SUPPORT WORK: THE FUNDAMENTALS

 

Support can be offered in a variety of different environments, including residential, vocational, recreation and leisure.

In all aspects of support work, fundamental knowledge from the field of disability studies can offer caregivers important direction.

 

 

 

Introduction

Supporting people who have both an intellectual disability and a mental illness is not always accessible or easy to read.

 

 

 

People with disabilities can be supported by paid support workers, family members or volunteers.

Support can be offered in a variety of different environments including residential, vocational, recreation and leisure.

Support may take place in:

Residential homes

Group homes

Employment services

Job centers

Work placements

Colleges

Schools

Universities

People’s homes

Parks

Clubs

More

Not all counties have disability laws.

Which counties do and don’t have disability laws?

 

 

 Legal & Workplace Frameworks Human Rights & Non-Discrimination: Anti-discrimination laws ensure people with disabilities receive equal benefits, legal protection, and access to services, establishing accessibility as a fundamental right rather than a privilege. Employment Equity Laws: These mandates prohibit denying job opportunities to qualified individuals based on ability. They shift the hiring standard to focus on essential job functions rather than physical or cognitive limitations. Employer Duty to Accommodate: Where disability legislation is enforced, employers must proactively identify and remove workplace barriers, providing reasonable adjustments unless doing so causes undue hardship. Global Implementation Variance: Enforcement varies globally; jurisdictions with dedicated disability acts legally compel employers to maintain accessible, safe environments, whereas regions without explicit laws often leave accommodation to employer discretion. Essential Reasonable Adjustments for Employers: Physical Accessibility: Ramps, wider doorways, accessible restrooms, adjusted desk heights, and tactile or visual safety signals. Technology & Tools: Screen readers, adaptive keyboards, speech-to-text software, and accessible internal communication platforms. Workplace Flexibility: Modified work schedules, remote/hybrid work arrangements, reallocated non-essential tasks, and tailored training materials.

Countries with Comprehensive National Disability Laws.

