptations that can make a setting more usable by some physically impaired people might be deindividualizing if other recipients also have to use them.

2. The presence and nature of certain built-in or major appliances (such as large playground equipment) may have implications to several ratings, including R215 Individualizing Features of Setting. Any recipient comfort aspects of such an appliance would be rated by R213 Physical Comfort of Setting; its contribution to program challenge/safety would be rated by R214 Challenge/Safety Features of Setting, and possibly R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use; and the degree to which it makes allowance for individual differences among recipients (not server convenience) who have to use it, or who may benefit from such use, would be assessed by the rating at hand.

3. The presence and use of equipment which may be necessary to promote recipient competencies is rated under R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use. The individualizing nature or potential of any equipment which is part of the physical setting itself is rated by the rating at hand.

4. R224 Service Support for Recipient Individualization rates any non - structural and programmatic aspects which affect individualization of recipients, including any that either enhance or interfere with the use of individualizing setting features. For instance, bedrooms may have doors (rated by the rating at hand), but servers may unnecessarily prevent residents from closing them, which would be rated by R224. Similarly, the presence of a desk for each student is rated here, but placing name tags on each student’s desk, or teacher-made equipment for a specific physically impaired student, would be rated under R224.

5. Whether the service provides physical space for recipients’ individual personal possessions is not rated here but in R142 Image-Related Personal Possessions.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Neither servers nor raters can accurately & adequately determine how individualizing the setting can or should be unless they thoroughly understand the identities, limitations & needs of the people served.

Devalued people have historically been treated in ways which were often highly deindividualizing. Thus, in order to combat negative historical trends, it is important that services “bend over backwards” to enhance individual competencies, & to convey respect for the individuality of their recipients.

Particularly important in long-term residential settings is whether furniture in recipient areas is built-in & hence relatively immobile, reducing a resident’s options for individualizing his or her space by rearranging the furnishings, or by bringing in one’s own. It is therefore unlikely that such a space can earn the highest level here. Because built-in furnishings can also restrict what & how many possessions a person can bring, it is also likely to prevent a high rating on R142 Image-Related Personal Possessions, & possibly also on R233 Competency-Related Personal Possessions.

Some services are headquartered in a physical setting that recipients rarely or never use. Other services, such as some day camps, may have a setting that has no structural or quasistructural features. In such instances, the setting can hardly be individualizing for recipients. Therefore, this rating would not be applied, & the service’s total score should be computed using the pro-rating method explained on pp. 82-84 of the Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Quality.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

What are recipients’ conditions/identities?

Given these conditions/ identities, does the design of the physical setting allow maximally feasible privacy for the recipients?

What, if any, individual private spaces do recipients have in the facility?

In recipient areas in the setting, is the furniture & its arrangement moveable?

Are there any other features of the physical structure which maximize the options for recipient individualization, or which are obstacles or even impediments to such individualization?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Tour of both the exterior & interior of the setting;

Observations of recipients in program;

Direct interviews with servers, service leaders, & recipients.

Are relevant direct service personnel & service leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

R215 Individualizing Features of Setting

Criteria for Level Assignments

N.B. - If the service is one where recipients never are, then this rating would not be applied, & the service’s total score is pro-rated, as explained on pp. 82-84 of the 1983 Guidelinesmonograph (see footnote 6 on p. 4).

Level 1. The development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is apt to be severely impeded or impaired (even if unintentionally), due to the fact that the structural or quasi - structural physical features of the service are unnecessarily grossly diminishing of the potential development & expression of maximally feasible recipient individuality. This is apt to be true when any one of the following conditions is present:

a. important life spaces are very deindividualizing or poorly-defined; or

b. gross violation of privacy that is not necessitated by recipients’ conditions or identities; or

c. the major furniture that would be mobile in a normative environment is fixed or immovable.

Level 2. The lack of individualizing setting features has a negative impact on the competencies of the recipients in one of two ways:

a. it significantly impedes or impairs the competency or competency development of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive; or

b. it severely impedes or impairs (as in Level 1) the competency or competency development of a significant minority of recipients , even if not of other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ competency risks & needs, the competency impact on recipients of the individualizing features of the setting is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for an y recipients ; or

b. individualizing features of the setting neither significantly diminish nor significantly enhance recipients’ competency. E.g.: the setting may neither readily elicit nor strongly inhibit recipient individuality; the service is one that recipients might come to for brief periods, but would spend so little time in it that individualization of the setting is irrelevant

Level 4. The potential for individualization in the structural or quasi-structural features of the setting is highly conducive to the competency enhancement of recipients, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. conditions are mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. the likelihood of competency enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and the potential for development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is so enhanced by the maximally feasible individualizing nature of the structural or quasi-structural physical features of the setting that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

A great deal of the introductory/background material relevant to competency-related servicestructured groupings and relationships is contained in the sections entitled “Overarching Considerations Shared by the Thirteen Ratings Under the Rubrics 12 Image-Related ServiceStructured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions, & 22 Competency-Related ServiceStructured Groupings & Relationships” on pp. 133-136, and “Overarching Considerations Shared by the Four Ratings Under the Rubrics 123 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition & 221 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Groupings” on pp. 155-158. Raters must be sure to go back and re-read that material before reading, and especially before applying to a service, the following six ratings that begin with “R22...”

Every program structures certain relationships among people, including those it fosters among its recipients, between recipients and servers, and among recipients, servers, and members of the public. Some of these service-structured relationships primarily affect recipients’ competencies, and it is these that are the concern of these ratings. Specifically, these assess the: (a) competency-related size and composition of recipient groupings; (b) service-mediated competency-related interactions of recipients with people other than servers and other recipients of the same program; (c) quality of interactions among the various people in the service, as well as between the people in the service and members of the public; (d) degree of programmatic individualization of each recipient; (e) and development of a valued socio-sexual identity for recipients.

A challenging element of several ratings in this rating cluster namely R2211, R2212, and R222 is that they affect both broad competency-related development, and at least for certain recipients, also the acquisition of certain specific competencies. That is, groupings and relationships will affect all sorts of competencies of people of all ages, and especially so children because of their receptivity to imitation and modeling. As well, groupings and relationships may be structured in order to affect very specific competencies, such as manner of speech, impulse control, social graces, a specific role skill, etc.

Also, via groupings and relationships, people can acquire any number of competencies that they cannot be said to “need,” in the sense that the competency acquired does not address such needs as for food, shelter, love, belonging, etc., but that nonetheless have a bearing on their roles. For instance, by being immersed in certain groupings, a person may learn to speak six languages, even though the person does not need to do so in order to function well in life. Whether they are “needed” by recipients or not, competencies developed by groupings and associations with others are all considered in this cluster of ratings. To the degree that a competency acquisition does address a recipient need, there may be an interaction between some of the ratings in this cluster, and the rating of R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs.

Recipients’ competencies are directly affected by the other people with whom they come in contact, primarily as a result of (a) the expectancies that other people create for and impose on recipients, and (b) the models of behavior that these other people provide. These two avenues of competency enhancement via relationships with other people are discussed below.

1. The power of expectancies. A well-known and extremely powerful behavior change strategy is the use of role expectancy. When an expectation for a certain kind of behavior is placed upon a person by other people, by settings in which the person functions, by activities that are provided to the person, and/or by imagery attached to the person, then the person is very likely to conform to the expectancy, thereby reinforcing the expectancy in the expector and observers. Reinforced expectancies lead to further role demands which tend to elicit yet further expectancy-conforming responses, and so on. Often, this dynamic has worked to the detriment of many human service recipients, especially if they are devalued people, because such people have very frequently, consistently, even massively been expected to act in ways which are not valued by the culture, not appropriate to their ages, and may even be offensive. For example, if a mildly impaired person is served within a program grouping with mostly more severely impaired persons, then the expectancies that will be imposed on that person are apt to be lower and less developmental. However, the expectancy dynamic can also work for adaptive purposes. For instance, role expectancies can shape adaptive and age-appropriate interactions in general, and appropriate sexual identities and behaviors for recipients. And the dynamic of role expectancies can be used to attain

recipient competency enhancement via integration, because in typical settings, people almost automatically expect others in those environments to behave in culturally normative ways. Therefore, when devalued people are interspersed in open settings with non-devalued people, it is very likely that they will be exposed to normative behavioral and role expectancies. In such open settings, even non-devalued people who are aware that devalued, impaired, possibly less competent, persons are present may still expect at least some normative behaviors from them, and may contribute to their competency development even if they did nothing more than model expected behaviors, as discussed next.

2. The power of modeling and imitation. A second extremely potent behavior change strategy is to induce imitation in a person whose behavior is to be changed. Imitation of demonstrated behaviors is one of the most primitive, easiest, and painless ways to learn, and is within the capacity of almost all human beings from early infancy onward. Learning via imitation and modeling often even takes place unconsciously, i.e., the learner is unaware that he or she is imitating. Just as the dynamic of role expectancy and circularity has not always been employed to the benefit of devalued people, so with imitation. For example, when people are served in groups in which members have different degrees of need, or different impairing/devalued conditions, the people who are more impaired or devalued often do not provide good models for the people with less severe needs, particularly when the more impaired persons are in the majority. The power of modeling/imitation is demonstrated by the fact that research has shown that even the non-impaired teachers of severely retarded people occasionally and unconsciously adopt some of the inappropriate behaviors of their students, such as rocking, hair twirling, and other stereotyped behaviors.

The power of modeling makes it particularly important that devalued or impaired persons of distinctly different age groups not be served together in the same program grouping or sub-grouping, even in instances where the competency levels of all members might be approximately the same. Younger persons quite commonly perceive older persons in their environment as models and identify with them (“I want to be like when I grow up”). If devalued children and adults are grouped together, or even younger and older children (or adolescents), then the older recipients provide devalued role models for the younger ones. For example, if mentally disordered youngsters and adults live in the same group residence, or participate in the same day activity or recreational program, then the children are very likely to learn devalued disordered behaviors from the adults, such as repetitive stereotyped movements, inappropriate conversation, odd social interactions, and so on.

But imitation could be employed in order to enhance the competencies and skills of the recipients of a human service, and especially devalued people. If recipients were exposed systematically and consistently to people (such as non-impaired/non-devalued persons) who model appropriate and adaptive behaviors, then recipients would be apt to pick up those adaptive behaviors by imitation. Especially if recipients were helped to identify with the people who modeled the adaptive behaviors, tremendous gains in recipient competencies could well be achieved. However, even where more competent and less competent people interact (either within program groupings or otherwise), the competency benefits that might come to the less developed persons are likely to be lessened if the majority of group members are impaired or act deviantly, or if the devalued members are the older or otherwise more respected models. For example, if 20 or even 30 of the 40 children in an early childhood education program are impaired, then the 10 or 20 non-impaired children will have to carry too great a load of serving as positive models, relating to impaired peers constructively, providing stimulation, etc. In fact, the non-impaired children may even begin to imitate the inappropriate behaviors of the impaired youngsters. On the other hand, if only five or 10 of the 40 children were impaired, then the overwhelming majority of the models for both the impaired and non-impaired children would be more positive and valued ones, and each impaired child would have a high number of nonimpaired ones to relate to. The probabilities would then greatly increase that peer modeling would contribute to positive competency development for all children. Thus, for competency enhancement, services should structure their recipient groupings and other recipient relationship patterns so that the competent/positive/adaptive/valued models far outnumber the less adaptive or devalued members. Furthermore, recipients must be exposed to people who can model adaptive interpersonal relationships of different kinds, adaptive socio-sexual roles, culturally valued ways of expressing one’s individuality, or whatever competency it is that recipients are to acquire.

The six ratings below assess the degree to which a service capitalizes upon the power of role expectancies and imitation/modeling in its recipient groupings and other service-structured relationships in order to enhance recipient competencies.

221 COMPETENCY - RELATED INTRA - SERVICE RECIPIENT GROUPINGS

Readers are reminded that they need to be familiar with all the material covered under the two earlier headings entitled: “Overarching Considerations Shared by the Thirteen Ratings Under the Rubrics 12 Image - Related Service - Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions, & 22 Competency - Related Service - Structured Groupings & Relationships” on pp. 13 3 - 136, and “Overarching Considerations Shared by the Four Ratings Under the Rubrics 123 Image Projection of Intra - Service Recipient Grouping Composition, & 221 Competency - Related Intra - Service Recipient Groupings” on pp. 155 -158; as well as with the immediately preceding material on “22 Competency - Related Service - Structured Groupings & Relationships” on pp. 333 -334.

The people with whom one is grouped have a powerful effect on one’s competencies. In addition to the relevant factors discussed in the earlier sections above, recipients’ competencies will also be affected by the degree to which the size and composition of an intra-service recipient grouping allow servers to (a) effectively manage the group and accomplish certain goals for group members, and (b) provide the individualized structure and supervision (no more and no less) that a recipient needs. Both issues are explained below.

1. Likely ability of servers to effectively manage the group. If recipient groupings are too large or too diverse, servers very typically lose whatever control they may need to promote the competencies of group members. For instance, a class of five or 10 students who have disruptive behaviors poses much less of a management challenge than does such a class of 20 or more. If it takes all of a floor manager’s time to properly supervise 10 industrial trainees, then adding an eleventh trainee means that some members are apt to be neglected, and their work and/or progress will drop off in quantity and/or quality. And while a teacher’s time is occupied in teaching some students in a large or very heterogeneous class, other students may be stirring up trouble in another corner of the room, and students will experience considerably less growth if the teacher has to spend time patrolling and controlling rather than teaching. (How many servers there are per recipient can also be an issue of R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use. However, no amount of servers can defeat some of the competency-related drawbacks of grouping together large numbers of recipients, especially if these are competency-impaired.)

Similarly, the greater the range of ages, abilities, impairments, or degrees of need among the people who are grouped and served together, the more likely it is that the competencies of at least some recipients will not be enhanced. For instance, it is commonly harmful to the competency enhancement of the recipients if both impaired children and adults are grouped and served together in the same program, because the administrators and staff of such a program would have to be highly skilled in programming both for children and for adults. This competency combination is rare, and therefore, usually either the adults receive child-level expectations and programming from staff who are trained to work with children (this situation has been common in fields such as mental retardation), or the children will suffer because adult-oriented staff may not be able to empathize with their needs (this situation has been common in fields such as mental health). Further, even if the servers had the competencies to serve both children and adults, combining together in one grouping people of such widely differing ages would probably carry image costs, and be penalized according, as explained in R1232 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Age Image.

2. Provision of the needed structure and supervision for each recipient in an individualized fashion. When servers are unable to control or manage a group or its structure, or even to get to know its members as individuals, then in order to function, they are apt almost forced to adopt impersonal, less flexible, outright restrictive, regimentative, or even dehumanizing approaches and structures in an effort to maintain control, and all recipients are apt to receive the same, more restrictive level of intervention. This phenomenon is referred to as the “lowest common denominator” approach, wherein the structure necessary to meet the demands of one or several recipients is applied indiscriminately to other recipients who do not require that degree of structure. Although this can happen as a result of poor server ideology or competency, it is almost certain to happen when people (even valued ones) are grouped together in too large a number, or with degrees of impairment and needs that are too diverse.

For example, if four, or even fewer, of the six children in a group residence for mentally retarded youngsters have severe behavioral disorders, then it is highly likely that, in order for staff to handle the demands placed upon them, the less impaired residents will be forced to abide by at least some of the same rules and restrictions as are really only needed for the more impaired. Similarly, if one person in a too large or very diverse grouping would like to participate in an activity that either does not interest other group members, or for which other group members do not have the capacity (e.g., because they are more impaired), then that individual will often not be able, or even allowed, to pursue it.

Another scenario that commonly elicits the lowest common denominator structure is an excessive range of ages in a recipient group. For one thing, older persons are often bigger, stronger, and more experienced and sophisticated than people who are younger, and thus, the older ones could physically or psychologically control the younger members of the group. Especially with certain devalued people and in certain types of programs, this could be very counterproductive, and could even lead to abuse of the younger persons as has frequently happened in prisons, juvenile detention centers, institutions, etc. On the other hand, when older or elderly members of a grouping are weak and frail, the older members might be at the mercy of the younger ones who are bigger and stronger. Historically, this has also been the case in many institutions for impaired people; currently, such abuse of elderly people by their children and other younger relatives has been becoming more common even in typical homes in the community.

The size of a grouping and its composition, as these affect the competencies of the grouping members, are each addressed by a separate rating.

R2211 Competency - Related Intra - Service Recipient Grouping Size

Readers are reminded that they need to be familiar with all the material covered under the two earlier headings entitled: “Overarching Considerations Shared by the Thirteen Ratings Under the Rubrics 12 Image-Related Service-Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions, & 22 Competency-Related Service-Structured Groupings & Relationships” on pp. 133-136, and “Overarching Considerations Shared by the Four Ratings Under the Rubrics 123 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition, & 221 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Groupings” on pp. 155-158; as well as the immediately preceding materials “22 Competency-Related Service Structured Groupings & Relationships” and “221 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Groupings” on pp. 333-336.

General Statement of the Issue

The grouping, and any sub-groupings within it, that are to be assessed here in respect to competency impact must be the same that are assessed by R1231 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Social Value and R1232 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Age Image.

The size of the intra-service recipient grouping is an issue that has both image and competency dimensions. Therefore, there is a partially parallel image rating to this competency rating, namely R122 Service-Neighborhood Assimilation Potential, and some of the text of this rating will make reference to that parallel rating.

Other things being equal, if a service grouping is to be optimally social role-valorizing, then it must be comprised of that number of recipients which will best facilitate the development of their competencies. When an activity that is best learned and performed in a group of a certain size is carried out in a group that is either smaller or larger, then the potential benefit which group members might have derived from the activity may be reduced, abolished, or even counteracted. For competencyrelated purposes, a grouping size will have to achieve up to five objectives: (a) promote the competent transaction of relevant tasks by group members; (b) enable servers to both manage the group, and be individualizing of its members; (c) provide the stimulation to elicit whatever activation and vitality is desired from group members; (d) promote a suitable outward-directedness of group members (especially if they are devalued) towards participation in valued society; in certain cases (e) promote feelings of security, intimacy, and “belongingness” within the group; and (f) recognize individual differences and preferences among recipients for functioning alone or in groups. Obviously, some of these objectives are more applicable to some people and services than others; and in order to accomplish any of these objectives, the optimal size of a grouping will depend on its purpose.

In order for certain competency-related service goals to be pursued, it is important that there be neither too few nor too many recipients in a grouping. For example, if a child spends much of its time in a group with only one or two other people, it will not learn many things that it needs to learn about living in the world, and getting along with many different kinds of people in many different sizes of groups and in many different situations. This is one reason why families will often enroll an only child at a young age in an early education-type program where the child can learn to be social and to benefit from others. Adults as well may need to be with at least a certain minimum number of people in order to carry out, or benefit from, certain competency-related life functions, though perhaps for different reasons than children. For example, an adult who has recently suffered bereavement or other relationship loss may need to live with friends or relatives so as not to become depressed, withdrawn, stop eating or taking care of him or herself, etc. Thus, in order for a recipient to become wellsocialized, to develop or practice certain competencies, and to overcome the negative effects of some life experiences, a service may have to constitute groupings with several members who have salient interests, personality orientations, experiences, etc. A service for very few people (or even for only one person) may have to recruit additional persons other than its own recipient(s) in order to constitute a grouping or sub-grouping that is optimal for certain competency purposes.

On the other hand, there can be too many people in certain groupings. For example, elementary schools strive to keep their classes small, in part so that teachers will be able to give better attention to the students, and have better classroom control in other words, so they will be better able to tend to the competency-enhancement of the students. Similarly, a remedial reading group may be composed of only a handful of pupils, so that the teacher can devote the necessary intensity of attention to each. Almost inevitably, groupings which are too large tend to invite deindividualizing “mass management.”

