A Response to an Editorial Position...

Taking the "R" Out of TR

by Kevin T. Kendrigan

Kevin Kendrigan has been Director of the Northwest Special Recreation Association since 1974. Prior to his working with the Association, he was employed by the Department of Mental Health at the Chester Mental Health Center. He is past president of ITRS and has served on the IPRA Board as the therapeutic representative and as Secretary to the Board. Kendrigan received his bachelor's and master's degrees from Southern Illinois University-Carbondale, and now coordinates the Recreation Alumni Association. He has completed the Executive Development Program at Indiana University and is a registered Master Therapeutic Recreation Specialist with NTRS. In 1978 he was awarded the Outstanding Therapeutic Recreator certificate from ITRS. Kendrigan currently serves on the Illinois Park and Recreation Foundation Board and the NPRA Curriculum Certification Committee. He enjoys racquet-ball, both snow and water skiing, and golf. He often visits the southern Wisconsin area and its lakes with family and friends.

The professional issue addressed by Dr. Len Cleary in the November/December issue of Illinois Parks and Recreation is one which has concerned me greatly. I have had the opportunity to work professionally both in a highly clinical situation and in a community-based program for special populations. In 1974 I began to examine the differences between the two work settings with which I had experience. I began by examining the words "therapeutic" and "recreation."

FIGURE A

Recreation	Therapy
1. Free Choice	1. Prescribed
2. Free Time	2. Scheduled
3. Non-Directive	3. Goal Oriented
4. Enjoyment	4. Necessary
5. Individual Determination	5. Group Discussion

Figure A represents certain elements that would be common to many definitions of the word recreation and the word therapeutic. I have never been totally able to reconcile the difference in the elements of the two words. Dr. Cleary's editorial speaks to the potential polar-opposite position regarding the stated purpose and philosophical base for using recreation as a therapy or providing leisure as a service.

I concur with Dr. Cleary's position that there are currently therapeutic recreators utilizing recreation as a means to an end in clinical settings. I would further agree with Dr. Cleary that those individuals are not involved in recreation but, as he has indicated, are involved in developmental therapy. He further indicates that as a developmental therapist (not a recreator) his basic affiliation with recreation has become counterproductive.

In 1977 Dr. Peter Witt wrote an article entitled "Therapeutic Recreation - The Outmoded Label." This article discusses the trend towards mainstreaming, and indicates that in the future the majority of handicapped individuals will be in the community. He concludes the article by indicating:

"It is time for us to disregard the medically biased, out-moded and indeed potentially harmful trappings of the therapeutic recreation label. If we need status, let's find it within the field of leisure services as a whole. If we need identification, let us be known as recreators, let us be known as leisure facilitatiors, leisure advocates or some other label more reflective of current ideology and principles. "

An examination of statistics within the State of Illinois would indicate that there are currently 10,281 citizens within state institutions. On the other hand, there are some 328,220 students between the ages of 3 and 21 receiving special education services as reported by the Illinois Office of Education. The Illinois Association of Retarded Citizens reports that there are some 300,000 mentally retarded citizens within the State of Illinois. Many of these individuals require special recreation services. These statistics would seem to indicate that Dr. Witt was correct in his assumption that the majority of special populations would be within their community of residence and not institutionalized. It is my belief that recreation is an end in itself and that those individuals requiring specialized services in the community should have those services made available to them through the already established leisure service agencies within these communities.

If leisure systems do not provide services to special populations, these services may very well be assumed by educators through the Community Education Act. Monies for providing leisure services can already be made available through special education funds in conjunction with PL 94-142 (The Education for All the Handicapped Act). We besiege the universities to train special recreators. These individuals must have a deep philosophical belief in the value of leisure. They must have a broad base of leisure skills and a broad

Illinois Parks and Recreation 18 January/February, 1980

understanding of the etiologies of the disabilities.

This understanding of the disabilities must be channeled to adapt leisure services for the individual special citizen, realizing that all citizens have the same human need for leisure services. This could include the vast majority of special citizens who are non-institutionalized and those institutionalized. If a person becomes institutionalized, that institution is the person's community. The institution may need to require two groups of professionals: one special recreator to provide leisure service, and the developmental therapist to serve on the treatment team.

Dr. Cleary discusses the increased sophistication in clinical technique and accountability with related professions within the treatment team. The direction of this credibility may be in the community setting. I concur with Bob Ruhe's article in the same magazine issue ("The Art of Adminstration"), which indicates that our emphasis should be on public education by serving as advocates for special populations. We must guarantee participation by the special citizen. Our accountability is to the special public that we serve. The direction that Dr. Cleary believes to be important for the developmental therapist as a movement is counterproductive to recognizing the special citizen's human right for community services.

I would not choose to argue with Dr. Cleary's recommendation for those involved in a clinical setting. I would rather encourage him to form this new professional society he considers necessary. I believe that the philosophical differences regarding the value of recreation itself would make it difficult for us to continue under one professional organization. I would not pretend to know what steps should be taken to strengthen those individuals interested in becoming developmental therapists.

I would concur with Peter Witt, and consider the utilization of the term "therapeutic recreation" to be extremely counterproductive for those providing recreation as an end in itself, and if we really believe in the concepts of mainstreaming, we must drop all terminology that indicates that the people we work with need therapy. How can we tell the public on one hand that special citizens need treatment and on the other hand ask the public to accept them and recognize their right to equal services in the community?

Without question, we could argue that recreation by its nature is therapeutic for all people and that it assists them in becoming whole persons. I believe it is time for those recreators who want to work with special populations to form a new section, both in IPRA and NRPA. Any more time and energy spent trying to communicate our professional concerns with those individuals who have clearly chosen to remain within the medical model will be counterproductive. Any time and energy spent trying to convince those who philosophically agree with the medical model is time and energy that we take away from educating the public.

To answer Dr. Cleary's question, I believe it is time to take the "R" out of TR and place it back in the leisure service movement where it belongs.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 19 January/February, 1980