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 American societyRacino, J. (1999). Integration. "Policy, Program Evaluation and Research in Disability: Community Support for All". (pp.8-9). London: Haworth Press.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. from the local to the national level, and for decades was a defining agenda in countries such as Great Britain.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. Throughout recent decades, community integration programs have been increasingly effective in improving healthcare access for people with disabilities. They have been valued for providing a "voice for the voiceless".Cyril et al. (2015). Exploring the role of community engagement in improving the health of disadvantaged populations: a systematic review. Global Health Action, 8(29842) 1-9.
In the United States, the Consortium of Citizens for DisabilitiesConsortium of Citizens with Disabilities.(2012). Washington, DC. Retrieved from: advocates for a national public policy that "ensures the self-determination, independence, empowerment, integration, and inclusion of children and adults with disabilities in all parts of society". Some countries, such as Canada, cite inclusion as the primary consideration: the unifying, global agenda in "disability and community life".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 InternationalThe Association of Persons with Severe Handicaps. (2011). "About Us: Equity, Opportunity, and Inclusion." Seattle, WA: Author
Theory From the lens of special education, theorists have defined types of integration as physical, functional, social, community, and organizational.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. Within social networks in support of people with disabilities, community integration signifies opportunities for participation in schools, careers, homes, relationships, leisure, and a variety of interests and lifestyles.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. Bengt Nirje and the late Wolf Wolfensberger are internationally regarded for their concepts of normalization and social role valorization,Wolfensberger, W. (1983). Social role valorization: A proposed new term for the principle of normalization. "Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities", 21(6), 234-239.Nirje, B. (1985). The basis and logic of the normalization principle. "Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities", 11(2), 65-68. with a particular emphasis on physical and social integration. Anders Gustavsson (c. 1990) specified that "physical integration" best describes the common use of the term "integration," while "social integration" applied to the struggle for equality and quality in life.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.
The original intent of community integration was to promote the participation of people with disabilities in typical or public environments, in contrast to exclusionary practices such as the minority-group model.Taylor, S., Biklen, D. & Knoll, J. (1987). "Community Integration for Persons with Severe Disabilities." New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Racino, J. (1999a). "Policy, Program Evaluation and Research in Disability: Community Support for All." London: The Haworth Press. As the field has shifted in favor of community support, theories related to community living have begun to require applicability beyond a minority-group modelRacino, J. (2000). "Personnel Preparation in Disability and Community Life: Toward Universal Approaches to Support." Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers. with a new emphasis on self-determination.Abery, B., Mithaug, D., Stancliffe, R., & Wehmeyer, M. (2003). "Theory in Self-Determination: Foundations for Educational Practice." Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas Publishers. Racino has described these theories to 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.
Systems change Taylor, in his analysis of community systems in the US, proposed the principle of the non-restrictive environment as a counterpoint to the federal government's least-restrictive-environment principle.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.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. As of 2014, the governing principle in the United States was that of the most integrated setting based upon the Supreme Court Olmstead Decision.Consortium of Citizens with Disabilities. (2012). "Olmstead Implementation and the Concept of the Most Integrated Setting". Washington, DC: Author.
Before the Olmstead decision, the Supreme Court addressed community integration multiple times in Halderman v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital, a class action case filed in Pennsylvania by attorney David Ferleger.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). Although the Olmstead decision did not explicitly address the constitutional issues decided in the Pennhurst case and similar, limitations in Olmstead have been critiqued and it has been argued that there is a constitutional right to community services.Ferleger, The Constitutional Right to Community Services, 26 Georgia State University Law Rev. 763 (2010)
Broader systemic change in support of community integration faces challenges in consideration of local public agencies, agreement on strategic approaches (e.g., enabling leadership, putting people first, values and vision, learning for quality), and the implications for national policy.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. Disability agency, state-level disability systems, community, and societal change are essential (but insufficient) elements of the process and outcomes of community integration.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.
As community integration is strongly rooted in societal participation, it has wide application and presence across many community practice fields, including community psychology and sociology, inclusive education in local school systems, competitive businesses (with rehabilitation), rural independent living, urban sociology, local parks and recreation programs, community development, housing, and neighbourhoods.
Education Community integration in an educational setting is of historical and modern significance, described as "more comprehensive than academic mainstreaming".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. In an educational context, community integration refers to opportunities "to learn practical social and community living skills in a wide variety of community settings".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. Based in part on the Civil rights movementHeller, K. (1989). The return to the community. (pp. 8-9). American Journal of Community Psychology, 17(1): 1-15. as represented by Brown v. Board of Education, school integration focused on the right to free and appropriate education.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.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.
Educational integration is often equated with inclusion and remains controversial (although legally supported) in the United States partly due to special-education systems.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.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.Biklen, D. (1992). "Schooling without Labels: Parents, Educators and Inclusive Educators". Philadelphia, PA: Temple University. School integration often applies to children with more significant support needs, such as those requiring assistive technology.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. There is general acceptance and support at the post-secondary level in almost all populations, as many colleges have developed disability services departments.Sullivan, A.P. (1994). Supported Education: Past, present and future. "Community Support Network News", 10(2), 1,9.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. Instead of educational integration, the goal is for continued school reform through inclusion (education) and for education with legally-mandated accommodations.
Housing