Thus, for some purposes, small groupings will be better. For example, in a small grouping, people are more apt to feel recognized and known as individuals, secure, accepted, and that they really belong, because it is easier to relate to members as individuals and to get to know each of them. In a small group, some people who are relatively lethargic are less able to hide in the crowd, and more likely to be provided with the necessary stimulation to make them more participative, which is particularly a concern for people who are shy and insecure, perhaps because of an impairment, a history of rejection, or because it is “their nature”; whereas in large groupings, such people are very apt to be overlooked or neglected, or they may feel overwhelmed, so that whatever inclination they may have to be sociable and active would be lost. Members of certain small groupings may also be more motivated to seek interactions with people outside the group. For example, a small number of people living together in an apartment or home are unlikely to be able to meet all of each other’s relationship or other needs within that group because there will usually not be enough group members present, interested, and/or able to support all necessary and desirable activities. In response, such residents will tend to be drawn outside the group and its setting in order to seek (other) friends, shop at the local market, and go to community sites to skate, play bingo or tennis, see films, etc. On the other hand, if the number of people in a grouping were large, its members would be likely to be able to meet more of their needs within the confines of that social system, and form so many of their personal relationships there as to have little motivation for reaching outwards. In turn, this can be very lifeconstricting. Further, a number of life functions and activities are likely to be brought into a larger group and its setting. For instance, in the case of a residence for 25 or 50 people, it will be inconvenient to shop for food for that many people at the local grocery store, so food is apt to be shipped in by the truckload instead; it may be deemed more economical (or at least more convenient) to have a number of washers and dryers in the building than for people to go out to the local laundromat; etc. Such a large residence increasingly tends to resemble, or even become, an institution. Each time a life function is brought into a grouping of devalued people, an opportunity for developmental interaction with other people is lost, as well as an opportunity for interaction with valued models, and for exposure to normative expectancies, learning, and reinforcement of positively valued skills and behaviors.

But for certain purposes, larger groupings can be more enhancing of their members’ competencies. For example, there is a phenomenon known as the “risky shift,” which means that people are apt to be more adventurous, willing to take all sorts of risks, and to make difficult decisions when they are part of a (larger) group. A familiar example of this phenomenon is a person who is reluctant to sing solo in front of others, but who is quite willing to sing as part of a chorus. Of course, the risky shift phenomenon is not always positive; for example, some adolescents would be less apt to get into trouble if they spent less time with a group of their peers. But at least for some people and some purposes, the elicitation of curiosity, gregariousness, a spirit of adventure, and courage that can be brought about by participation in a modest-sized or even large group can be very positive.

Also, the requisite stimulation, interests, demands, and group spirit necessary to activate people may also not be present in a grouping that is very small Thus, contrary to current human service lore, extremely small groupings of recipients are not necessarily optimal, because not all the competency-enhancement needs of a recipient are best met in an isolated, one-to-one, or mini-group fashion.

The very same group size that is favorable to one person can be unfavorable to another. Thus, the above statements and examples to the effect that a small group can be both isolating to some people and yet activating to others are not really contradictory. The point is that group size exerts important influences upon people, but its specific impact will depend on the characteristics and needs of a person and on the type of activity at issue.

For yet other purposes, it is not even an issue of whether a smaller or larger grouping is preferable; rather, a criterion must be met of having either a minimal or an exact number of people together in order for a certain activity to be able to take place at all, or to take place in an optimal fashion. For example, many sports and games require a precise, specified number of players no more and no less. Bridge requires four. In order to hold a baseball game, there need to be two teams of at least nine players each; anything less than nine players per team gives the impression of “playing at” baseball, rather than really playing the game. Still other activities may also necessitate a certain number of people in order to be carried out, such as a telephone conversation (at least two), performing of a symphony (enough people to play each of the instruments required by the score), etc.

It is not merely numbers of people in a group which can affect a recipient’s competencies; the type of other people in the group is also a very important factor, e.g., are the other people passive, inactive, incompetent, skilled, energetic, vivacious, outgoing? However, the issue of the different kinds of people who constitute the members of a grouping is rated by R2212 Competency-Related IntraService Recipient Grouping Composition, rather than here (see also “Differentiation From Other Ratings”).

Unfortunately, people in human services commonly fail to grasp all of the complex issues at stake in determining appropriate grouping size, and therefore go to maladaptive extremes. At one extreme, in an effort to avoid the problems that arise from groups that are too large, some bodies will serve only very small groups of people, will isolate recipients, and/or erroneously perceive one-toone server-recipient ratios as the ideal for everyone. For example, some services place everyone who comes out of institutions into single-room occupancy apartments in the community. In some locales, residential groupings above a certain small size (e.g., three) are actually prohibited by regulating or funding agencies. Although such measures may prevent the creation of large congregate residential settings, they also effectively prevent the development of viable, desirable groupings of, say, four to eight people, that could provide community spirit and activation for those people who do need a slightly larger number of people around them in order to become active and participate.

At the other extreme, because of the (alleged) benefits that interactions with people in groups may bring, or even for purely ideological reasons, services and servers sometimes practically force recipients to participate in group activities perhaps even all the time with apparent disregard for the individual’s need for solitude and quiet, capacity for solitary learning and work, like or dislike for the other members of the group, etc.

Neither of these indiscriminate and deindividualizing approaches is consistent with SRV.

SRV Requirements

In order to promote recipient competencies, & thereby the enhancement of their social roles, the number of recipients in a service grouping or sub-grouping should: (a) promote the transaction or accomplishment of the relevant tasks by group members; (b) allow servers to effectively manage the group & provide the individualized structure & supervision appropriate for each group member; (c) provide sufficient stimulation; (d) facilitate interactions of the recipients with people outside the group; (e) promote recipients’ security, intimacy, & well-being; (f) recognize individual recipients’ differences in functioning better alone, or in small or large groups. Pursuit of these goals may be subverted by group sizes that are either too big or too small.

R2211 Competency - Related Intra - Service Recipient Grouping Size

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. Potentially difficult distinctions need to be made between this rating and R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition. Namely, both ratings take into consideration the characteristics and needs of the members of a group, with this rating examining how these interact with the effects of group size, and the other rating how they interact with group composition. For instance, where senile people are involved, even groupings of three may be taxing on the development or even only maintenance of their competencies. In contrast, in order to constitute a soccer team, having 11 players is more important in many contexts than who these players are. Usually, the larger a grouping of people of mixed identities becomes, the less conducive it is to competency-acquisition, unless (in at least some instances) suitable sub-grouping takes place. Even though the two ratings may not be as independent from each other as would be desirable, it is possible for a service to receive a Level 1 or 2 in R2211 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Size (i.e., to have competency-inimical grouping size), but to receive a Level 4 or 5 on R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition (i.e., for having an optimal composition for whatever grouping size there is). Conversely, a service might receive a high level on the size rating, but a low one on composition, or at least a lower one for composition than for size.

2. R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition, R1232 Image Projection of lntra-Service Recipient Grouping Age Image, and R1231 Image Projection of IntraService Recipient Grouping Social Value, are all concerned with the range of ages, impairments, and abilities of the recipients in a service grouping, but not with how many recipients are being served, as is the rating at hand.

3. This rating assesses the preconditions to competency enhancement that the size of the grouping(s) provides. Whether this potential is actually capitalized upon is rated by other ratings, including R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use and R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs.

4. R122 Service-Neighborhood Assimilation Potential rates the image barriers to, or facilitators of, assimilation of recipients into the valued community that are created by either the massing or dispersing of devalued people in a neighborhood. It does not address the obstacles to competency enhancement which may be created by serving too many people in a service grouping, as does this rating. A grouping of devalued people in a certain neighborhood may be so small that service-neighborhood assimilation potential is very good, but competency enhancement may still be greatly hindered; e.g., a single-room occupancy dwelling for one very passive and withdrawn, elderly, mentally limited individual may be very good in terms of assimilation potential, but devastating in terms of competency enhancement and well-being for that person.

5. R224 Service Support for Recipient Individualization assesses the degree to which servers recognize the individuality of each recipient, know and treat each recipient as a unique individual, encourage each recipient’s expression of his or her individuality, and provide individually-tailored programming, regardless of the number of individuals in the group or service. Thus, the only individualization-related issue in the rating at hand is the degree to which the size of the grouping enables or hinders ease of individualization, regardless of the degree to which individualization actually takes place.

6. The size of the intra-service recipient grouping is not the same as the ratio of the servers to recipients, i.e., a recipient grouping is not necessarily considered small because it has a serverrecipient ratio of one-to-one, nor is a recipient grouping necessarily considered large because it has a server-recipient ratio of one-to-30 or one-to-40. The issue of optimal server-recipient ratio as it is relevant to the enhancement of recipients’ competencies would be considered under R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use, as would the intensity of the interactions between servers and recipients. There is no guarantee that even small recipient groups served by a large number of servers will contribute to recipient competency enhancement; hence in this rating, raters must assess only the likely contribution of the grouping size to the recipients’ competency development. How a server-recipient ratio affects recipients’ image, if at all (e.g., by making recipients appear to be more impaired than they really are), would be considered by R145 Image Projection of Miscellaneous Aspects of a Service.

Suggested Guidelines for Collecting and Using Evidence

R2211 Competency - Related Intra - Service Recipient Grouping Size

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Before coming to a final consensus on this rating, a team must be sure that all team members are using the same definition of grouping. The grouping of people under consideration in this rating is the same as that for R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition, R1231 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Social Value, & R1232 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Age Image.

Optimal group size will differ for different activities, competency goals, & different kinds of recipients. Thus, groupings can be too small for some competency-enhancing purposes, & too large for others. However, a general rule of thumb is that big is rarely good.

The term “grouping” can refer to a single individual a “grouping of one.”

The more time recipients spend in a particular grouping or sub-grouping, the more impact the composition of that grouping will have on them. Thus, if recipients are (sub-)grouped within the program (e.g., at different times, for different activities), raters should give more weight to the groupings in which recipients spend a great deal of time, or which constitute the basis for major program activities, e.g., classes in a school.

Even services that serve large numbers of people may still be able to sub-group people in ways that meet the requirements for social role-valorizing competency enhancement. Thus, when raters assess a service/agency to large numbers of people, they must carefully determine whether & how the service subgroups its recipients, & what effects these subgroupings are likely to have on recipients’ competencies.

Server-recipient ratio is not a consideration in this rating. The problems of too large a recipient grouping can usually not be overcome by increasing the number of servers.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

What is/are the service project(s) being assessed?

Who are the recipients?

How many recipients are served by each grouping of the project being assessed?

Does/do the project(s) being assessed sub-group recipients into smaller sub-grouping(s) within the project(s)? If so, how many recipients are in each subgrouping?

What are the needs &/or impairments of the recipients?

Does the number of recipients in the grouping(s) & subgrouping(s) being assessed inhibit or facilitate: a.effective server management of group?

b.individualization?

c. activity, stimulation, & vitality?

d.interactions of the recipients with other (valued) people outside the grouping?

e.recipients’ security, intimacy, well-being?

Are relevant service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Program descriptions & rationales;

Observations of the program in progress;

Direct interviews with servers, service leaders, & recipients.

R2211 Competency - Related Intra - Service Recipient Grouping Size

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. The development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is apt to be severely impeded or impaired (even if unintentionally), due to the fact that the program grouping(s) or subgrouping(s) being assessed are either so large or so small as to be major impediments to competency enhancement.

Level 2. The size of the recipient grouping(s) has a negative impact on the competencies of the recipients in one of two ways:

a. it significantly impedes or impairs the competency or competency development of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive; or

b. it severely impedes or impairs (as in Level 1) the competency or competency development of a significant minority of recipients, even if not of other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ competency risks & needs, the competency impact on recipients of the size of the intra-service recipient grouping(s) is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients; or

b. the size of the recipient grouping(s) neither significantly diminishes no r significantly enhances recipients’ competencies.

Level 4. The size of the intra-service recipient grouping(s) or sub-grouping(s) being assessed is highly conducive to the competency enhancement of recipients, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either:

a. recipient grouping size is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. the likelihood of competency enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and the potential for development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is so enhanced by the size of the service grouping(s) or sub-grouping(s) being assessed that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

Readers are reminded that they need to be familiar with all the material covered under the two earlier headings entitled: “Overarching Considerations Shared by the Thirteen Ratings Under the Rubrics 12 Image - Related Service - Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions, & 22 Competency - Related Service - Structured Groupings & Relationships” on pp. 133 -136, and “Overarching Considerations Shared by the Four Ratings Under the Rubrics 123 Image Projection of Intra - Service Recipient Grouping Composition, & 221 Competency - Related Intra - Service Recipient Groupings” on pp. 155 -158; as well as with the earlier material “22 CompetencyRelated Service - Structured Groupings & Relationships,” and “221 CompetencyRelated Intra - Service Recipient Groupings” on pp. 333 - 336.

General Statement of the Issue

The grouping, and any sub-groupings within it, that are to be assessed here in respect to competency impact must be the same that are assessed by R1231 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Social Value, R1232 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Age Image, and R2211 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Size.

The composition of the intra-service recipient grouping is an issue that has both image and competency dimensions. Therefore, there are two parallel image ratings to this competency rating, namely R1231 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Social Value and R1232 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Age Image, and some of the text of this rating will make reference to those parallel ratings.

In order to be able to optimally address competency acquisition and enhancement for recipients, human service programs should select and serve their recipients in groupings which capitalize positively upon (a) the power of known pedagogic principles (such as peer modeling and role expectancies) that bear upon group composition; and (b) grouping dynamics that facilitate servers’ abilities to address competencies for each recipient. The relevance of these issues to competencyrelated recipient groupings has already been explained in depth in the earlier sections entitled “22 Competency-Related Service-Structured Groupings & Relationships” and “221 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Groupings.”

In addition to the points covered in the above narratives, there are two further considerations relevant to this rating.

a. Servers’ ability to address recipients’ competency needs is often facilitated if group members share approximately the same or similar characteristics or level of functioning or impairment.

b. Also, because people of the same age tend to (but do not always) have similar characteristics or levels of functioning, serving people together who share similar characteristics or levels of functioning, and who are of about the same age, also increases the probability that everyone’s competencies will be well addressed. So, children will almost always receive instruction in a new language apart from adults; elementary schools serve children from about five to 13 years of age, while high schools serve mostly adolescents approximately 13 to 19 years old, and both types of schools probably further sub-group their students into classrooms with an age span of one to three years; a children’s hospital would treat only sick youngsters, not adults or elderly people. Thus, the more homogeneous are the members of a group in characteristics or levels of functioning and in age, the more likely it is that servers will be able to adequately address competency for each member.

Various considerations of how a grouping of people affects their competencies can conflict with each other: the expectancies for the group as a whole; the intra-group models for imitation; the demands placed on servers by the range of recipient identities; and the likelihood of individualization created by the range of recipient identities. For instance, in order for there to be positive models within a grouping, the grouping may have to include people who are more advanced in order to provide adaptive models to those who are less advanced. However, grouping people who are more advanced together with those who are less advanced places higher demands on servers that makes it harder for them to address the competencies of each grouping member. Also, such more advanced models might have to be (much) older.

Thus, in order to be optimally role-valorizing in this service dimension, a service would strive to maximize each of the considerations, even though in many situations, this will not be totally achievable.

The criteria and principles embodied in this rating apply no matter whether the recipient grouping consists of only competency-impaired people, only unimpaired people, or both. However, the issue is particularly sharp whenever even only one devalued person is served, because the competencies of devalued people are usually much more at risk than are those of non-devalued persons.

SRV Requirements

The composition of human service groupings & sub-groupings should facilitate the development of recipients’ competencies, & thereby the enhancement of their social roles, by capitalizing upon: the dynamics of role expectancies, & imitation & modeling; & the abilities of servers to address recipients’ competencies. This usually means that recipients with relatively the same types & degrees of characteristics & levels of functioning, & who are approximately the same age, would be grouped in with a sufficient number of more adaptive & advanced recipients. The relative proportions of less advanced/competent recipients to more advanced/competent recipients within a program grouping should be such that the large majority of recipients provide adaptive, positive models to a much smaller minority of (more) impaired or less advanced persons.

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. This rating assesses only the effect which a particular grouping of recipients is likely to have on the development of their competencies , not its effect on their image, which is rated under R1232 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Age Image, and R1231 Image Projection of IntraService Recipient Grouping Social Value. Depending on a number of factors, such as the identities of the recipients, groupings that are most competency-enhancing may not be the most image-enhancing, and vice versa.

2. This rating is not concerned with how many recipients are served in one program (R2211 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Size), or near to each other (R122 ServiceNeighborhood Assimilation Potential), but only with whether the people in the service grouping(s) being assessed are suitably grouped for purposes of competency enhancement.

3. This rating does not cover contacts of recipients with people who are neither recipients nor servers of the program being assessed, which are rated by R222 Competency-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships and R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Before coming to a final consensus on this rating, a team must be sure that all its members are using the same definition of the recipient grouping being assessed.

The grouping under consideration for this rating will be the same as that for R2211 Competency-Related IntraService Recipient Grouping Size.

The term “grouping” can refer to a single individual a “grouping of one.”

The more time recipients spend in a particular grouping or sub-grouping, the more impact the composition of that grouping will have on them. Thus, if recipients are (sub-) grouped within the program (e.g., at different times, for different activities), raters should give more weight to the groupings in which recipients spend a great deal of time, or which constitute the basis for major program activities.

The wider the range of ages in a grouping, the more difficult it often is to provide appropriate & individualized services to each recipient. Problems that arise from grouping devalued people of widely differing ages together in the same program or sub-grouping usually occur when the older persons in the grouping are impaired or devalued themselves, & thus do not provide adaptive models for the younger members. However, even if there are competency benefits, there may be negative image effects on some recipients as a result of such mixed age groupings, which are rated only under R1232 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Age Image.

In programs that serve both valued & devalued people, raters should consider the relative numbers of devalued/impaired & valued/unimpaired people in the service as a whole, & in each of its groupings & subgroupings.

Even services that serve people with a wide variety of characteristics & levels of functioning may still be able to compose groups that are competency-enhancing, namely by sub-grouping their recipients into appropriate clusters, perhaps in separate spaces or locations. E.g., a residential services agency may serve people from infancy through adulthood, but may do so in various group homes, apartments, adoptive & foster homes, boarding houses, etc., which each serve people of only certain ages. Thus, when raters assess a service to a wide range of people, they must carefully determine whether & how the service sub-groups its recipients, & what effects these sub-groupings have on recipient competencies.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

What are the program grouping(s) being assessed?

What are the identities of recipients?

What is the range of abilities, levels of functioning, & impairments/ competencies of the recipients within the service grouping(s) & sub- groupings?

What is the range of ages within the (sub)grouping(s)?

In what ways do the ranges of recipient characteristics, abilities, & ages in the grouping(s) & subgroupings being assessed contribute to the service’s ability to optimally address recipients’ competencies?

What are the likely long-term competency impacts on recipients because of the way they are grouped together?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Program descriptions & plans;

Data on recipient characteristics; Individual program plans & records;

Observations of people in the program; Direct interviews with service leaders, servers, & recipients.

R2212

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. The development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is apt to be severely impeded or impaired (even if unintentionally), due to the range of competencies, conditions, levels of functioning, degrees of impairment, &/or ages of recipients in the program grouping(s) or subgrouping(s) being assessed.

Level 2. The composition of the recipient grouping(s) has a negative impact on the competencies of the recipients in one of two ways:

a. it significantly impedes or impairs the competency or competency development of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features are somewhat positive. E.g., the difference between the levels of functioning, degrees of severity of impairment, &/or ages of the recipients is not extreme, & therefore the negative effects of such a grouping on recipients’ competencies are less than if the grouping were even more heterogeneous; or

b. it severely impedes or impairs (as in Level 1) the competency or competency development of a significant minority of recipients , even if not of other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ competency risks & needs, the competency impact on recipients of the composition of the intra-service recipient grouping(s) is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipient s; or

b. the composition of the recipient grouping(s) neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ competencies.

