"The normalization principle means making available to all people with disabilities patterns of life and conditions of everyday living which are as close as possible to the regular circumstances and ways of life or society."The basis and logic of the normalisatioprinciple, Bengt Nirje, Sixth International Congress of IASSMD, Toronto, 1982 Normalization is a rigorous theory of human services that can be applied to disability services.Wolfensberger, W. & Glenn, L. (1973). "Program Analysis of Service Systems (PASS): A Method for the Quantitative Evaluation of Human Services". Vol. 1. Handbook. Volume II. Field Manual. Downsview, Toronto, Canada: National Institute on Mental Retardation. Normalization theory arose in the early 1970s, towards the end of the institutionalisation period in the US; it is one of the strongest and long lasting integration theories for people with severe disabilities.
Definition Normalization involves the acceptance of some people with disabilities, with their disabilities, offering them the same conditions as are offered to other citizens. It involves an awareness of the normal rhythm of life – including the normal rhythm of a day, a week, a year, and the life-cycle itself (e.g., celebration of holidays; workday and weekends). It involves the normal conditions of life – housing, schooling, employment, exercise, recreation and freedom of choice previously denied to individuals with severe, profound, or significant disabilities.Nirje, Bengt as cited in S. Cohen & C. Gothelf. (1988). A Preservice Trining Curriculum for Administrators for Community-Based Residential Programs Service People with Developmental Disabilities. NY, NY: City University of New York, Hunter College.
Wolf Wolfensberger's definition is based on a concept of cultural normativeness: "Utilization of a means which are as culturally normative as possible, in order to establish and/or maintain personal behaviors and characteristics that are as culturally normative as possible." Thus, for example, "medical procedures" such as shock treatment or restraints are not just punitive, but also not "culturally normative" in society. His principle is based upon social and physical integration, which later became popularized, implemented and studied in services as community integration encompassing areas from work to recreation and living arrangement.Orientation Manual on Mental Retardation, Pt. 1. Downsview, Ontario: National Institute on Mental Retardation, Kinsmen NIMR Building, pp. 41-50.
Theoretical foundations This theory includes "the dignity of risk", rather than an emphasis on "protection"Misconceptions on the principle of normalisation, Bank-Mikkelsen, Address to IASSMD Conference, Washington, D.C., 1976. and is based upon the concept of integration in community life. The theory is one of the first to examine comprehensively both the individual and the service systems, similar to theories of human ecology which were competitive in the same period.
The theory undergirds the deinstitutionalization and community integration movements, and forms the legal basis for affirming rights to education, work, community living, medical care and citizenship. In addition, self-determination theory could not develop without this conceptual academic base to build upon and critique.Allard, M., Howard, A., Vorderer, L. & Wells, A. (1999). "Ahead of His Time: Selected Speeches of Gunnar Dybwad." Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
The theory of social role valorization is closely related to the principle of normalizationNirje, B. (1985). The basis and logic of the normalization principle. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 11(2): 65-68. having been developed with normalization as a foundation.Wolfensberger, W. (1983). Social role valorization: A proposed new term for the principle of normalization. Mental Retardation, 21, 234-9. This theory retains most aspects of normalization concentrating on socially valued roles and means, in socially valued contexts to achieve integration and other core quality of life values.
History The principle of normalization was developed in Scandinavia during the 1960s and articulated by Bengt Nirje of the Swedish Association for Retarded Children with the US human service system, a product of Wolf Wolfensberger formulation of normalization and evaluations of the early 1970s.The normalisation principle and its human management implications, in R. Kugel & W. Wolfensberger (Eds.) Changing Patterns in Residential Services for the Mentally Retarded, Washington, D.C: President's Committee on Mental Retardation, 1969.Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The Principle of Normalization in Human Services. Toronto, Canada: National Institute on Mental Retardation. According to the history taught in the 1970s, although the "exact origins are not clear", the names Bank-Mikkelson (who moved the principle to Danish law), Grunewald, and Nirje from Scandinavia (later Ministry of Community and Social Services in Toronto, Canada) are associated with early work on this principle. Wolfensberger is credited with authoring the first textbook and Rutherford H. (Rud) Turnbull III reports that integration principles are incorporated in US laws.
Academe The principle was developed and taught at the university level and in field education during the 1970s, especially by Wolf Wolfensberger of the United States, one of the first clinical psychologists in the field of intellectual disability, through the support of Canada and the National Institute on Mental Retardation (NIMR) and Syracuse University in New York.Wolfensberger, W. (1972). The Principle of Normalization in Human Services Toronto, Canada: National Institute on Mental Retardation. PASS and PASSING marked the quantification of service evaluations based on normalization, and in 1991 a report was issued on the quality of institutional and community programs in the US and Canada based on a sample of 213 programs in the US, Canada and the United Kingdom.Flynn, R. J., LaPointe, N., Wolfensberger, W. & Thomas, S. (1991, July 19). Quality of Institutional and Community Human Service Programs in Canada and the United States. ""Journal of Psychiatry and Neurosciences"", 16(3): 146-153.
