Appendix: A general guide to the appropriateness of some sample methodologies to varying situations and circumstances
The first four approaches from the community of practice concerned about normalisation teaching tradition:
24-Hour Planning (Karen Green and Mary Kovaks):
Focuses service development on careful individual plans
that specify the exact settings and supports a person would need to engage in
functional and meaningful activity.
Seeks to establish detailed and technically-specific,
weekly, daily and parts-of-day plans.
Seeks to balance participation in the planning process so
that professional voices do not drown out the contributions of those who know
and love a person.
Personal Futures Planning (Beth Mount and John O’Brien):
Forum: the individual in the first instance - but a group
of people is enlisted to develop ideas on how to make the individual’s
dream a reality by building on opportunities and overcoming
Focuses on key areas of the individual’s life,
history, places they frequent, relationships, preferences, dreams and
Group members commit themselves to particular actions and
set timeframes for these.
Useful in information gathering, describing present and
future and deciding on what is good for and working in favour of the focus
Strong emphasis on profiling.
For a useful overview, see Mount, 1992.
Individual Design Session (Yates 1980):
Focuses on reviewing personal history and comparing and
contrasting experiences with other populations, groups and
Useful in guiding service providers towards a deeper
understanding of the focus person’s experience and thus building
Rooted in PASS.
Getting to know you (Brost, Johnson and Deprey, 1982):
Seeks to establish definition of service system capacities
required to provide individualised supports.
Blends normalisation teaching perspective on gathering
information and understanding people’s needs with an approach to
individual needs assessment, the development of general service plans and case
MAPS - Making Action Plans for normalisation – formerly known as the Mc.Gill action planning system (Forest and Lusthaus, 1989):
Forum: individual and group of people who know, work with
and like them.
Focuses on an individual’s history, dreams,
nightmares and ideas, the things that best describe the individual and his or
her gifts, strengths and talents.
Seeks to establish consensus opinion on where a person
needs to go - and what everyone involved needs to do to improve a person’s
life; then develop an action plan for getting there.
Useful in historical and current profiling and
Has its origin in the 24-hour planning
Historically highly procedural with specified steps. In
practice, now evolving towards a more flexible approach based on general good
Personal Histories (Sandra Landis and Jack Pealer, Residential Inc, Ohio):
Draws directly from normalisation teaching community of practice.
PATH - Planning Alternative Tomorrows with Hope:
Forum: a committed group of people.
Focuses on where the person is now and strengths of his or
her support system – to be maintained. Clarifies dreams and works up an
Seeks to establish strategies for achieving valued futures
when sustained and co-ordinated action is required.
Useful in establishing direction and goals for the person
- and action plans to achieve goals identified.
8-step problem-solving approach.
ELP - Essential Lifestyle Planning (Michael Smull and Susan Burke Harrison, supporting people with severe reputations in the community):
Very detailed planning style.
Seeks to establish what is important to the person, what
supports are available and getting a lifestyle that works for the focus person
Useful in information gathering, planning a service around
a person to suit them and their needs and day-to-day action plan
Useful in supporting transitions.
For an overview see NWTDT book.
Clarifies circles of support for the focus