Level 4. The composition of the program grouping(s) or sub-grouping(s) being assessed is highly conducive to the competency enhancement of recipients, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. the grouping composition is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. the likelihood of competency enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and the potential for development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is so enhanced by the composition of the program grouping(s) or subgrouping(s) being assessed that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable

R222 Competency - Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships

Readers are reminded that they need to be familiar with all the material covered under the earlier heading entitled “ Overarching Considerations Shared by the Thirteen Ratings Under the Rubrics 12 Image - Related Service - Structured Groupings, Relationships, & Social Juxtapositions, & 22 Competency - Related Service - Structured Groupings & Relationships” on pp. 133 -136; as well as the material “22 Competency - Related Service - Structured Groupings & Relationships” on pp. 333 -334.

General Statement of the Issue

Recipient contacts and relationships with people other than fellow recipients and servers of the program(s) being assessed is an issue that has both image and competency dimensions. Therefore, there is a parallel image rating to this competency rating, namely R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships, and some of the text of this rating will make reference to that parallel rating.

This rating is concerned with the enhancement of recipients’ competencies by their exposure to and in most cases, interactions with people other than servers and fellow recipients. These “people other than servers and fellow recipients” will in most cases have to be of a greater level of competency than the recipients.

These (more) competent, (more) adaptive people at issue are likely to be from the world of valued persons, in which case integrative interactions (“real integration”) will de facto play a role, but is not an absolute requirement of this rating. In other words, for competency enhancement, it is important that people be associated with competent or adaptive (or at least more competent or adaptive) persons, even if these are not highly valued. In contrast, for image purposes, it is important that devalued persons be juxtaposed to, or associated with, valued or at least more valued persons, as rated by R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships.

There are also rationales in favor of the social integration of devalued people into valued society that do not derive from SRV; these must not be confused with rationales for integration that have to do with its contribution to image or competency enhancement of people, and thereby to valued social roles for them (see also No. 8 on p. 18 in “How This 3rd (2007) Edition Does and Does Not Differ From the 2nd (1983) Edition”).

At least some people can acquire some competencies by merely observing others perform or learn, i.e., by personal contact with little or no interaction. Other competencies are acquired or practiced better or only through interactions.

Who the (more) competent contact persons or interactors need to be for competency purposes depends on the kinds of competencies that recipients are to acquire. As competency was defined (see “2 Ratings Primarily Related to Personal Competency Enhancement,” pp. 283- 286), it includes skills of social adaptiveness, and the actual performance of competencies already possessed. Generally, a recipient should be around people who (a) are of high or higher competency or performance in the domain in which the recipient is to grow, learn, and perform, but who at the same time (b) do not pull the recipient down in other areas of competency. The competencies at issue here are primarily those valued in the larger society, though there may occasionally be links between devalued and valued competencies. For instance, the devalued skill of pocket-picking may have links to a valued skill of manual dexterity.

Certain kinds of recipients will be deficient in or need to grow in almost all competency domains. Examples are mentally retarded people, and children. The more competencies a person needs, the more important is it that the person have exposure to people of a high or higher level of competency in many (perhaps all the culturally normative) competencies. For instance, a child may need exposure to at least some other children who are more competent (perhaps because they are older), and to some competent adults. An immigrant may need exposure primarily to other people who model the speaking of the prevailing language, and the prevailing cultural customs that can be a mystery to an immigrant.

The competency impact of a person’s contacts with more competent, adaptive people will generally be affected by the six conditions discussed below.

1. Number of (more) competent contact persons. A person who interacts with a large number of more competent people will probably experience more competency enhancement than a person who relates to only one or a few such people, because the person with more contacts will be exposed to a wider range of expectancies, personalities, models of behavior, models of social interaction, and probably (but not necessarily) activities and settings as well. For example, a less advanced person could be exposed to, and learn a great many different things from, people with different backgrounds (e.g., people who grew up in the local area, as well as those who lived elsewhere), who fill many different roles (e.g., auto worker, business representative, sales clerk, parent, single adult), and who have a wide range of interests and experiences (e.g., people who like to tinker with cars, enjoy carpentry, are avid readers, sew, go to sports events regularly).

2. Variety of occasions and settings for contacts. The wider the variety of activities, experiences, and settings in which people are constructively engaged with more advanced persons, the greater will usually be the variety and number of competent (and probably also valued) people interacted with, and the more competency enhancement a person is likely to derive. Variety here refers to range of groupings (intimate, small, large gatherings), times (daytime, evening, weekend hours), formality (casual, semi-formal, formal occasions), functions (for fellowship, education, work, worship), etc., that characterize the interactions. If an impaired adult interacts with non-impaired people only while waiting for the bus, or only while shopping in the stores in the community, then he or she will not have opportunities to sufficiently learn and practice appropriate ways of interacting in other settings, such as at work, school, home and church.

3. Frequency of contacts. Generally, the more often a person interacts with competent people, the more opportunities that person will have to learn and practice more competent behaviors. Thus, an impaired person who lives in an institution and goes out once a week to his or her advocate’s home will have more opportunities to benefit from the presence of, and interactions with, ordinary, competent people than another impaired person who also lives at the institution but never goes out, or does so only once a month. An impaired person who works in a typical industry with typical skilled workers five days a week will probably have even more frequent competency-enhancing contacts during the course of his or her daily life than would the institutionalized person who sees his or her advocate only weekly.

4. Depth and continuity of interactions. A person may have a very satisfactory amount, variety, and frequency of interactions with (more) competent people, yet still not derive maximum competency benefits therefrom unless those interactions also have a certain depth and continuity over time. Interactions on a deeper level (such as between friends rather than merely passing acquaintances) should be sought and structured for competency-impaired people for four reasons. First, it is more likely that people will identify with and emulate other people with whom they have deep relationships than they will people who are merely their acquaintances. Second, people in intimate relationships usually have a greater quantity of contact with each other than do people in relationships that are less intense. Third, even a few deep, intimate relationships which can and do endure the tests of time and other stresses might enable a person to experience social participations which are not only individualized, very meaningful, and genuine, but also highly ego-strengthening, and enhancing of both the person’s social development, and his or her ability to contribute to and receive from society. Fourth, while most people can take for granted that they have supportive ongoing relationships in their lives, devalued people have often been stripped of these relationships, and as a result have become even more vulnerable to harm or abuse. Especially under adverse conditions, a vulnerable person who is embedded in an intimate relationship network of competent valued people will be much more strongly defended from all sorts of potential social, emotional and physical damage than a person who does not have such supports.

5. Respect and valuation conveyed by the interactions. Interactions between less and more competent people, or people of the same competency level learning together, that are conducted in an atmosphere of mutual respect and valuation will usually be much more positive and constructive than those which create or emphasize social distance and status differential. A person is much more likely to be the object of high positive expectancies, and thus to derive certain competency benefits, if he or she is perceived as a competent (or at least learning) participating member of society who has something to contribute to it (e.g., as when an impaired person is a friend, roommate, or fellow student of a competent valued person), than if he or she is perceived as incompetent, in need of constant instruction and supervision, etc.

6. Individualization of interactions. Interactions with (more) competent people are more likely to be competency-developing if they are tailored to the individual identities of recipients than if they are not. For example, the introduction of a group of impaired people en masse into a setting of typical people is not very individualized nor individualizing. It would be preferable for one or two impaired people who are really interested in bowling, and reasonably promising at it, to join a league with nonimpaired people, and go to the bowling alley with them. Also, if there is not at least some attention to the individual needs and identities of recipients, then purportedly competency-enhancing interactions may be totally irrelevant to them, and therefore not competency-enhancing. For instance, joining an adult book study club would not be relevant for almost any child; if a devalued child is to learn to play baseball, or to be an amateur astronomer, this will not be accomplished if the child interacts only with people who are not competent in baseball, or astronomy.

Raters should note that while respectful and individualizing contacts and interactions (Nos. 5 and 6 above) are more likely to be competency-contributing and role-valorizing, the degree to which a service fosters individualization of recipients (including in recipients’ interactions with others), and positive interpersonal interactions of recipients with others, is not rated here (see Nos. 4, 5, and 6 in “Differentiation From Other Ratings” section).

Raters should also note, in regard to all the above six points, that the issue in this rating is not primarily whether integrative interactions are being promoted, but whether competency-enhancing ones are, and competency-impeding ones are eschewed.

Even if recipient contacts and interactions with people other than servers and fellow recipients of the service being assessed are not marked by all six of the above characteristics, but only one or a few of them, they are still apt to be contributive to recipient competency-enhancement, and should be credited.

It is very important that raters fully appreciate the intent of this rating, and judge it against its explicit criteria rather than against their previous experience with human service practices, particularly as regards devalued groups. Specifically, raters should regard Level 5 as the maximum feasible personal interaction of the recipients with (more) competent persons, to the degree that (a) the recipients’ conditions, and (b) the legitimate scope of the service provider’s purview, allow it. For instance, if the project being rated is a vocational one, Level 5 can only be attained if the recipients are as fully engaged with (more) competent models in their service-mediated vocational training, guidance, and work situations as their current competencies permit - -which implies that such individuals would have to be vastly more integrated than is the case in the great majority of vocational services, or at least as such services for impaired persons or groups are concerned.

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance the competencies of its recipients, & thereby their social roles, a human service should provide opportunities for, & encourage, support, & where appropriate, structure & develop personal social interactions for its recipients with (more) competent people, & therefore often also valued ones, in generic settings, & in a wide variety of activities. As much as possible, these interactions should be: (a) with many different competent people, (b) in many different contexts, (c) frequent, (d) individualized, & (e) intimate & ongoing. As well, the service should minimize competency-degrading interactions of its recipients with other people.

This rating only covers service-mediated interactions of the above type between recipients & people who are neither servers nor fellow recipients of the program(s) being assessed.

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. There are several distinctions between this rating, and R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships.

a. Recipients may enjoy image-enhancing contacts with people who are neither fellow recipients nor servers of the service being assessed that are not necessarily competency-enhancing. b. Recipients might have extensive exposure to, and interactions with, competent and even valued people, but it cannot automatically be assumed that such are image-enhancing to the recipients.

2. R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition assesses only whether the grouping of recipients within the program(s) being assessed increases the probabilities that each recipient’s competencies will be enhanced. The rating at hand is concerned with recipients’ participation with competent people outside of the program grouping, or in “extracurricular” activities.

3. The degree to which the size of the recipient grouping affects the likelihood that recipients will be socially assimilated is assessed by R122 Service-Neighborhood Assimilation Potential.

4. R215 Individualizing Features of Setting assesses individualizing features of the physical setting, not of contacts and relationships.

5. R224 Service Support for Recipient Individualization assesses both the kind of individualization that contributes to competency-enhancing relationships of recipients with people other than servers and fellow recipients, plus other kinds of individualizing measures by the service. A service could be individualizing in things other than the kinds of relationships at issue here in R222. However, a service may not be very individualizing about anything, in which case a low level on R224 would make it unlikely that a service could receive a high level here.

6. Similarly, R223 Life-Enriching Interactions Among Recipients, Servers, & Others assesses the degree to which the service fosters positive interpersonal relationships in general, including those of recipients with people who are neither servers nor fellow recipients. A service could foster positive interactions in relationships other than the kind at issue here in R222. However, a service may not foster positive relationships in general, in which case a low level on R223 would make it unlikely that a service could receive a very high level here.

7. R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs rates only whether the needs of recipients are accurately and adequately addressed by programming in the service. However, it cannot automatically be assumed that a person who has a high need for competency development can only gain the competencies at issue through program-mediated interactions with people who are not part of the program.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Raters must bear in mind the legitimate purview of the service in regard to the kinds & degree of competency-enhancing contacts it can be expected to facilitate for its recipients, though this purview should be relatively broadly interpreted. More is to be expected of services with a wider purview of control & influence than of services with a narrower one. E.g., most residential services have both domiciliary control over recipients, & control over at least some of their social, recreational & other activities; typically, developmental programs also engage their recipients in other social activities. Thus, even in programs with similar structures, the range of contacts & interactive opportunities mediated could vary considerably, e.g., one segregated vocational center could provide work training, recreation facilities, & transportation (all segregated), & limited contact with competent people in the community; another vocational program may train workers in open business settings, teach them to utilize public transport, & involve them in other competency-enhancing community social resources.

If the service being assessed has no conceivable purview as regards this issue, then this rating is not applied, & the service is pro-rated (see pp. 8284 of the GuidelinesforEvaluatorsDuringaPASS,PASSING,orSimilar AssessmentofHumanServiceQuality).

Some competencies can be acquired by merely observing others learn or perform, even in the absence of actual interactions.

This rating will in most cases but not invariably reflect the degree of competency-enhancing social integration of recipients. However, while contacts of recipients with competent people, & especially valued competent people, would often take place in open & valued settings, this cannot be taken for granted.

Some people cannot be placed into the presence of other people in open society, or only in very limited ways. E.g., an adaptive mildly retarded man could probably interact in competency-beneficial ways in a very large number of settings of & with ordinary/valued people; but someone who is in the habit of committing violence could probably be placed in only very limited or highly controlled competency-enhancing contacts & interactions. A profoundly retarded child with serious medical conditions can probably also be placed into only certain & limited contacts & interactions of a competency-related nature.

However, raters should embrace a developmental model in conceptualizing what is possible. It is helpful to remember that until recently, it was widely believed that all mentally retarded people needed to live in institutions, & that integrative interactions were virtually impossible for anyone with a serious impairment. Yet vast strides have been made along these lines for even very severely disturbed, physically impaired, & retarded people. Thus, raters must be aggressive in their expectations that a service do all that is possible to pursue maximal competency-enhancing contacts & interactions for recipients, even in the face of very difficult challenges along these lines. However, while certain limitations may justifiably be imposed by recipients’ current competencies, less than the feasible interactions cannot be excused if due to administrative, etc., limitations.

The more control & autonomy recipients are capable of exercising, the more capable they are of making a legitimate decision to reject interactive opportunities promoted by the service.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

What is the service’s proper scope of influence in this area?

What are the nature & degree of recipients’ impairments or devalued conditions, if any?

Do recipients of the service have personal social interactions with competent people other than the servers & other recipients of this service being assessed?

Are the activities recipients engage in with competent people likely to contribute to recipient competencies?

Could recipients’ competencies potentially be further enhanced by other &/ or additional interactions with competent people in open settings, which do not currently take place?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Observations of the program in operation; Activities schedules, logbooks, & program plans; Recipient records & individual program plans; Direct interviews with recipients, service leaders, servers, & family members.

Relationships

Criteria for Level Assignments

N.B. - As explained on p. 13 in “The Rationales for the 5 Rating Levels, and Guidelines for Assigning Levels to Ratings,” if the service being assessed has no purview in regard to this rating issue, and if it does not act outside its purview in ways that are either detrimental or beneficial to recipients, then this rating would not be applied. Instead, the service’s total score is pro-rated, as explained on pp. 82-84 of the 1983 Guidelines monograph (see footnote 6 on p. 4).

Level 1. The development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is apt to be severely impeded or impaired (even if unintentionally), due to the fact that within its legitimate purview, & considering the nature & characteristics of the persons served, the service provides few or no feasible structures &/or activities which promote & support the competency-enhancing social contacts & interactions of recipients with more competent persons who are not servers or fellow recipients.

Level 2. The service-mediated contacts & other relationships of recipients with people who are neither fellow recipients nor servers of the program(s) being assessed have a negative impact on the competencies of the recipients in one of two ways;

a. they significantly impede or impair the competency or competency development of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive; or

b. they severely impede or impair (as in Level 1) the competency or competency development of a significant minority of recipients , even if not of other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ competency risks & needs, the competency impact on recipients of the other contacts & relationships that the service arranges or mediates is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients E.g., the service mediates some slightly competency-restraining contacts, & some slightly competency-enhancing ones; or

b. service practices in this regard neither significantly diminish nor significantly enhance recipients’ competencies. E.g., perhaps the recipients are devalued but not significantly competency-hindered, & some shortcomings therefore do them hardly any harm.

Level 4. The degree of service-mediated feasible contacts & socially interactive activities for recipients with competent people other than fellow recipients & servers of the program(s) being assessed is highly conducive to the competency enhancement of recipients, but falls short of the nearideal requirements of Level 5, because either:

a. service practices in this regard are mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. the likelihood of competency enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and the potential for development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is so enhanced by the service-mediated competency-enhancing contacts & interactive activities of recipients with more competent people other than servers or other recipients that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

R223 Life - Enriching Interactions

Among Recipients, Servers, & Others

General Statement of the Issue

The assumption in this rating is that social interactions regardless of their image impact can be life-enriching, and have at least an indirect impact on competencies and social roles. Research has amply supported this assumption, as by showing that people in amicable or happy relationships tend to live longer, be healthier, less anxious, therefore learn and remember better, etc. Thus, as much as possible, a human service should foster constructive interactions within its purview, which certainly includes interaction among the people within its service, and may also include those of recipients and service personnel with at least certain people outside the service. Such life-enriching interactions can conceivably occur with people who are more, or less, competent or socially valued. In order for such service-mediated interactions to be life-enriching and competency-enhancing to recipients, a number of elements must exist.

1. Interactions should be honest, yet still be as positive as possible. This includes encouragement of the appropriate expression of feelings, opinions, criticisms, etc. (even if they are negative), and servers should model such appropriate expression to recipients.

2. There should be mutual valuation of each other that comes from the heart, and is not merely a matter of compliance with formal regulations or requirements of a job description, or of maintaining superficial appearances. Optimally, people would genuinely like (maybe even love) each other or at least, they would try very hard to do so.

3. Thoughtfulness, sensitivity, and warmth should be apparent in the way that people are concerned with each other, try to attend to the needs of each other, and engage in positive interactions. Servers would model, and recipients would be taught, identification with others with whom they interact, so that people’s needs are often anticipated and met even before they can be expressed. For example, before they even have to ask, visitors may be offered a chair and a cup of coffee, and directed to the rest rooms and waiting area. At a minimum , recipients should be encouraged and assisted to interact appropriately and positively with each other, as well as with visitors and family, as explained below; and members of recipients’ families and of the general public should be helped to feel welcome at the service setting, to develop/increase understanding and positive feelings towards the people there, and hopefully, towards other devalued people.

4. The practice of physical or social distancing between recipients and servers, among recipients, and between either of these and the public, should be kept to an absolute minimum that is consistent with developmental goals.

In all of the above, service personnel bear a heavy responsibility for modeling and otherwise teaching recipients what is appropriate in different circumstances.

This rating assesses the service’s efforts to promote interactions among its recipients, servers, and others that are competency-enhancing to its recipients. There might prevail good interactions even though a service does nothing to promote such, and may even create obstacles to good interactions; and there might prevail bad interactions even though a service exerts great effort to promote good ones.

It is within the purview of virtually any human service of any type to mediate and influence, and sometimes even control, the interactions of: servers with recipients; servers with each other; recipients with each other; and at least to a certain degree, those of servers and recipients with some other parties, such as family members of recipients, or members of the public. Each of these will be elaborated below.

1. Interactions of servers with recipients. In order to be competency-enhancing and thereby role-valorizing, server-recipient interactions should be characterized by respect, directness and sincerity, cordiality, and in certain services even warmth and affection. Servers should have a positive attitude towards the recipients, and a real desire to be able to like and love them; and generally, the social atmosphere should encourage recipients to feel positively towards servers, and to want to emulate their better qualities. It is also important in some services that adaptive interactions between service personnel and recipients be carried over into occasions outside the setting, Certain physical features of the service environment will influence server-recipient interactions. For example, if servers and recipients live together and share some of the same spaces with each other (as is done in a typical home), then all sorts of interactions are inevitable, and should be positive. On the other hand, if certain server areas are “off limits” or locked to recipients, while servers can enter any recipient areas, then this may indicate a desire by servers, and a belief in the need for servers, to “escape” from recipients. Even when this desire or need is justified, it may be wounding to recipients.

