Large-scale reviews of research in deinstitutionalization and community living were last conducted about 10 years ago. Here we surveyed research from 1997 to 2007. Articles were included if the researchers based the study on original research, provided information on the participants and methodology, compared residential arrangements for adults with intellectual disability, and were published in English-language peer-reviewed journals. Sixty-eight articles were found. In 7 of 10 domains, the majority of studies show that community-based services are superior to congregate arrangements. These studies provide more evidence of the benefits of deinstitutionalization and community living and continue to indicate variability in results, suggesting that factors other than the basic model of care are important in determining outcomes.

The paper sets out priorities for the future development of community services. Success is likely to require a renewed focus on demonstrating improvement in the quality of life of people with intellectual disabilities and a change in the role of staff to provide more facilitative, enabling support of individuals, especially those with the most severe or complex disabilities.

Background An important question in community living is what factors influence the extent to which staff provide 'active support'. Methods Engagement, care practices and a range of staff and organizational characteristics were studied in 72 residential homes serving 359 adults with intellectual disabilities. Managers in 36 settings were trained in person-centred active support (PCAS). A group comparison design and multivariate analysis was used to investigate the relationship between variables. Results The PCAS group showed more active support, assistance, other contact from staff and engagement in meaningful activity but no difference in choice-making or assessment of participation in activities of daily living. The PCAS group had more staff with a professional qualification, were more likely to think that challenging behaviour was caused by lack of stimulation, had attitudes more in line with a policy of community care, rated most care tasks as less difficult, and were more organized to deliver active support. The comparison group were more likely to think that challenging behaviour was learned negative behaviour, showed more teamwork and were more satisfied. Multivariate analysis identified a range of staff and organizational variables associated with engagement and active support.Conclusions The results suggest that some variables which have not hitherto been studied in relation with active support are associated with it. Professional qualification, knowledge and experience appear to be important as do some staff attitudes, clear management guidance, more frequent supervision and team meetings, training and support for staff to help residents engage in meaningful activity.

Background This critical review considers the nature and importance of person-centred planning in the context of current British policy and service development in intellectual disability. The difference between person-centred planning and other kinds of individual planning is discussed. Materials and method The scale of the task of implementing person-centred planning as a national policy initiative is considered. The limited evidence base for person-centred planning is reviewed and the reasons for the failure of previous attempts at individual planning are analysed.The assumption that person-centred services will be produced by a new kind of individual planning is questioned. Conclusions Consideration is given to what would be necessary to make services more person-centred, including changes in power relations, funding arrangements and staff training and supervision.

No abstract