Significance in structuring service systems Normalization has had a significant effect on the way services for people with disabilities have been structured throughout the UK, Europe, Scandinavia, North America, Israel, Australasia (e.g., New Zealand), and, increasingly, other parts of the world. It has led to a new conceptualisation of disability as not simply being a medical issue (the medical model which saw the person as indistinguishable from the disorder, though Wolfensberger continued to use the term into the 2000s),Wolfensberger, W. & Associates. (2001). "The 19th Century "Moral Treatment" Approach to Human Services, Especially to the Treatment of Mental Disorder, and Lessons for Services for Our Own Day". Syracuse, NY: Training Institute for Human Services Planning, Leadership and Change Agentry. but as a social situation as described in social role valorization.
Government reports began from the 1970s to reflect this changing view of disability (Wolfensberger uses the term devalued people), e.g. the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board report of 1981 made recommendations on "the rights of people with intellectual handicaps to receive appropriate services, to assert their rights to independent living so far as this is possible, and to pursue the principle of normalization." The New York State Quality of Care Commission also recommended education based upon principles of normalization and social role valorization addressing "deep-seated negative beliefs of and about people with disabilities".Cashen, J. (1989, Nov-Dec). The need for value-enhancement training and informal support systems. Quality of Care, Issue 42: 1-3. Wolfensberger's work was part of a major systems reform in the US and Europe of how individuals with disabilities would be served, resulting in the growth in community services in support of homes, families and community living.Flynn, R.J. & Nitsch, K.E. (1980). Normalization, Social Integration and Community Services. (pp. 117-129). Baltimore, MD; Paul H. Brookes.Taylor, S. Bogdan, R. & Racino, J. (1991). Life in the Community: Case Studies of Organizations Supporting People with Disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
Critical ideology of human services Normalization is often described in articles and education texts that reflect deinstitutionalization, family care or community living as the ideology of human services.Landesman, S. & Butterfield, E. (1987, August). Normalization and deinstitutionalization of mentally retarded individuals: Controversy and facts. "American Psychologist", 42: 809-816.Bruininks, R.H. & Lakin, K.C. (1985). Living and Learning in the Least Restrictive Environment". Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Its roots are European-American, and as discussed in education fields in the 1990s, reflect a traditional gender relationship-position (Racino, 2000), among similar diversity critiques of the period (i.e., multiculturalism).Racino, J. (2000). "Personnel Preparation in Disability: Toward Universal Approaches to Support". Binghamton, NY: Charles C. Thomas Publishers. Normalization has undergone extensive reviews and critiques, thus increasing its stature through the decades often equating it with school mainstreaming, life success and normalization, and deinstitutionalization.Zipperlin, H. (1975). Normalization. In: J. Wortis (Ed.), "Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, VII". NY, NY: Brumer Mazel Publishers.Chappell, A. (1992). Towards a sociological critique of normalisation principle. "Disability, Handicap and Society", 7(1): 35-51.Lippman, L. (1977). "Normalization" and related concepts: Words and ambiguities. Child Welfare, 56(5): 301-310.Phillips, M.J. (1992). "Try Harder": The experience of disability and dilemmas of normalization. aina; ap. Ferguson, D. Ferguson, & S. Taylor (Eds), Interpreting Disability: A Qualitative Reader. NY & London: Teachers College, Columbia University.
In contemporary society
In the United States, large public institutions housing adults with developmental disabilities began to be phased out as a primary means of delivering services in the early 1970s and the statistics have been documented until the present day (2015) by David Braddock and his colleagues.Braddock, D., Hemp, R., Fujiura, G., Bachelder, L., & Mitchell, D. (1990). "The State of the States in Developmental Disabilities". Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. As early as the late 1960s, the normalization principle was described to change the pattern of residential services, as exposes occurred in the US and reform initiatives began in Europe. These proposed changes were described in the leading text by the President's Committee on Mental Retardation (PCMR) titled: "Changing Patterns in Residential Services for the Mentally Retarded" with leaders Burton Blatt, Wolf Wolfensberger, Bengt Nirje, Bank-Mikkelson, Jack Tizard, Seymour Sarason, Gunnar Dybwad, Karl Gruenwald, Robert Kugel, and lesser known colleagues Earl Butterfield, Robert E. Cooke, David Norris, H. Michael Klaber, and Lloyd Dunn.Kugel, R.H. & Wolfensberger, W. (1969). Changing Patterns in Residential Services for the Mentally Retarded." Washington, DC: President's Committee on Mental Retardation"
Deinstitutionalization and community development