Community integration

Community integration, while diversely defined, is a term encompassing the full participation of all people in community life. It has specifically referred to the integration of people with disabilities into US society[1][2] from the local to the national level, and for decades was a defining agenda in countries such as Great Britain.[3]

In the US, the Consortium of Citizens for Disabilities[4] advocates for a national public policy which "ensures the self-determination, independence, empowerment, integration and inclusion of children and adults with disabilities in all parts of society". Other countries (such as Canada) with different roots often spoke of inclusion: the unifying, global agenda in "disability and community life".[5][6]

Theory

Theorists have differentiated types and levels of integration in special education as physical, functional, social, community and organizational.[7] In disability circles, community integration meant opportunities for participation in schools, careers, homes, relationships, leisure, and a variety of interests and lifestyles.[8] Bengt Nirje and the late Wolf Wolfensberger of the US are internationally known for their concept of normalization and social role valorization,[9][10] with a particular emphasis on physical and social integration. Anders Gustavsson (ca. 1990) of Sweden has indicated that physical integration best describes the common use of the term "integration", with social integration the struggle for "equality and quality in life."[11]

The intent of community integration was the participation of people with disabilities in regular environments, the antithesis of exclusionary practices (such as the minority-group model).[12][13] As the field moved toward community support, theories related to community living began to require applicability beyond a minority-group model[14] with a new emphasis on self-determination.[15] As described by Racino, these theories include ecological theory, community-support theories, systems theory, feminist theories, family theories, sociocultural theories, critical theories in education, psychosocial theories, the generic human-concept theory and universal theories.[14]

Systems change

Taylor, in his analysis of community systems in the US, proposed the principle of non-restrictive environment as a counterpoint to the federal government's least-restrictive-environment principle.[16][17] In 2014, the governing principle in the US is that of the most integrated setting based upon the Supreme Court Olmstead Decision.[18]

Prior to the Olmstead decision, the Supreme Court addressed the community integration issues multiple times in the case, Halderman v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital, a class action filed in Pennsylvania by attorney David Ferleger.[19] Although the Olmstead decision explicitly did not reach the constitutional issues decided in the Pennhurst and other cases, limitations in Olmstead have been critiqued and it has been argued that there is a constitutional right to community services.[20]

The analysis of large-scale systems change in community integration has involved challenges by local public agencies, key elements of these strategies (e.g., enabling leadership, putting people first, values and vision, learning for quality) and its implications for national policy.[21] Disability-agency, state-level disability-system, community and societal change are essential (but insufficient) elements of the process and outcomes of community integration.[22]

Community integration also has strong community roots which places it in community practice fields from community psychology, to sociologists studying community, to inclusive education in local school systems, competitive businesses (with rehabilitation), rural independent living, urban sociology, local parks and recreation programs, community development and housing, neighbourhoods and communities, among others.

Education

Educational integration has a long history of debate described as "more comprehensive than academic mainstreaming."[23] Community integration in this context (schools) refers to opportunities "to learn practical social and community living skills (and job training) in a wide variety of community settings" (p. 13).[24] Based in part on the civil-rights movement[25] as represented by Brown v. Board of Education, school integration was based on the right to a free, appropriate education in regular schools and classrooms.[26][27]

Educational integration (now often equated with inclusion) remains controversial in the US (although it is supported by law) due, in part, to special-education systems.[28][29][30] School integration also involves children with more significant disabilities, such as those with technology-assisted needs.[31] Progress has been made in education at the post-secondary level (in almost all population groups) due, in part, to disability-services departments at colleges.[32][33] Today, instead of educational integration, the goal is for continued school reform through inclusion (education) and for education with accommodations as required by the law.

Housing

In the US disability field a major shift has occurred from group and facility-based models to homes with support services,[34] emphasizing a change from "home-like" housing to community homes, neighborhoods and relationships.[35][36] The most-recent initiatives were in homeownership,[37] an important form of community integration which also involves a feeling of ownership.[38] Housing integration builds on a long history of support for good quality, affordable housing which often include analyses of social exclusion which may concentrate on US protected classes.[39]

Housing integration is of great importance, in part, because of the history of residential segregation (usually by race and class) in the US.[40][41] Residential segregation due to inequality and disparity continues to be studied in ethnic, social and economic frameworks, including the process of desegregation, gentrification and hypersegregation.[42][43][44] In addition, redlining, as a bridge issue across lower and middle classes, affects housing and neighborhood integration from as early as the 1970s with germandering districts for community development funds more common in the 2000s.[45] A discussion of residential segregation in US and Europe and a "critique of the ideal of integration" can be found in Inclusion and Democracy.[46]

In the US, mixed-income and scattered-site housing was reported in a case study of a housing association supporting people with disabilities in Madison, Wisconsin (the Madison Mutual Housing Association and Cooperative).[47] In Canada, the Prairie Housing Cooperative (as reported by David Wetherow) integrates persons with disabilities into the community via housing.[48] An early review on nonprofit housing in the US and Canada, with increasing governmental funds in the US today, indicates that mixed-income housing [49] was used primarily in "troubled neighborhoods" with efforts to seek higher-income tenants to move into those neighborhoods as opposed to raising the entire group's living standards.[50] In 2013, the emphasis is on inclusive and sustainable housing,[51] while other groups support equitable and sustainable housing in the US (Policy Link). The status of housing and disability in America was reported by the National Council on Disability in the US,[52] and compared to Harvard University's report on the nation's housing.[53][54]