These jurisdictions have dedicated, standalone disability acts or broad civil rights legislation specifically prohibiting discrimination and mandating reasonable accommodations in employment and public life:  Americas: United States (Americans with Disabilities Act), Canada (Accessible Canada Act), Brazil (Statute of Persons with Disabilities), Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru.Europe: United Kingdom (Equality Act 2010), Germany (General Act on Equal Treatment), France, Ireland, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Austria.Asia-Pacific: Australia (Disability Discrimination Act), New Zealand, Japan (Act on the Elimination of Disability Discrimination), India (Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act), Philippines, South Korea.Africa & Middle East: South Africa (Employment Equity Act), Kenya (Persons with Disabilities Act), Nigeria, Uganda, Israel, Jordan.Countries Dependent on General Labour or Constitutional Clauses: Rather than enforcing detailed, standalone disability acts with specific accommodation requirements for employers, these countries primarily address disability through general non-discrimination clauses in their national constitutions or broad labour codes. Examples: Switzerland, Ghana, Paraguay, Hungary, Viet Nam, Ethiopia.  Impact: While discrimination is technically illegal on paper, these frameworks often lack specific enforcement mechanisms, leaving gaps in practical workplace adjustments and accessible infrastructure.Regions with Limited or Unenforced Legal Protections: A smaller group of nations lacks specific legislative protections, or faces significant challenges enforcing existing mandates due to conflict, economic hardship, or weak administrative oversight:Examples: Somalia, South Sudan, Yemen, Eritrea, Afghanistan, and several small island developing states.  Impact: Employers in these regions rarely face legal obligations to make jobs accessible, leaving accommodations entirely dependent on voluntary employer initiative or informal community support.While both the US Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the UK Equality Act 2010 aim to eliminate workplace barriers, they approach disability protections from slightly different legal and cultural frameworks.1. Definition of Disability US (ADA): Defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities. The 2008 ADA Amendments Act (ADAAA) broadened this definition, but employees must still show that an impairment severely impacts daily functions compared to most people.UK (Equality Act 2010): Defines a disability as a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. "Long-term" explicitly means it has lasted, or is likely to last, for at least 12 months. Additionally, certain conditions (such as cancer, HIV, and multiple sclerosis) are automatically protected from the day of diagnosis.2. Legal Terminology & Focus US (ADA): Uses the term Reasonable Accommodation. The focus is on providing specific, individual modifications that allow a qualified candidate or employee to perform the essential functions of a job without changing the core nature of the role.  UK (Equality Act 2010): Uses the term Reasonable Adjustment. The law focuses heavily on counteracting any "provision, criterion, or practice" (PCP) or physical feature that puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled individuals. This gives UK adjustments a broad scope, often encompassing changes to policies, sickness absence rules, or working hours.  3. Defence Standards for Employers US (ADA): An employer can refuse an accommodation if it causes Undue Hardship. This is a high legal bar that focuses heavily on financial cost, overall resources, and operational impact relative to the size and budget of the employer.  UK (Equality Act 2010): An employer can refuse an adjustment if it is Not Reasonable. What is considered "reasonable" takes into account financial cost, practical feasibility, employer size, and—crucially—how effective the adjustment will actually be in removing the disadvantage.4. The Process of Finding a Solution US (ADA): Formally mandates an Interactive Process—a collaborative dialogue between the employer and employee to explore options, evaluate needs, and select an effective accommodation. Failing to engage in this process in good faith can lead to legal liability for the employer.UK (Equality Act 2010): Does not explicitly require an "interactive process" by name in statutory text, though consultative discussions are strongly recommended in the ACAS Code of Practice. The legal liability falls strictly on whether the employer ultimately made the reasonable adjustment, not on the formal procedure used to get there.5. Coverage Thresholds US (ADA): Title I (employment) applies only to private employers with 15 or more employees (though state-level laws may cover smaller businesses).UK (Equality Act 2010): Applies to all employers regardless of size, including micro-businesses and sole traders with even a single employee.FeatureUS (Americans with Disabilities Act)UK (Equality Act 2010)Primary TermReasonable AccommodationReasonable AdjustmentEmployer Size Threshold15+ employees (Title I)1+ employees (All employers)Legal Threshold for RefusalUndue HardshipReasonableness / EffectivenessTimeframe Standard for DisabilityNo set duration (focuses on severity)"Long-term" (12+ months expected)Formal Interactive Requirement Explicitly required Best practice, but outcome-focusedUnder the UK Equality Act 2010, disability discrimination is categorized into distinct legal concepts to ensure protection covers both obvious prejudice and subtle, systemic barriers.1. Direct Discrimination (Section 13)Direct discrimination occurs when an employer or service provider treats a disabled person less favorably than they treat—or would treat—a non-disabled person, specifically because of their disability.Key Focus: The motive or reason for the treatment is the disability itself.Justification: It can never be legally justified, regardless of the employer’s intentions or business needs.Example: A qualified job applicant is rejected for a promotion, and the hiring manager explicitly tells them, "We aren't giving you the management role because your physical disability wouldn't project the right image for our team."2. Indirect Discrimination (Section 19): Indirect discrimination occurs when an organisation applies a provision, criterion, or practice (PCP) equally to everyone, but that rule puts people with a specific disability at a particular disadvantage compared to non-disabled people. Key Focus: Neutral rules, policies, or practices that unintentionally disadvantage disabled individuals. Justification: An employer can defend indirect discrimination if they prove the policy is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim (known as objective justification).Example: A company mandates that all staff must attend a mandatory training day on the top floor of an old building with no elevator. While the rule applies to everyone equally, it indirectly discriminates against employees who use wheelchairs.3. Discrimination Arising from Disability (Section 15)This unique provision protects disabled individuals when they are treated unfavourably not directly because of their disability itself, but because of something connected to or arising as a consequence of their disability.Key Focus: Secondary consequences of a disability (e.g., medical absences, inability to complete tasks quickly, behaviours linked to neurodivergence, or requiring specialised equipment).Knowledge Requirement: The employer is only liable if they knew—or could reasonably be expected to know—that the person had a disability.Justification: Like indirect discrimination, an employer can defend this if the unfavourable treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.Example: An employee with Crohn's disease is dismissed for exceeding the company's maximum allowed sick days. The employer did not fire them because they have Crohn's disease (direct), but because of their attendance record—which directly arose from their disability.Discrimination TypeCore CauseLegal Justification Allowed?Example Trigger: Direct. Treated worse because of the disability itself. No (Never allowed) Refusing to hire someone solely due to a diagnosis.

