Strategies for Organizational Change from Group Homes toIndividualized SupportsPam WalkerAbstractOrganizations are increasingly looking to convert from facility-based services for adults withdevelopmental disabilities to individualized supports. Such conversion involves not only a changein services but a transformation of organizational culture. This qualitative study involved fourorganizations that have made sustained efforts to transform. Although the approach taken by eachorganization was unique, there were also some common strategies, which included generatingcommitment to common values and mission, a turn or return to authentic person-centeredplanning, shifting power and control, using community supports and relationships, moving awayfrom facility-based settings, and nurturing staff engagement. Ultimately, organizational change is anongoing process that requires organizational perseverance and commitment.Key Words: supported living; organizational change; developmental disabilities; individualized supportsSince the 1980s, residential services in the field ofdevelopmental disabilities have experienced a shifttoward more individualized, person-centered supports(O’Brien, 1994; O’Brien & Lyle O’Brien, 1991;Racino, Walker, O’Connor, & Taylor, 1993; Taylor,Bogdan, & Racino, 1991; Walker & Salon, 1991).Using the term supported living, O’Brien (1993)articulated some of the differences associated withthis approach versus a traditional service systemapproach:Supported living expresses a fundamentallydifferent relationship to people with developmental disabilities than most other approachesto service do: instead of controlling peoplewith disabilities in order to fix them, supportedliving workers seek to cooperate with peoplewith disabilities in order to develop theassistance they need to get on with theirown lives. (p. 1)The purpose of this research was to identifysome of the strategies used by organizations as theymake this transformational shift from group homesto individualized supports.Some organizations fall into the trap of makinga surface change, such as changes in language orservice types, rather than authentic, transformationalchange (Lyle O’Brien, O’Brien, & Mount, 1997;O’Brien & Lyle O’Brien, 1998; Smull, 2000). Othershave engaged in efforts to create authentic organizational transformation that incorporates foundational,cultural change across the organization (Fratangelo,Olney, & Lehr, 2001; Fratangelo & Strully, 2002;Hulgin, 1996; Jay Nolan Community Services, 2008;Kendrick, 2009; Mount, 2010; O’Brien, 2008; Scott,Hasbury, & Wykowski, 2010; Walker & Salon,1991). O’Brien and Lyle O’Brien (1991) stated,‘‘Making the shift to supported living involves morethan providing a different location or a different typeof service. The shift requires organizing and managingsystems and agencies in new ways. … In short, it callsfor a new way of thinking’’ (pp. 5, 12).Literature on organizational leadership andinnovation has pointed to the importance ofgenerating shared values and commitment tochange, as well as the need for ongoing organizationallearning (Brady, Fong, Waninger, & Eidelman, 2009;Kotter, 1996; Kouzes & Posner, 2007; Senge,1990). In the field of developmental disabilities,a substantial body of literature exists on organizational provision of individualized supports. Thisliterature highlights the need for separation ofhousing and support (Racino et al., 1993), aperson-centered approach to supports (Mount,1998; O’Brien & Lyle O’Brien, 1998, 2002; Smull,2000), and supports that are creative and flexibleINTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES2012, Vol. 50, No. 5, 403–414’AAIDDDOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.5.403P. Walker 403and promote community connections and relationships (Bradley, Ashbaugh, & Blaney, 1994; Kendrick,2008; O’Brien, 1993, 1994; Taylor et al., 1991).Far less research has documented organizationalchange from traditional supports to individualizedsupports. The small amount of literature that doesexist has emphasized the need for broad-based changesin organizational culture, shifts in staff roles and staff’srelationships with the people they support, andshifts in power and control (Dufresne & Laux, 1994;Fratangelo, 2009; Fratangelo et al., 2001; Hulgin,2004; Kendrick, 2009; Kiracofe, 1994; Meissner, 2011;O’Brien & Lyle O’Brien, 1991). Most of this literaturewas written in the 1990s, and only one study (Hulgin,2004) was a qualitative research study. I identified noother qualitative research studies that focused onleadership and strategies for change in the field ofdevelopmental disabilities.Hulgin (2004) investigated the ability oforganizations to incorporate person-centered practices and found that organizational context (e.g.,agency characteristics, images of people with disabilities, images of organizing, and approaches to policy)was a key factor. My research builds on Hulgin’s workin that I investigated organizations that have engagedin efforts to shift their organizational context orculture to facilitate the provision of individualizedsupports. In the past few years, interest in organizational change has been growing, with an increasingnumber of organizations seeking alternatives to largegroup homes and intermediate care facilities forpeople with mental retardation and expressinginterest in shared living and other similar forms ofcommunity support (Mount, 2010; New York StateAssociation of Community and Residential Agencies, 2009; Scott et al., 2010). Thus, it