Recreation

Being in the community has meant being part of activities and events on the local level in towns, cities and suburbs.[55] Recreational integration is a facet of inclusion and community access.[56] School and recreation integration was promoted in the US and in countries such as Canada and Australia.[57][58] On the local level concerns have generally concerned acceptance and friendships, support services, site accessibility, group size and "truly integrated" (in contrast to "side-by-side") activities. For example, in Great Britain community opportunities were sought so people could belong, contribute and make friends.[59] In addition, recreational funding has often been tied to facilities; community integration involves changes in staffing of regular community environments such as the YMCA.[60] By 2013, at least one academic recreation and tourism department had an inclusion, adaptive educator as its Departmental Chair supporting integration and inclusion.

Recreational inclusion may entail a camp,[61] a neighborhood center,[62] a girls' softball league,[63] school sports or technology clubs,[64] a community choir[65] or a public-speaking course[66] as participation in a social world[67] and integration. Car-related examples include an amusement-park car track; car shows, bike nights and car cruise-ins, and model car racing.[68]

Employment

Employment integration was advocated during the 1970s for women, people with disabilities and racial groups, who were seen as discriminated against in employment (Racino for the Urban League of Onondaga County, Inc., 1978); for example, occupations and professions were constructed based upon gender: women's professions (nurses, teachers, secretaries) and men's professions (scientists, managers, administrators, police, firemen and construction).[69] Progress has been made at the leadership level with the first African American president (Barack Obama), disability leadership in the United States Department of Education (Judith Heumann) and the rise of prominent women in the state department State Department (Madeleine Albright and Hillary Clinton).

For those with severe disabilities employment-integration initiatives were often framed as supported employment, which allowed jobs at regular businesses and employment sites.[70][71][72][73][74] Similar initiatives in the mental health field were often called transitional employment, and other forms of integration included competitive placements in businesses and industry, targeted positions, and even affirmative businesses in the hearts of business districts. A major success was the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, amended in 2008 (following the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, amended in 1978), which provided protection for men and women with disabilities in obtaining jobs, careers and positions with necessary workplace accommodations.[75] A key service for employment integration is often considered to be personal assistance services,[76] or in other fields a job coach[77] prior to more "natural" models of supervision and support.[78]

In this context employment integration has been conceptualized, including social aspects of promotion, discriminatory hiring and termination practices, performance standards, job-sharing and modification, educational attainment, internships and volunteer experiences, workplace relationships, team-building, supervisory roles, workers' compensation, accommodations and supports (Urban League of Onondaga County, 1978). Competitive employment integration at the US workplace is expected by law, and categorical services have tended to be developed as segregated bases (e.g., sheltered facilities to supported employment). Employment integration is a worldwide issue, modified by approaches to multicultural groups (e.g. the growing Latino population in the US), the changing economy (e.g. from manufacturing to service) and increasing unemployment.

Policies

Community integration has been most criticized for its inattention to gender, ethnic, cultural, racial, class and economic factors[79][80] ("double discrimination", pp. 60–61). At the university level multiculturalism, including disability, was proposed as the solution to these complex issues.[81] Community integration, in practice, involves diverse approaches and models (age, team, agency, area and gender integration or segregation) and has been integral to de-institutionalization and community development for over two decades.[82][83] Community integration is a policy, concept and practice to address systemic stigma and discrimination related to disability.[12][84][85] It competes with other policy models (such as multiculturalism), and changes its practices over time.[86]

Cross-disability

In the sub-field of brain injury, community integration included areas ranging from supported employment to daily living skills, family interventions (versus support) and memory training, school reintegration and transition to post secondary education.[87][88][89][90] Community integration was being diversely defined by researchers, including those in fields such as brain injury,[91][92] sensory impairments (e.g., hearing, visual),[93] developmental[94] and physical disabilities.[95] News and professional-journal articles will often read, "integration into the community" (from institutions and facilities), integrated care (health services integration), or "community reintegration" (after hospital care)[96] worldwide.

In the field of mental health Paul Carling promoted community integration in the 1980s and 1990s in opposition to the predominant medical model,[97][98] while psychiatric rehabilitation also linked to the medical, often allied health, professions. Carling's approach to community integration in mental health was congruent with intellectual disabilities, particularly in areas of community living (e.g., supportive living in intellectual disabilities, supported housing in mental health, and housing and support).[99] In 2008, Disability and Society, a popular disability policy journal discussed community reintegration for people with psychiatric disabilities and their relationship to centers for independent living.[100]

Comprehensive medical systems were proposed to support the family in community integration, including new roles for specialized personnel from neuropsychologists to physiatrists.[101] In the field of traumatic brain injury, community integration was framed by both the social and medical models of disability in an effort to transition people from hospitals and rehabilitation centers.[102][103] Today, the Brain Injury Association of America recommends the educational needs of children with traumatic brain injuries and the health care required.[104]

US federal initiative

In 1985, the US government funded a national community-integration project identifying best community practices for people with the "most severe disabilities".[105][106] Technical assistance was funded through the Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Community Integration (of the National Institute on Disability Rehabilitation Research and Training Center, US Department of Education) to all states.[107][108] The Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Community Integration (Syracuse University, headed by Steve Taylor) also had subcontracts with the University of Illinois (David Braddock), the University of Minnesota Institute on Community Integration (K. Charlie Lakin)[109] The federal departments subsequently offered contracts to evaluate the status of these new community services in the US.[110] and others.

