Published for the British Institute of Learning Disabilities
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 2012
Characteristics of Inclusive Faith
Communities: A Preliminary Survey of
Inclusive Practices in the United States
Megan M. Griffin*, , Lydia W. Kane*, , Courtney Taylor*, Susan H. Francis* and Robert M. Hodapp*,
*Vanderbilt Kennedy Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA;  Department of Special Education, Peabody College,
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
Accepted for publication 15 November 2011
Background Although participation in faith communities
is important to many individuals with disabilities, few
studies have examined differences between communities
that are more (versus less) inclusive. This study investi-
gated characteristics of faith communities in the United
States related to greater inclusion.
Methods Participants were 160 respondents to an anony-
mous survey about inclusion. Survey items grouped
together to form three inclusion-related outcomes: the
degree to which faith communities welcome and include
individuals with disabilities; the roles and contributions
of congregants with disabilities; and physical accessibility.
People with disabilities are increasingly participating in
inclusive settings in the United States, most notably in
the classroom and the workplace. This increased inclu-
sion in community settings extends also to participation
in faith communities. As in the general population,
expression of faith may be an important dimension in
the lives of people with disabilities and their families
(Haworth et al. 1996; Rose 1997; Gaventa 2001; Turner
et al. 2004). Acknowledging this, various disability orga-
nizations have issued position statements on the rele-
vance of faith and participation in faith communities for
people with disabilities and their families (e.g. AAIDD,
TASH, The Arc).
Although participation in faith communities is an
increasingly recognized aspect of quality of life (Poston
& Turnbull 2004), many people with disabilities encoun-
ter barriers to participation (Hughes 1995; Rose 1997;
Carter 2007). According to a survey conducted by the
Kessler Foundation and National Organization on Dis-
ability (2010), 57% of individuals without disabilities
reported attending religious services at least once per
 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 
Results Across these outcomes, more inclusive communi-
ties (i) featured faith leaders who were more committed
to inclusion; (ii) used educational resources to address
disability-related issues; (iii) portrayed people with dis-
abilities positively in their religious teachings; (iv) had
stronger ties to disability organizations; and (v) had a
stronger orientation towards promoting social justice.
Conclusions These five characteristics have important
implications for promoting inclusion in faith communities.
Keywords: faith communities, inclusion, intellectual and
developmental disabilities
month, whereas only 50% of individuals with disabili-
ties did so. This participation gap is more pronounced
when considering the degree of an individual’s disabil-
ity. About 58% of people with mild and moderate dis-
abilities attended services at least once a month –
comparable to the participation rate of individuals with-
out disabilities. Fewer individuals with severe disabili-
ties attended religious services at least once a month,
ranging from 43 to 49%. Thus, compared with people
without disabilities, far fewer individuals with more
severe disabilities attend religious services at least once
a month, yielding a participation gap of up to 14 per-
centage points.
Given this difference in rate of participation, one
might hypothesize that faith is not as important to indi-
viduals with disabilities. However, a prior survey con-
ducted by the National Organization on Disability
(2000) found that faith was considered important by
84% of people with disabilities and 87% of people with-
out disabilities. Thus, almost the same percentage of
people with and without disabilities report faith to be
10.1111/j.1468-3148.2011.00675.x
2 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
an important aspect of their lives. Therefore, disparities
in attendance do not seem to be owing to a lack of inter-
est on the part of people with disabilities, but instead to
other barriers, such as poor accessibility or negative atti-
tudes towards their participation.
In discussing inclusion of people with disabilities
within faith communities, Carter (2007) described sev-
eral indicators of welcoming congregations. First, acces-
sibility is a critical indicator, including both physical