Indirect: Disadvantaged by a neutral policy applied to all. Yes (If objectively justified) Requiring all candidates to pass a timed written exam. Arising from Disability: Treated unfavourably due to a consequence of the disability. Yes (If objectively justified) Disciplining an employee for disability-related sick leave.

 UK employment law, when an employer attempts to justify indirect discrimination (Section 19) or discrimination arising from disability (Section 15), they must prove that their practice, rule, or treatment was a "proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. “This framework is known as objective justification. UK Employment Tribunals apply a structured, two-part test to determine whether an employer's defence holds up. Step 1: Identifying a "Legitimate Aim” [The tribunal first examines whether the employer's underlying reason or objective is real, lawful, and necessary. Valid Legitimate Aims: Reasons typically accepted by tribunals include ensuring workplace health and safety, operational efficiency, financial viability, maintaining professional standards, or protecting the well-being of service users. Invalid Aims: Simply trying to reduce costs or maximise profit is rarely considered a legitimate aim on its own ("cost alone is not enough"). Arbitrary preferences or generalisations about disability also fail this test. Step 2: Assessing "Proportionality" (The Balancing Test). Even if the aim is legitimate, the tribunal must decide if the specific measures taken were proportionate. To do this, the tribunal weighs the employer's business needs against the discriminatory impact on the employee. Tribunals assess proportionality using three key criteria: Rational Connection: Is the policy or action actually effective at achieving the stated aim? (e.g., Does imposing a rigid attendance rule actually improve service quality?)Necessity & Less Discriminatory Alternatives: Could the employer have achieved the exact same aim using a measure that was less harmful or less discriminatory to the disabled employee? If a workable, less damaging alternative existed, the employer's defence will usually fail. The Balancing Exercise: Does the employer's business need genuinely outweigh the level of disadvantage suffered by the employee? The Critical Link: Failure to Make Reasonable Adjustments In disability cases, tribunals almost always check whether the employer fulfilled their duty to make reasonable adjustments (Section 20) before evaluating objective justification. If an employer failed to make a reasonable adjustment that would have removed or reduced the disadvantage, it is extremely difficult to argue that their actions were "proportionate. Example: Firing an employee with a chronic condition for poor attendance without first considering adjustments—such as discounting disability-related sick days or allowing hybrid work—will nearly always lead a tribunal to rule that the dismissal was not a proportionate response. Summary of Tribunal Evaluation Process Evaluation Stage Tribunal Question Employer’s Legal Burden1. Legitimate Aim Is there a genuine, non-discriminatory business need? Must present real evidence, not vague or hypothetical claims.2. Reasonableness Adjustments Did the employer make all required adjustments first? Must show reasonable workplace modifications were explored.3. Proportionality Was this the least discriminatory way to achieve the aim? Must prove the impact on the employee was balanced and unavoidable. Cases Where the Employer Failed (Justification Rejected)1. City of York Council v Grosset (2018) Background: Mr Grosset, a head of English who suffered from cystic fibrosis, was dismissed for gross misconduct after showing an 18-rated film (Halloween) to a class of 15-year-old pupils. His condition was aggravated by high stress, which severely impaired his judgment at the time. Employer’s Legitimate Aim: Protecting the well-being and safety of children/pupils. Why the Defence Failed: The Court of Appeal accepted that safeguarding children was a legitimate aim. However, dismissing Mr Grosset was not proportionate. The council had failed to adjust his workload to manageable levels, which would have prevented the acute stress spike that led to the poor judgment in the first place. Because less damaging alternatives (modifying his workload) were available, summary dismissal failed the proportionality test.2.

Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) v Mrs Susan Boyers (2020) Background: Mrs Boyers was dismissed on capability grounds after a prolonged sickness absence caused by stress, migraines, and allegations of workplace bullying. 