Sometimes, obvious or even very subtle distinctions between recipients and servers may indicate an (often unconscious) attempt to exalt the status of the servers. For example, in places where people live, and in services to children, it is practically impossible for servers to conduct the service without being in the physical presence of recipients. But if servers devalue the recipients (even unconsciously), then they may try to distantiate themselves from recipients in some other way. A mild form of such distantiation might be servers wearing uniforms or name tags, so as not to be mistaken for recipients; and if recipients also wear uniforms or name tags, these may be of poorer quality, or a different type than servers’. If service personnel and recipients both eat in the facility, the servers may receive better food or better service, or eat at a separate or classier table, in a different dining room, or at a different hour. Similarly, conspicuous (usually unconscious) emphasis by servers of terms such as “them, they, those, these” about recipients also often implies that workers perceive a marked social distance between themselves and their recipients.

Thus, raters should be sensitive to even relatively minor or subtle and especially unnecessary differentiations between servers and recipients. (It may be helpful to reflect on the fact that in many services during the Middle Ages, the poor, sick, and impaired recipients were given better food, utensils, beds, and sometimes clothes than the servers, in a conscious effort to exalt the recipients.)

2. Interactions of servers with each other. Interactions among servers will often set the tone for interactions with and among recipients, and thus impact on the development of recipient competencies. For example, if servers are hostile towards, or rarely communicate with, each other, then recipients’ programs may be implemented in fragmented, even contradictory fashion; a server who is angry with his or her supervisor may “take it out on” the recipients; etc. Interactions among servers will also often be models for recipients’ interactions with others, much as children look to their parents as examples for how to treat each other and what to do in new social situations. For instance, if servers are foul-mouthed or loud, recipients may become so too.

However, raters should beware of “halo effects” in their judgments that may derive from positive interactions among servers, in that positive interactions among servers may sometimes disguise their poor interactions with recipients.

3. Interactionsofrecipientswitheachother. To some degree, the quality of the interactions among the recipients will depend on their personalities (e.g., outgoing nature, friendliness, shyness) and their previous experiences. This is one of the things that was meant when we said earlier (on p. 363) that not all positive or negative interactions can be attributed to the efforts of the service. However, every service is apt to have at least some and sometimes a great deal of influence and control over the interactions of recipients with each other, at least during the time they are in the service. Thus, a service should structure situations that are apt to facilitate and reinforce positive interactions among recipientsand should also encourage and reinforce positive such interactions when they occur spontaneously.

Of course, there are many things a service can do to thoroughly undermine the relationships among recipients, especially by poor grouping practices (rated by R1231 Image Projection of IntraService Recipient Grouping Social Value, R1232 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Age Image, R2211 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Size, and R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition), and bad setting features (rated by R1121 External Setting Aesthetics, R1122 Internal Setting Aesthetics, R2111 Setting Access Recipients & Families, R2112 Setting Access Public, R213 Physical Comfort of Setting, R214 Challenge/Safety Features of Setting, and R215 Individualizing Features of Setting). However, even under at least some such circumstances, there still may be much that can be done to promote lifeenriching competency-enhancing interactions between and among recipients by other means.

4. Interactions of servers & recipients with other parties, such as families & the public. The reception that families and members of the public are given in human service settings will affect their willingness to become and remain involved with the recipients. If servers treat visitors warmly and with consideration, and convey to visitors the impression that they are glad to have them (e.g., by encouraging them to visit, tour the facility, observe the program and get to know the recipients), then visitors are much more apt to develop positive attitudes towards the recipients and devalued people in general. If recipients are helped to treat visitors with courtesy and warmth, then the latter are much more likely to want to come back to the service and other comparable ones, to feel positively about the recipients and other people like them, and to interact constructively with them in other contexts. If members of the public are discouraged from coming to the service, or from interactions with the recipients during a visit to a program (e.g., by very restrictive visiting hours and regulations, by not providing separate areas for recipients and their visitors to talk quietly and privately), or if the service treats visitors indifferently or even disdainfully, then a message is conveyed that members of the public ought to stay away from people like the recipients, perhaps that the recipients are sick, or dangerous. Furthermore, members of the public are likely to associate recipients (and people like the recipients) with their negative experiences of unwelcome, confusion, and possibly even maltreatment, and will therefore be reluctant to interact anywhere with such people in the future.

Service personnel are apt to have a great deal of control over interactions of recipients with their families and the public. Servers may instruct, train, and support recipients in interacting in positive ways. Or, servers might actively or indirectly discourage positive interactions If recipients do not have an opportunity to practice their social skills with visitors, then those skills may never be learned or refined, and may even deteriorate.

Servers themselves should also interact cordially with recipients’ families.

In regard to interactions of both recipients with each other and recipients with their families or others, services may construct, “zone,” or furnish areas for small group interactions out of a concern that people be able to remove themselves from the larger group for intimate talk. In contrast, chairs that are indiscriminately and almost chaotically scattered, or all lined up along the walls of a room, will discourage people from interacting with each other at all, let alone positively. In many services, the only spaces available for social interactions are dominated by TV sets (sometimes even several) that are constantly on, and that severely inhibit interactions. Such features of the physical setting that affect interactions are also assessed by this rating.

Servers (particularly in community residences) will occasionally explain that they do not encourage or allow visitors to come to the service because group tours are “not normal.” While it is certainly true that few typical homes in the community host large groups who may even “interview” family members, it is also true that many families do hold social events in their homes and show guests (sometimes even people they do not know) around the house. A family may hold an open house for neighbors during a holiday season; tenants in an apartment complex may receive reduced rent in exchange for their allowing prospective tenants to tour their apartment; one person in a house may invite a number of his or her friends home for drinks or dinner, though the friends may be strangers to the person’s roommates; and so on. In other types of services, such as schools and places of work, it is not at all uncommon to have people tour the service, often on a regular basis, and particularly if the service is considered a model or demonstration project. Thus, with the proper ideological orientation, the service can literally open its doors to the public in a manner which is appropriate, valued, and hospitable. Teaching recipients to be hospitable, and to show visitors around, contributes to their competency.

This rating only deals with actual interactions, or interactions that might be recruited or alienated by efforts of the service. It does not deal with attitudes “in the abstract,” such as toward people one does not, and would not likely, encounter.

Raters should be alert to the fact that certain kinds of promotion of assertiveness and so-called “self-advocacy” by recipients can become obstacles to competency-enhancing social interactions. For instance, these things may engender an adversarial atmosphere and attitude, and an obsession with one’s own rights and entitlements, that is hardly compatible with an open and innocent friendliness, and unselfish mutual giving and helping. Faced with a confrontational, adversarial, or litigious attitude by devalued people such as service recipients, other people may eventually want to have as little as possible to do with them.

Rating Requirements and Examples Chart

Interactions Among Recipients, Servers, & Others

SRV Requirements

Positive, adaptive interactions among people are beneficial in their own right, & tend to facilitate the competencies of recipients, & thereby to enhance their social roles. Therefore, a service should initiate, promote, & encourage positive interactions: among the recipients; among the servers; between the recipients & the servers; & of both servers & recipients with others.

R223 Life - Enriching Interactions Among Recipients, Servers , & Others

DifferentiationFromOtherRatings

1. The image message conveyed by the “tone of voice” of communications of servers with recipients should be considered under R1431 Image Projection of Personal Labeling Practices.

2. Enhancement of recipients’ personal appearance, even if it is done primarily to facilitate interactions between recipients and the public, is rated under R141 Service Address of Recipient Personal Impression Impact.

3. The degree to which server interactions with recipients are very individualized is not rated here, but under R224 Service Support for Recipient Individualization. It is conceivable that interactions between servers and recipients could be warm and constructive, but still be exactly the same for each person, although admittedly this is not very likely.

4. This rating is not concerned with the personal image projected by the servers, or the image projected by the grouping of recipients (rated by R1251 Server-Recipient Image Transfer, and R1231 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Social Value), even though such images might affect some of the interactions at issue in this rating.

5. The practice of warmth, gentleness, etc., may at times be at odds with other legitimate practices of a service. For example, in a boot camp for delinquent youths, there may need to be a certain severity, and a trade-off may occur between this rating and R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs, or R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use.

6. This rating is not concerned with whether the people interacted with are more competent or societally valued than recipients. To be rated here are all service - mediated interactions of recipients with other people, be they fellow recipients, servers, or people who are neither, even if these other people are still devalued/impaired in some way. For example, retarded service recipients might have interactions with retarded peers from other services, and staff might do much to guide such interactions to be polite and friendly; a program for physically impaired children might enlist the help of a physically impaired volunteer who uses prosthetic devices in order to teach the children about these; etc. Any image or competency drawbacks or benefits would be encaptured by other ratings, including R124 Image-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships, or R222 Competency-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships.

Suggested

R223 Life - Enriching Interactions Among Recipients, Servers, & Others

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

For this rating, “servers” & “service personnel” includes both full-time & part-time servers, board members, unpaid volunteers & similar workers. Any other persons except recipients associated with the service (such as family members of recipients) are considered members of the public.

Recipients will usually be much more affected by their interactions with directlevel servers than by those with any higher-level administrative staff. Thus, interactions between recipients & direct servers should be given more weight than those between recipients & more distant program personnel (directors, clerical staff, department heads, etc.)

Raters should give more weight to evidence having to do with personal relationships than to features of the physical setting which affect interactions.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

How do servers structure interpersonal relationships among recipients?

If recipients are having difficulty resolving an issue among themselves, how do servers intervene?

Do servers interact with the recipients? If so, are these interactions warm, genuine, & appropriate? Are they cold, distant, devaluing, or even hostile?

Do servers willingly & gladly engage in activities with recipients in after-work hours?

Are there separate areas which are “offlimits” to recipients? If so, are these conducive to positive interactions, or do they act as social barriers?

How do service personnel appear to get along with each other?

Do service personnel socialize with each other in off-work hours?

What is the service’s position on having outside guests come in to observe & visit?

Are there lounges & waiting areas for visitors?

Are there refreshments available for visitors?

Is there parking space for visitors?

Are there small social areas in the setting which facilitate intimate, small social group interactions among recipients? For recipients & visitors?

Are social areas dominated by TV, thus interfering with interactions?

Are recipients encouraged or discouraged from interacting with visitors? In what ways?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Observations of interactions between recipients & service personnel; Program rules & regulations; Individual recipients’ program plans; Incident logbooks; Tour of both exterior & interior of setting; Signs regulating entry to & use of the setting & its areas; Descriptive brochures on service; Direct interviews with recipients, service leaders, servers, family members, neighbors.

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. The development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is apt to be severely impeded or impaired (even if unintentionally), due to the fact that within its proper purview, the program being assessed engages in grossly inappropriate practices in regard to the promotion of lifeenriching interactions among recipients, servers, & others.

Level 2. Shortcomings in interactions among recipients, servers & others have a negative impact on the competencies of the recipients in one of two ways:

a. they significantly impede or impair the competency or competency development of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive; or

b. they severely impede or impair (as in Level 1) the competency or competency development of a significant minority of recipient s, even if not of other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ competency risks & needs, the competency impact on recipients of the program’s attention to personal interactions is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients ; or

b. service practices on this issue neither significantly diminish nor significantly enhance recipients’ competencies. E.g.: practices are generally correct & expectable but without extensive warmth & commitment; servers appear to be trying to just meet rules & regulations.

Level 4. The program’s purview-relevant address of life-enriching interactions among recipients, servers, & others is highly conducive to the competency enhancement of recipients, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. interactions are mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipient s; or

b. the likelihood of competency enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration. E.g., interactions are generally positive, adaptive, respectful, considerate, & even affectionate, but without very deep consciousness of, or commitment to, the issue at stake.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and the potential for development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is so enhanced by the address of life-enriching interactions among recipients, servers, & others that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

General Statement of the Issue

As already mentioned in R215 Individualizing Features of Setting, the development and expression of individuality (including one’s personality, unique talents and abilities, personal beliefs and preferences, etc.) is highly valued in Western society, and it is therefore important that human service program features also support the development and expression of the uniqueness of each recipient, particularly if recipients are devalued people who are characteristically very much at risk of deindividualization. (A reader should be familiar with the rationales covered in that earlier rating on p.325.) If a service recognizes individual differences among recipients, responds to these, and helps recipients to express their individuality, then a number of recipients’ competencies are apt to be enhanced, not the least of which are likely to be recipients’ self-expression and respect for the individuality of others. This rating covers all those individualizing aspects of a program which are not specifically covered by R215 Individualizing Features of Setting.

There is no image-related counterpart to this rating, because there is an assumption that the image and competency benefits of individualization are relatively inseparable, and so a somewhat arbitrary decision has been made to rate the issue as primarily a competency enhancement one. (The closest to such a counterpart image rating would probably be elements of R133 Promotion of Recipient Autonomy & Rights.)

Individualization consists primarily of two components: (a) differentiation of each person from others; and (b) encouragement and support of self-expressivity of one’s uniqueness. These two components of individualization can be manifested by a multitude of program structures and aspects: a valuation of each recipient as an individual; servers’ intimate knowledge and understanding of recipients; server sensitivity to individual recipients; the absence of unnecessary regimentation, and the presence of individualized management; individualized and dignity-preserving “intake” or “admissions” procedures; positive server attitudes towards recipient self-expression; teaching of selfidentity to recipients, and assisting recipients to discover and pursue their own interests; recognition of events of special meaning to individual recipients, such as birthdays; and resources and personnel patterns which permit the above.

Sometimes, unreasonable deindividualizing inconveniences and restrictions are imposed upon recipients because they are grouped with too many other recipients, or recipients of less advanced behavioral ability and habits, leading to the aforementioned “lowest common denominator” structure. While it may at times be necessary to impose certain restrictions upon recipients, this should only be done for highly individualized and appropriate reasons, and if a recipient is subjected to any restrictions because of the needs of other recipients, these should only be very few or minor. (See also the two competency-related grouping ratings R2211 for size and R2212 for composition.)

Even services that prepare recipients for roles, positions, etc., where there is little room for individualization may be very individualizing in their preparation, as exemplified by a drivers’ education program. It prepares its students to be licensed automobile drivers who must all obey the same rules of the road, pass the same licensing exams, and operate their vehicles following the same procedures, but its instruction of its students could be individually tailored to individual students.

for Recipient Individualization

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance recipients’ competencies, & thereby their social roles, a human service should maximally encourage (a) differentiation of each recipient from others, & (b) the development & expression of the individual identity & uniqueness of each recipient, via service policies & procedures, server attitudes & actions, & actual programming & program activities.

DifferentiationFromOtherRatings

1. R215 Individualizing Features of Setting rates only the structural or quasistructural aspects of the physical setting (mostly just the physical facility) which elicit/facilitate or deny/inhibit individual expression. The degree of individualization facilitated by all other aspects of the service are assessed under this rating. For example, if servers have decorated the walls of a service center with samples of individual recipients’ work (such as paintings, needlepoint, weaving, etc.), this would be rated here rather than under R215 Individualizing Features of Setting, because such decorations are not major or structural features of the physical environment.

2. Individualizing aspects of recipients’ appearance must be rated apart from their age- or culture-appropriateness (R141 Service Address of Recipient Personal Impression Impact). Recipients’ appearances may be highly culturally valued, yet there may be very little individualizing difference between the appearance of one recipient and that of another. On the other hand, individual recipients may all be dressed differently from each other, yet not in a fashion which is valued by the culture.

3. Here are some clarifications on where to rate various objects and material supports, owned either by the recipients or the service.

a. The age-appropriateness and other value conveyed by recipients’ possessions is rated by R142 Image-Related Personal Possessions, regardless whether these are very individualized.

b. The competency effects of recipients’ possessions is rated by R233 Competency-Related Personal Possessions, regardless whether these are very individualized.

c. The service might promote the use and display of recipients’ possessions to individualize a space, perhaps as decorations, or to mark a particular area as “belonging” to an individual recipient. For instance, a middle-aged mentally retarded man might decorate his bedroom with his child-like crayon drawings and his collection of toy cars. The use of possessions to individualize the physical and social space for recipients would be credited here, regardless of their image.

d. Many material supports, pieces of adaptive equipment, etc. (e.g., most prosthetic equipment) must be specially tailored to an individual user’s size and needs. Such adapting to make the equipment or other object usable for a specific recipient would be rated under R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use, and/or R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs. However, things done to such equipment to “personalize” it and make it more reflective of a specific user or owner such as decorations, name plates, “headlights” and fenders on a wheelchair, etc., that mark it as one specific person’s would be rated here.

4. An environment may be very attractive (see R1121 External Setting Aesthetics and R1122 Internal Setting Aesthetics), but be beautified in ways which do not reflect recipients’ personal preferences and personalities. For example, the furnishings and decorations in a group residence may be attractive but may have been selected by house staff without maximally feasible recipient involvement. If the furnishings were selected with the tastes, interests, and preferences of the residents in mind, then raters could give at least some positive credit on this rating.

5. R223 Life-Enriching Interactions Among Recipients, Servers, & Others is concerned only with the quality of the interpersonal relationships and interactions fostered in and by the service. While server-recipient interactions that are not highly individualized may not be very positive, this is not invariably the case. For example, each patient of a physician or client of an unemployment service may be treated much like every other one, but each may still be treated relatively courteously and sincerely though perhaps not very warmly. Thus, positive server-recipient interactions are not necessarily the same as server individualization of recipients, nor are negative interactions to be taken as conclusive evidence of a lack of appreciation by servers of recipient individuality.

6. Even if program personnel use language about recipients which is demeaning (rated under R1431 Image Projection of Personal Labeling Practices), there may still be individualization of recipients.

7. For recipients with certain identities, a service may virtually forbid any individual activities. This may be programmatically adaptive in order to address some recipient needs, and if so, it would be credited on R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs. However, such practices are nevertheless deindividualizing, and would therefore incur a penalty on the rating at hand.

8. Lastly, the encouragement of recipients’ exercise of their rights and discretions (e.g., to accept or reject a service, to participate in an activity) may be somewhat relevant to this rating, but is assessed mostly by R133 Promotion of Recipient Autonomy & Rights. A service could encourage recipient autonomy and decision-making, but do so in the same way and to the same extent for each recipient which would probably rate higher on R133 Promotion of Recipient Autonomy & Rights than on this rating.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Some Key Issues to be Determined

There are a few types of services that by their very nature & societal mandate have hardly any purview to individualize. Usually, these are services that have to process large numbers of people very rapidly & for a very narrow scope of service, exemplified by a drivers’ license bureau. Evaluation teams or team leaders have two options in such cases:

a. to not apply this rating, & pro-rate the service’s score, as explained on pp. 82-84 of the Guidelines for Evaluators DuringaPASS,PASSING,orSimilar AssessmentofHumanServiceQuality; or

b. to rate the service in relation to however much discretion it does exercise in respect to individualization. This would mean that small measures could make the difference between a Level 1 & a Level 4 or even Level 5.

Historically, devalued people have been much less likely to be perceived & treated as individuals than typical, valued members of the culture.

Programs with more extensive control over recipients, & those that serve more severely devalued people, are more likely to be able to impose extensive deindividualization on recipients.

Many devalued people have led such deprived lives that they do not have many ideas about what individual options are available to them. A service should be given credit for helping such persons to learn more about such options.

What are the conditions/ identities of recipients?

Do servers allow, encourage, & support the maximally feasible expression of recipients’ individuality, e.g., through decoration of personal spaces, pursuit of individual interests & hobbies?

Apart from encouragement given by servers to recipients, have servers themselves taken actions (e.g., designation of certain areas as “belonging” to individuals, putting up decorations) to differentiate recipients from each other?

Do servers actively “teach” the recognition & expression of personal uniqueness to recipients to whom it has been denied (e.g., because recipients have previously been served in highly deindividualized services, such as institutions)?

How much relevant personal information (e.g., birthdates, special habits & needs, family facts) do servers know about each of the recipients?