accessibility as well as accommodations that promote
the full participation of people with disabilities in the
community. These accommodations, which vary
depending on the needs of individual congregants, may
include an amplified sound system for congregants with
hearing impairments or modified rituals for congregants
with intellectual disabilities. A second indicator con-
cerns hospitality, which extends the notion of inclusion
beyond mere accessibility. Hospitality encompasses
those aspects of a community that actively welcome
people with disabilities to become members and to par-
ticipate in the community. A third indicator involves
recognizing the contributions of congregants with dis-
abilities. By ensuring that congregants with disabilities
have opportunities to contribute and by recognizing
those contributions, faith communities indicate that con-
gregants with disabilities are valued.
Although accessibility, hospitality and recognition of
contributions constitute three hypothesized indicators of
inclusive faith communities, few studies have examined
differences between those communities that are more
(versus less) inclusive. As a first effort in this regard, La-
Rocque & Eigenbrood (2005) conducted a survey of 90
faith communities (Catholic, Jewish, Protestant and
Muslim). They found that accessibility was related to
the size of the community: As a group, larger communi-
ties were more accessible. Beyond this initial work, how-
ever, researchers have yet to identify characteristics that
relate to more inclusive practices.
To consider this issue further, we drew on an analo-
gous literature on promoting demographic diversity
within business organizations. Gilbert & Ivancevich
(2000) conducted a qualitative study comparing two
organizations – one notably more inclusive of diversity
than the other – and identified several characteristics
related to their differing levels of inclusion. They found
that the more inclusive organization had leaders who
supported efforts to promote inclusion, and instituted
initiatives to promote diversity (e.g. initiatives to equal-
ize pay among all employees at the same level). Also,
the organization’s support for inclusion was clearly
articulated in its corporate philosophy.
Building upon this work, Gilbride et al. (2003) focused
specifically on the characteristics of those work environ-
ments that are open to hiring and accommodating peo-
ple with disabilities. They interviewed focus groups of
employees with disabilities, employers of people with
disabilities, and disability service providers. Gilbride
et al. reported various characteristics of more inclusive
employers. For example, inclusive employers treated
employees with disabilities as equal to typical employ-
ees; focused on an employee’s performance, not disabil-
ity; provided accommodations; and actively welcomed
diversity. Inclusive employers also practiced a more per-
sonal and flexible management style, and viewed reha-
bilitation agencies as ongoing partners in supporting
employees with disabilities.
Drawing on these findings, in this study we
attempted to identify characteristics that differentiated
faith communities as more or less inclusive of people
with disabilities. We conducted an anonymous survey
of people with disabilities, their family members, lead-
ers of faith communities and congregants. Our goal
was to describe characteristics that correlated with
greater inclusion of people with disabilities in faith
communities.
Method
Participants
Participants included 160 respondents (69% female; 31%
male) who completed a primarily web-based survey in
the United States. Of these respondents, 91% were Cau-
casian, 5% African American, 2% Asian ⁄ Pacific Islander
and <1% other or unreported. The mean age of respon-
dents was 43.72 (SD = 13.68) years, and most respon-
dents had completed college or a higher level of
education (86%). Within their faith communities, 31%
were leaders, and 69% were members. Information
about respondents’ faith communities is provided in
Table 1.
Additionally, 14% of respondents were people with
disabilities (N = 23), and 44% were family members of
people with disabilities (N = 70). Disability type was
reported both by respondents with disabilities and fam-
ily members of people with disabilities. Of these 93
respondents, the most common disability types
included: 25% autism spectrum disorder, 25% intellec-
tual disability, 23% depression or other psychiatric
condition, 18% Down syndrome and 18% learning
disability (respondents could indicate more than one
disability).
 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 3

