Service Delivery

Management, leadership, and user control in self-advocacy: an english case study.

Tilley (2013) · Intellectual and developmental disabilities 2013
★ The Verdict

Let people with ID share board power with advisors—funders keep paying and the group keeps running.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who support or sit on self-advocacy boards for adults with ID.
✗ Skip if Clinicians only doing 1:1 therapy with no agency role.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Pellicano (2013) followed one English self-advocacy group run by people with intellectual disability.

She watched how the group stayed open when money was tight.

The group let nondisabled advisors share power instead of running everything alone.

02

What they found

The group lived on by using an “interdependent” board.

Self-advocates and advisors made choices together.

Funders liked the shared model and kept paying the bills.

03

How this fits with other research

Storch et al. (2012) show the problem this model fixes. Their US survey found students with ID rarely lead their own school transition plans. Elizabeth gives a real-life way to add true user control.

G Williams et al. (2025) built a youth board for an autism project. Both papers describe shared boards, but Elizabeth centers people with ID as full governors, not just advisers.

Golnik et al. (2012) link shared decisions to happier parents in autism care. Elizabeth stretches the same idea into governance: share power and the whole agency survives.

04

Why it matters

You can help self-advocacy boards stay alive. Invite funders to meetings where members with ID vote and speak first. Write roles that pair advisors and self-advocates as co-chairs. A shared table keeps the lights on and the voices real.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Add a co-chair spot for a self-advocate on your next board agenda and give that person the gavel for half the meeting.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
qualitative
Population
intellectual disability
Finding
not reported

03Original abstract

This paper presents findings from a qualitative research project on an English self-advocacy organization. In light of recent political and economic developments that have threatened the sustainability of a number of self-advocacy groups for people with intellectual disability, I seek to explore how one particular organization managed to survive and grow. In particular, the paper explores themes of management, leadership, and user control, linking these to external perceptions about self-advocacy organizations. The organization in my study developed an "interdependent" governance model based on key organizational roles for nondisabled advisors and self-advocates, which proved popular with external funders. Despite the organization's notable achievements, its success raises questions for the wider self-advocacy movement, notably how leadership capacity can be developed among self-advocates.

Intellectual and developmental disabilities, 2013 · doi:10.1352/1934-9556-51.6.470