Are there individual programs, &/or individual goals, for each recipient? How are these programs &/or goals determined?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Individual recipients’ records & program plans; Activities schedules & logbooks; Observation of program in operation; Tour of both the exterior & interior of the setting;

Direct interviews with recipients, servers, & service leaders;

Lack of spontaneity & initiative or timidity on the part of recipients during interviews may constitute indirect evidence that individual expression may not have been actively promoted by servers.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

Many recipients who have previously lived in institutional settings, especially for long periods of time, are very apt to have been denied individual expression & treatment. Therefore, it is especially important that programs which serve people who have formerly lived in deindividualizing settings “bend over backwards” to encourage & support the individual expression & development of individual interests, tastes, & preferences of their recipients.

The larger the number (& to some degree, the more diverse the identities) of recipients in a service grouping, the more difficult it will be for servers to know each recipient as a unique individual, & for individualized programming to be provided.

Deindividualization is particularly apt to be explained away as due to funding limitations, but raters must assess shortcomings regardless of their cause.

More than all other service aspects, server attitudes as manifested by their encouragement or restriction of individual self-expression & identity should be given high weight here.

Neither servers nor raters can accurately & adequately determine how individualizing the program can/should be unless they thoroughly understand the identities of the people served.

The program features called for by this rating should not be mistaken as a call for a service to abdicate responsible program structure & control.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

R224 Service Support for Recipient Individualization

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. The development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is apt to be severely impeded or impaired (even if unintentionally), due to the fact that program practices grossly diminish the potential development or expression of maximally feasible recipient individuality. Such disregard must be demonstrated in any one of the following programmatic ways:

a. gross unneeded programmatic violation of privacy; or

b. server attitudes & practices result in extensive deindividualization & “mortification,” such as highly humiliating “intake” procedures of recipients in groups, imposition of uniform clothing & haircuts, identification of people by number; or

c. excessive regimentation or restriction which limit the amount & forms of individuality that recipients are enabled & allowed to express.

Level 2. Shortcomings in service individualization of recipients have a negative impact on the competencies of the recipients in one of two ways:

a. they significantly impede or impair the competency or competency development of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive or

b. they severely impede or impair (as in Level 1) the competency or competency development of a significant minority of recipients , even if not of other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ competency risks & needs, the competency impact on recipients of service support for individualization is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients ; or

b. the level of individualization in the service neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ competencies.

Level 4. The degree of service support for recipient individualization is highly conducive to the competency enhancement of recipients, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. service support for recipient individualization is mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. the likelihood of competency enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and the potential for development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is so enhanced by the maximally feasible support for recipient individualization within the service that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

General Statement of the Issue

The development of an individual’s socio-sexual identity starts before birth and continues through life. In order to develop a coherent and valued socio-sexual identity, a person must: be exposed to positive role expectations and demands; receive relevant and appropriate education, guidance, and counseling; be positively associated with people who model the appropriate and valued interpersonal socio-sexual interactions; and have avenues for expression of gender identity which are appropriate to the culture, the person’s age and estate, and his or her competence and drive. In all this, people must be guided and supported by significant persons and groups in their lives, e.g., parents, siblings, friends, schools, servers.

A role-valorizing human service would support or even promote the sequential development and expression of culturally appropriate and valued socio-sexual identities and behaviors for its recipients, in ways that match cultural expectations for what is appropriate and even valued for the ages and sexes of the recipients. However, such efforts must be appropriate to the purview and nature of the program, and thus, a service’s responsibility may vary anywhere from very great to none.

Furthermore, services that have a legitimate purview in this area must be especially rolevalorizing in their approach where children and/or devalued people are concerned. Many problems later in life can be avoided, or at least reduced, if children are given developmental and sequential attention and supports to their developing socio-sexual identities, if they are raised in nurturing and loving families, if they are exposed to positive and adaptive models of appropriate sexual behavior, etc. Also, devalued people who have suffered many emotional wounds such as rejection by their families, wounded upbringing in disfunctional homes, etc., who have lived for any length of time in non-normative settings such as institutions, or who are adolescents or older, are apt to have fairly immediate and pressing needs in this area.

It should not be surprising that the widespread ambivalence and even “craziness” about sexuality in our society is often reflected in human services. Consequently, one may encounter in human services any number of practices or approaches to the area of recipient socio-sexual identity and expression that are non-valued, even extreme or bizarre, or at best marginal. One common extreme approach has been excessive restriction and even suppression of people’s socio-sexual identities and needs, as evidenced by such measures as extensive or total segregation of the sexes from each other, excessively strict curfews and surveillance, involuntary sterilization, etc. Some of these practices create situations that actually bring about the kinds of (inappropriate) sexual acts and behaviors they were intended to eliminate.

Another extreme, and increasingly common, response to this issue is a libertine promotion and celebration of sex that is stripped of any relationship context, or at least any positive one. Where this approach prevails, there may be a narrow but often very enthusiastic focus on technical sex education and facilitation of mechanical and hygienic sex acts, but apart from a context of social supports that can nurture the growth of respect, enduring relationships, love, reverence for marriage, etc.

All too often, servers, parents/guardians, and others involved in recipients’ lives seem to see the issue of sexuality for devalued people only in the one light of physical sexual activity, and/or superficial, fleeting relationships. While the physical and biological aspects of sexuality should certainly not be hidden or denied, it is even more important that (a) there be support for, and development of, recipients’ capacity and willingness to care and love, and that (b) not all love be sexualized.

Also, the competency-enhancing promotion of socio-sexual identity must not be confused with the promotion of sexual license that is very common these days. Whatever benefits people may think such license affords, competence is hardly one of them, considering the detrimental impact of such license on relationship and marital stability with all their proven benefits, the devastating impact of single parenthood, and the vast epidemic of diseases that have their primary or secondary origins in sexual license.

Raters should also keep in mind that when sexual issues are dealt with as primarily health issues, little benefits of a socio-sexual and developmental nature can be expected.

At least certain human services can play their appropriate role by creating environments and relationships which encourage, foster, and provide opportunities for sharing , companionship , and affection not only between pairs of men and women, but also within the sexes, and within entire groups. The importance of sharing, companionship, and affection is obvious: these are things for which virtually all people yearn, and for some people, they even serve as an alternative to sexual relations and marriage. Services can do these things by measures such as the following.

1. Providing age-appropriate relevant activities and privacy options, and teaching recipients to respect the privacy of others.

2. Having co-ed programs, where these are possible and would be analogous to practices in the valued culture.

3. Having both male and female servers, who model age- and culturally-appropriate and valued sex roles and behaviors. Typically, young children receive developmental experiences through heterosexual socialization activities, and exposure to models of appropriate behavior for each sex; children do not date, although teenagers and unmarried adults typically do; information on sexual practices is less relevant for children than for adolescents and adults; a lot of physical contact is very common among children, although it is less so among adults unless they are very close emotionally; and so on. Information and experiences which are not appropriate or valued for the age or sex of the people who receive them may be not only irrelevant and premature, but even harmful. Thus, if one has not first learned how to be a friend and to share with another person, one will probably not be able to adaptively sustain a more intimate and demanding relationship that involves explicit sexual behavior, such as marriage.

4. Where it is within the proper purview of the program to do so, trying to involve valued figures besides servers who can model adaptive single, married, parental (perhaps even filial) lifestyles to recipients. (Such actions might have implications to this rating as well as to R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs and possibly R222 Competency-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships.)

5. Providing informal sex education on a routine basis through the modeling power of servers’ conduct, role expectancies, fostering of companionship and affection among recipients and servers, responding to incidents of inappropriate behavior in sensitive and instructive ways, etc.

6. Supporting and if appropriate, obtaining or providing formal sex education and counseling. Some services have much more purview along these lines than others and some have none.

7. Avoiding unnecessary stereotyping of male and female roles in both language and other practices. However, it should be noted that the issue of sex role stereotypes, which is problematic in the larger culture, becomes especially troublesome when societally devalued people are at stake. (a) For one thing, the conservatism corollary says that the image of already devalued people should not be further endangered by associating such persons with images and activities which are marginal or problematic in the larger culture. The application of that principle to this rating would mean that devalued people should not be at the vanguard of breaking down sex role barriers. (a) Secondly, many devalued people have undergone experiences and lived in circumstances in which their sexual identities have never been firmly established, and/or have been confused and distorted. Thus, devalued people should be supported in relatively conservative sex roles so that they may be helped to establish or maintain a clear and minimally conflicted socio-sexual identity. This competency consideration may be even more important than the image issues which may be at stake.

R225 Promotion of Recipient Socio-Sexual Identity

SRV Requirements

In order to enhance recipients’ competencies, & thereby their social roles, a human service (especially if it is for children or devalued people) should-- within its proper purview-facilitate, encourage, & support the development of culturally valued & appropriate socio-sexual role identity & expression of its recipients. It is more role-valorizing for devalued service recipients to be supported in more conservative socio-sexual role development.

R225 Promotion of Recipient Socio - Sexual Identity

DifferentiationFromOtherRatings

1. While this rating has image implications, its primary intent is to deal with the competence implications of the issue. Certain image implications might be rated elsewhere, by one or more imagerelated ratings.

2. Although the construction and support of a warm, even loving, social atmosphere in the service is important to both this rating and R223 Life-Enriching Interactions Among Recipients, Servers, & Others, the rating at hand is concerned specifically with the agency’s support of recipients’ socio-sexual identity development and expression, whereas R223 includes other issues of social interaction, many of which are not even indirectly related to recipients’ sexuality, e.g., hospitality to the public.

Suggested

Some

Important Considerations About the Issues

The legitimate purview of the service, & the amount & degree of influence & control that it can reasonably be expected to exert on the issue, must be taken into account. Some types of services (e.g., residences) bear a much heavier responsibility in this regard.

Services to children & devalued people that have a legitimate purview in regard to this issue should be assessed especially rigorously.

While this rating has image implications, competency considerations should be foremost.

This is an area in which it is especially important that services for devalued people act in accordance with the “conservatism corollary” of SRV, & strive to emulate those practices which are the most positive & most valued in the culture, rather than those which may be avant-garde, or common but only marginally valued at best.

In making their judgments, raters must strike a delicate balance between acknowledging culturally normative & prevalent sex role stereotypes on the one hand, while simultaneously trying to avoid sexism which would deny recipients their fullest development. Raters are advised to be somewhat conservative if an aggressive antisexist measure would result in the projection of a deviancy image upon the program or its recipients.

Particularly in this value- & emotioncharged area, raters must be especially careful to apply the concepts & criteria that are spelled out in this narrative, rather than their own values & interpretations.

If the service being assessed has no conceivable purview as regards the issue in this rating, then this rating should not be applied, & the service’s total score should be computed using the pro-rating method explained on pp. 82-84 of the Guidelines for EvaluatorsDuringaPASS,PASSING,orSimilar AssessmentofHumanServiceQuality.

Some

Key Issues to be Determined

What is the proper scope of influence of the agency in the recipients’ lives in regard to this issue?

How old are the recipients in the program being assessed?

What sexes does the program serve?

If the program serves both males & females, are the sexes segregated from each other in order to receive programming? What are the implications of either practice?

Are there servers of both sexes? Do these servers model valued sociosexual interaction & roles?

Do recipients engage in activities with members (not necessarily recipients) of the opposite sex?

Does the service support recipients in age-appropriate activities with members of the opposite sex?

Does the service support the development of decorous friendships & affection, & an atmosphere of caring among its recipients? Between recipients & other people?

Within its purview, does the service provide or obtain sexual information & counseling for recipients who need or want it? If so, is it holistic, pro-social & humane, & not merely mechanical/medical/technical?

What kinds of supports does the service provide to give recipients the opportunity to choose appropriate sexual behavior?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Program plans; Individual recipient records; Activities schedules & logbooks; Direct interviews with recipients, servers, & service leaders.

R225

Criteria for Level Assignments

N.B. - As explained on p. 13 in “The Rationales for the 5 Rating Levels, and Guidelines for Assigning Levels to Ratings,” if the service being assessed has no purview in regard to this rating issue, and if it does not act outside its purview in ways that are either detrimental or beneficial to recipients, then this rating would not be applied. Instead, the service’s total score is pro-rated, as explained on pp. 82-84 of the 1983 Guidelines monograph (see footnote 6 on p. 4).

Level 1. The development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is apt to be severely impeded or impaired (even if unintentionally), due to the fact that within the proper purview of the program being assessed, there are grossly inappropriate & unnecessary practices in regard to the socio-sexual growth, identity, &/or expression of recipients.

Level 2. Service practices regarding recipient socio-sexual identity have a negative impact on the competencies of the recipients in one of two ways:

a. they significantly impede or impair the competency or competency development of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive; or

b. they severely impede or impair (as in Level 1) the competency or competency development of a significant minority of recipients , even if not of other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ competency risks & needs, the competency impact on recipients of the program’s attention to recipients’ socio-sexual identity is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients ; or

b. service practices neither significantly diminish nor significantly enhance recipients’ competencies.

Level 4. The program’s purview-relevant address of recipients’ socio-sexual identity is highly conducive to the competency enhancement of recipients, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either:

a. service practices regarding recipient socio-sexual identity are mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. the likelihood of competency enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and the potential for development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is so enhanced by the address of recipients’ socio-sexual identities that falls within the program’s proper purview that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

23 COMPETENCY-RELATED SERVICE-STRUCTURED ACTIVITIES & OTHER USES OF TIME

Recipients’ competencies are likely to be greatly affected by the types of activities and programs which are provided by a service, and the various ways in which a program structures its recipients’ time. All direct human services take up at least some of a recipient’s time, some to a relatively small degree (e.g., a telephone counseling service), others to a much greater extent (e.g., residential services). Because any time in a person’s life is at least potentially time in which that person can be growing, learning, developing, recuperating, etc., it is incumbent on a service which occupies any of that time to use it very well to the person’s benefit. Unfortunately, much of the time in a devalued person’s life is often wasted by others including by and in human services.

In order to promote recipients’ competencies (as these are defined in the section entitled “2 Ratings Primarily Related to Personal Competency Enhancement,” pp. 283-286), and to help them overcome, or compensate for, any competency impairments, human services should provide programs that are developmentally very challenging, and that move recipients along a “continuum” of development as far and as fast as is possible for each individual. (If a program does not or should not provide all needed options in a continuum, then at least within its purview, it should advocate for their development, and/or for the placement of its recipients into the appropriate options operated by other parties.)

More specifically, a service’s activities, programs, and other time use patterns must meet three criteria (assessed in three ratings) in order to challenge recipients to progress to higher levels of competency.

1. Programs and activities must be relevant to the needs of recipients, and especially to recipients’ major or even overriding needs (assessed in R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs).

2. Services must make intense and efficient use of whatever time recipients spend in a program. Among other things, this implies the provision of whatever material supports and equipment might be useful in helping recipients become more competent. This issue is assessed in R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use.

3. The service must encourage, and in some instances even obtain or provide, competencyenhancing personal possessions for recipients, as assessed in R233 Competency-Related Personal Possessions.

N.B. - Because of the length and complexity of the text for this rating, there are sub-headings within the “General Statement of the Issue,” to make it easier for readers to comprehend.

General Statement of the Issue

In order to help its recipients acquire, improve or retain competencies, a human service should provide programs that are highly relevant to recipients’ needs. And in order for a service to be highly relevant in this sense, it must first clearly and consciously identify (a) the actual and potential needs of recipients, (b) which of those needs are most pressing and/or must be given priority, (c) which of those needs are within its purview to address, and (d) who should be accepted and served as recipients because their needs and need hierarchy can be well addressed within the purview of the service. A service which attempts to address the real needs of its recipients, and especially their major and overriding ones, can be expected to have a much more powerful positive impact on recipients than a service which addresses less important needs, or which does things that are outright irrelevant to the needs of the people it serves, or which does things that make it less likely that recipients’ higher-order needs will be addressed either by the service at issue, or some other service.

In order for a human service to be relevant to its recipients’ needs, there must be harmony between the needs or problem(s) of the person or group to which the service is addressed, and the service “content,” i.e., whatever it is that the service conveys. For example, a program which provides the content of restoring physical health and abilities (perhaps via the processes of physical therapy and gross motor exercise) would be relevant to many individuals who have paralysis, muscle weaknesses, incoordination, etc., but much less so to most people with speech impairments. A service which provides recreation and diversion, perhaps via fun-and-games activities, would be of very low relevance to adults who have had spinal cord injuries and now desperately need to learn new gross movement skills, how to maintain their prosthetic equipment, and how to acquire new marketable job skills especially if the recreation were offered in lieu of the more needed content. (An additional problem is posed if the less relevant content were provided by a service which had a responsible purview for the more relevant programming.) A residential service for people who have a high potential to be able to move to more independent living would be very relevant if it taught the type of skills needed to live independently in one’s own home in society, e.g., homemaking skills such as light household repair and maintenance, budgeting, shopping, nutrition and food preparation, personal grooming, learning to live with others, and hospitality.

Unfortunately, there are three common scenarios under which services do not optimally address their recipients’ needs.

1. A service provides something that is not at all what some or all recipients really need. For example, a program may offer psychological counseling or talk groups to unemployed people who really and most urgently need money, jobs, and the means to obtain these, and who are not being helped much by talking about the lack of these.

2. Recipients may need what the service provides, but not in the amount or to the degree in which it is provided. For example, a program may provide arts and crafts, music and dance lessons, and other recreational activities to impaired adults almost all day long, six days a week. While the recipients may need a modest amount of recreation (e.g., during evening hours and on weekends), what they really need all day during the week is adult work roles with full-time, productive, meaningful work and/or explicit work training.

3. Recipients may have a real need for what the service provides, but they have much greater needs for other things which are not being provided perhaps even because the low-priority needs are being addressed instead. An example would be a program that takes hot nutritious meals to the homes of old people once a day; this does address their need for good nutrition, but if the reason these people do not cook and/or eat is because of their social isolation and lack of companionship, love, and a sense of purpose, then the need at the root of their problem is not being addressed.

Common Reasons Why Services Fail to Be Relevant to Recipients’ Needs

Among the reasons why any of the above three scenarios occur, six stand out.

1. Change in recipients over time. One reason, especially in connection with the first scenario, is that a service once did provide what recipients needed, but then the recipients changed (e.g., they either grew or regressed) so that the service is no longer relevant to them. If either the recipients had moved on to a more relevant service, or if the service had changed its content to accommodate the changes in recipients, then relevance would have been preserved. If neither of these is possible (e.g., perhaps because what recipients now need is outside the purview of the service), then to the degree that the service has purview to do so it should discharge the recipients, or promote their movement to different services that can relevantly address the newly-emergent need.

Ordinarily, one thinks of services always moving recipients towards higher levels of challenge and greater independence, but some recipients have deteriorating mental or physical conditions (e.g., dementia, or degenerative muscular dystrophy) that result in regression. Thus, a service that relevantly addresses recipients’ needs in such situations might provide more help, supervision, supplementation, etc., rather than less over time; or, as noted, might move recipients to other services that are better suited to recipients’ new types and levels of need.

2. Failure to understand recipients’ needs. Another thing that can bring any of the above three unfortunate scenarios about is also very common, namely the service has not taken into account the relative urgency or hierarchy of different needs, perhaps because these have not been understood by the service or servers. There are some very fundamental and universal human needs which, by their very nature, will tend to be overriding in a person’s life. The needs for food, shelter, clothing, and safety are some basic examples, closely succeeded by social needs, such as for love and belonging, etc.