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of faith communities messages and flyers distributed through local newslet-
ters and at community events. Also, various disability
N % organizations and faith communities distributed infor-
mation about the survey to their members.
Size (number of congregants)
Although the survey was available both online and in
Small (0–100) 40 25
print, the large majority (94%) of participants completed
Moderate (100–500) 63 39.4
Large (500–1000) 19 11.9
surveys online. Online surveys were formatted using
Very large (1000+) 35 21.9 web-based survey software (REDCap) and were avail-
Missing 3 1.9 able from January to May 2009. After the survey was
Location closed, data were transferred to the Statistical Package
Rural community 28 17.5 for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 18 for Windows.
Suburban community 78 48.8
Urban community 54 33.8
Religious affiliation Survey instrument
Buddhism 1 0.6 The Survey on Inclusion in Faith Communities was com-
Christianity 142 88.8
prised of 145 items, most of which were multiple-choice
Judaism 6 4.4
questions or involved ratings on a 4-point scale
Other 9 5.7
Missing 2 1.3
(1 = least, 4 = most).
Christian denomination 142
Assemblies of God 2 1.4 Respondent characteristics
Baptist 27 19
Charismatic 1 0.7 Three groups of questions related to respondent charac-
Church of Christ 11 7.7 teristics. First, 15 items addressed demographics (e.g.
Disciples of Christ 5 3.5 age, gender). Second, 47 questions were specific to dif-
Episcopalian 6 4.2 ferent respondent groups: 10 to people with disabilities,
Lutheran 3 2.1 25 to family members of people with disabilities and 12
Mennonite 1 0.7
to leaders of faith communities. Third, 19 items related
Methodist 19 3.4
to respondents’ participation in faith communities (e.g.
Mormon 3 2.1
Non-denominational 8 5.6
how often they attend services).
Pentecostal 2 1.4
Presbyterian 30 21.1 Demographic characteristics of faith communities
Roman Catholic 14 9.9
Unitarian 2 1.4 Eighteen items addressed characteristics of faith com-
Missing 8 5.6 munities. Six addressed demographics of the faith com-
munity: size, location, type of community location (e.g.
urban, rural, suburban), distance travelled to attend,
number of congregants with disabilities and type of dis-
Procedure
abilities represented. Twelve items addressed other
Leaders from disability organizations and faith commu- characteristics (e.g. religious affiliation, denomination,
nities have highlighted the need to understand the expe- formality of services, the community’s decision-making
riences of individuals with disabilities and their families structure and the community’s commitment to social
within faith communities. To that end, we developed an justice issues).
anonymous survey about inclusion within faith commu-
nities. Survey development involved collaboration
Disability-related characteristics of faith communities
among researchers, members of faith communities, dis-
ability advocates and family members of people with Forty-six items specifically addressed disability-related
disabilities. issues. Eight related to physical accessibility of different
Following revision of the survey and approval from areas (e.g. restrooms); 10 to the accessibility of liturgical
the Institutional Review Board (IRB), respondents were participation (e.g. adaptation of rituals); nine to the roles
recruited in several ways. The survey was advertised in which people with disabilities contributed to the com-
through a web-based participant recruitment site, e-mail munity (e.g. on committees); eight to attitudinal issues