Employer’s Legitimate Aim: Efficient management of public resources and staff attendance.  Why the Defense Failed: While managing sickness absence and public funds are legitimate aims, the DWP’s process was flawed. The employer failed to properly trial a re-deployment away from the problematic workplace environment before moving to dismissal. The tribunal ruled that terminating her employment was disproportionate because the employer jumped to dismissal without properly evaluating whether a less severe alternative (a structured trial in a new environment) could achieve the aim.  Cases Where the Employer Succeeded (Justification Upheld)1. Mr S Glasson v The Insolvency Service (2024) Background: Mr Glasson, who has a stammer, applied for a promotion via video interview. During the interview, his stammer caused him to enter "restrictive mode" (giving short, succinct answers to avoid stuttering). He received lower scores and was not selected.  Employer’s Legitimate Aim: Running a fair, standardised recruitment process to select the candidate best qualified for a senior public post.

Why the Defence Succeeded: The Insolvency Service had provided the exact accommodation

Mr Glasson requested (extra time). The tribunal found that the employer had no knowledge that "restrictive mode" was an effect of his stammer, as he did not mention it during the panel interview. The tribunal ruled that maintaining a standardised oral assessment scoring system was a proportionate way to achieve a fair recruitment process.  2. Page v Lord Chancellor / Ministry of Justice (2021)Background: A magistrate (a non-professional judge) was removed from office after publicly declaring to the media that he would refuse to approve adoption applications by same-sex couples, citing his religious beliefs. He was disabled (suffering from stress and depression) and argued his comments were made during a period of mental health distress. Employer’s Legitimate Aim: Maintaining public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary.Why the Defence Succeeded: The Court of Appeal agreed that maintaining judicial impartiality was a paramount legitimate aim. Removing him from the bench was deemed proportionate because a magistrate who publicly pledges to ignore the law cannot remain in judicial office—the discriminatory impact on Mr Page was heavily outweighed by the damage his statements caused to public trust in the justice system. Key Takeaways from Tribunal Rulings Outcome Common Factor in Tribunal JudgmentsEmployer FailsFailed to make reasonable adjustments first; jumped straight to dismissal/discipline without exploring alternative roles; relied on broad policies rather than individual risk assessments. Employer Succeeds: The legitimate aim involved critical safety or statutory duties; reasonable adjustments were already tried or requested; the employee's conduct posed an insurmountable risk to the core business purpose.

 In all Aspe justified) Disciplining and fundamental knowledge from the field of disability studies can offer caregivers important direction.

Core Concepts in Support Work Strengths-Based Approach: Shifts the support paradigm from viewing disability through a medical lens of deficits to recognising and developing an individual's personal strengths, preferences, and abilities. Social Role Valorisation (SRV): Focuses on creating, maintaining, or defending valued social roles (e.g., employee, classmate, neighbour, friend) for individuals, driving authentic community inclusion and reducing societal stigma. Promoting Autonomy & Equality: Core support principles prioritise self-determination, ensuring individuals make their own life choices and participate in society as equal citizens rather than passive care recipients. Practical Application for Caregivers: Area of Focus Core Competency Practical Support Application Individualised Care Adaptive Communication & Assessment Tailoring support strategies to specific physical, sensory, or cognitive needs rather than using standard routines. Dual Diagnosis Mental Health & Neurodiversity Literacy Recognising overlapping symptoms of intellectual disability and mental health conditions to advocate for integrated medical and therapeutic care. Community Integration Barrier Removal & Advocacy: Facilitating access to local activities, employment, and social groups that foster genuine social connections and personal independence.

In this chapter, we identify guiding principles for support work, note historical struggles experienced by individuals with disabilities, and explain competencies expected of direct support workers.

 

 

Guiding Principles for Support Work

Four guiding principles are central to supporting people with disabilities. People with disabilities, just like people who do not have disabilities, have rights related to citizenship, individual control, equality and human rights, and universal design.

 

Citizenship means that people with disabilities have the same rights and responsibilities as people without disabilities. Socially constructed barriers, which prevent participation and discriminate against people with disabilities, must be eliminated.

 

Individual control signifies that people with disabilities must be involved in all stages of developing disability services and policies, and in all decision-making that affects their lives. This is often missing in the way services have traditionally been provided, with services directed by professionals and directed to individuals. The shift to individual-controlled services has been a recent but very successful change.