The principles of community integration through the national flagship centers (the Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers on Family and Community Living,[111] facilitated by Lakin and J.A. Racino of Syracuse University) were:

  • All people with disabilities will be able to live successfully in (and as part of) natural communities that provide them the supports they need.
  • All people with disabilities will be recognized for the positive contributions they make to their families and communities.
  • All people with disabilities will benefit from enduring relationships with other people (including family members and community members without disabilities).
  • All people with disabilities (and their family members) will be entitled to participate in decisions affecting the nature and quality of services they receive.
  • All people with disabilities will have access to services and supports that provide choice and support full citizenship.
  • Services and supports for people with disabilities will be individualized and responsive to cultural and ethnic differences, economic resources and life circumstances.
  • Public policy will provide thee opportunity to enjoy productive, integrated lives.

The 1988 Leadership Institute on Community Integration (From Being in the Community to Being Part of the Community, Steve J. Taylor, director; Julie Ann Racino, deputy director and B. Shoultz, information coordinator), held in Washington, D.C., was sponsored by the Research and Training Center on Community Integration in cooperation with the National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, US Department of Education, Beach Center on Families and Disability (University of Kansas), California Research Institute (University of Connecticut), Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (Virginia Commonwealth University), Research and Training Center Consortium on Aging and Developmental Disabilities (an eight-university consortium coordinated by the University of Cincinnati), Research and Training Center on Community Living (University of Minnesota) and the University-Affiliated Program in Developmental Disabilities (University of Illinois at Chicago).[112] Work groups were facilitated in community living, families, school and employment with papers prepared, respectively, by K. Charlie Lakin, Ann P. Turnbull and H. Rud Turnbull, Douglas Biklen and Paul Wehman.

By the late 2000s, the Centers were renamed to Community Participation, one aspect of community integration, or to Employment, or other priority areas, such as Health, with many of the above centers still federally funded through the NIDRR program (National Institute on Rehabilitation Research and Rehabilitation), US Department of Education and new academic centers at universities such as Temple University in Pennsylvania.

Principles and practices

In particular, community integration in intellectual, "severe" disabilities and developmental disabilities means families for all children.[113][114] For adults, it means "ordinary" or "regular" homes with support services.[115][116][117] In addition, community integration means recreation, employment, transportation and education with the personal assistance and support(s) necessary to participate fully in the community.[118][119][120]

However, community support (e.g., consumer-directed services) as part of community-agency change and deinstitutionalization,[121][122] self-determination,[123][124] community participation,[125] individual planning,[126][127] social relationships[128] and personal-assistance services[129][130] became the leading directions in US community integration. Community integration has also been described as comparative to normalisation, a widely known value-based system of human services (See, Wolfensberger, Nirje & Bank-Mikkelsen).

Community integration has been tied to quality assurance in the community and an improved quality of life.[131][132] [133] It has involved evaluations and studies over at least two decades in areas ranging from service costs to personnel studies, service typologies, best practices and innovations, community and integration studies.[134][135][136][137][138][139][140] Internationally, quality of life has been explored in Finland, Australia, the US, Germany, Hungary, Denmark and Canada.[141]

Global perspectives

Researchers in the US (Julie Ann Racino, Syracuse University) and Great Britain (David Towell, King's Fund College) collaborated on community integration, including a 1990 series of international seminars on community integration in the US held at the University of Manchester (Hester Adrian Research Center), Manchester Polytechnic and Manchester Health Authority, the King's Fund College (with Lyn Rucker), Campaign for the Mentally Handicapped (London), University of Wales at Bangor (Center for Social Policy Research), and the University of Wales (Mental Handicap Research Unit). Internationally, research began on the "first integrated generation" in countries such as Sweden[142] and integration was confirmed as a legal principle in the US.[143]

Community services, supports, integration and inclusion are changing in countries such as Czechoslovakia (now the Czech Republic and Slovakia),[144] Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Israel, Austria, Great Britain, Iceland and Sweden.[145] Since the 1990s the European Union has formed, populations in the Middle East have been emancipated, community self-advocacy has developed in South America and Africa and financial ownership of US debt has been undertaken (in part) by China.[146] The United Nations[147] offers guidance and leadership through its Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (particularly Article 19, which addresses independent living and community inclusion). A book based on these principles is "Public Administration and Disability: Community Services Administration in the US" (Racino, 2014)[148] which links to the diverse nation-states and rationales for continuing educational, employment and housing segregation Segregation in Northern Ireland.

gollark: You're using CC: Tweaked, right?
gollark: Yes.
gollark: Your computer must be bad. Popular CC servers have hundreds running at once.
gollark: It has HTTP. CraftOS-EFI, the CC emulator for UEFI, doesn't have that, so potatOS doesn't work.
gollark: It doesn't have networking, for example.