 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

4 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
related to people with disabilities (e.g. how welcoming
and affirming the community is of people with disabili-
ties); and six to disability awareness and training (e.g.
availability of disability-related training). Finally, five
open-ended questions asked respondents to elaborate
about the experiences of people with disabilities in their
faith community.
Analysis of predictor and outcome variables
To analyse the relationships between these items, we
grouped them into two general categories: predictor and
outcome variables. Predictor variables were those that
we hypothesized might predict more versus less inclu-
sive religious communities. Outcome variables were
those we considered to be measures of inclusion. Out-
come variables included the following: physical accessi-
bility; the availability of accommodations; inclusion of
people with disabilities in various settings; availability
of assistance to help people with disabilities become
members; availability of support for families of people
with disabilities; and the roles in which people with dis-
abilities contribute to the community.
Predictor variables included those variables that
potentially related to greater or lesser inclusion in faith
communities. Potential predictor variables included the
following: the faith community’s size, location and
denomination; the distance respondents travelled to
attend; the formality of services; the decision-making
style of the community; the number of congregants with
disabilities; the positive portrayal of people with disabil-
ities in religious teachings; the degree to which a faith
community maintains contact with members who do
not attend regularly; the availability and use of educa-
tional resources to address disability-related issues; the
availability of disability-related training; religious lead-
ers’ commitment to inclusion; relationships with disabil-
ity organizations; the community’s commitment to
promoting social justice; and the availability of a
resource person to help navigate disability resources.
Results
Preliminary results
Factors involved in including people with disabilities in faith
communities
To determine the structure of items related to inclusion
in faith communities, we conducted a factor analysis on
24 outcome items. Using principal components analyses
with varimax rotation, three factors emerged, accounting
for 65.78% of the variance. Factor I (nine items) related
to how welcoming and inclusive the faith community is
to people with disabilities; Factor II (nine items) related
to the roles of people with disabilities; and Factor III
(six items) related to the community’s physical accessi-
bility. See Table 2 for factor loadings and Cronbach’s
alphas.
Importance of including people with disabilities in faith
communities
Respondents rated how important they thought it was
to fully include people with disabilities in their congre-
gations. The mean response was 3.53 (SD = 0.61) on a
4-point scale, with 95% of respondents answering that
this issue was ‘important’ (3) or ‘very important’ (4) to
them. Similarly, the 49 respondents who were faith lead-
ers rated how important (relative to other priorities)
they thought it was to fully include people with disabili-
ties in their faith communities. The mean response was
3.56 (SD = 0.64) on a 4-point scale. However, 73% indi-
cated that their formal training included little to no
disability-related information (N = 36).
Given that respondents highly valued the inclusion of
people with disabilities in faith communities, it is not
surprising that their own faith communities featured
fairly inclusive practices. Overall, faith communities
were fairly physically accessible (M = 2.95 on a 4-point
scale; SD = 0.72) and fairly welcoming and inclusive of
people with disabilities, (M = 2.76; SD = 71). Respon-
dents did, however, indicate less positive results regard-
ing the roles available to people with disabilities in faith
communities (M = 1.96; SD = 0.73).
Differences across respondent groups
We found some small but significant differences among
the different groups of respondents (people with disabil-
ities, family members of people with disabilities, leaders
of faith communities and congregants). Family members
of people with disabilities rated their faith communities
lower on several predictor and outcome variables. Fam-
ily members rated each of the following areas lower
than the other respondent groups: whether their faith
leaders work to include people with disabilities,
F3,155 = 2.61, P = 0.053; whether religious teachings por-
tray people with disabilities positively, F3,154 = 4.50,
P = 0.005; and whether faith communities have relation-
ships with disability organizations, F3,154 = 5.14, P = 0.002.
Also, family members of people with disabilities rated
 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 5

Table 2 Variable loadings and factor structure of the survey on inclusion in faith communities

Factor I Factor II Factor III

Assisting people with disabilities to become members 0.78

Policies and practices exemplify a desire to include people with disabilities 0.76
Reaching out to bring new members with disabilities into the community 0.73
Including people with disabilities in smaller group settings 0.73
Providing accommodations and adaptations to include people with disabilities 0.72
Providing support to families of people with disabilities (e.g. respite care) 0.71
Welcoming and affirming people with disabilities 0.69
Availability of companions to promote participation of people with disabilities 0.69
Communicating with people with disabilities about inclusion in rituals 0.65
People with disabilities are included ⁄ encouraged to serve as church officers 0.81
People with disabilities are included ⁄ encouraged to serve as teachers or presenters 0.79
People with disabilities are included ⁄ encouraged to serve on committees 0.76
People with disabilities are included ⁄ encouraged to serve in staff ⁄ pastoral positions 0.75
People with disabilities are included ⁄ encouraged to share gifts as a choir member 0.72
People with disabilities are included ⁄ encouraged to participate in outreach events 0.71
People with disabilities are included ⁄ encouraged to serve as liturgists ⁄ lay readers 0.71
People with disabilities are included ⁄ encouraged to serve as greeters ⁄ ushers 0.65
Gifts and talents of people with disabilities are used in the faith community 0.55
Restrooms are physically accessible 0.84
Classrooms are physically accessible 0.83
Buildings are physically accessible 0.81
Worship space is physically accessible 0.80
Fellowship areas are physically accessible 0.80
Services are accessible (e.g. content presented in multiple formats) 0.54
Eigenvalue 11.38 2.76 1.64
Percentage of variance 47.43 11.50 6.85
Cronbach’s alpha 0.92 0.93 0.89

their faith communities lower than did the other groups 4

in terms of the roles available to people with disabilities, Not at all A little Moderate A lot