 

Equality and human rights are pivotal in shifting approaches to providing services. In some countries, specific laws have been created to guarantee equal benefit and protection to all people. Laws prohibit discrimination based on disability. In some countries, legislation has been passed to promote employment equity. When employment equity laws are enforced, individuals cannot be denied employment for reasons related to ability. Employers are expected to make every reasonable effort to eliminate discrimination and barriers that have adverse impacts on people with disabilities.

 

Universal design requires that the environment be designed to be usable by people with various disabilities. Universal design highlights an important distinction between a disability and a handicap. An individual can have a disability but not experience a handicap. For example, an individual may have a physical disability and use a wheelchair. A ramp into a building would allow access to the building, removing a barrier that would handicap the individual with the physical disability. Universal design eliminates environmental barriers that handicap individuals who have a disability.

 

Key Points for Caregivers Audio Button (opens in new tab) Guiding Principles for Support Work

Key Points for Caregivers

Guiding principles for support work state that people with disabilities have rights that relate to:

 

Citizenship, through freedom from discrimination

Individual control, through involvement in decisions related to their lives

Equality and human rights, through the benefits and protection of the law

Universal design, through barrier-free environments

“To deny people their human rights is to challenge their very humanity.”

— Nelson Mandela

 

Historical Struggles

People with disabilities have struggled for acceptance and equality for centuries. Historically, they have been ostracised. In ancient times, people with disabilities were often viewed as demonic or unique. Few survived, and those who did were not typically part of mainstream society. In Greek and Roman times, when able-bodied and able-minded soldiers were needed, people with disabilities were considered “defective” and exterminated. Later, in the Middle Ages, people with disabilities were positioned as servants or court jesters and fools; some were still put to death. The primary response to people with disabilities was ridicule for differences in physical appearance or behaviour.

 

The Renaissance brought an era of asylum for people with disabilities as the Catholic Church accepted them as wards of the state. Although they were still cared for in isolation and without education, at least humane treatment was available. The Industrial Revolution introduced broader-based education, recognising the need for a literate society and good workers. This vocational emphasis led to the emergence of sheltered workshops for people with disabilities.

 

The early 1900s introduced a biological emphasis to caregiving, and the primary service model was one of medical and institutional care. People with disabilities were warehoused in large congregate care facilities with a promise that training and education would be offered.

 

The mid-1900s shifted emphasis to the environment. Veterans returning from war spurred a rise in litigation and legislation to protect their rights to rehabilitation and employment. The civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s contributed to a much greater understanding of equality and rights, which trickled down to those with disabilities. The debilitating effects of institutionalisation were acknowledged. Normalisation, now known as social role valorisation, became the widely held belief: that all individuals, regardless of any disability, should have as normal an education and living arrangement as possible (Wolfensberger, 1983, 2011).

 

Today, inclusion is the focus for most governments and services. In the United States, Rosa’s Law (2010) has changed the way an intellectual disability is conceptualised. Rather than the older term mental retardation, the term intellectual disability is now used. The focus is on providing supports to individuals in the least restrictive environment possible.

 

Despite increasing attention to including individuals with disabilities in mainstream society, it would be a mistake to believe that persons with disabilities are part of their communities. Many still spend much of the day in environments that are not inclusive. All those who provide support to people with disabilities play a key role in discovering, organising, and supporting them toward physical and social inclusion.

 

Key Points for Caregivers Audio Button(opens in new tab) Historical Struggles

Key Points for Caregivers

 

Historically, people with disabilities were rejected, laughed at, and even put to death. Today, disability services emphasize the importance of including people with disabilities in communities. Social role valorisation encourages communities to provide normal living, education, and employment opportunities whenever possible. Rosa’s Law requires that the term mental retardation is replaced with the term intellectual disability.

 

Competencies Expected of Support Workers

What does it take to be informed and competent when supporting someone with a disability? A competency is an attribute, knowledge, skill, ability, or other characteristic that contributes to successful job performance. Competencies give rise to observable and measurable behaviours that contribute to individual success in an organisation (e.g., teamwork and cooperation, communication). Direct support workers, regardless of the service that is provided, require competencies in working with others, assessing strengths and needs, planning and providing services, linking to resources, advocacy, documenting and report writing, professionalism and ethical behaviours, and individualising support requirements.

