|
Summary
The inclusion traffic lights are a simple idea to help staff
in services to think about how and where they support people. When
we look at where people spend their time, sometimes they are in
special places on their own. Sometimes they may be in ordinary places,
but as a group on their own. And sometimes they may be mixing with
ordinary people in ordinary places. The colours on the traffic lights
stand for these different kinds of arrangement.
People who have learning difficulties or mental health issues tend
to spend a lot of time in special places, so in general services
should be helping people to move more into places and activities
where they will be socially included. This is also what the the
Government says should happen. The traffic lights can help services
to think about what they are doing now, and how they could do better.
But doing it successfully for each person is complicated. Using
the traffic lights without care can cause 'accidents'. This paper
explains some of the things that can go wrong.
|
|
|
The Inclusion Traffic Lights
The NDT’s inclusion traffic lights have been widely adopted
as a helpful way of thinking about services.
An example:
The link between day centres and colleges
of further education provides an example of the inclusion traffic
lights. Bringing the college tutor into the day centre to run a
computer class is an example of a ‘red’ service because
the class is held in a disability building (the day centre) and
all the other classmates are people with disabilities. If the class
is transferred to the college building, but the students remain
together, then it is counted as ‘amber’. If one student
then leaves this special class and is supported to participate in
a mainstream class that is open to other citizens, then this counts
as ‘green’.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
The traffic lights can help
UK Government policy encourages health
and social care agencies to provide more support in ‘green’
settings. This is where most people want to live their lives, as
valued roles and relationships in the wider community increase life
opportunities for all, challenge stigma and confer status. The traffic
lights have helped people to:
(a) Think about where staff and people using services are spending
their time
(b) Develop a shared understanding of what is provided now
(c) Reflect on the balance of investment in different kinds of provision
(d) Create a shared plan for the future shape of services
(e) Identify the skills that staff currently have and need in the
future
(f) Monitor progress.
Every idea can be misunderstood or misused, so we have identified
some of the common accidents that can happen with the inclusion
traffic lights. They are explained below.
|
 |
|
Accident #1: Inclusion is the
only thing.
|
|
| |
|
Accidents happen when people
decide that the traffic lights are the only way of deciding on the
worth of an activity. Instead of recognising that the world is splendidly
complex, we simplify things to either ‘good’ or ‘bad’.
If it is red it is bad and should be stopped. Staff get hurt when
they are told that almost everything that they have been doing up
until now has been wrong.
|
|
|
Accident #2: Red and amber are
always bad for people.
|
|
| |
We withdraw any opportunities
for people who use services to mix with one another in an effort to
promote inclusion. Friendships between people using services are devalued
and peer support is reframed as exclusion. People are hurt as their
needs for bonding relationships are frustrated in a misguided effort
to starve them into mixing with the wider community. In addition,
if we fail to pay enough attention to the visible and invisible benefits
that people have been receiving from red and amber services (especially
people with the highest support needs), then so-called ‘replacement
services’ in green will be inadequate and accidents will happen.
|
|
|
Accident #3: Any old mix will
do.
|
|
| |
Our service has a mix of red,
amber and green support, so that is fine. Accidents happen when people
are satisfied with the status quo and ignore the challenge to change
the way in which services are provided.
|
|
| Accident #4: Green
workers are the best. |
|
| |
We agree that the service
needs more green opportunities and so we actively develop this aspect
of the service. Accidents happen when we give all the best workers
the green jobs, along with all the training and recognition, while
the rest are consigned to the red and amber services, where we ignore
them or act as if we were ashamed of them.
|
|
|
Accident #5: The most disabled
people belong in red.
|
|
| |
Our range of services mean
that we can provide red for the people who are very disabled, amber
of the people with medium levels of disability and green for the most
independent people. Accidents happen when the most disabled people
are denied better life chances.
|
|
|
Accident #6: Green means self-sufficiency.
|
|
| |
We have some people who have
made their own way into mainstream community participation, so we
can dedicate our staff resources to supporting people who need amber
or red services. People who need support to access community opportunities
are hurt if this support is not available.
|
|
|
Accident #7: Amber is a stepping-stone.
|
|
| |
Accidents happen when we assume
that everyone in red services must pass through amber to get to green.
Every amber group is a showcase that suggests to community agencies
that some people need ‘special’ segregated provision. Accidents
then happen to people who could have made the jump directly from red
to green.
|
|
|
Accident #8: Everything fits
into the model.
|
|
| |
Every idea has its limitations.
Instead of using it until it stops helping and then finding a better
idea, we fall into one or two errors. Perhaps we stretch and bend
the real world to make it conform to our traffic light viewpoint (so,
for example, we feel obliged to assign a colour to the timebank based
at a GP surgery or to a staffed house for two disabled friends). Alternatively,
we elaborate the traffic lights with new options, and end up classifying
projects into absurd sub-categories such as ‘red/amber with green
edges’. Accidents happen when our rigid view of the world keeps
us from simply listening to what people say and valuing their creativity.
|
|
|
Accident #9: The traffic lights
are separate.
|
|
| |
Few, if any localities
have decided to eliminate all red and amber provision (even if some
individual service providers in the patch offer nothing but green).
Up to now, few people would claim that they know how to support everyone
all the time in green, whilst keeping everyone safe. So, in the meantime,
we maintain a mix of red, amber and green provision. The people in
each part of the service have distinct skills and approaches. If they
fail to respect one another, learn how the other works or establish
positive working relationships, then people are trapped and hurt.
|
|
Accident #10: We assume things.
|
|
| |
The strong image of the traffic
lights can encourage people to clump themselves or other people together
and make assumptions about what everyone in that group wants. These
assumptions might be things like, ‘all service users want red’,
staff won’t want to work in green’, or ‘politicians
want to reduce costs by eliminating expensive red services’.
Secondly, we can assume what green services are needed and then slot
people into them without asking what they want. Such assumptions lead
to accidents.
|
|
|
Accident #11: Green is cheap.
|
|
| |
The focus on closing segregated
buildings, strengthening communities, promoting informal support and
levering in funds from elsewhere can all lead people to assume that
funding for specialist services can be cut. Whilst a healthy community
will one day reduce the damage inflicted by discrimination and exclusion,
accidents happen when funding is reduced before community supports
are in place.
|
|
|
Accident #12: Green just comes
natural.
|
|
| |
Staff have been eager to do
green work for years but have lacked the political permission, space
in their work schedule and petty cash budget. Accidents happen when
managers think that all that is needed is enthusiasm, and staff attempt
green initiatives without appropriate training, access to the lessons
learnt elsewhere and supportive policies and procedures.
|
|
Conclusion
Most people who use services want to spend more of their time in ordinary
community settings. The UK Government has told services that they
need to increase the time that staff spend in supporting people in
their communities. The NDT’s inclusion traffic lights provide
a helpful way of thinking about this. However, like any idea, it can
be misunderstood and misused and so care is needed to apply the approach
thoughtfully and responsibly. |
|