F3,140 = 2.73, P = 0.046. Although family members dif-

fered slightly from other respondent groups on these
3
variables, overall differences were fairly small. There-
fore, we combined the different respondent groups for
all further analyses.
2

Correlates of differing levels of inclusion among faith

communities
1
Welcoming and including Roles in which people with Physical accessibility
Five characteristics of faith communities were consis- people with disabilities disabilities share gifts
tently related to differential inclusion outcomes. As
Figure 1 Differences in outcomes related to faith leaders’ com-
shown in Figure 1, greater inclusion was noted in those
mitment to including people with disabilities.
communities whose leaders were more committed to
including people with disabilities. Specifically, commu-
nities with more committed leaders were more welcom- for most outcomes denoting very large effect sizes. On
ing and inclusive of people with disabilities, had more all three outcome factors, more inclusive faith communi-
roles in which people with disabilities shared their gifts ties also (i) made greater use of educational resources to
and were more physically accessible, with differences address disability-related issues, (ii) featured religious

 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

6 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities

Table 3 Differences in outcomes related to predictor variables

a. Not at all b. A little c. Moderate d. A lot

Outcome variable (number of items) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) F P post hoc

The degree to which faith community leaders work to include people with disabilities in the community

Welcoming ⁄ inclusive community (9) 1.63 (0.47) 2.19 (0.40) 2.84 (0.45) 3.59 (0.34) 98.37 0.001 a<b<c<d
Roles of people with disabilities (9) 1.11 (0.21) 1.52 (0.46) 2.10 (0.63) 2.56 (0.72) 26.61 0.001 a<b<c<d
Physically accessible community (6) 2.33 (1.02) 2.63 (0.68) 2.98 (0.63) 3.49 (0.44) 15.01 0.001 a<c<d

The degree to which congregations have and use educational resources to address disability-related issues

Welcoming ⁄ inclusive community (9) 2.36 (0.66) 2.91 (0.56) 3.39 (0.46) 3.64 (0.33) 23.36 0.001 a < b < c⁄d
Roles of people with disabilities (9) 1.67 (0.64) 2.07 (0.68) 2.62 (0.52) 2.90 (0.69) 15.03 0.001 a⁄b < c⁄d
Physically accessible community (6) 2.67 (0.75) 3.10 (0.63) 3.49 (0.45) 3.50 (0.42) 9.74 0.001 a⁄b < c⁄d

The degree to which faith communities’ religious teachings positively portray people with disabilities

Welcoming ⁄ inclusive community (9) 1.87 (1.00) 2.25 (0.52) 2.98 (0.55) 3.18 (0.62) 25.93 0.001 a < b < c⁄d
Roles of people with disabilities (9) 1.21 (0.38) 1.69 (0.59) 2.10 (0.69) 2.28 (0.79) 8.93 0.001 a<b<d
Physically accessible community (6) 2.37 (1.02) 2.68 (0.71) 3.03 (0.60) 3.27 (0.69) 7.27 0.001 a<d

The degree to which faith communities have relationships with community disability organizations

Welcoming ⁄ inclusive community (9) 2.23 (0.64) 2.70 (0.60) 3.14 (0.54) 3.36 (0.62) 21.53 0.001 a < b < c⁄d
Roles of people with disabilities (9) 1.56 (0.63) 1.87 (0.60) 2.34 (0.81) 2.37 (0.61) 10.65 0.001 a⁄b < c⁄d
Physically accessible community (6) 2.64 (0.81) 2.90 (0.70) 3.16 (0.60) 3.38 (0.51) 5.86 0.001 a<d