For instance, many devalued people especially those who have been in a devalued social status for most of their lives have had (and may still be undergoing) experiences that are deeply wounding, and that result in needs which may require much more immediate, even urgent, address than some of their deficits in practical problem-solving. In fact, it may be impossible for a service to effectively address any problem-solving deficits of some recipients unless it first addresses their more fundamental identity and emotional needs, which of course are also in the competency domain. For example, many impaired people have experienced an entire lifetime of rejection and physical discontinuities: they have been moved from place to place, residence to residence, service to service, program to program (even within a specific agency), etc. Furthermore, and even more damaging, they have experienced relationship discontinuities: one foster parent, social worker, ward attendant, vocational specialist, teacher, psychologist, etc., after another, often in rapid succession, and often after these have given a message (implied or explicit) to the impaired person that they cared about the person and would remain in the person’s life. In fact, many devalued people may never have experienced even one enduring relationship with anyone (server, family member, friend, or even another devalued person) in their entire lives. When people have experienced such a history of profound rejection, discontinuity, dislocation, and emotional investment in disappointing relationships with a seemingly never-ending stream of people, it is almost inevitable that they will end up insecure, cautious about future relationships, poor and rootless, sometimes angry and aggressive, emotionally troubled, and typically even more impaired, because they have not felt secure enough to be able to devote their energies to any pursuit other than maintaining a shaky self-image and constricted existence in an ever-changing relationship world and physical environments. So, for example, in residential contexts, persons who have been thusly severely wounded in mind and heart may need acceptance, love, security, ego- and self-image building, trust, and a sense and place of belonging and they may need these much more than, and perhaps even before, they need to learn practical skills such as cooking, budgeting, sewing, and cleaning house. In order to address these needs, a residential service to such persons should therefore provide a true “home,” which would include such things as a sense of belonging to an intimate group and to one place, real affection among the people who live there, and relationships which have a reasonable likelihood of being long-lasting, perhaps even life-long. Areas in which residents need to learn skills should, of course, also be addressed, but only in proper relation to the more pressing needs.

Similarly, many devalued adolescents or adults (especially if they are impaired) live in extreme material poverty, and have had their entire lives practically wasted, e.g., by so-called “early intervention” programs that did not begin until the person was 3, 4 or 5 years old, in watered-down educational programs, in services that operated only a few hours a day and a few days a week, and so on. Thus, it is probably less critical that a work program for such persons teach them how to count, how to exercise and lose weight, how to occupy their leisure time, or how to file a grievance against management, than that it give them high and challenging developmental demands, teach them work which is adult-imaged, meaningful, and by which they can hold a valued adult work role and earn a decent living, and teach them the habits and disciplines of productivity and attention to a task for prolonged periods of time, and of working with precision and excellence.

Many recipients (especially if they are devalued people) also have needs for improvement of their social image and their self-confidence. Not only are these things important in themselves, but if recipients are helped to have a better social image and greater self-confidence, then recipient competencies are apt to increase as well. For instance, if an impaired person lacks confidence in his or her abilities, then the person is less apt to be able to do things for him or herself, to be adventurous in trying new things, to expect to succeed at any task, to have the habits and skills of initiative and curiosity, etc. Self-confidence and social image needs are addressed by such service measures as: attending to the personal appearance of recipients; providing a service environment that is very attractive and age-appropriate; associating recipients with non-devalued people whose positive image lends prestige and status to the devalued recipient; engaging recipients in challenging and ageappropriate activities and tasks; etc. These issues are addressed by specific image-related ratings in PASSING; here, it is important to note that because social image enhancement is indeed a real and pressing need of devalued people, a service to devalued people must recognize it as being real, and potentially even urgent to address. Indeed, identity needs and image needs must often be addressed before much progress can be made in specific competency areas, though skill training itself can often also serve as the medium for addressing such identity needs as self-confidence.

But even though image enhancement may contribute to competency enhancement, and may even be the most important long-term need, it is not necessarily the most immediate need. For instance, shelter, warmth, food and warm clothing are immediate and urgent needs of poor, homeless, starving people even if recipients also have image needs, some of which may either not be recognized or not addressed in the service that provides them with shelter, warmth, and food.

Once recipients’ more fundamental needs have been met, then depending on other life circumstances of the recipients, there may be occasions on which some services which would ordinarily be considered tangential or less central in the life of a person may begin to meet some recipient needs very well.

3. Displacement by a service of a more relevant service that could address recipient needs. Third, particularly if the service does not understand recipients’ needs, then it may fail to address recipient needs by “displacing” the relevant address of recipient needs, perhaps by some other party, and actually become an obstacle to the address of the needs at issue. The displacing service may convey the impression that it does address significant recipient needs, so that no efforts are made to seek alternative services that really do. For instance, it has become very common since ca. 1980 to bring “animal companions” to people who have few or no outside human relationships, and this is done in lieu of trying to recruit human relationships, and is commonly trumpeted as meeting companionship needs, rather than as a pitiful substitute for it. In consequence, nobody will try to recruit the needed human relationships. Similarly in the field of mental disorder, “counseling” services (i.e., talking to and with people), and administering drugs to them, have largely displaced other services that would or could address the needs of disordered people for sanity, such as restructuring of their lives, companionship and community, stable and adaptive relationships, etc.

Another such scenario is when the service admittedly or not is provided primarily to address the needs of other (third) parties, such as caregivers rather than the recipients, as is often the case with respite programs, day activity programs (e.g., for seniors), or other “person-sitting” services.

4. Poor grouping of recipients. Though the image-enhancing and competencyenhancing grouping of recipients for a service are assessed by other ratings (R1231, R1232, R2211, and R2212), poor grouping can contribute to service irrelevance for at least a proportion of recipients. In a poorly composed group, some members may receive the content they need, and others not.

5. Lack of individualization of recipients. If recipients are treated much the same way, without individualization, then some may receive what they need, and some may not. This can be the case even when recipients are dealt with one at a time. Where they are dealt with in groups, individualization might even overcome some of the problems of poor grouping. Again, although service individualization is rated elsewhere (by R215 and R224), it can affect service relevance for at least some recipients.

6. Overprotection of recipients. Much as the physical environment can be overprotective (rated in R214 Challenge/Safety Features of Setting), so too recipients are often overprotected via programmatic arrangements. For instance, if recipients are denied (supervised) exposure to risky and challenging situations, then competencies that they might otherwise have developed or refined will remain stagnant. Instead of such overprotection, services should capitalize upon natural developmental readiness and growth sequences, and identify what a natural next step forward would be, and aim for it.

Purview Contributors to the Reasons for Service Failure to Address Needs

The six reasons given above that are so common in bringing about a failure of services to address their recipients’ needs are, in turn, contributed to by two purview-related factors.

1. Purview limits. Purview can play a role in all three of the above scenarios (p. 389) that constitute sub-optimal address of recipient needs, as when there is a mismatch between what a recipient needs and what a service can provide. Although every service should be relevant to at least some needs of its recipients, not every service can or should attempt to address all or even the most overriding needs in its recipients’ lives. Thus, in this rating especially, a very important question is what degree of authority, supervision, and control the service is mandated, contracted, or expected to have, and therefore how broad its purview is over its recipients. In turn, this will point to how broad is the service’s responsibility for addressing its recipients’ needs, and/or for taking measures to assure that such needs be addressed by others. As mentioned in “Purview” on p. 36 of the “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms,” the greater the responsibility that a service has for its recipients’ lives, the greater will typically be its scope for action. In other words, breadth of purview and of responsibility tend to go together.

By virtue of their nature and purview, some types of services are therefore often in a better position to address some needs than others. For example, residential programs are in a strong position to address needs for: food and shelter; a loving, stable, and long-term home; close relationships with other people; instrumental support in some of the trials of daily living; homemaking and other training in order to be able to live more independently; etc. Day developmental programs can address the needs for socialization into the culture, and into productive, useful, culturally valued, and meaningful work; etc. However, it should not be automatically assumed that any residential or day developmental program is in fact addressed to recipients’ needs, nor should other programs (e.g., counseling, recreation) automatically be thought to address needs that are less important in a recipient’s life. The judgment of whether a program is relevant to its recipients’ needs can only be arrived at through a searching examination and analysis of the conditions of the recipients’ lives as a whole (including those parts of their lives which take place outside the realm of influence of the service being assessed), followed by an identification and prioritization of recipients’ needs.

When a service attempts to address a need that is not within its legitimate purview, recipients’ image is very apt to be damaged, and even service efforts at competency enhancement may be diminished. However, raters must also keep in mind that some recipients’ identities require that a service to them go beyond the purview of its culturally valued analogue, in which case the service can only approximate its valued analogue as much as is feasible, rather than exactly duplicate it.

On the one hand, all this means that some services have much more scope for doing good things to and for recipients than services that have a much more narrow purview in recipients’ lives. But on the other hand, it also means that services with broader purview and responsibility may have to do more to earn a high level on this rating. Thus, raters must take into account the nature of the service, its societal mandate, its culturally valued analogue(s), and the conditions and identities of the recipients, in order to decide what the service’s purview is and hence its responsibility in regard to this rating.

Services that because of their limited purview legitimately address less urgent needs of a recipient should (a) make at least those reasonable efforts that are within their purview to be aware of the recipient’s other important needs, and (b) do whatever is within their legitimate purview to steer the recipient to the needed services, advocate on his or her behalf, etc.

Because of the limitations of purview, there are certain things a service should not even try to do for people with certain urgent needs, as already illustrated in some examples above.

2. Interaction of purview with degree of urgency of need. The purview issue often interacts with the issue of urgency of address of needs. Some services legitimately provide content which is only rarely (if ever) of overriding importance, or highly needed by an individual. Another way of putting it is that the very nature of the purview of some services is to convey only content that addresses what for most people is not a necessity but a luxury, or only meets their lower-order needs. So often, recipients end up not being given the content they most immediately need because a service entity with a less relevant purview failed to say something to the effect that, “This person needs a lot of other things first before what we have to offer will do any good.” For example, while recreation services may conduct programs that are important and needed for at least some people, it is not too often (if ever) that the most critical and major life need of a person is for what recreation can provide, especially if the person is a devalued person who has been subjected to all the destructive dynamics that accompany societal devaluation. If anything, many devalued people are provided with disproportionately more recreation than they need, and perhaps even than they really enjoy. Some services can only be described as luxuries, such as manicure services. If what a service has to provide obviously does not address the recipients’ needs, or does so only very marginally, then the service may not be relevant or may even be counterproductive in the lives of those recipients.

Relevant to both points under this heading is that services tend to ascribe to recipients a “need” for whatever it is the service happens to offer, and the need is generally phrased in terms of the processes that the service offers rather than the content. For example, recipients will be said to “need counseling,” not sanity, or to “need nursing homes,” not health and health maintenance, etc., even when some other service or service processes would be more likely to obtain sanity, health, etc., for recipients than the service being offered.

Raters should try to remain conscious of this

Miscellaneous Clarifications

Some services do not address needs directly, but enable them to be addressed. (In the “Alphabetic Glossary of Special Terms,” p. 32, these are called indirect services; see also the subsection entitled “Purposes and Applicability of PASSING” in the “Introduction and Overview” section, p. 5). For instance, it is not quite accurate to speak of a need for such indirect services as transportation, or referral, but only of a need for certain things that a person would get from the service or place to which referral or transportation is given. Thus, certain services only exist in order to function as, at best, facilitators for getting other good or desirable things (including services that do meet needs) to recipients. As a compromise, whenever such an indirect service is being assessed by PASSING, raters should evaluate whether the indirect service at issue mediates for recipients things that can be assumed to be good and desirable. For instance, does a referral service actually make referrals, and do they seem to be to services or other entities or places that are reasonable, given recipients’ identities? Or does the referral service refer people to non-existing entities, or to entities that do bad things to/for them, such as helping recipients to take their lives? (No one “needs” the content of death.) Does a transportation service actually get recipients to places where they can be assumed to be benefited? Or does it merely take them for a ride, but never drop them off at any location? One might consider here that some referral services actually have been known to refer people to services that would be helpful if they did exist, but that did not exist; and that some transportation services have been known to be primarily arrangements for person-sitting, making sure that a recipient was in a supervised place (on the van or bus) during certain hours.

Thus, assessing indirect services on this rating may be a bit difficult, and occasionally will involve some guesswork by raters, but this should not be the case with the other ratings applied to such an indirect service. For instance, a very significant question with indirect services often will be how well they deal with time use issues, e.g., do they waste or not waste recipients’ time and lives (assessed by R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use).

Also, the nature of the service itself (e.g., residential, work, educational) does not necessarily reveal how relevant it is to the needs of its recipients; rather, the actual “content” of the service must be examined for its relevance to recipients’ needs. For example, for most mentally retarded adolescents, education in many academic subjects has much less relevance to their current and likely future life situations than education in skills of daily living, in social skills, and in work skills. Thus, something called “education” cannot automatically be assumed to be addressing the most relevant educational needs of its students.

What can also complicate the analysis by raters is that the name of a service can be misleading as to what it really provides. E.g., some programs that are called “recreation” convey “fun,” while others convey bodily strength and coordination in effect, health and bodily competency, which may be exactly what someone needs; a meal program may in actuality be really a sociability program; etc. So as mentioned earlier, raters must look behind the names of services and programs in order to figure out what is really being done and conveyed.

While the provision of a program of low or no relevance can actually be harmful to a recipient (e.g., by preventing address of urgent needs), raters must be careful not to assume that a service which is not providing what would be most relevant to recipients’ needs is therefore automatically harmful to them. For example, a full-day, five-day-per-week program which provides day-long physical exercise and body culture every weekday to reasonably functional adults who, however, have a major overriding need for work training and employment is not providing a very relevant service, but it could probably not be judged to be doing actual harm unless it actively hindered recipients from receiving a work program, or hindered a competing work program from operating, or claimed to be a vocational program.

R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs

SRV Requirements

In order to optimally enhance recipients’ competencies, & thereby their social roles, a human service should within its proper purview --address real needs of its recipient(s). Those recipient needs within its purview which are most pressing should be addressed before other, less important needs. At the very least, a service provided to recipients should not be an obstacle to their receiving proper address of their real, or more urgent, needs.

DifferentiationFromOtherRatings

1. This rating is very easy to confuse with R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use. This rating deals with how relevant the content of the service is to recipient needs, whereas R232 deals with how potent the processes are that are being used. For instance, there could conceivably be an extremely demanding (challenging) physical therapy program that is almost totally irrelevant to the more urgent needs of the recipients, or even to any of their needs.

Also, although some programs cannot optimally meet their recipients’ needs without having and making use of certain types of support objects especially in services to people with certain impairments the absence, or presence and use, of material supports and equipment alone is not necessarily germane to program relevance. Thus, it is possible for a program to be relevant to its recipients (rated here) even where some desirable material supports are not present (rated under R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use). For instance, a physical therapy program could be highly relevant to a person who had a stroke even though certain equipment and supports are lacking. On the other hand, there could be a gratifying amount of material supports and equipment in a program, but maybe the equipment is not needed, or is used improperly by servers, or the program itself is irrelevant to recipients’ needs.

2. Image enhancement may be a recipient need that calls for address, and the service’s performance on the twenty-seven image-related ratings will show how well the service addresses that need. Thus, if image enhancement is a significant recipient need, it would be hard for a service to score well on this rating if it does very badly on many of the image-related ratings; or vice versa, it would be unlikely that it could score well on many of the image-related ratings but score poorly on this one.

3. The name of a program or its purported function may sound very relevant to the needs of the people it serves, but what it actually is and does may be irrelevant. Thus, the rating at hand must be distinguished from R1432 Serving Entity, Program, Setting, & Location Names.

4. Relevance must not be confused with social integration, because relevant content for some persons can be conveyed even in a segregated context. For example, food can be provided to starving or hungry people even in segregated settings; an impaired boy might learn to play team sports and improve his physical coordination even if he plays games only with other impaired peers. However, for people who are devalued, and have been segregated from the valued society, personal social integration with valued people in valued activities is, for various reasons, likely to be a real and pressing need. Where that is the case, services that fall short in addressing this recipient need (assessed to various degrees by R1231 Image Projection of Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Social Value, R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition, R124 ImageRelated Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships, and R222 Competency-Related Other Recipient Contacts & Personal Relationships) can probably not receive the highest level here, regardless of whatever other needs they may be addressing.

5. As mentioned in R2111 Setting Access Recipients & Families, for recipients with certain identities and/or competency impairments, a modest degree of inconvenience in getting to a service could be very competency-enhancing and very relevant. For example, it would be very relevant for the impaired adult employees of a sheltered workshop to learn how to find their way to work, and therefore, to have to walk several blocks from the bus stop to their place of work, especially if this walk involves crossing busy intersections and finding one’s way through convoluted streets. Thus, the desirability of ease of recipient access (assessed by R2111) may sometimes conflict with the desiderata of the rating at hand.

6. A service that addresses needs of its recipients that are not within its purview may be credited on this rating, but it will probably be penalized on the following ratings: R1131 External Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogues, R1132 Internal Setting Appearance Congruity With Culturally Valued Analogues, R131 Culture-Appropriate Separation or Combination of Program Functions, R132 Image Projection of Service Activities & Activity Timing, and possibly several of the intra-service recipient grouping ratings.

7. Depending on the needs of recipients, and the purview of the service, there could be some overlap between this rating and any number of ratings that deal with an issue in which a particular recipient’s needs are high.

Suggested

R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Raters must conduct in-depth analysis of the life circumstances, histories, & likely futures of the service recipients in order to be able to identify recipients’ needs, need priorities, & to what degree these can be addressed legitimately by the type of service being assessed. Needs must not be interpreted too narrowly, e.g., the needs of people who are coming out of institutions after having long lived there may include much more than just shelter, food, & warmth, & may extend to: learning appropriate dress, adaptive personal hygiene, & self-control; maintenance of personal prosthetic devices; involvement in the life of the valued community; etc. All these & possibly more are usually within the purview of a residential service to address.

Certain needs, & therefore certain types of services, are fundamental & even universal, while meeting other needs is not essential, & therefore other types of services perhaps are only needed at certain times. E.g., the needs for food, shelter, clothing, certain kinds of medical care, activity, acceptance, & community are very fundamental human needs, while the needs for recreation & art are less so.

Some services are in a better position to legitimately address a greater number of needs than other services. E.g., a residential service is able to exert influence over, perhaps even control, where recipients go to work or school, & how they recreate, but a work or school service is less likely to control where the person lives. A program is expected to make those reasonable efforts at consciousness-raising, advocacy, & facilitation that are within its purview, to increase the likelihood that other services will address those unmet needs of its recipients that are not within its own purview to address.

A great many human services try to meet every need that recipients may have; often, this results in none of the recipients’ needs being coherently or effectively addressed, &/or a high image-cost.

A service could conceivably attain a Level 4 or 5 by meeting needs that are outside its purview, but most likely only at considerable penalty on other ratings, as noted in the section on “Differentiation From Other Ratings.”

A service would not earn a high level if there is a mismatch between what it offers to recipients & what recipients actually need, even though what it does offer is within its purview.

Some

Key Issues to be Determined

What is the area or sphere of activity of recipients’ lives (e.g., domiciliation, developmental day activities, recreation, other) to which the program being assessed is addressed?

What does the service see as its legitimate role or sphere of service in recipients’ lives? What, in fact, is the service’s legitimate purview?

How old are the recipients? Based on their ages, what needs do they have?

What are the devalued conditions &/or impairments of recipients? (If there are more than one impairment or condition, list them all.) Based on these impairments or conditions, what needs do recipients have?

What were the previous life experiences & histories of recipients? Based on those life experiences, what are their existential or identity needs?

What recipient needs would be relevant for this type of service to address? Of these, which have the highest priority, or are most pressing?

What kind of programming, activities, etc., does the service provide? Are these relevant to the needs of recipients? What could be done that would be more relevant?

What type of service or programming would be most relevant to the major needs of the recipients? Is that type of service or programming being provided?

How does the service explain any discrepancy between the needs of its recipients & the type of relevant programming it should be, but is not, providing to meet those needs?

Are there opportunities for recipients to move to a different level of programming (higher or lower) as their needs change?

Are there opportunities for recipients to “graduate” from the program to independence?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Individual recipient records; Program activities schedules & logbooks; Individual recipient program plans; Observation of recipients; Direct interviews with recipients, servers, service leaders, & family members.