is criticallyimportant for the field to have further currentresearch-based work that documents the strategiesof, perspectives of, and lessons from administrators oforganizations that have engaged in efforts totransform from facility-based supports to individualized, person-centered supports.MethodThis study is based on qualitative research methods(Taylor & Bogdan, 1998). A national search wasconducted to identify potential organizations; thesearch included a request for nominations fromnational consultants, university research centers,national organizations, and national e-mail distribution lists. Nominations were solicited fororganizations that had achieved ‘‘significant transformation’’ away from facility-based services. Fromamong the nominations that were received, Iselected four organizations for this study. Selectionwas made to learn about change from a diverse arrayof organizations.A 2-day site visit was made to each organization. For the site visits, an interview guide wasdeveloped with open-ended questions; this interview guide helped ensure that the same generalareas were explored with each participant andwithin each organization (Bogdan & Taylor, 1990;Taylor & Bogdan, 1998). During the site visits,interviews were conducted with 66 people (anaverage of 16 per organization). Among thoseinterviewed were individuals who received support,family members, direct support staff, and administrators so I could learn, from a variety ofperspectives and experiences, about organizationalchange. I focus, in particular, on the perspectivesand experiences of administrators regarding strategies for organizational change. Thus, I drawprimarily on the interviews with the administrators(21 total, or between 3 and 7 at each organization),who included executive directors, associate directors, program directors, and associate programdirectors. Organizational executive directors compiled the schedule of interviews, with attention toincluding participants who had involvement in andexperience with the agency’s work on transformation. Interviews were conducted at the agencyoffices. Most participants were interviewed individually, and a few were interviewed in small groups(e.g., two to four participants together). Eachinterview lasted between 1 and 2 hr. Interviewswere tape recorded and transcribed, yieldingapproximately 15–25 pages of double-spaced notesper participant. Questions covered issues suchas organizational history and background; whatprompted the agency transformation; description ofthe organization’s evolution; and perspectives onwhat the key strategies, lessons, and challengeswere. Within these broad categories, most of thequestions were open ended, providing opportunityto elicit participants’ experiences and perspectives.Data analysis was inductive, using the constantcomparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967;Taylor & Bodgan, 1998) whereby data are simultaneously coded and analyzed. As a first step, thedata for each organization were read and codedfor themes. Next, potential themes for eachorganization were compared with those of otherINTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES2012, Vol. 50, No. 5, 403–414’AAIDDDOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.5.403404 Strategies for Organizational Changeorganizations to identify common categories orthemes. Data across all four organizations and datawithin each theme were reread and analyzed tofurther develop these common themes. To helpensure credibility, multiple people were interviewedwithin each organization, providing diverse inputregarding key organizational strategies. Second, acase study report on each organization was reviewedby the organizational administrators to confirm thatcritical issues had been captured.Key Strategies for ChangeThe four organizations that were part of this studywere Residential Support Options (RSO), Community Living Alternatives (CLA), RiversideCommunity Services (RCS), and AlternativeCommunity Supports (ACS; all names of organizations and individuals are pseudonyms). A briefprofile of each follows.RSO provides residential supports to almost2,000 individuals in a large urban area. RSO islocated in a state that promotes self-determinationand self-direction of services as part of state policy.Beginning around 1995, RSO began a transformation of its services on the basis of the principles ofself-determination. Since that time, the number ofindividuals in licensed group homes has decreasedfrom more than 1,200 to about 700; at the sametime, the number of individuals living in their ownhomes has increased from 300 to almost 1,200.People choose where they live, as well as the staffwho provide support. For example, Harry andEleanor met when they lived in an institution.They were then transferred to different grouphomes. With the assistance of RSO, they gotmarried and moved into their own apartment,where they hire staff of their choice on a schedulethat they have determined. In the mid-1990s, RSOwas dominated by a clinical model of services with128 clinicians on staff. Their transformation hasincluded moving away from such a large number ofclinicians on staff and, instead, contracting forclinical services when needed.CLA began its shift from group homes toindividualized supports with the arrival of a newdirector in 1990. At that time, the organization hadthree six-person group homes. The organization hasapproached change one person at a time, with afocus on promoting better quality lives for thepeople