The extent to which faith communities have groups or activities focused on promoting social justice

Welcoming ⁄ inclusive community (9) 2.36 (0.78) 2.68 (0.57) 3.07 (0.67) 3.09 (0.61) 10.00 0.001 a < b < c⁄d
Roles of people with disabilities (9) 1.56 (0.57) 1.93 (0.74) 2.26 (0.60) 2.29 (0.78) 8.84 0.001 a < b⁄c⁄d
Physically accessible community (6) 2.70 (0.79) 2.92 (0.74) 3.10 (0.65) 3.14 (0.60) 2.92 0.037 a<d

M, mean; SD, standard deviation.

teachings that positively portray people with disabilities,
(iii) had closer relationships with disability organiza-
tions and (iv) demonstrated greater commitment to pro-
moting social justice through community activities (see
Table 3).
We found less consistent results related to other vari-
ables. Thus, compared to small faith communities, larger
faith communities were more physically accessible,
F3,147 = 3.27, P = 0.023; and those with informal services
were more welcoming and inclusive, F3,150 = 3.59,
P = 0.015. Communities in which decisions were made
by consensus were more welcoming and inclusive,
F5,147 = 3.23, P = 0.009, and had more roles in which
people with disabilities shared their gifts, F5,137 = 3.05,
P = 0.012. Communities with a disability-resource
person were more welcoming and inclusive,
F1,141 = 13.15, P = 0.001, and had more roles in which
people with disabilities shared their gifts, F1,150 = 8.90,
P = 0.003. Likewise, communities that maintained con-
tact with members who do not attend on a regular basis
were rated more welcoming and inclusive, F4,149 = 14.85,
P = 0.001, and had more roles in which people with dis-
abilities shared their gifts, F3,139 = 10.44, P = 0.003. No
differences emerged based on the number of congre-
gants with disabilities, the location of the faith commu-
nity (urban, rural, suburban), the distance travelled to
attend services, or the community’s religious affiliation
or denomination.
Discussion
Although inclusion of people with disabilities in faith
communities is an important topic, few studies have yet
formally examined which characteristics make a com-
munity more versus less inclusive. Through an anony-
mous survey, this study begins the process of