 

Working with others is an expectation for direct support workers. The typical approach is to work collaboratively with others to plan and implement support plans. A multidisciplinary team might include professionals such as psychologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, medical professionals, and social workers. Parents, guardians, and family members are also integral to the team. Teams promote coordination and communication, and add to relationships. They may also identify service gaps and raise awareness of strategies, resources, and approaches that might be of benefit in direct support. Teams are extremely valuable in furthering positive outcomes for clients who are in difficult or complex situations.

 

Assessing strengths and needs is a significant part of the direct support worker’s job. The approach that is most favoured first identifies the talents, gifts, and skills of the individual being supported, with a view to using those to manage any needs the individual might have. An individualised strengths-based assessment then focuses on the complex interplay of risks and strengths among individual family members, the family as a unit, and the broader neighbourhood and environment. The individualised strengths-based approach is an overall philosophical view supported by policies and standards. It refers to practice methods and strategies that identify and draw upon the strengths of individuals, families, and communities.

 

Strengths-based practice requires a shift from a deficit approach, which emphasises problems and pathology, to a positive approach (Rapp, Saleebey & Sullivan, 2005; Saleebey, 2006). A strengths-based approach values the capacity, skills, knowledge, connections, and potential in individuals and communities. Focusing on strengths does not mean ignoring challenges or spinning struggles into strengths. It does require that people work collaboratively.

 

Planning and providing services follows assessing strengths and needs. Most services have adopted a person-centred process to assist people with disabilities and their families to build their capacities and capabilities. This planning effort is typically a series of discussions or interactions among the person with a disability, his or her family, and other members of the multidisciplinary team.

 

The team assists the individual in developing a description that includes a preferred place to live, Favorite people with whom to socialise, and preferred types of daily activities, including preferred jobs. This description is based on the individual’s strengths, capabilities, preferences, lifestyle, and cultural background. The planning team decides what needs to be done, by whom, when, and how the individual is to work toward the preferred future. An individual program plan serves as a record of the decisions made by the planning team. This plan forms the foundation for the work of the direct service worker.

 

Linking to resources requires the direct support worker to have comprehensive knowledge of the community in which the supported individual lives. Community asset mapping is one approach to acquiring this knowledge. The community asset mapping process (Asset Based Community Development Institute, n.d.) is intended to initiate full mobilisation of a community and its assets around an individual vision. It allows mapping of relationships with other organisations for funding, referrals, access to resources, joint service planning, or collaborative projects with contributed staff. Once a community’s assets have been identified, the direct support worker is in a good position to begin linking the assets with the supported individual based on the individual’s strengths and needs.

 

Advocacy in all its forms seeks to ensure that people, particularly those who are most vulnerable in society, are able to have their voice heard on issues that are important to them. Advocacy supports and enables people to access information and services, defend and promote their rights and responsibilities, and explore choices and options (Support Empower Advocate Promote, n.d.).

 

Documenting and report writing takes many forms. Most common is documenting history and needs, services, individual outcomes, and service information. Any documentation should be concise, accurate, current, meaningful, and consistent. Reports can include case notes, plans, assessment results, letters to parents, referrals to other community services, letters to funders, and reports to supervisors, to mention just a few. Documentation serves six primary functions: assessment and planning, service delivery, continuity and coordination of services, supervision, service evaluation, and accountability. In documentation, caution should be used with personal opinion and conclusions; defamatory and negative language should be avoided; over-documentation should be avoided; and the documentation should be directed to a specific audience.

 

Professionalism and ethical behaviours are a cornerstone for direct support worker practice. Professionalism is the conduct, aims, or qualities that characterise or mark a profession or professional person. In 1996, in the United States, the Council for Standards in Human Service Education adopted Ethical Standards for Human Services Professionals, which are a set of standards of conduct that human service professionals and educators consider in ethical and professional decision-making (National Organisation for Human Services, n.d.).

 

Section 1 of Ethical Standards is targeted to the human services professional and contains 37 statements in five responsibility areas: client, employer, community and society, colleagues, and the profession. Section 2, incorporating statements 38 to 54, outlines standards for human services educators. The National Organisation for Human Services, a U.S. organisation that publishes the standards, has done much to expand professional development opportunities, enhance communication, promote professional and organisational identity through certification, and advocate for a social policy agenda both in the United States and in other countries.