they support. People in one of the grouphomes in particular were experiencing a difficulttime living with each other, so this home waschosen as a focus for closure. The organizationwanted to close this home relatively quickly but atthe same time ensure that adequate time andenergy were devoted to planning with people. Theprocess of closure took 3 years and involved variousconsultants who assisted with planning and strategizing regarding the development of communitysupports. One of the individuals in the home wasJeff, who posed some challenging behaviors forstaff. Extensive planning was conducted with acircle of support, and Jeff was assisted in moving tohis own apartment with a community member as ahousemate. Jeff and this housemate formed a closerelationship and have lived together for 11 years;Jeff no longer displays challenging behaviors, andhe has become well known in his communitythrough his long-term involvement in variousneighborhood and community organizations. Thesecond group home was closed over the next10 years, as various individuals raised an interestin moving. The third group home has three peopleremaining and will likely close in the next fewyears. In addition to this work on closure, since1990 all new people who have come to the agencyhave been supported in individualized ways in thecommunity rather than in group homes. Currently,the organization provides residential supports to 55people. The organization has purposely remainedsmall, because it values close connections andrelationships across staff, individuals with disabilities, and families and fears that these would bejeopardized by too much organizational growth.RCS provides residential support services to160 people. The organization has been engaged intransformation efforts since the mid-1980s, beginning with the board’s decision not to developintermediate care facilities for those with mentalretardation and to focus on smaller scale settings asopposed to larger ones (e.g., 4- to 6-person homesvs. 8- to 12-person homes then being developedelsewhere throughout the state). By the mid-1990s,this evolved into a commitment to developindividualized supports for new people, as opposedto group settings. In 2001, administrators decided toclose a 10-person group home that had beenestablished very early in the organization’s history.They received a grant from the state Developmental Disabilities Planning Council to hire aconsultant to assist with planning for people andto help with start-up costs for people in newsettings. Within the year, everyone had moved toINTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES2012, Vol. 50, No. 5, 403–414’AAIDDDOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.5.403P. Walker 405individualized support arrangements. By the mid-2000s, RCS recognized that many individualswhom they supported were growing older and thatthese individuals would likely face future institutionalization as their needs increased. RCS beganworking to develop supports and partnerships (e.g.,with hospice and other agencies that support agingpeople) that would enable the individuals theysupported to remain in their homes through the endof their lives if they desired. Although administrators acknowledged that this effort has used some ofthe energy that might have otherwise been devotedto further group home closure, their success with ithas been a source of organizational pride and positiveenergy and has prevented institutionalization ofnumerous individuals. At the same time, RCS hascontinued to respond, when opportunity arises, byassisting individuals in moving out of group homeswithout then filling the vacancy in the group home;in the past 8 years, in addition to the 10 people whomoved out of the 10-person group home, it hasassisted 20 individuals to move from other grouphomes to their own homes. For example, when Steveworked in the group home where Matt lived, theyformed a close relationship, which they maintainedafter Steve left to work in another group home. Onthe basis of their close relationship, in spring 2010Matt moved out of the group home and into a housethat he shares with Steve.ACS began work on transformation in the late1980s, when it closed one of its eight-person grouphomes. By 1990, they provided residential supportsto 54 individuals who lived in 12 settings, includingtwo other eight-person group homes. Within thefollowing 3 years, the two group homes closed, andthese 54 people were living in 32 settings. In theprocess of closure, individuals were interviewed toestablish their preferences for where and withwhom they would like to live. For the next severalyears, ACS focused on closing its shelteredworkshop and day habilitation center. By themid-2000s, ACS recognized that, although peoplelived in small-scale settings, most with one otherperson, there had been no accompanying shift inpower and control when people moved from thegroup homes. So, beginning in 2008, the organization began working to assist people to increaseself-direction in their lives through use of personcentered planning. This involved moves to newplaces for some individuals, as well as increasedopportunities for home ownership and hiring stafffor the specific hours and tasks that they need anddesire. Kevin lived in his own apartment for a longtime but always wanted to own his own home.Recently, the organization assisted him withpurchasing a home and hiring his own staff. Inthe process of assisting him, the organizationdeveloped closer relationships with local