 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd


determining the characteristics of inclusive faith commu-
nities in the United States. Our study produced three
main findings. These relate to identifying measures of
inclusive outcomes, identifying predictors of these out-
comes, and contrasting our findings with prior work on
this topic.
The first of these findings was that the survey ques-
tions concerning inclusive outcomes converged on three
factors. By far the strongest (accounting for 47% of the
variance) related to activities through which faith com-
munities can welcome and include people with disabili-
ties. Such activities ran the gamut: assisting people with
disabilities to become members, providing accommoda-
tions and adaptations to fully include people with dis-
abilities, supporting their families and adopting a
welcoming attitude. The second and third factors were
more specific, involving the roles of people with disabil-
ities (e.g. holding office, serving on committees), and the
physical accessibility of various areas (e.g. restrooms,
worship spaces).
Second, this study identified five predictors of these
inclusive outcomes. These independent variables were
both strong and consistent – with each related to all
three inclusion-related outcomes. Four of these indepen-
dent variables could be characterized as disability-
related, while the remaining variable was more general.
The most important of the four disability-related vari-
ables was the commitment of a community’s leaders to
include people with disabilities. Similar findings emerge
from the corporate world, in which the leaders of more
(versus less) inclusive organizations initiate and support
efforts to promote inclusion (Gilbert & Ivancevich 2000).
Recognizing the critical role of executives in promoting
inclusive practices in business organizations, executive
coaching strategies have been developed to train leaders
on the advantages of workplace diversity and best prac-
tices to promote this cultural shift (Katz & Miller 1996).
Prior works on including people with disabilities in faith
communities have also highlighted the need for faith
leaders to receive disability-related training (Riordan &
Vasa 1991; Anderson 2003).
In addition to having leaders who are committed to
inclusion, more inclusive faith communities also more
often used educational resources to address disability-
related issues, and had closer relationships with disabil-
ity organizations. Again, these findings are similar to
characteristics found in inclusive corporate settings:
More inclusive organizations partner with disability-
related agencies to support workers with disabilities
(Gilbride et al. 2003). These findings emphasize the
important role that disability agencies can play in pro-
 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 7
moting inclusion (Vogel et al. 2006). Additionally, faith
communities whose religious teachings were positive in
the portrayal of people with disabilities were more
inclusive. Again, this finding mirrors descriptions of
inclusive businesses, whose corporate philosophies
incorporate language regarding inclusion (Gilbert &
Ivancevich 2000).
In addition to these four disability-related indepen-
dent variables, more inclusive faith communities also
showed a greater commitment to social justice. Social
justice, although variously defined, concerns the equita-
ble allocation of rights and resources to members of
society, taking into account their ‘differential power,
needs and abilities to express their wishes’ (Prilleltensky
2001, p. 754). Although not explicitly disability-related,
an orientation towards social justice more generally pro-
motes rights among disenfranchised groups. Unfortu-
nately, people with disabilities can be counted among
the historically disenfranchised. In this way, efforts pro-
moting inclusion of people with disabilities are readily
related to social justice.
A third result of this study concerns what we did not
find. Simply stated, few results related to a faith
community’s demographic characteristics, such as the
community’s size, location, or number of congregants
with disabilities. Although we did find that differences
in physical accessibility were related to the size of the
community (as did LaRocque & Eigenbrood 2005),
community size did not relate to differences in other
outcome variables. Similarly, other demographic
characteristics – even including the number of people
with disabilities who belong to a faith community –
were related to either small or less consistent differences
in outcome variables. Overall, then, a faith community’s
degree of inclusion had more to do with various
disability-related characteristics than its demographic
characteristics.
Although important in identifying characteristics of
inclusive faith communities, this study also has several
limitations. First, the sample was very uniform: Most
participants were Caucasian, Christian, highly educated
and in favour of including people with disabilities in
faith communities. This uniformity was due in part to
the nature of collecting online survey responses; gener-
alization of these findings should thus be made with
caution. Second, because the survey was anonymous,
we are unable to determine if more than one respondent
belonged to the same community; however, this concern
is minimized by the large number of faiths and denomi-
nations represented in our sample. Finally, these find-
ings, based on self-report, were not confirmed by
8 Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities
observations in respondents’ communities. Therefore,
they represent the perceptions of survey respondents
about practices within their faith communities.
Implications for research and practice
Although an important first study, several avenues
remain open for future research. First, future research
should gather perspectives from those demographic and
denominational groups that are poorly represented in
