1st difficulty faced by the instigators: Obtaining real statistical information.
On the one hand, due to the data collection methodology under the Erasmus+ and ESC programs, which do not (currently) detail participants with intellectual disabilities. For one thing, this information could be useful for statistics and research studies like the ones we've presented here. On the other hand, they address a very sensitive but important issue: the privacy of participants. While, on the one hand, the Organization would benefit from knowing all the needs of participants in order to be better prepared, on the other hand, it may be less inclusive and participants may fear being stigmatized.
A more sensitive approach to “labels”: alongside reflections on inclusion, integration, equality, equity and diversity, among other topics, another area of tension has emerged concerning the use of inclusion labels” or even “young people with fewer opportunities”. Although this reflection is recent and the answers vary without there being a “good or bad”, it is necessary to better understand the organizations that are reluctant to use these labels for ethical and moral reasons, while implementing inclusion projects In addition, some ERASMUS+ National Agencies, constrained by their national regulations, have delved into the definition of profiles and/or expenses eligible for “support costs” in addition, some ERASMUS+ National Agencies, constrained by their national regulations, have delved into the definition of profiles and/or expenses eligible for “support costs”. for inclusion” under the common banner of” young people with fewer opportunities.”
This is an issue that should be debated within the European Commission with stakeholders and representatives of these targets: How do you be inclusive without being labeled?
Even though this research is devoted to the difficulties faced by organizations, we cannot ignore that some of the reasons that prevent organizations from achieving inclusive mobilities are related to barriers and difficulties encountered by participants themselves. The focus groups, interviews, and other research conducted as part of our literature review reveal that people with intellectual disabilities often do not participate in these projects because they are not aware of the existence of these adapted projects or because they do not meet the requirements (age, for example). In addition, the fears of families and the participants themselves sometimes prevent them from participating. Some are also afraid of stigma, discrimination, and don't feel pressured to reveal their particular needs.
When it comes to the fears, anxiety, or doubts of participants and their families, organizations and national agencies can invest in detailed, targeted and accessible information, directly in the context of the participants (dissemination of results, best practices, success stories told by their peers directly in daily centers, for example). This research also shows that good pre-departure preparation (which may include a preparatory visit in the host context, online meetings with the host organization, etc.) for the participant and the person accompanying them, by giving as much information as possible, can reduce the level of anxiety or doubt.
This research showed why organizations that already work with people with disabilities and who know the needs of this target group do not work with mobility projects. In addition to cases where organizations have another objective or mission, the main internal barrier is the lack of staff or resources dedicated to mobility projects, or the lack of knowledge and skills in managing European project funds, due to the complexity of the requests, the excess of bureaucracy and the real need to have staff dedicated to these projects (other than the language barrier). In some cases, these organizations rely on other experienced organizations to manage these projects, involving their own users. The lack of financial resources is also an obstacle, as European projects are managed under the co-financing rule and inclusive projects require even more resources.
Of course, this project cannot solve the internal management problems of each organization. But there are some suggestions for solutions that can be made to address some of these problems and promote the involvement of more organizations that work with people with disabilities. The lack of human resources in organizations that work with people with disabilities can be overcome by local partnerships in which the organization relies on another, more experienced local organization to involve its own users. These local partnerships could be better recognized by the program, even economically. Ideally, to directly involve organizations that work with persons with disabilities, investments should be made in training (also provided by national agencies) in order to strengthen the capacities and competencies of staff, in addition to simplifying application processes and bureaucracy, in order to promote the participation of newcomers.
Les organizations working on mobility projects and which have specialized staff in this field do not always involve participants with intellectual disabilities. Some consider these projects to be too labour-intensive or too complicated because they require specific knowledge and extra effort. Others would like to do it, but cannot find participants with this profile. As far as participants are concerned, local partnerships with organizations working with persons with disabilities or communication actions adapted and directed at the target, in their own context, could facilitate the attainment of the target.
The general perception that inclusive mobility projects are more complicated and require more effort and resources is not unfounded. Investing in quality over quantity always brings benefits when it comes to human values, but for an organization, it is often prevented by the lack of financial recognition for this effort. With the PR.I.M.E. project and its results, adaptation work and methodologies can facilitate involvement in inclusive projects, but there are also structural issues that need to be improved so that organizations are more willing to promote this type of mobility.
Finally, the organizations that already involve participants with intellectual disabilities in their mobility projects could improve the quality of their support: the difficulties encountered when applying for a project are mainly linked to bureaucratic complexity at several levels, which could be facilitated by simplifying programme procedures. Another major challenge is finding a reliable organization to work with. Instead of initiating or structuring this network, ANs must encourage the establishment of initiatives such as the Make it Inclusive network in order to bring together and connect reliable organizations that want to work with participants with intellectual disabilities in the context of mobility projects.
One of the difficulties frequently encountered during the preparation of mobilities concerns the search for a companion: one of the most important figures who will travel with the participant. How to find them, take care of their costs, what are the most appropriate profiles, what are the skills and characteristics required...? Whatever the action in question, the ERASMUS programme should further recognise this indispensable role.
Preparing for departure will be very important, by providing appropriate tools and materials, (digital tools, fun approach...)
Finally, it is important that the documents are accessible (in FALC Easy to Read and Understand) and that the programs, activities and agendas are flexible and adaptable to the needs of participants during their mobility. As they are always learning experiences, their follow-up (including the learning process) should be facilitated by certain tools provided by projects such as MAKE IT HAPPEN or PR.I.M.E. Managing practical questions and emergencies is essential for staff on a daily basis.