housingorganizations that will likely be helpful in assistingothers with home ownership.Each organization was unique in its specificapproach to change. At the same time, there wereseveral common strategies across organizations,including generating commitment to commonvalues and mission, a turn or return to authenticperson-centered planning, shifting power andcontrol, using community supports and relationships, moving away from facility-based settings, andnurturing staff engagement. I discuss each in turn.Generating Commitment to CommonValues and MissionA central theme among organizations that wereworking on transformation relates to the importance of establishing a clear set of values and amission that serve as a guide for change. As onedirector commented, ‘‘It’s important to know whatyour compass direction is; otherwise it’s easy toget blown off course.’’ Likewise, another directoroffered that it had been important to have ‘‘apersistence about who we are, what we want to do,and who we want to be.’’A key feature of organizations working ontransformation was to increase the visibility of thevalues and mission and the degree to which they wereembraced by all staff. There were three main aspectsto this: having deeper conversations among staff in theorganization, exposure to national leaders, and developing new approaches to organizational planning.Deeper conversations. These organizations feltit was important that they increase the time spentin conversations that reached beyond day-to-daybusiness into broader issues related to implementingthe values and mission. For example, one administrator commented, ‘‘It is challenging to not getcaught up in the day-to-day aspects, and make timefor this. We realize we need to continually maketime for new conversations, deeper conversations.’’In relation to this, they emphasized drawing a widevariety of people together for these conversations.As another administrator explained, ‘‘We havemany more cross-departmental conversations wherewe wouldn’t have before.’’INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES2012, Vol. 50, No. 5, 403–414’AAIDDDOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.5.403406 Strategies for Organizational ChangeThe space for deeper conversations was createdby carving out time from regular meetings, as well assetting aside separate occasions for in-depth conversation, such as special meetings or staff retreats. Forexample, the director of CLA explained how itselected a theme for the year, such as relationships,and scheduled a retreat as well as other specificworkshops and discussions on the theme.Exposure to national innovators. An essentialpart of transformation for all of the organizationswas exposing themselves to others around thecountry and beyond who are engaged in innovative work. The organizations accomplished this byinviting key individuals to come and lead aworkshop or a retreat, as well as offering assistancefor staff to travel to attend national conferences orexchanging visits with other organizations. Theseopportunities provided staff members and theorganization as a whole with connections toothers who share similar values and an opportunity to learn about new strategies as well as reflecton their own work. One director referred to this asa means of ‘‘inserting ideas’’ into the organization.Another administrator commented, ‘‘One of thethings we believe strongly is to be part of thenational dialogue. So, we’ve always done that,in terms of getting people to conferences andbringing folks in.’’ This exchange with othershas also helped energize agency staff and helpedthem gain a sense of being part of a nationalmovement.New approaches to organizational planning.Organizational administrators found that incorporating new approaches into organizational planninghelped engage more staff in the organization’soverall values and mission. Emphasis was placed onplanning that was clearly connected to implementation of the values and mission and that was usedas a guide for action.Three of the organizations made changes to theirstrategic planning, drawing on others in the organization to help generate broader commitment andenthusiasm regarding the mission. One administratorrecalled, ‘‘I realized the senior management group wasnot working well in terms of driving the strategicstructure. There were others in the organization whowere good strategic thinkers that we pulled in.’’The fourth organization began using anorganizational PATH (Planning Alternative Tomorrows with Hope) process. One administratorreflected on this planning: ‘‘This has challenged usto think differently. It has given us direction, andhas helped us map out where we are and where wewant to go.’’ After PATH, this organizationcreated Teams of Change (including administrators, direct support staff, and individuals whoreceive support) to incorporate ideas from PATHinto action.Promoting Individual Change: A Turn orReturn to Authentic Person-centeredPlanningWhen working on organizational change, theorganizations that were part of this study foundthat simultaneously working on creating individualchange was critical. A basis for this is personcentered planning and design of supports. Althoughthe organizations in this study had consideredthemselves to be person centered before initiatinga change process, they recognized the need toexamine their planning approaches. For example,one administrator reflected,It seems that our philosophy for a long time hasbeen person centered, but it’s hard not to getbogged down in the day-to-day work. Welooked at our planning, and realized that ithad become part of the regular, annualplanning, and that most of the people involvedother than the individual and family were paidstaff.Thus, all of the organizations had to orient orreorient themselves to more authentic personcentered planning. This reorientation involvedtwo key aspects. One was that it entailed deeperforms of collaboration with individuals, families,and their community networks. The director ofRCS described how this is not only desirable butessential for sustainability of community supports:‘‘If I have to carry the commitment for peoplealone, I can’t do it. The only way we can do it is incollaboration with people and families and circles.’’A second key aspect was that planning not bedriven by traditional services and funding. As thedirector of CLA emphasized, ‘‘You have to planwithout preconceived notions. When you havepreconceived programs or preconceived ideas aboutwhat people need, that doesn’t always work.’’Sometimes it is the provider who has preconceivednotions; sometimes it is families and people withdisabilities who have preconceived notions aboutwhat is available or possible.INTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES2012, Vol. 50, No. 5, 403–414’AAIDDDOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.5.403P. Walker 407Not Simply Smaller Settings: ShiftingPower and ControlIn the past, all of the organizations had createdsmaller settings; however, as part of this transitionto individualized supports, it was important forthem to recognize that, in addition to shifts in size,it was important to make shifts in control. Afterhaving closed three group homes, the director ofACS reflected, ‘‘But we didn’t do a good job withcircles and relationships; we kept all the power. Sowe’d say we were all about individualized support,but we were far from it.’’ An administrator ofanother agency also commented on the need forchange in power and control: ‘‘This is not just aservice change, it’s a relational change, a powerchange, a difference of social order.’’As part of their transformation, organizationsin this study assist individuals to have control orshared control of their housing (e.g., homeownership, signing a lease, shared decision makingabout a home). Individual budgets are anothermeans of increasing control by people withdisabilities. Only one of the organizations, RSO,was located in a state that used individualbudgeting. The other organizations in this studydeveloped informal individualized budgets withintheir organizations for purposes of person-centeredplanning and individualized support.Additionally, all of the organizations madechanges in staff hiring, so that more staff are hiredto support a specific individual rather than a group,thus giving the individual much greater choice,input, and flexibility regarding who is hired, whatthey are hired to do, and their work schedule. Forexample, an administrator at RSO commented,‘‘Individualized staffing, when possible, creates amore personalized support situation.’’Using Community Supportsand RelationshipsOrganizations that are transforming to a vision ofsupporting everyone in the community haverecognized that they must design supports creativelyand actively incorporate paid and unpaid supportfrom community members. As one director described, ‘‘There is not the funding to support people24/7 with paid staff in individualized ways; nor isthat necessarily desirable for most people to havejust paid staff.’’ All of the organizations in this studyhave used shared living to assist some individuals tolive in the community, which entails findingcommunity members to provide live-in support.The organizations studied had varying approachesto this. All of them typically pay the housemate’srent and a portion of the utilities; beyond that, oneorganization does not pay the housemate any salary,whereas the other three generally provide some payfor the housemate, depending on the situation.Also, depending on the needs of the person withdisabilities, the shared living situation may becombined with other paid supports (e.g., fordaytime, weekends). As another option, one ofthe organizations also uses paid neighbors, who livevery close to an individual and are paid for severalhours of support per month but are available formore, should the need arise. In their search forhousemates or neighbors, these organizations do notsettle for just anyone but instead keep searchinguntil good matches are found.Use of combinations of paid and unpaidsupport provided by community members hasresulted in cost-effective services; for example,one director noted that ‘‘the average costs of selfdirected services have been consistently lower thanfor group homes.’’ However, most important for theadministrators, these situations seem to be highlysatisfactory to many individuals who receivesupport, as well as to people who provide supports.Additionally, in some instances, long-term committed relationships have emerged. As one directordescribed, ‘‘We have a few cases where people havelived together for more than 10 years, where thereis a real commitment, a long-term relationship.’’Moving Away From Facility-basedSettingsA key component of organizational transformationwas work on facility closure, as well as an end to thedevelopment of congregate settings. The organizations used two primary approaches to the closure ofgroup homes. Sometimes they undertook a relativelyshort-term closure. For example, RCS spent about ayear focusing on the closure of a 10-person grouphome: ‘‘With funding from the [DevelopmentalDisabilities] Council, we hired a consultant to assistwith person-centered planning. The process tookabout a year, and was facilitated by the fact that werented the home rather than owned it.’’Alternatively, some group home closuresoccurred over the course of several years, becausethe organizational focus was not specifically onclosure but on assisting people, one person at aINTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES2012, Vol. 50, No. 5, 403–414’AAIDDDOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.5.403408 Strategies for Organizational Changetime, to have better quality lives. One administrator said,What we did was to help people live lives thatmade better sense for them, and we made acommitment not to backfill what didn’t workfor people. People saw other people moving,and they realized, wow, if that can happen forthat person, can’t it happen for me? So, that’show the group homes kind of extinguishedthemselves.Funding can pose a serious challenge to closureof group homes, particularly when the organizationis paying a mortgage on them. Thus, the organizations that were a part of this study have adoptedmultiple approaches to moving away from facilitybased services. Three of the four organizations usedboth short-term and longer term approaches.Additionally, they sometimes reduce the size ofgroup homes by assisting one or a few individualswho have a strong desire or need to move andleaving, at least temporarily, a smaller group ofindividuals who are more content to live together.All of the organizations have also committed to nonew facility development.Finally, administrators also discussed the followup to facility closure. One recalled, ‘‘Closing thegroup home was the easy part of the process, inretrospect. The challenge is really helping eachperson live a quality life.’’ Another concurred: ‘‘If youhave a vision or goal of closure, don’t hold on to that,because when you get there, your work has justbegun.’’Beyond Staff Training to NurturingStaff EngagementA first step in staff development is typically stateof-the-art, values-based training. At the same time,organizations that are working on transformationrecognize the need to go beyond training andemphasize staff development and engagement:The dominant part of the day is figuring outhow to develop staff, not from a trainingperspective, but from an emotional/relationalperspective. Maybe a recommendation is,don’t think you’re really engaging staff becauseyour program reaches all staff with training. …What we focus on with staff, the word we areusing today is not training, not even toeducate, but to engage.Three key aspects were related to encouragingstaff development and engagement: teamwork,leadership, and personal involvement. First, topromote staff engagement, administrators attempted to create a sense of teamwork. They have foundthat this, in addition to improving communicationacross staff, helps foster trust and collegiality amongstaff. Second, administrators provided a variety ofopportunities for staff to develop their leadershipskills and abilities. For example, the director ofCLA discussed the ways in which she assists staff todevelop their leadership skills by drawing them intovarious meetings and conversations with her andmentoring them, as well as by giving them space tosolve some of their own dilemmas rather than justdirecting them to implement her solutions. Finally,to promote engagement, administrators invite andencourage staff participation in work on individualchange (e.g., participation in a circle of support or aperson-centered planning process) as well as inorganization-wide change efforts (e.g., retreats,strategic planning processes).Lessons and DiscussionOn the basis of this research with organizations aswell as the literature, a number of overarchinglessons can be drawn.There Is No One Model forOrganizational TransformationThe process of organizational transformation iscomplex and unique to each organization, based onspecific circumstances, personalities, experiences,and other aspects of organizational context andculture (Hulgin, 2004). As the director of RCScommented,What you’re probably not going to hear fromus is a step-by-step blue-printed process thatcan be given to another organization. Lots ofwhat you’re going to hear has been emergentthrough interactions of individuals, context,finance, politics; so, it’s sort of a stew, butthere’s not a recipe people can pick up andtake away.Organizational Change Entails anOngoing, Continual Learning ProcessOnce they enter into efforts to create authentictransformation, organizational leaders come toINTELLECTUAL AND DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES2012, Vol. 50, No. 5, 403–414’AAIDDDOI: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.5.403P. Walker 409recognize that change requires continual organizational learning and examination (O’Brien & LyleO’Brien, 1991). Such continual learning, forexample, enabled an organization such as RCS torecognize that closing group homes and movingpeople to smaller settings was not sufficient andthat they needed to pursue further change topromote increased self-direction and control ofsupports.Formation of Learning Communities orCommunities of Practice CanFacilitate TransformationTwo of the organizations in this study wereconnected with learning communities related toorganizational transformation. In summarizing keyaspects