this sample. Perspectives from these groups would
allow a more nuanced description of inclusive practices
across faith communities in the United States. Second,
by including other countries, future investigations could
compare these results cross-culturally. These compari-
sons would allow researchers to determine the degree to
which predictors found in this study are specific to the
United States, or relevant in other countries as well.
In addition to these implications for future research,
these findings also present clear practical implications.
First, if interested in promoting inclusion, congregants
should focus their efforts on communicating with lead-
ers of their faith communities. These leaders naturally
include priests, ministers, or rabbis, but they might also
include members of boards and other congregants who
serve in leadership positions. Indeed, from these find-
ings it would seem worthwhile to communicate with
any formal or informal leaders who may have influence
over the community’s internal and outreach activities.
Congregants interested in promoting inclusion might
also tailor their conversations with leaders of faith com-
munities. Specifically, congregants might focus on the
resources available from local disability organizations,
and help to develop relationships between their faith
community’s leaders and representatives of these orga-
nizations.
These findings also have implications for theological
schools and other institutions that train leaders of faith
communities. While our survey highlighted the critical
role played by religious leaders, these leaders – most of
whom prioritized inclusion of people with disabilities –
had rarely received disability-related information in
their formal training. For their part, disability organiza-
tions can provide theological schools and individual
faith leaders the resources to promote meaningful inclu-
sion of congregants with disabilities and their families.
This study provides a preliminary description of those
characteristics that differentiate more versus less inclu-
sive faith communities in the United States. Overall, our
findings indicate that demographic characteristics (e.g.
congregation size, location) are not critical factors in this
differentiation. Instead, five characteristics – committed
leadership, educational resources, positive portrayals in
religious teachings, closer relations to disability
organizations and commitment to social justice – were
associated with more inclusive faith communities. These
results are particularly heartening because, unlike
demographics, the characteristics identified in this study
can be influenced by those who desire to promote inclu-
sion. Ultimately, faith leaders and congregants can help
promote the greater inclusion of people with disabilities
within their faith communities.
Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Megan M.
Griffin, Vanderbilt University, 230 Appleton Place,
Peabody Box 228, Nashville, TN 37203, USA (e-mail:
megan.m.griffin@vanderbilt.edu).
References
Anderson R. C. (2003) Infusing the graduate theological curric-
ulum with education about disability: addressing the human
experience of disability in the theological context. Theological
Education 93, 1–24.
Carter E. W. (2007) Including People with Disabilities in Faith
Communities. Brookes, Baltimore.
Gaventa W. C. (2001) Defining and assessing spirituality and
spiritual supports. Journal of Religion, Disability, and Health 5,
29–48.
Gilbert J. A. & Ivancevich J. M. (2000) Valuing diversity: a tale
of two organizations. Academy of Management Executive 14,
93–105.
Gilbride D., Stensrud R., Vandergoot D. & Golden K. (2003)
Identification of the characteristics of work environments
and employers open to hiring and accommodating people
with disabilities. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 46, 130–
137.
Haworth A. M., Hill A. E. & Glidden L. M. (1996) Measuring
religiousness of parents of children with developmental dis-
abilities. Mental Retardation 34, 271–279.
Hughes D. K. (1995) The accessibility of faith communities and
their places of worship. Journal of Religion in Disability &
Rehabilitation 2, 51–59.
Katz J. H. & Miller F. A. (1996) Coaching leaders through cul-
ture change. Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research 48, 104–114.
Kessler Foundation and National Organization on Disability.
(2010) 2010 Survey of Americans with Disabilities. Kessler Foun-
dation and National Organization on Disability, Washington,
DC.
LaRocque M. & Eigenbrood R. (2005) Community access: a sur-
vey of congregational accessibility for people with disabili-
ties. Journal of Religion, Disability, & Health 9, 55–66.
 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd

National Organization on Disability. (2000) 2000 Survey of Amer-
icans with Disabilities. National Organization on Disability,
Washington, D.C.
Poston D. J. & Turnbull A. P. (2004) Role of spirituality and
religion in family quality of life for families of children with
disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities
39, 95–108.
Prilleltensky I. (2001) Value-based praxis in community
psychology: moving toward social justice and social action.
American Journal of Community Psychology 29, 747–778.
Riordan J. & Vasa S. F. (1991) Accommodations for and
participation of persons with disabilities in religious prac-
 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 9
tice. Education and Training in Mental Retardation 26, 151–
155.
Rose A. (1997) Who causes the blind to see: disability and the
quality of religious life. Disability & Society 12, 395–405.
Turner S., Hatton C., Shah R., Stansfield J. & Rahim N. (2004)
Religious expression amongst adults with intellectual disabili-
ties. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities 17,
161–171.
Vogel J., Polloway E. A. & Smith J. D. (2006) Inclusion of
people with mental retardation and other developmental
disabilities in communities of faith. Mental Retardation 44,
100–111.