Advantages of Collective Family Governance

Research on Individualized Funding (also referred to as Self-Directed or Participant-Directed Services and including microboards) provides evidence of its advantages over traditional provider-managed services. Individualized Funding (IF) is a service funding mechanism in which individuals with disabilities and their families can define how service funds are used, hire their own staff, and determine the supports they need to spend their days as they choose. Used in North America, Britain, Europe, Australia and New Zealand as a method to enable greater independence and community inclusion, IF provides greater flexibility and reliability of services, generates higher satisfaction related to choice and control, and improves quality of life, physical health and emotional well-being. IF increases the capacity of individuals, families and communities, promotes integration of individuals in community, and allows for creative programmatic solutions, in some cases at a cost less than traditional services (Laragy, C. & Ottman, G, 2011; Spandler, 2004; Haliwell and Glendinning, 1998; Stainton and Boyce, 2002; Simon-Rusinowitz, 2009; Witcher, et al, 2000; Glendinning, 2008; Norstrand, J., et al, 2009; Carlson et al., 2004; Blackman, 2007; Lord, J. & Hutchison, P., 2003).

Family governance models, in which resources are pooled and serve a small group of people rather than a single individual, may offer some key advantages over IF and answer some if its concerns, including addressing group diversity in relation to skills, class, etc. The existence of a collective group of diverse families (along with several hired or contracted staff) creates a stronger likelihood of fiscal and organizational skills than is present in a single family.  The strength of diverse groups is born out in collectives when looking at outcomes in the realms of political activities and policy, cultural shifts, the ability to mobilize, and in personal or self-development. Such outcomes include success at getting demands on the political agenda, getting new policies implemented, advancing changes in social norms, behaviours and ideas that extend beyond beneficiaries, demonstrating the ability to activate a pool of people who can be drawn into subsequent activities, increasing the extent of outreach and geographical spread, and success in enhancing collective members’ lives (Desouza, S., 2012).  Indeed, early management studies show that small groups’ abilities to find solutions to a given problem are greater than individuals’, the ideal size of a group depends on either a) importance of the quality of the solution, in which slightly larger groups of 7-12 perform best, or b) the importance of reaching consensus, in which smaller groups of 3-5 are most effective (Cummings, et al., 1974; Manners, 1975).  Group size and membership, however, are only two elements of successful group problem-solving.  Studying educational learning groups Barron (2005) points to mutuality of exchanges, joint attentional engagement, and the alignment of group members' goals as key processes, saying

… collaboration with peers also provides practice in the art of constructive dialogue. By asking learners to make sense of a problem together, they are faced with challenges of establishing common frames of reference, resolving discrepancies in understanding, negotiating issues of individual and collective action, and coming to joint understanding.

                                                                                                (Barron, B., 2005, pp. 403-404)

 The benefits of groups with mixed skills, knowledge, and networks is also highlighted in co-operatives which are composed of individuals with diverse skills, resources and abilities (Soles, 2010; Majee & Hoyt, 2011).