R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs

Criteria for Level Assignments

N.B. - The criteria for assigning levels on this rating are a bit different from those of other ratings, because presumedly, the only harm a service can do on this rating is (a) by not relevantly addressing those significant needs of its recipients that it does have purview to address (even if the program is intense & rates high on R232 Intensity of Activities & Time Use); &/or (b) by becoming an obstacle to the relevant address of recipient needs by other services, because of the misleading way the service is being either interpreted or perceived. As noted earlier, the service may displace the relevant address of recipients’ needs, perhaps by giving the impression that it is addressing recipients’ needs.

A service that does not meet a significant need, but tries to get its recipients into a service that does, would probably receive a Level 2. If it meets some relatively minor needs, & is not an obstacle to more relevant service provision, it would probably qualify for Level 3. Levels 4 & 5 require relevant address of needs that are either substantial (food, shelter, social assimilation, etc.) or very real even though narrowly circumscribed by the service purview (e.g., issuance of drivers’ licenses).

Note that a service that delivers an unneeded content, while at the same time being an obstacle to recipients getting a service they do need, can rate lower than an unneeded service that does not constitute such an obstacle.

Except for Levels 1 & 5, level assignment can be difficult in this rating, & the examples here should not be given undue importance because real-life service scenarios would usually be much more complex & nuanced.

Level 1. The development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is apt to be severely impeded or impaired (even if unintentionally), most likely because either :

a. the service addresses very poorly, or not at all, those of its recipients’ significant needs that are within its proper purview, possibly even thereby damaging recipients’ well-being; or

b. all or a major proportion of the efforts of the service is addressed to needs other than those that are of importance in the recipients’ lives, and this interferes with recipients receiving what they really need.

Level 2. Considering recipients’ competency risks & needs, service failure to address recipient needs has a negative impact on the competencies of the recipients by:

a. significantly impeding or impairing the competency or competency development of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1. Perhaps there is a mismatch between what the service offers & what the people it serves needs, & the service makes no efforts to rectify this or

b. it severely impedes or impairs (as in Level 1) the competency or competency development of a significant minority of recipients , even if not of other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ competency risks & needs, the competency impact on recipients of the program’s attempts to address recipient needs is neither as damaging as Level 2, nor as relevant as in Level 4. This is probably because:

a. recipients’ real needs are outside the purview of the service, & while the service does not do harm to recipients (as in Levels 1 & 2 above), neither does it do anything to see to it that recipients’ needs do get addressed, elsewhere & in other services if necessary; or

b. some real needs are being addressed, but others of equal weight that are also within the purview of the service are not.

Level 4. The program’s relevant address of recipients’ real & significant needs is highly conducive to the competency enhancement of recipients, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. conditions are mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients or

b. the likelihood of competency enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and the potential for development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is so enhanced by the fact that the service addresses all of the most important, overriding, critical needs of recipients, & most of the minor ones, that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable. In addition to personnel consciousness & commitment, services on this level would have: (a) clearly, consciously, & accurately identified & prioritized their recipients’ needs, and (b) optimally addressed at least those major needs of recipients which are within its legitimate sphere of service, and (c) made all efforts within their purview to have other parties address at least the more important needs of their recipients.

R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use

General Statement of the Issue

The use of time in a service is an issue that has both image and competency dimensions. Therefore, there is a parallel image rating to this competency rating, namely R132 Image Projection of Program Activities & Activity Timing, and some of the text of this rating will make reference to that parallel rating.

In order to promote the competencies of its recipients, a service should use potent methods, and make the most effective use of program time, as elaborated below.

1. Making good use of time. This refers both to making efficient use of whatever time a service has with the recipients, as well as working toward spending the optimum (not necessarily the maximum) amount of time with recipients. For many types of services, that would imply a long demanding program day, week, and year. Similarly, much valuable program time can be lost unnecessarily by frequent and long holiday breaks. Time can also be wasted by letting recipients wait for things to happen, or by dismissing them before the available program time is up.

2. Use of efficacious/potent service processes. There are service processes that are well known to be valid; there are some for which there is reason to believe they might work; and there are some that can be justified to try when more promising approaches have failed.

Among the things that are likely to make service efficacious are at least the following five.

a. The processes elicit the motivation and engagement of recipients. This might include (a1) culturally familiar and positively valued processes; (a2) a genuine caring relationship between servers and recipients; (a3) bringing a recipient’s drive, motivation, and anxiety to a suitable level (neither too high nor too low) so as to facilitate attention and engagement, including by rewarding effort and achievement; and (a4) promoting identification of the recipient with those who model desired behaviors.

b. There are service processes that derive power from other sources having to do with how people learn and perform , such as (b1) marshalling attention and concentration, including by removing distracting factors; (b2) breaking down a behavior that is to be learned into its component parts; (b3) use of repetition; (b4) intensification of stimuli, including direct involvement of the recipient in the behavior to be acquired; (b5) giving repeated feedback and consequation to the recipient; (b6) consciousness-raising; (b7) teaching in the kind of environment in which the behavior being taught will actually have to be practiced; (b8) teaching for maximum transfer to other occasions and environments; (b9) use of stimulating environments; and (b10) setting high expectancies. For example, in regard to (b10), if servers perceive recipients as incapable of learning very much, very fast, very well, or at all, then it is unlikely that servers will provide a program or resources which place demands upon a recipient to learn, and to do so quickly and to perfection, regardless of what the recipient’s individual program plan says. Similarly, if servers believe that recipients cannot tolerate failure, servers might prevent recipients from participating in some activities at which the recipients might fail, even though the recipients could also learn lessons from their failures, and could be helped to do so.

c. Also part of an efficacious service process is the use of competency - facilitating material supports and equipment , and this rating assesses whether a service provides or obtains such relevant tools and equipment, to the degree that this is within its purview. (This is different from, but could overlap with, attention to R233 Competency-Enhancing Personal Possessions.)

The presence and use of material supports and equipment can either facilitate recipients’ learning, or enable them to perform tasks that otherwise might be impossible for them. Also, learning the use of these tools can by itself be a valuable skill in life or the job market. Clearly, in order to function competently in a particular setting or activity in life, people need certain object supports, e.g., a mechanic needs wrenches and other tools in order to do his or her job, a carpenter needs hammer and nails, a writer pen and paper, a Christian minister the Bible. It would be extremely difficult for someone to learn how to be a good mechanic or carpenter if the person did not have access to these essential tools and time spent trying to teach the person how to repair machinery or how to build things without making use of the necessary equipment would be time spent very poorly.

The presence and use of various material supports is especially crucial for people who have physical or functional impairments, a background of deprivation, etc., and a lack of such items can make the use of time in their lives much less efficient. For example, without a device, such as a hearing aid, special glasses, braces, a walker, etc., the person may never be able to speak, read, walk, groom, get around in the community, etc. This is especially true for children with certain impairing conditions, since time wasted or poorly used in a child’s life can make it that much more difficult to enhance his or her competencies later on, and some competencies may then never be attained.

Even if people are not impaired, certain material supports can contribute a great deal to their development. For example, an electronic hand calculator would help a person to accomplish certain tasks which otherwise might prove insurmountable or exhausting. Having a stove to cook on is vastly easier and more efficient than cooking in an open fireplace. Obviously, recipients could develop and perfect certain competencies by proper instruction in the use of such appliances.

There is also equipment with the sole function of preventing a waste of the time available for program purposes. For instance, a leaf blower may serve not so much to teach recipients its use but to save them time sweeping up frequently, so that they can do other things instead from which they profit more.

Having access to certain material objects can also contribute to the efficient development of competencies because the user must learn about their care and upkeep, and take responsibility for keeping them in good order, not wasting them, etc. In other words, one could learn not only how such objects work, but also how to exercise good “stewardship” over resources and material goods. However, exactly what will be useful or needed along these lines will differ depending on a recipient’s physical condition, age, sex, roles, needs, station in life, mission, possibly occupation, and definitely the nature of the service and its purview. For example, a work service could be expected to provide workers with desks, computers, lathes, or other similar tools necessary for the conduct of the work. An educational service would need to have available to its students desks, writing equipment, books (especially ones that are interesting and challenging to the reading level of students), etc. Residential services need household appliances, different kinds of kitchenware and cooking/eating utensils, household maintenance equipment such as a broom, vacuum cleaner, rake, shovel, snowblower, etc.

d. Competent servers are also part of the service process, and their competence may, or may not, be related to their training, and/or their previous experience. For example, people who perform corrective surgery and physical rehabilitation on severely physically impaired children should have medical training. Not only specific training, but certain experiential backgrounds also may be highly related to servers’ ability to enhance recipients’ competencies. For example, staff of residential services will be much better able to help residents learn how to keep up their home, take care of their clothes, and budget their money if these staff have themselves kept house, done these things, and done them well. Similarly, people who have endured and overcome an addiction, or succeeded at a pursuit despite an impairing condition, can sometimes better assist people who are currently in that situation than people without that experience. However, merely because a server is relevantly credentialed and/or experienced, raters cannot just assume that service by that person is relevant, intense or efficient. Also, certain server competencies can be associated with a stigma, as in the above example of a former drug user (rated by R1251 Server-Recipient Image Transfer).

e. The server - to - recipient ratio is also part of the service process, in that (usually) too few, but sometimes also too many, servers can impact on recipient competency development. For instance, when the server-recipient ratio is high, the presence and frequent intervention of servers can prevent recipients from doing things on their own, interacting with others, etc. Also, a high serverrecipient ratio (e.g., two-to-one) may have no positive impact on recipients’ competencies unless the presence of such server abundance is capitalized upon in a competency-enhancing manner. For instance, in some services where the server-recipient ratio is high, the servers still may have very little contact with recipients, and what contact they do have may be grossly overprotective, abusive, incompetent, or otherwise damaging to recipients’ competencies. On the other hand, while a poor server-recipient ratio may constitute a constraint on the intensity of the program, other elements of intense programming may still be present. Thus, raters must be sure to (a) consider only the degree to which the server-recipient ratio facilitates or inhibits recipient competency enhancement, and (b) take into account other competency-promoting forms of intensiveness.

Most formal services claim a commitment to providing challenging programs and making efficient use of recipients’ time. But in reality, non -challenging activities and in efficient time use are not uncommon even in services to valued people (e.g., in the US, especially in public schools), and are virtually the norm in services to devalued people. For instance, in numerous programs for educating children with impairments, the pupils spend short hours in the program, are rarely truly expected and challenged to fulfill their developmental potential, and much program time is spent in activities that do not require skill and discipline, are not very instructive, could be conducted by less-trained personnel and/or in other settings, etc. Additionally, entry of impaired people into habilitation programs is often delayed past the point where a great deal of competency enhancement could have been achieved or at least facilitated, e.g., long waiting lists for habilitative programs, or “early education” programs for impaired children that are much less early than the children could benefit from. Quite commonly, marginally effective or outright ineffective teaching strategies may be employed, and in services which already have a short program day/week/year. Similarly, it is quite common in vocational programs for recipients to be idle, not to be challenged to develop good skills, etc.

Another quite common practice is the excessive use of prescription mind drugs (tranquilizers, etc.), and more often than not, as an alternative to socio-behavioral approaches. Even where such drugs are not overused, they often still reduce people’s alertness, reaction time, and control over themselves and their environment all of which can result in constraints on competency and its development.

People with certain conditions (e.g., severely impaired infants and young children) should really be involved in programming that is both pedagogically efficacious and time-intense for much of the waking day, though there may be an image cost to pay (on R132 Image Projection of Service Activities & Activity Timing). However, it may not be within the purview of a specific service to provide all the conceivable extent and intensity of programming from which a recipient is likely to benefit, and the optimal intensity of programming for a person may require the involvement of different service entities, including perhaps informal ones, such as family and volunteers.

In short, a real commitment to enhancing recipients’ competencies via intensity of activities and efficiency of time use must not just be verbalized, but must truly be evidenced in actual service practice, via such things as: a long and demanding program day, week, etc.; intense developmental contacts between servers and recipients; use of effective technologies, equipment, materials, procedures, and methods; capitalization upon subtle as well as more obvious learning opportunities; and stimulating program environments in which it would be very hard for recipients not to thrive or progress. Such practices generally reflect much more faithfully the real expectations which the program’s decision-makers and servers hold for recipients than do verbal descriptions of the program, statements of service mission, etc.

SRV Requirements

In order to increase recipient competencies, & thereby enhance their social roles, a human service should: (a) use a sufficient amount of time, & use it well, congruent with its purview & with how much the recipients can benefit; & (b)provide program activities that are potent & challenging in relation to recipients’ likely potential. Generally, these requirements imply that a service should: use competent/ experienced servers; place high demands & expectations on recipients for growth & performance; use teaching/ helping strategies that are known to be highly effective; involve recipients in intense & efficient programming for the maximally productive amount of time; & take advantage of subtle as well as more obvious learning opportunities.

DifferentiationFromOtherRatings

1. This rating is very easy to confuse with R231 Service Address of Recipient Needs. R231 deals with how relevant the content of the program is to recipient needs, whereas R232 deals with how potent the processes are that are being used. For instance, if recipients sit idle in a service, this would rate low on R232, but if they kept doing things that they had long ago mastered, this would rate low on R231. Or a program might deliver exactly the content needed by a recipient (e.g., literacy training for an illiterate adult), and get a high rating on R231, but do so at a very low level of time intensity, and with inefficient methods, and therefore get a low level on this rating (R232).

2. R214 Challenge/Safety Features of Setting assesses whether major built - in physical features of the service environment either elicit and facilitate, or inhibit, recipient growth and development. This rating only assesses whether essentially programmatic aspects of the service (i.e., such things as expectations, challenging activities, good pedagogies, and competency-enhancing equipment that is not owned by recipients) make growth demands upon recipients.

3. R132 Image Projection of Program Activities & Activity Timing rates the images projected by the types of activities, routines, and schedules which the program provides for its recipients, while the rating at hand is concerned with the likely competency impact of these activities and schedules. An activity or schedule might be very beneficial in terms of skill and competency development, and at the same time image-impairing to recipients, e.g., adults with arthritic hands stringing children’s beads. Or, adults might be engaged in adult-imaged activities or schedules, but these may not contribute to their competency development.

4. The image of the objects and materials owned by the service that are used to facilitate recipient competency enhancement are rated by R145 Image Projection of Miscellaneous Aspects of a Service; only the competency-enhancing use of such materials owned by the service is assessed here.

5. Whether recipients have possessions, the degree to which the service promotes recipient ownership of possessions and makes use of recipient possessions for competency enhancement, whether the service takes steps to increase recipient competencies by teaching recipients how to maintain their possessions, etc., are all rated under R233 Competency-Enhancing Personal Possessions, rather than under the rating at hand.

6. Some workers in a service might be highly competent and very good at helping recipients grow and develop, and yet their image might project negatively on recipients. For example, a physically impaired teacher of retarded children might be quite capable at providing challenging activities to the students and making the most efficacious use of their program time (rated positively here), and yet the teacher’s image may impair that of the students. Thus, the likely competency effects of servers’ skills, experiences, and training (assessed here) must be differentiated from the likely image effects of servers’ appearances, histories, training, and identities, assessed by R1251 Server-Recipient Image Transfer and R1252 Server-Recipient Image Match.

7. How well the number of recipients in the program grouping facilitates the competency promotion of recipients is assessed by R2211 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Size. This rating takes account of how well the number of servers per recipient facilitates such competency enhancement. Of course, a person receiving one-to-one service may have implications here as well as in R2211.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

This rating is concerned primarily with whether the service: (a) pushes recipients to exert & engage themselves to maximize their competencies, & (b) makes good rather than inefficient/wasteful use of recipients’ time. A service might meet these criteria even if the activities in which it engages recipients are not especially relevant to their needs.

The developmental growth potential of devalued people (especially people with certain physical & functional impairments) is likely to be woefully underestimated or even disdained. In consequence, programs for devalued people are apt to provide much less stimulation, expectations, & opportunities for competency development than recipients could conceivably benefit from.

Intensity & challenge are to be judged against absolute standards. Even services for valued people are often time-wasting, &/or not very challenging.

The service’s performance here may be constrained by several factors. E.g.: (a) if the recipient grouping is not well composed to facilitate competency enhancement (R2212 Competency-Related Intra-Service Recipient Grouping Composition), then it will be hard for the program to optimally challenge the developmental potential of each recipient; (b) if material supports are not available that are within the purview of the service to provide or obtain, & that are needed to enhance recipient competencies, then the service cannot receive the highest level.

In regard to server-recipient ratio, the only thing that matters in this rating is whether it actually contributes to intense & efficient use of recipients’ time.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

What is the proper purview of the program in the lives of the recipients?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

How much time do recipients spend in the service daily? Weekly? Monthly? Yearly? Program plans & descriptions; Activity schedules & logbooks;

What proportion of the total amount of time that recipients spend in the service is spent in activities that are clearly challenging & developmental in nature?

How challenging to the skill levels of recipients are the activities which the program provides to them?

How instructive are these programs & activities to recipients? How pedagogically effective are these programs? In what ways could they be improved?

Are servers aware & do they take advantage of subtle as well as obvious opportunities for recipient learning?

CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE

Individual recipient records & program plans; Observation of the program in operation; Job descriptions; Personnel records, previous training & experiences; Direct interviews of recipients, servers, & service leaders.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

Some Key Issues to be Determined

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

Even technologies & pedagogic techniques that are potentially very effective will not always achieve desired ends. E.g.: recipients may be involved in other programs which “undo” the good done by the service being assessed; recipients may resist or thwart service measures; recipients’ capacity to respond may be limited; or an intense service may not be very relevant. Thus, raters must be careful to assess only whether a service employs truly intense/efficient measures & program structures, even if these fall short of having the desired effect.

A service that exerts a greater degree of control over recipients has a particularly heavy responsibility to be challenging to recipients & to use recipients’ time well. E.g., shortcomings in the degree of challenge provided in a residential or school program are apt to be much more harmful than similar shortcomings in programs where recipients usually spend considerably less time, & where servers would have much less control over recipients, such as a walk-in counseling program. However, even a program in which recipients are engaged infrequently & for short periods (e.g., a visit to a doctor’s office) can achieve the highest level if what it does within its purview is done intensely & efficaciously.

If programs that take much of a recipient’s time on a regular basis were intense & efficient, this would probably contribute greatly to their habits of discipline, adherence to schedules, physical & intellectual agility, etc., which would be enhancing to their competencies even in those areas of their lives that are not under the control of the service being assessed.

A good indication of the intensity of day programs is if recipients are at least normatively tired out at the end of the day.

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE

Do recipients have any conditions that might be compensated for by certain kinds of material supports? If so, do recipients have those needed items? Can it be viewed as the service’s responsibility to provide those items, or to see to it that recipients obtain them?

In what ways does the service use material supports as opportunities to increase recipients’ competencies? Are any such opportunities being missed? Does the service encourage (& perhaps even teach) recipients to take care of service-owned materials, to keep them in good working order, to preserve them, etc.?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Dat a About the Issues

R232

Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use

Criteria for Level Assignments

Level 1. The development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is apt to be severely impeded or impaired (even if unintentionally), due to the fact that within its proper purview, the program makes very bad use of time, &/or uses ineffective (or even counterproductive) service processes.

Level 2. The degree of program intensity & efficiency of time use of the service has a negative impact on the competency development or practice of recipients, in one of the following ways:

a. its impact is significantly negative for all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features are somewhat positive; or

b. its impact is severely negative , as in Level 1, on the competency & competency development of a significant minority of recipients even if not of other recipients.

Level 3. Considering the purview of the service, & recipients’ competency risks & needs, the level of program challenge & intensity is superior to Level 2, but falls short of Level 4. Most likely, this is probably due to one of the following scenarios:

a. challenge & intensity are high in some program features, but low in others, though none of the latter can be as low as Level 1 . E.g., there may be good time use but poor challenge intensity, or vice versa; or

b. challenge & intensity are relatively uniformly of intermediate degree.

