{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01440329218106996, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003429355281207133, 'mean_word_length': 5.130252100840337, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Variations in the social inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities in supported living schemes and residential settings.

BACKGROUND
The social inclusion of tenants living in two forms of supported living schemes - those clustered on one site and those dispersed in neighbourhoods - is contrasted with more traditional provision found on the island of Ireland, namely, small group homes, residential homes and campus-style settings.


METHODS
A standard pro forma based on measures used in past research was completed by the key-worker for each tenant or resident. In all, data were obtained on 620 persons, representing nearly all tenants in clustered schemes in Northern Ireland and over 40% of those in dispersed schemes.


RESULTS
People in either form of supported living tended to have greater levels of social inclusion as measured by their use of community amenities and social contacts than did those in small group homes or residential homes, with participants from campus-style settings having the lowest levels of social inclusion. Moreover, multivariate analyses confirmed that the accommodation variable was a significant influence in addition to the social competence of the person.


CONCLUSIONS
Although there were few differences between the two models of supported living, further research could usefully focus on decisions to place persons in either form of accommodation and their impact on wider indicators of social inclusion.