HELPING YOUTH WITH AUTISM SPECTRUM DISORDER DEVELOP SOCIAL COMPETENCE IN COMMUNITY-BASED SETTINGS

The purpose of the current dissertation is to identify the features of effective interventions by exploring the experiences of youth with ASD who participate in such interventions, through two intervention studies (Studies 1 and 2) and one interview study (Study 3). Studies 1 and 2 were designed to support the development of social competence of youth with ASD through Structured Play with LEGO TM (Study 1, 12 youths with ASD, ages 7–12) and Minecraft TM (Study 2, 4 youths with ASD, ages 11–13). Over the course of the sessions, the play of the youth developed from parallel play (children playing alone, without interacting) to co-operative play (playing together with shared objectives). The results of Study 2 showed that rates of initiations and levels of engagement increased from the first session to the final session. In Study 3, 12 youths with ASD (ages 10–14) and at least one of their parents were interviewed to explore what children and their parents want from programs designed to improve social competence, which activities and practices were perceived to promote social competence by the participants, and which factors affected their decisions regarding these programs. The adolescents and parents looked for programs that supported social development and emotional wellbeing, but did not always have access to the programs they would have preferred, with factors such as cost and location reducing their options. Three overarching themes emerged through analysis of the three studies: (a) interests of the youth; (b) structure, both through interactions and instruction; and (c) naturalistic settings. Adolescents generally engage more willingly in interventions that incorporate their interests, such as play with Minecraft TM in Study 2. Additionally, Structured Play and structured instruction were crucial components of providing safe and supportive contexts for the development of social competence. Finally, skills learned in naturalistic settings tend to be applied more successfully in everyday situations. The themes are analysed through the lens of Vygotsky’s (1978) perspectives on learning, play, and development. Implications of the results for practitioners and researchers are discussed.

A Minor Change?: A Case Study of Carleton Place's Integration of Minor Variance Procedures into Ontario's Development Permit System

The Development Permit System has been introduce with minimal directives for establishing a decision making process. This is in opposition to the long established process for minor variances and suggests that the Development Permit System does not necessarily incorporate all of Ontario’s fundamental planning principles. From this concept, the study aimed to identify how minor variances are incorporated into the Development Permit System. In order to examine this topic, the research was based around the following research questions: • How are ‘minor variance’ applications processed within the DPS? • To what extent do the four tests of a minor variance influence the outcomes of lower level applications in the DPS approval process? A case study approach was used for this research. The single-case design employed both qualitative and quantitative research methods including a review of academic literature, court cases, and official documents, as well as a content analysis of Class 1, 1A, and 2 Development Permit application files from the Town of Carleton Place that were decided between 2011 and 2015. Upon the completion of the content analysis, it was found that minor variance issues were most commonly assigned to Class 1 applications. Planning staff generally met approval timelines and embraced their delegated approval authority, readily attaching conditions to applications in order to mitigate off-site impacts. While staff met the regulatory requirements of the DPS, ‘minor variance’ applications were largely decided on impact alone, demonstrating that the principles established by the four tests, the defining quality of the minor variance approval process, had not transferred to the Development Permit System. Alternatively, there was some evidence that the development community has not fully adjusted to the requirements of the new approvals process, as some applications were supported using a rationale containing the four tests. Subsequently, a set of four recommendations were offered which reflect the main themes established by the findings. The first two recommendations are directed towards the Province, the third to municipalities and the fourth to developers and planning consultants: 1) Amend Ontario Regulation 608/06 so that provisions under Section 4(3)(e) fall under Section 4(2). 2) Change the rhetoric from “combining elements of minor variances” to “replacing minor variances”. 3) Establish clear evaluation criteria. 4) Understand the evaluative criteria of the municipality in which you are working.