People with intellectual disabilities or psychiatric disorders who live in ordinary neighbourhoods often have little contact with fellow residents without disabilities. Recent research suggests that we should not strive for warm contacts based on familiarity and shared values between utterly different groups in urban areas. Daily life between people with and without disabilities is described as a process in which boundaries are negotiated. This study builds on that observation. It was based in a middle sized town in the Netherlands and consists of a survey among people with intellectual or psychiatric disabilities and neighbourhood residents (not being support staff or relatives of people with disabilities); semi structured interviews and participant observation. We found that fruitful encounters between different groups depend on built-in boundaries in contacts. Positive encounters occur when roles are clear and boundaries do not have to be negotiated because they are given. Both parties benefit from boundaries and fixed roles: people with disabilities do not need social reflexivity or intricate social skills to find their way in the situation; people without disabilities can end the contact without being rude. In line with previous research we also found that positive neighbourhood contacts are usually light and superficial and result in conviviality rather than long term relationships.

In many countries in north‐western Europe, the welfare state is changing, and governments expect a great deal of informal care. In the Netherlands, citizens are also increasingly expected to rely on informal instead of professional care. In this study, we aim to determine to what extent Dutch care‐dependent people want to rely on social network members and what reasons they raise for accepting or refusing informal care. To answer this question, we observed 65 so‐called ‘kitchen table talks’, in which social workers assess citizens’ care needs and examine to what extent relatives, friends and/or neighbours can provide help and care. We also interviewed 50 professionals and 30 people in need of care. Our findings show that a great deal of informal care is already given (in 46 out of 65 cases), especially between people who have a close emotional bond. For this reason, people in need of care often find it difficult to ask their family members, friends or neighbours for extra assistance. People are afraid to overburden their family members, friends or neighbours. Another reason people in need of care raise against informal care is that they feel ashamed of becoming dependent. Although the government wants to change the meaning of autonomy by emphasising that people are autonomous when they rely on social network members, people who grew up in the heyday of the welfare state feel embarrassed and ashamed when they are not able to reciprocate. Our findings imply that policymakers and social professionals need to reconsider the idea that resources of informal care are inexhaustible and that citizens can look after each other much more than they already do. It is important that social policymakers approach the codes and norms underlying social relations more cautiously because pressure on these relations can have negative effects.

Background: A growing body of evidence attests to the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) during the pandemic. This study asked caregivers about their perceptions of how COVID-19 impacted them and the people they support. Method: An online survey was conducted in 12 countries during August-September 2020 and sought information on demographics, support practices, information and training, experiences of COVID-19, social distancing, and wellbeing, as measured by the DASS12. This study reports on 3,754 family members, direct support professionals, and managers who participated in the survey. Results: Caregivers observed increases in depression/anxiety, stereotyped behaviours, aggression towards others and weight gain in the person(s) they supported. They also reported difficulties supporting the person(s) to access healthcare.  Families reported reducing or ceasing employment and absorbed additional costs when supporting their family member. Direct support professionals experienced changes in staff shifts, staff absences, increased workload and hiring of casual staff. Caregivers’ wellbeing revealed high levels of stress, depression, and less so anxiety. The strongest predictor of wellbeing among families was observation of changes in mood in the person(s) they supported, while for direct support professionals, the strongest predictors of wellbeing were reorganisation of staff shifts and increases in new direct support staff.  Discussion: Findings support the contention of this population experiencing a disproportionate burden during the COVID-19 pandemic, reflecting historical inequities in access to healthcare and other human rights violations which are now protected under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Recent work has pointed to the importance for their social inclusion of convivial encounters between people with and without disabilities, but little is known about the spatial and social conditions of the places that encourage these encounters. This paper is concerned with public places that are conducive for convivial encounters between people with and without disabilities. Drawing on extensive participative observations of four community projects and 78 interviews with people visiting or working at these projects we investigated which elements in these places encourage ‘strangers’ to move from merely co-presence to conviviality. Three conditions seem to be conducive, namely: (1) a shared purpose, (2) built-in boundaries, (3) freedom to (dis)engage. These conditions were beneficial for convivial encounters, but do not lead to friendship or long-term support. People engage in such contact because they can be sure that these contacts do not raise expectations of long-term support or friendship.

Governments of contemporary welfare states call upon citizens to care for people with psychiatric or intellectual disabilities. This is deemed sensible and morally just. However, social–psychological theory suggests that stereotyping may stand in the way of engaging into contact. Sociological theory suggests that the giving of help is based on either balanced or generalized reciprocity. Balanced reciprocity depends on one's ability to ‘pay back’, which people with disabilities may have trouble doing. Generalized reciprocity depends on close social bonds, while people with disabilities often have fewer social bonds than other citizens. The current study aimed to find out whether citizens—despite socio‐psychological and sociological theories expecting otherwise—enter into supporting relationships with people with intellectual or psychiatric disabilities. Although we found socio‐psychological and sociological theory to be largely correct, we also found people to be more creative than theory assumes. A smile can be experienced as a return gift, thus including people with intellectual disabilities in the web of balanced reciprocity. Some people create new social bonds to include people with disabilities: they feel close to them because they had a job in the healthcare sector or because they had a family member with a disability. In disadvantaged neighbourhoods, recognition of each other's problems can create feelings of similarity and concomitant reciprocity. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.