References
  1. Racino, J. (1999). Integration. "Policy, Program Evaluation and Research in Disability: Community Support for All". (pp.8-9). London: Haworth Press.
  2. Taylor, S., Racino, J. & Shoultz, B. (1988)."From Being in the Community to Being Part of the Community: The Proceedings of a Leadership Institute on Developmental Disabilities." Washington, DC: Syracuse University, Center on Human Policy, Institute on Community Integration.
  3. Towell, D. & Beardshaw, V. (1991). "Enabling Community Integration: The Role of Public Authorities in Promoting an Ordinary Life for People with Learning Disabilities in the 1990s." London, Great Britain: The King's Fund.
  4. Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities.(2012). Washington, DC. Retrieved from:
  5. Inclusion International. (2011, June). Priorities for people with intellectual disabilities in implementing the UN Convention on the rights of people with disabilities: The road ahead. "The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities", Living in the community,Article 19. London, UK: Inclusion International
  6. The Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps. (2011). "About Us: Equity, Opportunity and Inclusion." Seattle, WA: Author
  7. Ferguson,D., Ferguson,P. & Bogdan, R. (1987). If mainstreaming is the answer, what is the question? In: V. Richardson-Koehler (Ed.), "Educator's Handbook: A Research Perspective" (pp. 394-419). New York: Longman.
  8. Taylor, S. & Racino, J. (1991). Community living: Lessons for today. In: L. Meyer, C. Peck, & L. Brown (Eds.), "Critical Issues in the Lives of People with Severe Disabilities." (pp. 235-238). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  9. Wolfensberger, W. (1983). Social role valorization: A proposed new term for the principle of normalization. "Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities", 21(6), 234-239.
  10. Nirje, B. (1985). The basis and logic of the normalization principle. "Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities", 11(2), 65-68.
  11. Gustavsson, A. (ca. 1990). "Difficulties and Opportunities for People with Disabilities Living in an Integrated Society". Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm College of Health and Caring Sciences.
  12. Taylor, S., Biklen, D. & Knoll, J. (1987). "Community Integration for Persons with Severe Disabilities." New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
  13. Racino, J. (1999a). "Policy, Program Evaluation and Research in Disability: Community Support for All." London: The Haworth Press.
  14. Racino, J. (2000). "Personnel Preparation in Disability and Community Life: Toward Universal Approaches to Support." Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.
  15. Abery, B., Mithaug, D., Stancliffe, R., & Wehmeyer, M. (2003). "Theory in Self-Determination: Foundations for Educational Practice." Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.
  16. Taylor, S.J., Racino, J.A., Knoll, J.A. & Lutfiyya, Z.M. (1987). "The Nonrestrictive Environment: On Community Integration of Persons with the Most Severe Disabilities." Syracuse, NY: Human Policy Press.
  17. Taylor, S. (1988). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the least restrictive environment. "Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps", 13(1), 45-53.
  18. Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities. (2012). "Olmstead Implementation and the Concept of the Most Integrated Setting". Washington, DC: Author.
  19. Ferleger, D. and Boyd, P., Rights and Dignity: The Supreme Court, Congress and People With Disabilities After Pennhurst, 5 W.New Eng.L.Rev. 327 (1983) (co-author); Anti-Institutionalization and the Supreme Court, 14 Rutgers L.Rev. 595 (1983).
  20. Ferleger, The Constitutional Right to Community Services, 26 Georgia State University Law Rev. 763 (2010)
  21. Towell, D. & Beardshaw, V. (1991, Great Britain). "Enabling Community Integration: The Role of Public Authorities in Promoting an Ordinary Life for People with Learning Disabilities in the 1990s." London, Great Britain: The King's Fund.
  22. Racino, J. (1994, USA). Creating change in states, agencies and communities. In: Bradley, V. Ashbaugh,J.W. & Blaney , B.C.(Eds.), "Creating Individual Supports for People with Developmental Disabilities: A Mandate for Change on Many Levels." (pp. 171-196). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  23. Taylor, S., Biklen, D., Lehr, S.& Searl, S. (1987). "Purposeful Integration...Inherently Equal." Syracuse, NY: Center on Human Policy for the Technical Assistance for Parent Programs.
  24. Ford, A., Schnorr, R., Meyer, L., Davern, L., Black, J., & Dempsey, P. (1989). "The Syracuse community-referenced curriculum guide for students with moderate and severe disabilities." Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  25. Heller, K. (1989). The return to community. (pp. 8-9). American Journal of Community Psychology, 17(1): 1-15.
  26. Berrigan, C. (1984). All students belong in the classroom: Johnson City Schools, Johnson, New York. In: Duncan, J. (Eds.)(1990). "Materials on Integrated Education." Syracuse, NY: Center on Human Policy, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center in Community Integration.
  27. Murray-Seegert,C.(1989). "Nasty Girls, Thugs and Humans Like Me: Social Relationships between Severely Disabled and Nondisabled Students in the US." Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  28. Biklen, D. (1987). The integration question: Educational and residential placement issues. In: Cohen, D., Donnellan, A. & Paul, R. (Eds.), "Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders." (pp. 653-667). New York: John Wiley.
  29. McDonnell, A. & Hardman, M. (1989). The desegregation of America's special schools: Strategies for change. "Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps", 14(1), 68-74.
  30. Biklen, D. (1992). "Schooling without Labels: Parents, Educators and Inclusive Educators". Philadelphia, PA: Temple University.
  31. Walker, P. (1991). Where there is a way, there is not always a will: Technology, public policy, and the school integration of children who are technology-assisted. Children's Health Care, 20(2), 68-74.
  32. Sullivan, A.P. (1994). Supported Education: Past, present and future. "Community Support Network News", 10(2), 1,9.
  33. Weir, C., Fialka, J., Timmons, J. & Nord, D. (2011, Winter/Autumn). Feature issue on post secondary education and students with intellectual, developmental and other disabilities. "IMPACT", 23(3), 1-28.
  34. Racino, J., Walker, P. O'Connor, S. & Taylor, S. (1993). "Housing, Support and Community: Choices and Strategies for Adults with Disabilities." Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  35. Racino, J. & O'Connor, S. (1994). "A home of our own": Homes, neighborhoods and personal connections. In: Hayden, M. & Abery, B. (Eds.), Challenges for a Service System in Transition: Ensuring Quality Life Experiences for Persons with Developmental Disabilities". (pp.381-403). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  36. Taylor, S. Bogdan, R. & Racino, J. (1991). "Life in the community: Case Studies of Organizations Supporting People with Disabilities". Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  37. Hagner, D. & Klein, J. (2005), Homeownership for individuals with disabilities: Factors in mortgage decisions. "Journal of Disability Policy Studies", 15(4), 194-200.
  38. Shoultz, B. (1989). Supporting Individuals within Their Families or in Homes of their Own: The CAP-MR/DD Program in Raleigh, North Carolina. Syracuse, NY: Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Community Integration.
  39. Ratcliffe, P. (1999). Housing inequality and 'race': some critical reflections on the concept of 'social exclusion'. "Ethnic and Racial Studies", 22(1): 1-22.
  40. Massey, D.S. & Denton, N. A. (1990). Hypersegregation in US metropolitan areas: Black and hispanic segregation along five dimensions. "Demography", 26(1): 373-391.
  41. Rohe, W. & Freeman, L. (2001). Assisted housing and residential segregation: The role of race and ethnicity in the siting of assisted housing developments. "Journal of the American Planning Association", 67(3), 279-292.
  42. Massey,D., Condran, G.A., & Denton, M.A. (1987). The effect of residential segregation on black social and economic well-being, "Social Forces", 66, 29-56.
  43. Taylor, S.J.L. (1998). "Desegregation in Boston & Buffalo: The Influence of Local Leaders." Albany, NY: State University at Albany.
  44. Ley, D. (1993). Gentrification in recession: Social change in six Canadian inner cities, 1981-1986. "Urban Geography", 13(3): 230-256.
  45. Rosenbloom, R. A. (1979). The politics of the neighborhood movement. South Atlantic Urban Studies, 4: 103-120.
  46. Young, I.M. (2000). "Inclusion and Democracy". New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  47. Racino, J. (1993). Madison Mutual Housing Association. In: Racino, J., Walker, P., O'Connor, S. & Taylor, S. (1993). "Housing, Support and Community". (pp. 253-280). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  48. Kappel, B. & Wetherow, D. (1986). People caring about people. The Prairie Housing Cooperative. "Entourage", 1(4), 37-42.
  49. US Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2013, Spring). Confronting concentrated poverty with a mixed income strategy. Evidence Matters. Washington, DC: US HUD, Office of Policy Development and Research.
  50. Dreier, P. & Hulchanski, J.D. (1993). The role of nonprofit housing in Canada and the United States: some comparisons. Housing Policy Debate, 4(1): 43-79.
  51. O'Brien, J. & Towell, D. (2009)/10). "Conversations about Sustainable and Inclusive Communities: An Invitation". London: Centre for Inclusive Futures"
  52. National Council on Disability. (2010). The State of Housing in America in the 21st Century: A Disability Perspective. Washington, DC: Author.
  53. Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies. (2012). State of the Nation's Housing 2012. Cambridge, MA: President and Fellows of Harvard University.
  54. Racino, J. (2014). Housing, and disability: Toward inclusive, equitable and sustainable communities. Public Administration and Disability: Community Services Administration in the US. London: CRC Press, Francis and Taylor.
  55. Racino, J. (2000). "Personnel Preparation in Disability and Community Life: Toward Universal Approaches to Support". (pp. 215-216). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers.
  56. Schleien, S. (1993). Access and inclusion to community leisure services. "Parks and Recreation", 28(4), 66-72.
  57. Moon, S. (1994). "Making School and Integration Fun for Everyone: Places and Ways to Integrate". Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  58. Pedlar, A. (1990). Deinstitutionalization and the role of therapeutic recreationists in social integration. "Journal of Applied Recreation Research", 15(2): 101-115.
  59. Ward, L. (1988). Developing opportunities for an ordinary community life. In: D. Towell (Ed.), "An Ordinary Life in Practice: Developing Comprehensive Community-based Services for People with Learning Disabilities." (pp. 68-79). London: King Edward's Hospital Fund.
  60. Browder, D. & Copper, K. (1994, April). Inclusion of older adults with mental retardation in leisure opportunities. "Mental Retardation", 32(2), 91-99.
  61. Walker, P. & Edinger, B. (1988, May). The kid from Cabin 17. "Camping Magazine, 18-21.
  62. Walker, P. (1988). Supporting children into integrated recreation. TASH Newsletter, 4-6. In: P. Walker, "Resources on Integrated Recreation/Leisure Opportunities for Children and Teens with Developmental Disabilities". Syracuse, NY: Rehabilitation Research and Training Center.
  63. Bernabe, E. & Block, M. (1994). Modifying rules of a regular girls softball league to facilitate the inclusion of a child with severe disabilities. "Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps", 19(1), 24-31.
  64. Walker, P., Edinger, B., Willis, C. & Kenney, M. E. (1988). "Beyond the Classroom: Involving Students with Disabilities in Extracurricular Activities at Levy Middle School. Syracuse, NY: Center on Human Policy, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Community Integration and Transitional Living Services of Onondaga County, Inc.
  65. Bogdan, R. (1995). "Singing for and Inclusive Society: The Community Choir". In: Taylor, S.J., Bogdan, R. & Lutfiyya, Z.M. (Eds), The Variety of Community Experiences: Qualitative Studies of Family and Community Life". (pp. 141-154). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  66. Fisher, E. (1995). "A Temporary Place to Belong: Inclusion in a Public Speaking and Personal Relations Course". In: Taylor, S.J., Bogdan, R. & Lutfiyya, Z. (Eds.), "The Variety of Community Experiences: Qualitative Studies of Family and Community Life".(pp. 127-140). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  67. Taylor, S.J. (1991). "Leisure and Entertainment as Participation in Social Worlds. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, Center on Human Policy, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Community Integration.
  68. Racino, J. (2003). "Motorsports Research Series". Rome, NY: Community and Policy Studies.
  69. Boyd, M. (1997). Feminizing paid work. "Current Sociology: Feminism in the 1990s", 45(2), 49-73
  70. Wehman, P. & Kregel, J. (1998). "More Than a Job: Securing Satisfying Careers for People with Disabilities." Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  71. Rogan, P., Hagner, D., & Murphy, S. (1993). Natural supports: Reconceptualizing job coach roles. "Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps", 18(4), 275-281.
  72. Danley, K.S. & Anthony, W. (1987). The choose-get-keep model. "American Rehabilitation", 13(4), 6-9.
  73. Goodall, P., Lawyer, H., Wehman, P. (1994). Vocational rehabilitation and traumatic brain injury: A legislative and public policy perspective. "Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation", 9(2), 61-81.
  74. Hagner, D. & DiLeo, D. (1993). Working Together: Workplace Culture, Supported Employment and Persons with Disabilities. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
  75. Blanck, P. (2000). "Employment, Disability and the Americans with Disability Act: Issues in Law, Public Policy and Research." Chicago, IL: Northwestern University Press.
  76. Solovieva, T., Walsh, R.T., Hendricks, D.J. & Dowlder, D. (2010). Workplace personal assistance services for people with disabilities: Making productive employment possible. Journal of Rehabilitation, 76: 3-8.
  77. Wehman, P. & Kregel, J. (1985). A supported work approach to competitive employment of individuals with severe and moderate disabilities. Journal of the Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps, 10: 3-11.
  78. Nisbet, J. (1992). Natural Supports at School, Work, and in the Community. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  79. Taylor, S., Bogdan, R. & Racino, J. (1991). "Life in the Community: Case Studies of Organizations Supporting People with Disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  80. Towell, D. & Beardshaw, V. (1991). "Enabling Community Integration:. London, Great Britain: The King's Fund College."
  81. Traustadottir, R., Lutfiyya, Z.M. & Shoultz,B. (1994). Community living: A multicultural perspective. In: Hayden, M. & Abery, B. (Eds.), "Challenges for a Service System in Transition." (pp. 408-426). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  82. Racino, J. (1991). Organizations in community living: Supporting people with disabilities." "Journal of Mental Health Administration", 18(1), 51-59.
  83. Racino, J. (2002). Community integration and statewide systems change: Qualitative evaluation research in disability and community life. "Journal of Health and Social Policy", 14(3), 1-25.
  84. Racino, J. (2000). Personnel Preparation in Disability and Community Life: Toward Universal Approaches to Support." Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishing Co.
  85. Towell, D. & Beardshaw, V. (1991). "Enabling Community Integration." London, Great Britain: King's Fund College.
  86. Canadian Association for Community Living. (1990, Summer). New Brunswick says yes to integration. "Newsbreak." Downsview, Ontario: Author.
  87. Kreutzer, J. & Wehman, P. (1990). "Community Integration Following Traumatic Brain Injury." Sydney, Australia: Paul H. Brookes.
  88. Willer, B., Linn, R. & Allen, F. (1994). Community integration and barriers to integration for individuals with brain injury. In: Finlayson, M.A.J. & Garner, S. (Eds.), "Brain Injury Rehabilitation: Clinical Consideration" (pp. 355-375). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  89. Krankowski, T. (1995). Transitioning the student with tbi from school to employment, post secondary education and independent living. TBI Challenge, 3(2): 46-47.
  90. Singer, G.H.S. & Nixon, C.D. (1990). "You Can't Imagine Unless You have Been There Yourself": A Report on the Concerns of Parents of Children with Traumatic Brain Injury. Eugene, OR: Oregon Research Institute.
  91. McColl,M., Carlson, P., Johnston, J., Minnes, P., Shue, K., Davies, D. & Karlovitz, T. (1988). The definition of community integration: Perspectives of people with brain injuries. "Brain Injury", 12(1), 15-30.
  92. Wehman, P., Gentry, T., West, M., et al. (2009). Community integration: Current issues in cognitive and rehabilitation for individuals with brain injury. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 46: 909-918.
  93. Racino, J. (2004). "Utica Monday Nite: Arts, Culture, Nature and History on the City Level." Rome, NY: Community and Policy Studies.
  94. Harris, P. (1999, July). "Community Integration Policy and Abstracts: Fifth Edition." Syracuse, New York: Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center.
  95. Wehman, P., Wilson, K., Targett, P., West, M., Bricourt, J. & McKinley, W. (1999). Removing transportation barriers for persons with spinal cord injuries: An ongoing challenge to community reintegration. "Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation", 13(1), 21-30
  96. Willer, B., Ottenbacher, K.J. & Coad, M.L. (1994). The community integration questionnaire: A comparative examination. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 103-111.
  97. Carling, P. (1990). Community integration of people with psychiatric disabilities: Emerging trends. In: Jacobsen, J.W., Burchard, S., & Carling, P. (Eds.), Clinical Services, Social Adjustment and Worklife in Community Living." Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  98. Carling, P. (1988, April 6). Principles for Promoting Community Integration of People with Psychiatric Disabilities: The Challenge to Academic Psychology. Invited Address to the National Conference on Clinical Training Policy in Psychology at the University of Houston, Houston, Texas. Burlington, VT: Center for Change through Housing and Support, University of Vermont.
  99. Allard, M. (1996). Supported living policies and programs in the USA. In: J. Mansell & K. Ericsson, Deinstitutionalisation and Community Living (pp. 98-116). London: Chapman & Hall.
  100. Mirza, M. et al. (2008). Community reintegration for people with psychiatric disabilities: Challenging systemic barriers to service provision and public policy through participatory action research. "Disability and Society", 23(4): 323-336.
  101. Zasler, N.D. & Kreutzer, J.S. (1991). Family and sexuality after traumatic brain injury. In: J.M. Williams & T. Kay (Eds.), Head Injury: A Family Matter. (pp. 253-270). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  102. Reynolds, W. & Rosen, B. (1994, June). Special Issue on Public Policy. "The Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation", 9(2).
  103. Kreutzer, J.S., Leininger, B.S. & Harris, J.A. (1990). The evolving role of neuropsychology in community integration. In: J. Kreutzer & P. Wehman (Eds), Community Integration Following Traumatic Brain Injury. (pp. 49-66). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  104. Brain Injury Association of America and the Mount Sinai Brain Injury Research Center. (nd/2012). "State of the States: Meeting the Educational Needs of Children with Traumatic Brain Injury". NY, NY and Washington, DC: Authors.
  105. Knoll, J., Taylor, S., Racino, J., Good, A., Traustadottir, R., Searl, S., Meyer, I., Ford, A., Nisbet, J. & Biklen, D. (1987). "Annotated Bibliography on Community Integration for Persons with Severe Disabilities." (1987). Syracuse, NY: Center on Human Policy, Community Integration Project.
  106. Taylor, S., Racino, J., Knoll, J. & Lutfiyya, Z. (1987). "The Nonrestrictive Environment on Community Integration for Persons with the Most Severe Disabilities." Syracuse, NY: Human Policy Press.
  107. Racino, J. (1999b). "Statewide approaches to community integration: Moving toward technical assistance strategies that make a difference. "Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation", 13(1), 31-44.
  108. Taylor, S.J., Biklen, D., & Knoll, J. (1987). Community Integration for People with Severe Disabilities. NY, NY and London: Teachers College Press.
  109. Hayden, M. F. & Abery, B.H. (1994). Challenges for a Service System in Transition. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  110. Doty, Pamela (June 2000), Cost-Effectiveness of Home and Community-Based Long-Term Care Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  111. Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers on Family and Community Living. (1990). "Sharing the Vision...Meeting the Challenge." Washington, DC, Syracuse, NY & Minneapolis, Minnesota: University of Minnesota, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center Training Center on Community Living, Institute on Community Integration.
  112. Research and Training Center on Community Integration. (1988). "From Being in the Community to Being Part of the Community." Syracuse, NY: Research and Training Center, Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University.
  113. Center on Human Policy (1987). "A Statement in Support of Children and their Families." Reprinted in: Taylor, S., Racino, J., & Walker, P. (1992). Inclusive community living. In: Stainback, W. & Stainback, S. (Eds.), "Controversial Issues Confronting Special Education."(pp.299-312) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
  114. Taylor, S., Bogdan, R. & Racino, J. (1991). "Life in the Community: Case Studies of Organizations Supporting People with Disabilities". Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  115. Brazil, R. & Carle, N. (1988). An ordinary homelife. In: Towell, D. (Ed.), "An Ordinary Life in Practice: Developing Comprehensive Community-based Services for People with Learning Disabilities. (pp. 59-67). London: King Edward's Hospital Fund.
  116. Center on Human Policy. (1989). A Statement in Support of Adults Living in the Community. Syracuse, NY: Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Community Integration.
  117. Dilys Page (1995, April). Whose services? Whose needs? "Community Development Journal", 30(2), 217-235.
  118. Heumann, J. (1993). A disabled woman's reflections: Myths and realities of integration. In: Racino, J., Walker, P., O'Connor, S., & Taylor, S. (Eds.), "Housing, Support and Community: Choices and Strategies for Adults with Disabilities". (pp.233-249). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  119. Racino,J. (2000). "Personnel Preparation in Disability and Community Life: Universal Approaches to Support". Springfield, IL: Charles C.Thomas Publishers.
  120. Roberts, E. & O'Brien, J. (1993). Foreword. In: J. Racino, et al, "Housing, Support and Community". (pp.xi-xx). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  121. Racino, J. (1990). Preparing personnel to work in community support services. In: Kaiser, A.P. & McWhorter, C.M. (Eds.), Preparing Personnel to Work with Persons with Severe Disabilities." (pp.203-226). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  122. Walker, P. (2009, January). Implementation of consumer-directed services for intellectual and developmental disabilities: A national study. "Policy Research Brief", 20(1). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
  123. Abery, B., Mithaug, D., Stancliffe, R., & Wehmeyer, M. (2003). "Theory in Self-Determination: Foundations for Educational Practice." Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
  124. Kennedy, M. (1993). Turning the pages of life. In: J. Racino, P. Walker, S. O'Connor, & S. Taylor (Eds.), "Housing, Support and Community". (pp. 205-216). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  125. Bogdan, R. & Taylor, S. (1999). "Building Stronger Communities for All: Thoughts about Community Participation for People with Developmental Disabilities." Syracuse, NY: Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University. [Presented to the President's Committee on "Intellectual Disabilities]. Taylor, Racino & Shoultz, 1988)
  126. O'Brien, J. & Mount, B. (2007) "Make A Difference: A Guidebook for Person-Centered Direct Support". Toronto, Ontario: Inclusion Press.
  127. O'Brien, J. & O'Brien, C. (2002). "Implementing Person-Centered Planning: Voices of Experience." Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Inclusion Press.
  128. Lutfiyya, Z.M (1990). "Affectionate Bonds: What We Can Learn By Listening To Friends." Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, Center on Human Policy.
  129. Center for Personal Assistance Services. (2011). "About the Center." San Francisco, CA: University of California.
  130. Weissman, J., Kennedy, J. & Litvak, S. (1991). "Personal Perspectives on Personal Assistance Services." Berkeley, CA: Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Public Policy and Independent Living.
  131. Bradley, V. and Bersani, H. (1990). "Quality Assurance for People with Developmental Disabilities". Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  132. Felce, D. & Perry, J. (2007). Living with supports in the community: Factors associated with quality life outcomes. In: Odom, S., Horner, R., Snell, M., & Blacher, J. (Eds.), "Handbook on Developmental Disabilities". Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  133. Lutfiyya, Z.M, Moseley, C., Walker, P., Zollers, N., Lehr, S., Pugliese, J., Callahan, M., & Centra, N. (1987, July). A Question of Community: Quality of Life and Integration in "Small Residential Units" and Other Residential Settings. Syracuse, NY: Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University.
  134. Braddock, D., Hemp, R., Fujuira, G., Bachelder, L., & Mitchell, D. (1990). "The State of the States in Developmental Disabilities." Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
  135. Emerson, E., Robertson, J., Gregory, N., Hatton, C. et al (2001). Quality and costs of supportive living residences and group homes in the UK. "American Journal on Intellectual Disabilities"
  136. Hagner, D. (1989). "Social Integration of Supported Employees: A Qualitative Study". Syracuse, NY: Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Community Integration.
  137. Knoll, J., Covert, S., Osuch, R., O'Connor, S., Agosta, J., & Blaney, B. (1992). "Family Support Services in the US: An End of the Decade Status Report." Cambridge, MA: Human Services Research Institute.
  138. Larson, S. & Lakin, K.C. (1992). Direct care staff stability in a national sample of small group homes. "Intellectual Disabilities", 30, 13-22.
  139. Lowe, K. & dePaiva, S. (1988). "The Evaluation of NIMROD: A Community-based Service for People with Mental Handicaps." Cardiff, Wales: The Mental Handicaps in Wales Applied Research Unit, St. David's Hospital.
  140. Racino, J. (1999a). Policy, Program Evaluation Research in Disability and Community Life: Community Support for All". London: The Haworth Press.
  141. Goode, D. (1994). "Quality of Life for Persons with Disabilities: International Perspectives". Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
  142. Tideman, M. (2005). Conquering life: The first experiences of the integrated generation In: K. Johnson & R. Traustadottir (Eds.), "Deinstitutionalization and People with Intellectual Disabilities: In and Out of Institutions". (pp. 211-221). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
  143. Turnbull, H.R., Stowe, M.J., Turnbull, A., & Schrandt, M.S. (2007). Public policy and developmental disabilities: A 35-year and 5-year prospective based on the core concepts of disability. In: Odom, S., Horner, R. H., Snell, M.E., & Blacher, J. (Eds.), "Handbook on Developmental Disabilities". (pp.15-34). London: Guilford Press.
  144. Towell, D. & Racino, J. (1990). "Consultation with the National Health Service of Czechoslovakian Government in Prague, Czechoslovakia". London, UK & Syracuse, NY: National Development Team, Great Britain and Syracuse University, Center on Human Policy, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Community Integration.
  145. Center on Human Policy (1990). "Meetings at the Center on Human Policy." Syracuse, NY: Center on Human Policy, Syracuse University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center on Community Integration.
  146. Racino, J. (2011, draft). "Outcomes of Technical Assistance in Community Integration in States in the US: A Retrospective and Prospective on the Rehabilitation Research and Training Centers. Rome, NY: Author.
  147. United Nations. (2012). "The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities", Article 19, Living in the community. New York: New York: United Nations ENABLE. http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml
  148. Racino, J. (2014, in press). "Public Administration and Disability: Community Services Administration in the US". NY, NY: CRC Press, Francis and Taylor.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.