 

In Canada, the Developmental Services Human Resource Strategy is currently working on developing core competencies for direct support workers. With the intent of “positioning employment in the developmental services sector as a career of choice,” the DSHRS continues to examine models for training and best practices that will strengthen professionalism among those who work in the field (DSHRS, n.d.). In Ontario, as part of quality assurance measures mandated in the Social Inclusion of Persons with Developmental Disabilities Act, 2008, developmental service agencies now have set standards to guide their policies and procedures (Government of Ontario, 2011).

 

Individualising support requirements. Every person is different and may have individual support requirements that necessitate the support worker having specialised competencies. Often these competencies are specific to the environment, such as household management, budgeting, health and wellness, food safety, or job coaching. Other times they are skills that directly respond to individual needs and may include medication administration, crisis management, and non-violent crisis intervention or behaviour management. All individuals who are being supported will present with strengths, needs, and characteristics that require specialised knowledge.

 

Key Points for Caregivers Audio Button(opens in new tab) Competencies Expected of Support Workers

Key Points for Caregivers

 

Caregivers who support individuals with disabilities, particularly caregivers who are employed as direct support workers, are expected to be competent and able to work with others to:

 

Assess the strengths and needs of clients

Plan and provide services

Link to resources

Advocate

Record information and write reports

Demonstrate professional and ethical behaviour

Tailor support requirements in relation to unique requirements of clients

Conclusion

This chapter has provided a snapshot of fundamental knowledge that caregivers can build on as they support individuals with disabilities. In the chapters that follow, we extend these fundamentals to explain support that is specific to individuals with both intellectual disabilities and mental illness.

 

Those who support people with disabilities are in a unique position to ensure that those individuals are included in their communities. To maximise the possibilities, caregivers need to be guided by principles grounded in citizenship, individual control, equality and human rights, and universal design. Further, it is important to appreciate the historical struggles endured by people with disabilities. Knowing the competencies expected of support workers can assist caregivers, particularly those employed in direct support work positions, to develop and strengthen their skills.

 

Chapter Audio for Print

Chapter 1 audio files. This chapter contains a number of short audio clips. If you are reading this in print, you can access the audio clips in this chapter by scanning this QR code with your mobile device. Alternatively, you can visit the book website at opentextbc.ca/caregivers and listen to all the audio clips.

 

 

 

References

Asset Based Community Development Institute (n.d.). Welcome to ABCD [Fact sheet]. School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University. Evanston, IL, USA. Retrieved from http://www.abcdinstitute.org/

 

Developmental Services Human Resource Strategy DSHRS (n.d.) Core Competencies [Fact sheet]. Retrieved from http://www.ontariodevelopmentalservices.ca/

 

Government of Ontario. (2011). A guide to the regulation on quality assurance measures. Ottawa ON: Queen’s Printer for Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.qamtraining.net/files_english.html

 

National Organisation for Human Services (n.d.). Ethical standards for human services professionals. Council for Standards in Human Service Education. Adopted 1996. Melbourne, FL, USA. Retrieved from http://www.nationalhumanservices.org/ethical-standards-for-hs-professionals

 

Rapp, C. A., Saleeby, D., & Sullivan, W. P. (2005). The future of strengths-based social work. Advances in Social Work, 6(1), 79–90.

 

Rosa’s Law (2010). An act to change references in Federal law to mental retardation to references to an intellectual disability, and change references to a mentally retarded individual to references to an individual with an intellectual disability. Public Law 111-256. Washington DC: US Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ256/content-detail.html

 

Saleeby, D. (2006). The strengths perspective in social work practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

 

Support Empower Advocate Promote (n.d.). What is advocacy? [Fact sheet]. East Hastings, UK. Retrieved from http://www.seap.org.uk/im-looking-for-help-or-support/what-is-advocacy.html

 

Wolfensberger, W. (1983). Social role valorisation: A proposed new term for the principle of normalisation. Mental Retardation, 21(6), 244–249.

 

Wolfensberger, W. (2011). Social role valorisation: A proposed new term for the principle of normalisation. Intellectual and Developmental disabilities, 49(6), 435–4