The phrase "community supports" has emerged as one of the key concepts in the field of developmental disabilities in recent years. The phrase is most commonly used to refer to both the formal and informal supports necessary to enable people with disabilities to live in the community and participate fully in community life. "Formal supports" refer to supports provided through services and programs while "informal supports" are based on personal ties and social relationships. While the field of developmental disabilities has acquired significant experience in the operation of formal support services and programs, it has only recently begun to explore the importance of informal social networks and personal relationships in the lives of people with developmental disabilities (Forest, 1989; King's Fund Centre, 1988; Lutfiyya, 1990; O'Brien, 1987; Perske, 1988; Snow, 1989; Strully & Strully, 1985; Taylor & Bogdan, 1989; Wolfensberger, 1983).
This newfound interest in social networks and personal connections has its roots in recent criticism of community-based services for failing to connect people with disabilities with other community members (McKnight, 1987; Smull, 1989). Most critics of community-based services argue that although community programs have been successful as an alternative to institutional services, they are facing serious and increasing problems. This criticism of community-based services has led to a call for radical changes in current community programs and the critics have outlined an alternative to the traditional service approach. This new approach should start with the person and an examination of his or her social networks and informal community supports. Then design formal support interventions which build on and strengthen the natural networks in the community (Nisbet & Hagner, 1988; Taylor, Racino, Knoll, & Lutfiyya, 1987). Smull (1989) calls this a shift from the current "paradigm of program" toward a "paradigm of support."
While the critics of community programs agree to a large extent on what changes are needed, they disagree whether the new approach should replace the current services system or if it should be added to the current services. Some critics have declared the community-based service system bankrupt and basically unusable (McKnight, 1978; Wolfensberger, 1987). One of their major criticisms is that instead of building community, professional services replace people's natural helping networks and destroy societal communality (McKnight, 1987; Wolfensberger, 1983). Others argue that although community programs are facing serious problems, the current service system should not be altogether abandoned (Smull & Bellamy, 1991). Instead they want to add new dimensions to the current service delivery: a new approach which, instead of replacing natural helping networks, builds on and strengthens informal community support networks.
McKnight (1987), who has inspired many of the critics of community programs has argued that the current social policy has failed to take into account a major social domain: the community itself. By "community" McKnight means the informal sector of family, friends, neighbors, neighborhood centers, churches, civic groups, ethnic associations, and so on. Thus, what is at the heart of the criticism of current community services is the failure to integrate people with disabilities into community life and connect them with informal networks of supports. Because relationships and connections to what is seen as "natural" community supports is at the heart of the criticism, this has resulted in recent attempts to develop strategies and programmatic attempts to connect people with disabilities with other community members. Examples of these efforts are "citizen advocacy" conceptualized by Wolf Wolfensberger (Baucom, 1980; Wolfensberger & Zauha, 1973); "personal futures planning" or "life-style planning" developed by John O'Brien and Connie Lyle O'Brien (Mount & Zwernik, 1988; O'Brien, 1987); "circles of friends" developed by Marsha Forest and Judith Snow (Mount, Beeman, & Ducharme, 1988a; Forest & Lusthaus, 1989); and "bridge-building" (Mount, Beeman, & Ducharme, 1988b; O'Connell, 1988). What most of these efforts have in common is the emphasis on interweaving formal services with informal supports. The primary goal is to promote inclusion of people with disabilities in neighborhoods, schools, workplaces, and other community environments. The emphasis is on interdependence, self-determination, choice, and empowerment of people with disabilities and their families.
The current debate in the field of developmental disabilities indicates that there is a need to clarify what we mean by "community supports." Who should provide such support and what should be the relationship between the formal service system and the informal community networks. Service providers and families need to know how they can assist people with disabilities to form friendships and become involved in community associations and organizations. Yet, the area of "community supports" and the interweaving of community networks and formal services represents an essentially uncharted territory in the field of developmental disabilities. If people with disabilities are to be successfully and fully integrated into community life--if they are to become part of the community and not merely be present in the community--then we need new knowledge to guide our way (Bogdan & Taylor, 1987).
The case study reported here represents one of the attempts to develop our knowledge and understanding of "community supports." The study examines in details the supports provided to one individual with severe disabilities and tries to answer questions such as: What are the most essential components of community supports? How can human service workers facilitate and encourage relationships between people with disabilities and other community members? What does "community support" mean in the life of an individual with severe disabilities and what does it mean for the human service worker providing the supports? How are community supports related to concepts such as self-determination, choice-making, autonomy, empowerment, and independence? What does the interweaving of formal and informal supports look like in practice? Should community supports be defined as "work" or is it more appropriate to label the activities of those who provide supports in other terms than work?
The goal of this case study is to gain an indepth understanding of what community living means for one individual with severe disabilities and learn from his struggles to become a part of community life. Looking indepth at the life of one individual and holding his experiences up to the current trends in the field will enable us to examine what the emerging support paradigm may mean in practice and what changes it could bring about in people's everyday lives. In addition to highlighting the current trends and emerging paradigm shift in community-based services this case study also gives a valuable historical perspective. The individual in this case study was born in 1912 and has experienced the past two service models in the disability field, i.e., the institutional model of services and the community-based service model. He is now, along with the rest of the field, being influenced by the emerging support paradigm.