Level 4. The level of intensity & challenge in the program is highly conducive to the competency enhancement of recipients, but falls short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either : a. conditions are mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but in either case, none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. the likelihood of competency enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and the potential for development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is so enhanced by the intense & efficient use of time in the program that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable.

R233 Competency - Related Personal Possessions

General Statement of the Issue

Personal possessions is an issue that has both image and competency dimensions. Therefore, there is a parallel image rating to this competency rating, namely R142 Image-Related Personal Possessions, and some of the text of this rating will make reference to, and is relevant to, that parallel rating. Also, certain possession issues are addressed in R133 Promotion of Recipient Autonomy & Rights.

Readers are reminded that they need to be familiar with the material covered under point 1 of R142 Image - Related Personal Possessions on p. 243.

In general, and within its purview, a human service should: (a) encourage and support its recipients to acquire competency-enhancing possessions, and at certain times and in certain services, even provide such, and (b) teach, encourage, and support recipients in exercising good “stewardship” over their possessions. The mostly competency-related role and importance of personal possessions is described in the seven points below.

1. In order to accomplish certain things in life, a person needs to have certain objects which, in our culture, are preferably the person’s own possessions. For example, people need clothes in order to protect themselves from the elements, and to learn how, and be able, to dress themselves; a young man needs a razor in order to learn to shave; a child with poor eyesight needs prescription glasses in order to learn to read, or even merely to see; one needs certain cosmetics and toilet articles in order to learn and practice certain skills and habits of personal hygiene. Exactly what a person will need along these lines will depend on the person’s physical condition, age, sex, roles, needs, station in life, mission, and occupation. For instance, in North American society, a lot of people really do need an automobile in order to accomplish their life tasks, while other people do not need one at least, not for competency enhancement purposes. Some people need competency-facilitative material supports and equipment not only in order to function, but just in order to exist. For example, some people would die if they did not have certain pieces of medical equipment or supplies.

Theoretically, all such objects could be owned by someone else (e.g., relatives, a service entity), but ordinarily, it is assumed that a person does, or should, own items for certain personal use. For example, regardless of whether one lives in one’s own home or in some special residential setting, one’s false teeth and toothbrush should be one’s own. For other items, whether it is important that the person who uses them also own them, rather than someone else owning them, may vary according to circumstances. For example, in a nursing home, it is more important that a resident have the use of a wheelchair than that he or she possess it, whereas in one’s own private home, actual possession of such a personal device would usually be preferred. Also, in order to be competency-enhancing, many such prosthetics need to be so highly individualized that personal ownership thereof makes most sense.

2. Besides playing a part in the carrying out of ordinary life functions, possessions can also enable people to be more autonomous, and to engage themselves in various other competencyenhancing activities. For instance, having a bicycle enables a child to independently get to and from school, run errands, etc.

3. Ownership of possessions can also teach people about the need to take care of material goods. Although people may learn this through the use of objects owned by others, it is a lesson that is often learned best and most quickly when one’s own possessions are at stake. If one does not have any possessions, one may never develop an appreciation for where these objects come from, how much they cost, the care that some objects require, nor for the precarious lifespan of some items. However, if one has such things as an electric razor, hair dryer, wheelchair, specially adapted pedal cycle, battery-operated magnifying glasses, electronic or other communication board or device, back brace, or any number of other possessions and material supports, one would be challenged to learn to use, clean, maintain, and repair these; one would be apt to learn caution, the value of things, how they are made and work, how to engage oneself in their repair, how to “diagnose” a problem, etc. Often, this aspect of possessions alone can be a tremendous source of competency enhancement, especially for devalued people. Some devalued people have never worked for income, and have developed a “cargo cult” mentality, or a welfare mentality, of easy-come easy-go, and therefore have no sense of stewardship.

At any rate, for these or for any number of other reasons (including physical clumsiness, lack of proper teaching and modeling, never having been provided with items that were well-made or of high quality, etc.), many devalued people seem to have difficulty in maintaining their possessions: glasses are easily lost or broken; clothes are easily torn; shoes get ripped; various items get dropped and damaged, or misplaced and then lost; things get thrown out without an effort to repair them or even give them to others; etc.

Accordingly, recipients must be helped to develop the various competencies that are needed in order to preserve their possessions, including such things as regular upkeep (laundering, cleaning, polishing, mowing, raking, painting, sanding, mending), caution and gentleness in handling fragile objects, an orientation to repairing a damage while it is still small before it becomes too big to fix, regular inspection of the upkeep of various items, and applying any special protective measures as needed (such as waterproofing, reinforcing weak areas, changing the oil, replacing batteries regularly, etc.). Closely related to the importance of care and responsibility for the maintenance of possessions is the necessity to teach good stewardship of limited resources, which also requires respect for the possessions of others, and is especially important when people are at risk of poverty, or are poor and therefore have few resources.

4. Possessions can sometimes be almost identity-defining for an individual. For example, different possessions can elicit and shape different interests a fact that the women’s movement noted in regard to the practice of giving dolls only to little girls and toy cars only to little boys. Most people have a great deal of their identities invested in the things that they own, and/or they tend to derive a great deal of security from them, however misplaced it may be. Sometimes, this attachment can be so strong that even a brief separation from one’s possessions can be very traumatic. For example, many young children will almost constantly carry some object with them, such as a blanket or stuffed toy. Removal of the treasured possession from the child, even if only for the time it takes to launder it, may bring on such anxiety or grief that the child will be inconsolable until the object is returned. Other people have similar attachments to some of their possessions, e.g., young adults leaving home for the first time take with them certain mementoes that they will continue to carry with them in all their future moves. In fact, most people of all ages have certain things that they feel they can “never give up.”

5. Related to both image enhancement as well as to competency enhancement is the fact that possessions can also influence the amount and type of a person’s life space. The more possessions one has, the more space one needs in order to keep them, and therefore, the more space one has to maintain, which in turn requires competency. And the more of one specific type of possession (namely money) one has, the greater the amount and the better quality life space one will be able to “purchase” for oneself and one’s possessions. Also, with the use of possessions, a person often demarcates a personal area, such as a desk at work, half of a bedroom shared with someone else, etc. Thus, it is easier for a person who has possessions to express his or her individuality, and perhaps even a need for privacy.

For some impaired people especially, certain possessions that can be competency-enhancing take up a good deal of space: hobby or craft equipment, wheelchairs, an adapted van owned by a paralyzed person, etc. Thus, for certain recipients with certain identities and conditions, provision of space to keep such competency-related personal possessions can be especially critical, and it may be within the purview of the service to do so.

6. Furthermore, possessions also require competency to keep track of them (via quarterly reports, monthly bank statements, regular contact with one’s broker) and/or to arrange to have someone else do so.

7. Also, as discussed under R133 Promotion of Recipient Autonomy & Rights, people who are at risk of being societally devalued tend to be subjected to numerous dynamics that systematically strip them of whatever possessions they may have, and thus make or keep them poor. People who are impoverished (as are so many devalued people) are much more likely to become or remain reduced in competency. Often, there is a feedback loop in which they either become or remain poor from lack of competence, or never become fully competent because of their poverty. Therefore, for at least some people, the ownership of resources can enable them to ward off dependency and/or to compensate for it, and to prevent all sorts of other negative occurrences or to compensate for them. (However, as noted, whether a service contributes to, or acts to prevent, recipients’ impoverishment is not rated here, but under R133 Promotion of Recipient Autonomy & Rights.)

In regard to the promotion of competency-enhancing possessions in general, different services can be expected to exert different kinds and amounts of responsibility, depending on their purview and the status of a recipient. For instance, residential services have a greater purview in this regard than perhaps any other kind of service, because obviously, people tend to use and keep more of their possessions in their residence than anyplace else. Some examples of competency-enhancing possessions for adults which a residential program might encourage and/or provide are: personal hygiene articles; cosmetics; clothes, including some for special occasions and for all seasons; hobby and craft items, such as woodworking materials, materials for needlework, paints; items such as plants, paintings, and various knickknacks to decorate one’s room; board games, card decks; camera equipment, scrapbooks and photo albums, perhaps an image projector; radios, TVs, stereos; book and music collections; stocks and bonds; bicycle, motorbike, or car; and even items of furniture. Specifically in regard to provision of possessions to recipients by a service, certain types of services (such as residences) have it within their purview, and may even have an outright responsibility, to do so. For example, many hospitals nowadays provide entering in-patients with a kit of items to use while they are in the hospital, and which they can take home with them when they leave: toiletries, drinking glasses, bedroom slippers, toothbrush, comb, etc.

While other kinds of services may not have as great a responsibility for seeing to it that recipients have competency-enhancing possessions, most such services should at least provide an appropriate amount of space for recipients to bring and keep relevant such possessions at the service. For instance, schools and work settings should at least provide a place (e.g., a locker) for each recipient to park clothes and hand baggage; even a walk-in counseling service could be expected to provide a coat rack or a coat/hat/umbrella stand. Residential services, of course, must provide much more space for recipients’ possessions than most other types of services. As noted, some competency-enhancing possessions (such as prosthetic and other devices for mobility) may require a great deal of space.

For some services, it is not enough to just see to it that recipients have, acquire, and maintain possessions; it is also within their purview to teach recipients to use their possessions in competencyenhancing fashion. For example, either a residence or a recreation program that serves a perceptually impaired adolescent young man could help him to acquire a video game, and then systematically teach him how to play it in order to improve his visual tracking, reaction time, anticipatory reflexes, eyehand coordination, etc.

To some extent, the degree of competency enhancement that a certain possession might help to foster for a recipient will depend on its age-appropriateness. For example, a rattle is not only ageappropriate in image for an infant, but can also be very competency-enhancing; a clock-radio can be both a positively age-imaged possession and a competency-enhancing one for a retarded adolescent. However, this does not mean that, in order to be competency- enhancing, possessions must always be matched to a person’s age. For instance, an adult might derive competency-enhancement from the ownership of some object usually associated with childhood, such as wooden building blocks or a first-grade reader, especially if the person is impaired in mentality. However, in order to be both competency-enhancing (as assessed by this rating) as well as image-enhancing (as assessed by rating R142), competency-enhancing personal possessions should as much as possible also be imageenhancing. For instance, simple advertisements and posters might help an adult to learn to read just as well as a simple children’s book, but would do so without impairing the person’s age image; a basketball might be substituted for a child’s beach ball or rubber ball in order to help increase both the competencies and image of the adult at the same time; etc.

Furthermore, a possession that is appropriate in image for a person’s age will usually also be enhancing to competencies, as a result of the role expectancy that such a possession makes on its owner. Having adult-type things encourages a person to act more like an adult, while having childish things encourages a person to fill a child role. In that way, even age-appropriate possessions that are somewhat above the person’s current level of competency are apt to bring the person to higher levels of competency than could have been accomplished with some other items.

Competency-related possessions can become irrelevant to a very small number of people, namely those in a comatose or near-comatose state. To them, equipment with a potential to sustain or enhance competencies would ordinarily be of the kind which tend to be owned by service providers, and that are rated under R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use.

SRV Requirements

In order to increase & sustain recipient competencies, & thereby to enhance their social roles, a human service should (a) support, encourage, & where appropriate, even provide its recipients with their own competency-enhancing personal possessions; & (b) provide purview-appropriate space for recipients to keep competency-enhancing possessions. Within the limits of its purview, a service should also encourage, & possibly teach, the exercise of good stewardship of material goods.

R233 Competency - Related Personal Possessions

Differentiation From Other Ratings

1. Materials that are owned by the service (e.g., equipment) can also contribute towards competency enhancement of recipients, but the presence and use for competency enhancement of any such equipment owned by the service or parties other than recipients is rated by R232 Intensity of Activities & Efficiency of Time Use.

2. The images attached to equipment owned by the service or parties other than the recipients is rated under R145 Image Projection of Miscellaneous Aspects of a Service.

3. There are any number of reasons why recipients may lack possessions: a background of poverty, theft by servers, etc. However, if the service being assessed prevents recipients from acquiring possessions, fails to protect recipients from being stripped of possessions by others, or even itself does or permits things that strip or separate recipients from their possessions, then it would be penalized under R133 Promotion of Recipient Autonomy & Rights.

4. There are a number of distinctions that must be made between this rating and R142 ImageRelated Personal Possessions.

a. Many possessions will be rated under both R142 Image-Related Personal Possessions and this rating. However, R142 is concerned with the messages about recipients that are conveyed by the amount, type, quality, and age- and culture-appropriateness of their possessions. The rating at hand is concerned with whether recipients have possessions that might assist them to acquire or practice competencies in the broadest sense, regardless of the images attached to these.

b. Whether, within its purview, the service promotes ownership of image-related possessions is rated under R142 Image-Related Personal Possessions. Whether, within its purview, the service promotes ownership of competency-related possessions specifically is rated here.

c. Whether, within its purview, the service provides space for recipients to keep, store, and/or display their image-related possessions is rated under R142 Image-Related Personal possessions. Whether, within its purview, the service provides space specifically for competency-related possessions (e.g., prosthetic devices) is rated here. Some such possessions require a good deal of space.

d. Whether the service supports recipients, or even teaches them, to take care of their possessions is assessed under this rating.

Some Important Considerations About the Issues

The nature of the service (e.g., residential, educational, work, etc.), & the type & amount of control it has over recipients, have implications to the kinds of competency-related possessions it should promote &/or provide, & the amount of space for them it should provide. E.g., a hospital in which people stay for a brief time while having their long-term residence elsewhere would not be expected to provide as much space.

In congregate living in general, & especially in certain types for devalued people, it is a common practice to provide very little space for recipients’ possessions, often as a result of fiscal constraints or for administrative/staff convenience. However, a service would still have to be down-rated for such practices.

Particularly important in long-term residential settings is whether furniture in recipient areas is built-in & hence relatively immobile, because this reduces a resident’s options to bring in one’s own, & arrange its set-up. Such a service may not be able to earn the highest level here if the built-in furnishings restrict what & how many competency-related possessions a person can bring. Built-in furnishings are also likely to prevent a high rating level on R142 ImageRelated Personal Possessions, & on R215 Individualizing Features of Setting.

Raters must keep in mind that a person could be very wealthy (e.g., in paper assets or real estate) & yet have few portable possessions that require space; & that a service might deny a recipient purview-appropriate space for possessions even if the recipient has vast wealth elsewhere.

If the service being assessed has no conceivable purview as regards the issue in this rating, then this rating should not be applied, & the service’s total score should be computed using the pro-rating method explained on pp. 82-84 of the Guidelines for Evaluators During a PASS, PASSING, or Similar Assessment of Human Service Quality.

Some Key Issues to be Determined

What is the proper purview of the service being assessed in regard to this issue?

What kinds of support & encouragement does the service provide to recipients to obtain & keep competency-related possessions?

Can the service be expected to provide certain competency-related possessions to recipients? If so, does the service do so?

Does the service encourage (& perhaps even teach) recipients to respect & take care of their competency-related possessions, & to respect & be careful with material objects in general?

Are relevant direct service personnel & leadership (e.g., director, board members) conscious of & committed to the issue at stake in this rating?

Some Likely Sources of Relevant Facts/Data About the Issues

Inspection of recipients’ personal spaces, e.g., bedrooms, lockers; Individual recipient programs plans; Activities plans, logbooks, & schedules; Recipient records; Observation of people in the program; Direct interviews with recipients, servers, & service leaders.

R233 Competency - Related Personal Possessions

Criteria for Level Assignments

N.B. - As explained on p. 13 in “The Rationales for the 5 Rating Levels, and Guidelines for Assigning Levels to Ratings,” if the service being assessed has no purview in regard to this rating issue, and if it does not act outside its purview in ways that are either detrimental or beneficial to recipients, then this rating would not be applied. Instead, the service’s total score is pro-rated, as explained on pp. 82-84 of the 1983 Guidelines monograph (see footnote 6 on p. 4).

Level 1. The development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is apt to be severely impeded or impaired (even if unintentionally), due to the fact that the service has expended no or very minimal efforts within its proper purview to promote & use competency-enhancing personal possessions for recipients that are greatly & vitally needed.

Level 2. Shortcomings in service promotion & use of competency-enhancing recipient possessions has a negative impact on recipients’ competencies in one of two ways:

a. they significantly impede or impair the competency or competency development of all or most recipients, but less so than in Level 1, even if some features may be somewhat positive; or

b. they severely impede or impair (as in Level 1) the competency or competency development of a significant minority of recipients , even if not of other recipients.

Level 3. Considering recipients’ competency risks & needs, the competency impact on recipients of the service’s promotion & use of competency-enhancing personal possessions is neither as damaging as in Level 2, nor as beneficial as in Level 4. This may be because either :

a. there are both positive & negative elements in regard to this rating issue, & these balance each other out, though none of the negative features can be as low as Level 1 for any recipients; or

b. the service’s promotion & use of competency-enhancing personal possessions neither significantly diminishes nor significantly enhances recipients’ competencies.

Level 4. Service efforts within its purview towards promotion & use of recipients’ competencyrelevant personal possessions are highly conducive to the competency enhancement of recipients, but fall short of the near-ideal requirements of Level 5, because either :

a. conditions are mostly or nearly of Level 5 quality, but there are either some minor shortfalls for all recipients, or some shortfalls that affect a minority of recipients, but none of these shortfalls can be lower than Level 3 for any recipients ; or

b. the likelihood of competency enhancement is optimal for all recipients, as in Level 5, but relevant direct servers & leaders of the service do not appear to have high consciousness of, & commitment to, the issue, & thus there is a significant deficiency in this critical line of defense against future program deterioration.

Level 5. Relevant direct servers, & leaders of the service, appear to be highly conscious of, & committed to, the issue at stake; and the potential for development &/or practice of recipients’ personal competencies is so enhanced by the service’s efforts that are within its proper purview to provide/obtain/support recipients’ personal possessions that no significant improvements in practice are conceivable. The attention paid by the service to supporting recipient competencies through personal possessions & material supports can be said to constitute a near ideal model for other human services.

Instructions to Evaluators for Filling Out PASSING Checklist

1. In order to reduce the likelihood that awareness of the rating level weights would bias assignment of levels, the PASSING Scoresheet/Overall Service Performance Form, and any other materials which show the weights of each of the ratings, should be put away while individual rating level assignments are recorded on this Checklist or the PASS/PASSING Individual Rating Evidence Organization Sheet.

1. Service Being Assessed: Date(s) : Month Day(s) Year

2. Evaluators should make their individual level assignments in pencil by placing a circle (0) in the box that corresponds to the level that they decide best characterizes the service's performance on each rating.

3. Evaluators should mark their individual ratings in pencil so that if they change their minds on a level assignment prior to team conciliation, they can easily change the level they have assigned.

4. However, evaluators are not to make any changes in their individual level assignments either during or after conciliation by the full assessment team.

5. Evaluators should mark the final conciliated team level assignments on the Checklist in pen by placing an X in the box that corresponds to the level that the team agrees upon for each rating.

6. If the final conciliated team level assignment is the same as a team member's individual pre-conciliation level assignment, then the X should be placed inside the circle(®) in the same box.

7. Evaluators should turn in their completed Checklists at the end of conciliation to the team leader or other relevant person. Evaluators will have a record of the service's performance on the assessment on their own copy of the Scoresheet/Overall Service Performance Form, which they are supposed to fill out at the end of conciliation under the team leader's direction.

2. This form shows the level assignments of:

Pre-conciliation team poll.

Pre-conciliation rating levels assigned by individual evaluators;

Team leader

Team member

Other:

Evaluator's name: Evaluator's team role:

Post-conciliation team decision (if this Checklist shows rating of both an individual team member prior to conciliation, as well as of a team's conciliation, then check both this box and the one above)

3. The levels shown on this form are based on the following type of assessment:

A single-component service (enter name if different from that in No. 1 above):

component, namely _ of a multi-component service, where this component was:

The only component assessed at this time.

One of a number of components of the service assessed at this time, with the result of the assessments of the other components each recorded on a separate Checklist. ITconsolidated assessment of several components of a multi-component service, as if these were one unit. The following components are represented on this Checklist: