Content area
The purpose of this article is to present practice-based evidence of the transition to competitive integrated employment using person-driven planning. Not a program, the use of active person-driven planning pivots on teaching and practicing self-advocacy and self-determination. Different from person-centered approaches, person-driven planning amplifies the voices of individuals with disabilities and assists their parents, families, and support team members to advocate for them. In person-driven planning, the use of culturally appropriate and engaging formats is emphasized that from the person’s perspective are reachable, accessible, and personalized. With person-driven education and counseling, the person and their family are directly impacted through having informed choices, support for decision-making, and a person-driven plan (PDP) to link to other individualized plans such as developing Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) and Individualized Plans for Employment (IPEs). Legal precedents, descriptions, and discussion are offered with the overall goal of reinforcing a shift in language and practices. Highlighted in this article are exemplary person-driven planning experiences that actualize the legislative precedents and represent the shifts in language and practices needed to support human rights. The results dispel myths regarding process, predictability, and time with suggestions to overcome the limitations of traditional readiness, capacity, and/or other value-based assessments as well as the restrictions of individualized approaches. Operations are shared for moving from person-centered to person-driven planning for maximizing relational autonomy, building working alliances, using resources collaboratively, and demonstrating the risks are outweighed by the benefits to everyone.
“My plan gives me power. I can make my own choices. I am excited about my future”
(M. L. Clark, personal communication, March 1, 2025).
The purpose of this article is to present practice-based evidence of the transition to competitive integrated employment using person-driven planning. Person-driven planning is not a program; rather, it hinges on teaching and practicing self-advocacy and self-determination. It is different from person-centered approaches because it amplifies the voices of students and youth with disabilities while training their parents, families, and support team members to advocate with and for them. Another defining feature is its reliance on culturally appropriate and engaging formats that make transition accessible, personalized, and aligned with the person’s own perspectives. This approach is intentionally designed to support and enhance informed decision-making while emphasizing individual agency and choice. The information generated from person-driven plans can be applied in a variety of contexts, including the development of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), Individualized Plans for Employment (IPEs), and others (Oertle et al., 2023; Sax, 2022).
However, knowledge of and access to structures that support person-driven planning are limited. The majority of individuals with disabilities and their parents, families, and supporters are highly disconnected from the development of policies and practices in the school system and in disability services (McCall & Oertle, 2023; Oertle et al., 2025). This separation minimizes one’s agency and leadership in their own transition process, ultimately reducing advocacy and determination in life (Aguillard & Wang, 2023; Fallon & Zhang, 2013; Johnson et al., 2020). Highlighting these issues is critical for developing targeted collaboration that improves the coordinated delivery of transition education and services and garners opportunities and experiences that cannot be offered nor made available otherwise (Fabian et al., 2016; McCall & Oertle, 2023; Oertle et al., 2023; Schutz & Carter, 2022). Therefore, it is theorized that for effectively engaging individuals with disabilities and involving parents and families as collaborators, the movement from process-based, person-centered approaches toward collaborative, person-driven processes is essential (Oertle et al., 2023).
In the broader society, several unchallenged myths have been perpetuated, limiting presumptions about people with disabilities. While these myths are discussed later in the article, they offer critical avenues for shifting cultural perspectives and advocating for improved outcomes. Therefore, the impetus of this article is to challenge these myths using person-driven principles and practices that are grounded in the underpinnings of collaboration (Oertle et al., 2023) and showcase the potential and abilities of people with disabilities as valued and productive contributors to society. Specifically, the overall goals are to (a) dispel limiting myths and share these lived experiences with person-driven planning, (b) stimulate and reinforce shifts in language and practices, and (c) advance relational autonomy for increased competitive integrated employment outcomes. The evidence presented demonstrates the risks are outweighed by the benefits to everyone.
Aligning with these goals, the article presents the use of person-driven planning in education and services for any age group for any phase of life planning—not just for transition-age youth and students. Transition age is defined as youth with disabilities who are out-of-school between the ages 14 and 25 years and students with disabilities who are in school ranging in age from 16 to 22 (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEA], 2004; Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act [WIOA], 2014). When applied in transition, person-driven planning was described by Oertle et al. (2023) as:
Using an active person-driven process for planned and supported involvement in all aspects of the transition process with demonstrated vulnerability and willingness as the value and the benefits outweigh the risks. For example, in transition programing and planning, through collaborative Individualized Education Programs [IEPs] and Individualized Plans for Employment [IPEs], teachers and counselors can demonstrate use of a person-driven process through culturally appropriate and engaging formats that are reachable and accessible with a direct impact on developing informed choices and making decisions. Key is learning from and with, through openness, curiosity, and humility. (p. 23)
In their description of person-driven planning, Oertle et al. (2023) offer tenets and foundational principles that can be beneficial for promoting choice and agency among people with disabilities. These tenets also align with the three criteria identified by Arnett (2011) that serve as crucial markers indicating the attainment of adulthood: (a) accepting responsibility for one’s self, (b) making independent decisions, and (c) becoming financially independent. However, prior research has observed contemplation about purpose and search for meaning in individuals as early as adolescence and continuing throughout life (Kay, 2024; Wang et al., 2023). Therefore, lived experiences at any phase of life are included along with the use of transition education and services, which concern preparation and planning for the movement from secondary education to postsecondary employment, education, living, and participation.
Highlighted in this article are person-driven planning experiences that actualize the legislative precedents and represent the shifts in language and practice needed to support human rights (Gudelytė et al., 2024). In these examples, four people with disabilities and three professionals from one agency share their experiences and stories. Working in collaboration, these individuals with disabilities have been supported to learn about and use person-driven planning, resulting in their employment. Singularly, each experience is a powerful example of the benefits of person-driven planning for assisting people to meet their needs and goals. Taken together, this is a collection of compelling experiences for dispelling myths that have limited outcomes for people with the most significant challenges.
This article dispels common myths surrounding person-driven planning, reinforcing its role as a foundational underpinning for collaborative activities in the delivery of transition education and services (Oertle et al., 2023). The results herein challenge these misconceptions about process, predictability, and time while offering strategies to overcome the limitations of traditional readiness, capacity, and value-based assessments, as well as the constraints of person-centered approaches. Such discussions highlight the shift from person-centered to person-driven planning to encourage further dialog and adoption of these practices.
To provide context, the next section introduces The Institute for Effective Education (TIEE) and the authors who share their lived experiences with person-driven planning. The first and fourth authors, professionals at TIEE, are featured alongside the fifth-position authors, who contribute their personal experiences. Their roles and experiences are explored in later sections, followed by an overview of the legal and ethical precedents and the evolution of individualized planning. Identified myths are then dispelled with these authors’ first-person lived experiences. Lastly, the article concludes with a discussion of recommended implementation strategies, and sources of information shared in this article are for counselors and educators to use for moving from person-centered to person-driven planning.
DESCRIPTION OF TIEE
TIEE is a California nonprofit corporation for education and other services. TIEE has owned and operated K-12 schools since 1972. In 2021, TIEE expanded postschool services to adults through the Vocational and Adult Services (V&AS) program. V&AS provides support to adults with disabilities in vocational, academic, and functional living areas, with the goal being competitive integrated employment. Since 2010, TIEE has implemented person-driven planning. In June 2024, V&AS had 17 enrollees aged 20–35 years who were regularly supported for at least a year with their employment, post-secondary education, and/or independent living goals. All 17 enrollees either had a person-driven plan (PDP) or a prep-PDP. Seven were employed in competitive integrated employment, one was employed and completing a paid internship, one was employed and volunteering, four had paid internships, one was volunteering, and three were actively exploring jobs through informational interviews, job shadows, and/or job tryouts. In addition to their employment, internships, and/or volunteering, seven enrollees were also taking college classes (refer to Figure 1).
AUTHOR BACKGROUND AND POSITIONALITIES
The authors’ positionality is shared for context, enhanced transparency, and strengthened validity. “Positionality has been operationalized as reflexivity, an activity in which a researcher identifies, examines, and owns their backgrounds, perspectives, experiences, and biases in an effort to strengthen research quality” (McCall et al., 2021, p. 21). In this article, the author’s team consists of two main groups: (a) TIEE consumers and (b) secondary and postsecondary professionals.
Author Group 1: TIEE Consumers
The first group is TIEE consumers with disabilities who are sharing their stories to dispel myths commonly associated with person-driven planning and telling their stories as contributing authors to this article. The intention is to amplify their voices by sharing their experiences in ways that are most comfortable for them. Each of these authors is introduced in the following sections.
Jalen
An individual with autism, Jalen had his first person-driven planning meeting in 2016 when he was in high school. At this meeting, he shared some of his dreams, such as working at a school vacuuming, being a helicopter pilot or forklift driver, having a girlfriend, going to college, and getting a driver’s license. The professional staff at this meeting did not realize that these “dreams” would become a reality. Although he graduated in 2020, Jalen iteratively continues to update his yearly plan and develop new goals to replace those he achieved since developing his 2016 PDP. He works at TIEE maintaining vacuums, was in a year-long paid internship at a floorcare company, and runs a microbusiness maintaining vacuum cleaners and fans. He is in an automotive tech program in college, obtained a driver’s license and forklift certification, and has copiloted a helicopter. He also has a girlfriend. Jalen has spoken at several conferences about his experiences with his person-driven planning and continues to educate others.
Charlotte
An individual with Down syndrome, Charlotte had her first person-driven planning meeting in 2022. The best way to describe Charlotte is in her own words: “My name is Charlotte, I’m 27 years old. I’m sassy and flirty. I am a queen.” Charlotte is a very active individual who loves to work out, sing, dance, and create beautiful art. After developing her goals based on her PDP, Charlotte’s areas of focus were to work on employment, technology skills, postsecondary education, building social skills, and developing coping strategies. Charlotte has worked on vocational skills and job exploration in order to find opportunities within her field of interests, which includes art, fashion, and culinary arts. She has developed a microbusiness called “Stuck on You” where she creates and designs stickers and sells them at various microbusiness fairs and at her art program. She continues to build her technology skills by using her iPad and learning various apps to create her culinary and art portfolios. She explored and researched schools to find the best fit for her. Although she found that going to college is not right for her at this time, as she focuses on her art and employment, she may want to take classes in the future. Charlotte has grown in terms of building coping strategies for managing difficult situations and continues to work on expanding and exploring her feelings through creative self-expression. Through this process, Charlotte has built such great self-advocacy skills in not only letting others know her wants and needs but also by educating others by presenting at conferences and sharing her experiences with self-determination and the person-driven planning process.
James
An individual with autism, James had his first person-driven planning meeting in 2021. His PDP showcased his love for travel, fitness (e.g., running, lifting weights), music, and the outdoors. James’ interest in music ranges from 1980s alternative rock to recent pop hits. He verbally communicates his wants and needs but used to only request items with one-word phrases. After implementing his goals from his PDP to build his communication skills, he frequently uses complete sentences, especially when making requests. He is in a paid internship at a local event hall in Chula Vista, CA, helping with ground maintenance and setting up for events. This was a huge accomplishment for him since a path toward employment was not predicted due to his limited communication and challenges with staying focused. He is a member of a gym and lifts weights. By implementing his goals in his PDP, he is able to maintain employment, build social relationships, and use coping strategies to manage difficult situations.
Luke
Involved with person-driven planning in school, Luke continued his PDP beyond, due to his connections to others who facilitated the process. He has Down syndrome, has challenges with communication, and is hard of hearing. He is very self-determined as he shares his work interests, passion for sports and baseball (he is a huge Padres fan), karate, photography, his dog, entertaining others, and spending time with his fiancé, friends, and family. Luke has worked at a grocery store for 8 years. In addition to his job at the grocery store, he has worked at Snapdragon Stadium as a beer pourer for 2 years. He has a black belt in karate and is involved in various activities that match his passions and interests. He continues to use person-driven planning to develop goals with his support team as he lives a self-determined life. He educates others regularly about person-driven planning and achieving his goals through numerous conference presentations.
Author Group 2: Secondary and Postsecondary Professionals
The second author group includes postsecondary professionals who have more than 90 years of combined education and experience in secondary and postsecondary settings working with people with and without disabilities as educators, rehabilitation counselors, and/or special education teachers. This group consists of people who identify as having disabilities, parents of children with disabilities, and/or having other significant family members, such as a grandparent, parent, and/or sibling, with a disability. Notably, the first and second authors have been mentored by and are colleagues of and friends with Dr. Caren Sax, the Principal Investigator for Take Charge: Leading the Transition to Adulthood (Take Charge), a demonstration project showcasing person-driven planning with templates, pictures, and examples (
The content of this article is influenced by both authors’ groups’ experiences with individualized preparation and planning. Together, the authors have a collective goal to improve outcomes and increase inclusion by actualizing the full intention of the laws (e.g., the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 as amended in the WIOA, 2014), value learning from and with each other, and use data to inform decisions. They have high expectations for the inclusion of all in living their lives and especially for having purposeful and meaningful employment. However, the authors recognize autonomy is relational (Christman, 2004), “data cannot drive because it does not have a license” (T. Little, personal communication, Stats Camp, May 10, 2010), and people must be taught and counseled for effective preparation and planning for growth, to learn, and to enhance their Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1978). An assumption generated from their individual and shared experiences is that person-driven planning is the shift in language and practices needed to support civil and human rights while improving outcomes, especially in viable employment.
The authors agree with the Udac that society needs to “stop thinking of people with disabilities as vulnerable…[social systems, spaces, and norms] are barriers…to people with disabilities being fully immersed in… communities…. It is about people, not programs. Programs keep people with disabilities in groups so they are not treated as individuals. This was helpful when transitioning from institutionalization but practices need to advance” (Rounds, 2024). As a group of people with disabilities and their supporters and allies, the authors value the phrase “Nothing about us without us” (Tanabe et al., 2018), were motivated to write about lived experience, and offer the stories herein to encourage the use of person-driven planning to benefit more people. From the authors’ experiences, person-driven planning benefits everyone, regardless of disability status and no matter their age.
To construct this article, all of the authors discussed verbally and then shared in writing their experiences, reflections, and information, including the myths they commonly encountered and the ways person-driven planning is being used for successful outcomes. This included specifically discussing and writing about the lived experiences of the first, fourth through eighth authors, and about TIEE, a nonprofit corporation for education and other services.
Legal and Ethical Precedents
The concept of connecting education to providing employment services through preparation and planning has existed for a considerable amount of time. Elliott and Leung (2004) and Walker (2024) wrote comprehensive overviews that influenced the following description. The Morrill Act of 1890 provided federal funding for vocational education through land grants to colleges to provide training for agriculture and mechanical employment. Vocational/technical education was the primary emphasis for funding. The next significant legislation came when the returning veterans of World War I created a need for rehabilitation after sustaining war injuries with the passing of Smith-Hughes Act (1917). This was the first time services were defined for people with disabilities. Since the passage of the Smith-Hughes Act, the value of the productivity of people with disabilities has been reinforced in disability legislation, professional ethical principles, federal and state government policies, and society as a whole. In 1920, the Smith-Fess Act (i.e., the Civilian Vocational Rehabilitation Act) was passed and provided the first grant-in-aid program to the states for delivering rehabilitation services for nonmilitary people with disabilities, establishing plans with state boards, and requiring annual reports on implemented systems and programs. This frame was foundational to the preparation and planning in education and services for employment, administrative agency, and the funds necessary for providing support. Continuing with modifications for best practices, these legal and ethical precedents continue to provide protections against discrimination due to disability (e.g., the reauthorized Rehabilitation Act in WIOA, 2014; 504 rule change, 2024). Moreover, the Rehabilitation Act and other disability laws have reinforced the civil rights of people with disabilities. So, despite levels or intensity of support needs, people with disabilities have the same civil liberties and constitutional rights as people without disabilities to freedom, justice, and the pursuit of happiness. These shared inalienable rights are tied to the presumptions of being created equal, the importance of the productivity of each and every person, and the benefits of providing education and services for access and opportunities.
The intersecting education and rehabilitation disability legislation provides specific examples associated with the topic of this article For instance, the IDEA (2004) has entitlements to free and appropriate public education (FAPE); the Carl D. Perkins (2006) creates avenues for career and technical education for preparation and training in areas of high demand, wage, or growth; and the Rehabilitation Act as amended (WIOA, 2014) and the Americans with Disabilities Act as amended (ADA, 2008) both provide assurances of equal access to and opportunities in viable employment, education, public spaces, telecommunications, public transportation, and more.
Over time, the changes in the laws have emphasized independence in living and economic well-being with employment and access to public services (e.g., physical infrastructure, transportation, telecommunications, and public accommodations). These laws also set a precedent for disability definitions. For instance, the 13 diagnostic categories of disability (e.g., IDEA, 2004) and the definition used in postsecondary settings of a limitation in one of life’s major activities (i.e., functional activities) are used in secondary education (e.g., Oertle, 2025). The differences in definitions move the focus to what people can do rather than what they cannot (e.g., Americans with Disabilities Act as amended; Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and its amendments). Also, current provisions, such as preemployment transition services, include self-advocacy instruction and recognition of what people can do to contribute to their own quality of life with preparation and planning (i.e., the Rehabilitation Act as amended in WIOA, 2014). Although not amended or reauthorized recently, the laws have been updated with rule changes and the guidelines for implementation in practices in the technical assistance circulars (TAC). For instance, in 2024, there was a change to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act pertaining to the use of value-based assessments. The rule change was made because these “methods may lead to discrimination against individuals with disabilities when they place a lower value on life extension for individuals with disabilities or when that method is used to limit access or deny aids, benefits, or services. The final rule prohibits the discriminatory use of such methods” (Fact Sheet, 2024a,b). Another example in 2023, the Rehabilitation Service Administration (RSA) released a TAC reinforcing the use of informed choices in developing plans, selecting outcomes, and providing services (Rehabilitation Services Administration Technical Assistance Ciservices administration technical assistance circular [RSA-TAC-23-03], 2023). In sum, as stated by the Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, “inclusion is a civil right” (Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, Haring Center for Inclusive Education, n.d., p. 2; refer to Figure 2 for legislative timeline and mandates).
Putting these laws into practice through person-driven planning aligns with the ethical principle of autonomy (McCall & Oertle, 2023) and practicing cultural humility (Hampton et al., 2017). People with disabilities need to be given opportunities to develop self-advocacy and self-determination skills in order to direct their services and make informed decisions. Involvement in the conversation, instead of being talked about, allows for respect and the dignity of risk (Sax, 2019). Through the dignity of risk, assumptions about a person’s capabilities may be challenged. These opportunities allow people to build confidence and knowledge about themselves, which in turn supports self-determination. In person-driven planning, self-advocacy is a central component (Oertle et al., 2023) with a focus on an individual’s “veto power” if they are not comfortable with topics discussed in front of them. This supports the person’s right to be treated equally and respectfully (Sax, 2022).
The Evolution of Individualized Planning Approaches
The individualized planning approaches have been formally evolving since the 1960s. The advancements are influenced by research (e.g., Gysbers, 2008). However, the approaches have also evolved in response to the expressed opinions, desires, and needs of marginalized people, mirroring the legislative changes forced by people with disabilities (Heumann & Joiner, 2020). At the same time, the conceptual frameworks, terms, and practices for planning in education and services have evolved too. Some examples at the federal, state, and local levels that require personalized planning include the Department of Developmental Services in the Self-Determination Program, Home & Community Based Services, and services for adults in the schools—local education areas (IDEA, 2004), transition to adulthood (i.e., career, postsecondary education; Carl D. Perkins, 2006; the Rehabilitation Act as amended in WIOA, 2014); vocational rehabilitation through the State Departments of Rehabilitation and Transition Partnership Programs for providing and/or allocating the provisions for preemployment transition services in secondary student education; and services such as work-based learning experiences (the Rehabilitation Act as amended in WIOA). These improvements continue to be critical connectors for opportunities and success. The fact is transition is throughout life, but public school is a time-limited service.
For the employment of people with disabilities, “taking an individualized approach to understanding disability is essential for employers who are motivated to accommodate this increasing population of employees” (Thrasher et al., 2021, p. 234). However, these planning approaches are used universally with or without disabilities and are not age-specific. Presented in Table 1 are the operational components for comparing and contrasting approaches as typically applied to people with disabilities. This information is provided to assist readers in understanding the interrelationships and help in making comparisons for improvements.
Brief Descriptions of Individualized, Person-Centered, and Person-Driven Planning Approaches in Education and Services
| Operationalization | Description of planning approach | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Components | Individualized planning | Person-centered planning | Person-driven planning |
| Who Does What | Person’s role may be passive, and the person may not be present or developing the plan (e.g., due to limited verbal skills, cognitive level, social, or behavioral support needs). The person may not be encouraged to attend their meeting (e.g., told it may not be interesting). Professionals know best, lead, decide, and authorize. The person’s choices and decisions can be limited to professional opinion and/or parent/guardian decisions | Person’s role may be reactive. Although they are in the “center” as the focus individual and are present, they may not be an active part of the conversation. Team knows best, authorizes, and invites the person to participate, lead, and decide. The person’s choices and decisions are circumscribed by the team’s decisions. The person may not have “veto power” and/or options other than what the team decided is best | The person’s role is active. Person helps plan the meeting, including designing templates, formats, and invitations. Person knows best and is informed and supported to lead, decide, and authorize. The person chooses who is involved and what is done. The person’s choices and decisions are amplified. The meeting is tailored to their interests and preferences (e.g., meeting location, food, who attends) |
| When | Focuses on results by identifying strengths, interests, preferences, and support needs for allocations of provisions, education and services coordination, and accountability of professionals. The focus can be more deficit-based instead of strengths-based. In traditional planning, the information is reviewed annually. | Focuses on specific examples of positive experiences, successes, and life situations. This may also focus on strengths but information may be gathered through more of an “interview” approach rather than a collaboration with the person seeking input from their support team. The plans can be at any time, but since legislation has made them part of the process, agencies and schools typically do as part of an annual “I-plan,” which is often through interviews. | Focuses on positivity, identifying supports, and maximizing ways for the person to participate, contribute, and communicate in all aspects of their life for full inclusion including making accommodations, adding elements that match their needs (e.g., captions, sounds and/or videos for visual/hearing/other needs), and including items to maximize their engagement (e.g., multimedia such as videos of favorite shows; characters from Toy Story for an 8-year-old to find on each slide). The plan can be at any time and modified at any time, as they are used to share information about the focus individuals with others (e.g., teachers, case managers, coaches, doctors). Also tied to annual “I-plans” but there is more flexibility to modify and use them to drive supports and services. |
| What | Goals and objectives are restricted to the services offered, reflect changes that can be made within the existing services and programs, and are recommended by professionals. The person may not agree but has no other options (e.g., education; speech or occupational therapy; counseling) | Goals and objectives are creative but are based on the teams’ recommendations, requiring the team’s consensus, and their decisions. But the plan is a working document, and there is flexibility for making changes | Goals and objectives are developed with solution-minded perspectives in support of the person using imagination and creativity within the field of all possibilities. Goals and objectives can be modified with regular review because the plan is flexible and used as a learning tool and working document |
| Where | The location is typically decided by the professionals involved and occurs in a meeting room (e.g., at a school, VR office). | There may be more flexibility with the location as the person can have a say in where they want the meeting and the format (e.g., in-person, online, hybrid) along with the locations. | The person chooses the format, modes of communication, and locations. Some examples of locations are living rooms, classrooms, offices—including a psychologist’s office, and an LGBT center. The person chooses the setup and can help set up the room. If the planning meeting is held in a school or building, the person may want to choose which room they want the meeting to occur in. |
| How | Planning and plans are similar from person to person and include all service options including options that are separated. Plans are more rigid based on requirements and may be only reviewed annually. Plans are not visual or written in a way that others may understand (e.g., acronyms, professional terms) | Planning and plans are personalized with interests, strengths, preferences, and needs, and take into consideration the unique characteristics, settings, and local communities. Choices may be limited to what the support team feels is best (e.g., church, programs, social activities) | Planning and plans are dynamic, evolve, and are created by the person emphasizing their choices, developing relationships, and integrated in community life with creative, innovative, practice-based evidence, and research-based practices. Reviewed regularly, their plans are used actively by the person with professional facilitation and support in planning and preparation in education and services |
| Why | Used to meet mandates, document activities, and account for services | Used for delivery of wrap-around, wholistic, and comprehensive services centered on the person, their loved ones, and their needs | Used to support the person to create, decide, and act in reaching. Their dreams/North Star, goals, and objectives as agents of change, critical influencers, and knowledge brokers, include their loved ones in supporting their development and progress, and often becomes a life plan |
Individualized Planning in Education and Services
The following summary was generated from a practitioner brief entitled, “The Relationship of Individual Career Plans to Programs of Study and Career Pathways” published by the Office of Community College Research and Leadership in a series called, “Transition Highlights.” In their practice brief, Kalchik and Oertle (2011) provide an in-depth description of individual career plans (ICPs), why ICPs are important, the roots, structures, relationship to counseling guidance and advising, implementation, challenges, recommendations, and examples of ICPs in action for people with and without disabilities. Since the late 1960s, individualized planning has been used in schools as part of the school guidance counseling programs. Many terms in planning have been used interchangeably but are meant to convey similar or the same meaning. For reference, the following list from Kalchik and Oertle (2011, p. 2) is a sample of the different terms used to describe the same type of plan:
Individual Learning Plan (ILP; Burgess, 2008; Connolly, 2009; Solomon et al., 2010; Wilkerson, 2010);
Mandated Career Plan (Martin et al., 2009);
Individual Academic Plan (Horry-Georgetown Technical College, 2008);
Individual Student Planning (Gysbers, 2008);
Graduation and Career Plan (Carl D. Perkins, 2006);
Personalized Learning Plan (Gibson & Clarke, 2000); and
Individual Career Development Plan (Gysbers, 1983).
According to Gysbers, who is considered a pioneer in career planning, ICPs are to be used for development as an instrument within a process to assist the person to develop and tell their stories. Used as both tool and process, Gysbers explains,
as an instrument, a plan can provide a place for people to record the aptitudes, interests, values, and competencies they possess, and an opportunity to itemize those they may wish to work on or acquire. It can become an organizer for personal, educational, and occupational information, which can then be updated periodically. (Kalchik & Oertle, 2011, p. 2)
A continuous, flexible plan and ongoing record, the ICP is meant to be constructed based on the person and their competencies for development over time (Gysbers, 1983). The itemized and prioritized competencies can be targeted for further development. Also, updated occasionally, the ICP can help as an organizer. The information can be used in meeting general everyday needs and in life’s crisis. In addition, the information can be used in career development planning for building resumes, completing applications, and more. Within a reflective process, the ICP can be used for developing one’s path. Explaining the process, Gybers (1983) emphasizes that an ICP should be a “highly personalized guide that helps people plan and organize their most critical life choices, including decisions about their education and career” (Kalchik & Oertle, 2011, p. 4).
Expanding upon the process, the use of ICPs has been promoted in the development of self-determination skills and causal agency of people with disabilities. However, these skills and behaviors need to be taught and supported to overcome a tendency toward passive behaviors in choice-making, problem-solving, decision-making, goal-setting and attainment, self-regulation, self-advocacy, self-awareness, and self-efficacy (Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997; Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003; Wehmeyer et al., 1998). Although there are commonalities between ICPs and IEPs, there is a lack of connections among the various planning and processes at the state and local levels (Connolly, 2009). Therefore, despite the inclusive intentions of ICPs and IEPs, individuals with disabilities continue to face barriers to being actively engaged and fully included in preparation and planning. Some commonly reported barriers and experiences that are known to be connected to passiveness are
deferring to professionals’ judgments and decisions;
difficulty understanding jargon and language of the plans;
availability of adequately trained support providers such as interpreters;
difficulty making meetings;
need for conflict resolution;
professionals not listening to the person or family;
lack of awareness of cultural impacts;
need for collaborative partnerships that include the person and their families; and
need for training for all (e.g., Aguillard & Wang, 2023; Davies et al., 2011; Oertle et al., 2023; Pang, 2011).
Person-Centered Planning
In the mid-1980s and early 1990s, person-centered planning was introduced, building upon the foundational benefits of individualized planning (Taylor & Taylor, 2013). Person-centered planning was a response to the challenges noted with individualized planning and a reflection of the social shifts mirrored by the changes in legislative mandates for preparation and planning (refer to Figure 1). Taylor and Taylor (2013) explained, “PCP [person-centered planning] was created as a backlash to professional dominance in the field of ID [intellectual disability], and designed to place more power into the hands of the individual, friends, and family of the person with the disability” (p. 223). Despite never having a universally agreed upon definition for person-centered planning (Taylor & Taylor, 2013), Mount (1992) observed,
The [term] person-centered planning became common by 1985. It expresses the family resemblance among these different methods and suggests that they share common genes. This heritage was said to include:
seeing people first rather than relating to diagnostic labels;
using ordinary language and images rather than professional jargon;
actively searching for a person’s gifts and capacities in the context of community life; and
strengthening the voice of the person and those who know the person best in accounting for their history, evaluating their present conditions in terms of valued experiences, and defining desirable changes in their lives.
More than 20 years later, Smith-Hill et al. (2023) described person-centered planning similarly, as “goal-oriented practices that center people…. within the context of their family and friends…. approaches…vary, the person at the focus of planning, and those who love the person, are the primary authorities on the person’s life direction” (p. 509). Often described among innovative practices for serving people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, person-centered planning has been more broadly discussed as an approach to provide more culturally relevant education and services, as when used in rehabilitation counseling services with the benefits of identifying new opportunities and options for employment (Hasnain & Sotnik, 2003). Although research is limited and outcome measures are difficult to isolate, both quantitative and qualitative studies have had promising results for greater community inclusion and increased quality of life (Smith-Hill et al., 2023; Taylor & Taylor, 2013). Unfortunately, despite the promising results, person-centered planning has many of the same issues as traditional individualized planning. These include overweighted professional opinions and decisions, use of jargon, confusion about the process and benefits, lack of engagement, resources, and training, and limited collaborative working alliances with the person and their supporters (Hasnain & Sotnik, 2003). The focus individual (FI) is “in the center, however someone else may take the lead….can feel like decisions are made for…instead of by…” (PA Secondary Transition, n.d., p. 1). Taylor and Taylor (2013) added to the discussion, describing conflicts with person-centered planning and education and services operations. “It is unrealistic to expect that individuals who possess limited capacity, or families that have been historically disenfranchised, will be able, ready, and willing to ‘take the lead’ with only minimal support….civil liberties…..Decision-making…..could be hindered by ‘unofficial’ decision makers” (p. 225). These issues are compounded by a lack of empathy and awareness of communication methods among educators, counselors, and service providers, especially when supporting people experiencing multiple and/or more significant challenges. Learning from and with the person is an issue too. Taylor and Taylor (2013) observed, “persons closest to the individual with the disability might not have an accurate perception of what the individual with a disability desires” (p. 229). These challenges have continued frustrations and tensions between the individual, family, and direct service personnel (Kearney & Griffin, 2001; Taylor & Taylor, 2013).
Person-Driven Planning
Person-driven planning is being used to advance what individualized and person-centered planning means for actively engaging the person in their plan. Used by people with and without disabilities, person-driven planning focuses on the person—similar to individualized and person-centered planning—but looks and feels different in practice (PA Secondary Transition, n.d.).
Several nonnegotiables are associated with person-driven planning, which include:
The person decides and approves all of the logistics and decisions so nothing goes into the plan or process without their informed decision and approval;
Any and all meetings are voluntary, and everyone plans to stay for their entirety; however, as needed, alternatives are used such as gathering input before meetings and sharing the plan afterward for comments and input and/or using questionnaires;
Before meetings, the facilitator does preparation with the person and their families to identify the goal for the meeting and how to best support full engagement;
All involved agree to open-minded thinking and management of feelings for new and different behaviors to imagine dreams being achieved in new and different ways;
Use of follow-up includes creating and using an action plan with accountability, commitments, and designated contacts; and
Most importantly, ideas are shared with positivity and potential (Sax, 2022; Take Charge: Leading the Transition to Adulthood,
https://interwork.sdsu.edu/training/take-charge ).
These nonnegotiables set the foundation in person-driven planning for the person to be supported to take the lead and make decisions regarding who attends the meetings, where the meeting is located, and how the meeting is organized and facilitated. In person-driven planning, the person practices self-advocacy and leadership that can feel empowering and collaborative (Oertle et al., 2023; Oertle, 2023; PA Secondary Transition n.d.; Sax, 2022). Moreover, applied to employment and career development, rehabilitation counselors and other professionals can assist their consumers and themselves in finding purpose in work. In reviewing “Man’s Search for Meaning” by Viktor Frankl (1946, 2006), Kay (2024) gleaned 10 lessons for rehabilitation counselors. This lesson on “Finding Purpose in Work” is applicable here.
Those who have a ‘why’ to live, can bear with almost any ‘how’ (Frankl, 1946). *Lesson to apply: Guide clients to explore the deeper meaning and purpose behind their vocational pursuits. Help the clients to connect their work to a greater sense of purpose. A greater sense of purpose leads to enhanced motivation and resilience. When clients have a ‘why’ to live, they can bear any ‘how’. (pp. 336–337)
Developing a PDP as part of the process for any of the “I” documents (e.g., IEP, Individualized Transition Planning [ITP], IPE), individuals have opportunities to share information about themselves, while gathering information from and with their support team. The planning process and involving the FI is different than a formal meeting. Emphasizing autonomy in making choices is an important part of the process as the person chooses who they want at the meeting, where they want to have it, the format (e.g., paper, electronic) and template (e.g., PowerPoint with a theme), if they want to add pictures and videos, if they want it in person, via an online platform (e.g., Zoom), or hybrid (i.e., in-person combined with online), and even if they want snacks and/or other items (e.g., decorations; drawings). Once the person develops a template (i.e., they may include/list their memories, strengths, activities, what works and doesn’t work, support needs, concerns, dreams, and plans), they choose a date and location for their meeting. The meeting itself lasts about 2 hours, and once the core information is gathered, it can be used for developing formal documents, including goals. If people cannot attend, then input is still gathered through questionnaires or by sharing the document with others to add information.
Since the PDP is a working document, not a document that is signed and finalized, the person-driven planning and progress on the action plan should be collaboratively reviewed and updated at least annually. But person-driven planning can be used for many years, and as a skill set, once learned, it can be applied repeatedly over one’s lifetime. Regular updates are invaluable as the information can be used in formal documents and with ongoing goal development. This process prepares a person to be more self-determined and to advocate for their needs as they “drive” their meeting and plans. For example, when used to learn from and with the person as part of IEP, IPE, ITP, or other parts of the transition process, students are encouraged, expected, and taught to take active roles in their own lives (e.g., Devlieger & Trach, 1999; Oertle et al., 2023; Sax, 2022). Some professionals mention that they do not know how to facilitate person-driven planning; however, facilitation need not be done by a professional. Some are done by family members or the person themselves with support, including a notetaker. The designated facilitator assists the person in leading their meeting, and a recorder is there to take notes and/or audio and video recordings are made. For step-by-step instructions, detailed examples, templates, and trainings are made available to guide questions and gather information, refer to Take Charge at
Dispelling Myths With Evidence From Person-Driven Planning Outcomes
The following statements were written by the authors for the purposes of stimulating discussion to dispel myths about communication, planning alignment, and formal assessments through lived experiences with person-driven planning (refer to Figure 3). The following sections are organized by introducing the myth statement and dispelling the myth using TIEE consumers’ stories as evidence of outcomes.
Communication Skills
Myth: Person-driven planning is best for people who have strong communication skills.
Myth dispelled: Person-driven planning can be used to develop, support, and strengthen communication skills.
Developing, Supporting, and Strengthening Communications Skills Through Person-Driven Planning
TIEE staff members have led person-driven planning meetings with people of all types of communication support needs. Assumptions are often made that the person cannot participate or may not want to be at their meeting. When supported to communicate, people stay in their meetings and make choices throughout. If a person uses a device to communicate, graphic organizers such as word clouds can be used to show the topics they choose to discuss the most. The templates used are often visual with photos, videos, and topics of interest. This process builds communication and self-advocacy skills as the person shares information about themselves as experienced by Jalen, Charlotte, James, and Luke.
Jalen
Although Jalen is very expressive and advocates for himself, he was not always given opportunities to lead meetings through traditional services at school (e.g., IEP meetings). His PDP meeting took a different approach by having Jalen be the “driver” of his meeting. He was engaged as he shared information about himself with his support team. He worked with his meeting facilitator to get input from others regarding his strengths, what worked and did not work for him, his support needs, dreams, and plans. Jalen’s communication skills continue to develop as he continues to lead meetings and present his PDP to others, including professionals such as job coaches and less familiar people at conferences and workshops.
Charlotte
Charlotte is very expressive and seems to enjoy talking to others. In the past, difficult conversations or situations may have led to crying and not wanting to talk about things. During her PDP meeting, this did not occur as the meeting was upbeat and positive. Charlotte was engaged, excited, and participated throughout the meeting. Her PDP consisted of bright colors, videos and pictures, and music videos of her favorite songs embedded in slides for her to share. Since her PDP, Charlotte has gained confidence in expressing her feelings openly. She has educated others about her health and support needs and has shared her experiences at conferences.
James
James was considered nonverbal with limited communication. He typically communicated using one-word sentences or phrases he practiced based on the situation. Since his PDP was tailored to the activities he loves, his team incorporated photos of different places he has traveled, family members, and activities he has done. He participated in his meeting by sharing where he was, who he was with, or what he was doing in the photos. He remembers everyone he has met and their names and therefore added this information at his meeting. He had a facilitator to support him by asking questions about the photos and activities. He was engaged the entire time in his 2-hour meeting, which was done via Zoom.
Luke
Luke emits positive energy whenever he is in front of a group. Despite his speech being difficult for some listeners to understand, he openly shares his thoughts with simple phrases and expressive movements. He is hard of hearing but regularly works with his support team to make sure his voice is heard. He had several PDPs over the years, each one being very visual with simple words and phrases which helped him lead his meetings. He continues to educate others at meetings, events, and conferences.
Alignment of Planning
Myth: Person-driven planning needs specialized training and is misaligned with the time needed for IEP, ITP, IPE, and other planning processes (e.g., ICP, Individualized Academic and Career Plan [IACP], ILP, Individualized Program Plan [IPP], Person Life Plan [PLP], Individualized Support Plan [ISP], and so on).
Myth dispelled: Person-driven planning has a facilitator who is chosen by the person to play a key role in supporting the individual to lead their meeting. A recorder is helpful as that person assists in taking notes. The PDP is used to individualize the transition education and services process and to construct the other plans generated for cohesiveness among planning activities (IEP, ITP, IPE, ICP, IACP, ILP, IPP, PLP, ISP, and so on).
Facilitating, Recording, and Using Person-Driven Planning With Other Planning Processes
Sheryl
Before facilitating her first person-driven planning meeting in 2010, Sheryl always thought that she was person-centered when working with students. She didn’t realize it was a process until she was asked by a former professor/mentor if she ever led a person-centered planning meeting such as Making Action Plans (MAP) or Planning Alternative Tomorrows with Hope (PATH). After facilitating her first meeting, she recognized that it is a valuable process. Not only does this meeting give the person an opportunity to share and gather information from others in their support circle, but it also engages the person in self-advocacy and self-determination as they develop goals based on their interests, skills, support needs, dreams, and plans. One does not always have an opportunity to meet everyone in a focus individual’s support system or gain a comprehensive understanding of the focus individual. It is well worth investing the time to develop a person-driven plan, as it will be useful for all mandated individualized planning.
Stephanie
Stephanie believes anyone can do person-driven planning. There is a misconception that special training is needed to facilitate meetings. The key role is making sure the person who the PDP is about is the one driving the meeting. They decide if they want something in their plan or not by collaborating with their support team. It is not as rigid as an IEP or ISP because it can be edited at any time. Since it is a working document, the individual can change it whenever they want. It doesn’t need to be as formal as the other meetings. The main focus is on the individual and what they want. The key points are the individual is participating as best as they can, the center of attention, and the content is at a level they will understand. Stephanie’s clients have been able to participate in their meetings because she helps tailor the content to shows, movies, or activities they enjoy. She and the rest of the meeting participants allow for multimedia to keep the person engaged. She supports the person by participating however they would like her to, which includes coming in and out of the meeting, playing with their favorite fidgets, having their favorite snacks, or holding the meeting in a place they feel comfortable. Stephanie did not have any special training to facilitate person-driven planning. Prior to facilitating PDPs, Stephanie was a special education teacher, and she wishes she would have known about person-driven planning sooner. It helped her to learn more about her enrollees and humanized the services Stephanie provides since she got to know the person better. It helped with rapport building and seeing how to work together to tailor the person’s goals to their interests.
Sarah
Before returning to TIEE, Sarah worked as a counselor in Texas using a person-centered theoretical framework to support clients of all ages. In addition to being trained in Applied Behavior Analysis, she incorporated client-centered therapy to promote individual growth and autonomy. After rejoining TIEE’s Cook Education Center, Sarah contributed to developing six person-driven plans for students with varying levels of support needs. While she did not facilitate these meetings, Sarah participated as a support person, collaborating with the team and sharing essential information. This experience taught her that even as a paraprofessional teacher, she could play a critical role in supporting students by contributing valuable insights, reinforcing the importance of collaboration, and supporting their person-driven planning.
Going Beyond the Assessment Level
Myth: Person-driven planning outcomes are predictable because individuals with disabilities have predictable futures based on information such as disability diagnosis and testing such as formal assessments and readiness measures.
Myth dispelled: Person-driven planning is used to support individuals with disabilities to have the opportunity to be seen and heard beyond the assessment level as they develop their self-determination and self-advocacy skills using their PDPs.
Developing Self-Determination and Self-Advocacy Skills
Jalen
Jalen’s assessments from former schools reported that he was “mostly well below average abilities in language processing, in a couple areas of visual processing, and in fine motor coordination/control.” His math skills were also “well below average.” In high school, one report stated that “the majority of Jalen’s pertinent academic skills fall between the upper end of the Extremely Low range to the lower end of the Well Below Average range.” When Jalen first started at TIEE, he needed support managing frustrating situations since he wanted to hit and kick things when he was angry. He is now the model of self-determination and self-advocacy and has developed coping skills to help with managing frustrating situations. He has met most of the goals he stated in his first PDP and updates his plan regularly (refer to Figure 4 for an example of Jalen’s “I” plans linked).
Jalen continues to advocate for himself and uses the information in his PDP to educate the people supporting him at his job and in college. Also, he educates others in the community about person-driven planning and living a self-determined life by speaking at conferences (refer to Figure 5 for Jalen’s PDP).
Charlotte
Before participating in her PDP, Charlotte’s only experience and involvement was attending her meetings for her high school IEPs; she was present but not actively involved in the process. Her mother feared for Charlotte’s future, believing her options after high school were limited, uncertain, and possibly bleak. Concerns about stagnation, regression, and a lack of job readiness persisted due to limited support from her transition program. However, after Charlotte’s PDP meeting where she set meaningful goals, she gained access to personalized services, including a personal trainer for health and fitness, an art program, music therapy, and vocational and counseling services through TIEE (refer to Figure 6).
With this support, Charlotte has pursued her passion for art and even developed a microbusiness, “Stuck on You,” selling stickers she creates. Seeing her growth and progress has been a powerful example of how person-driven planning can foster self-determination and unlock potential beyond initial assessments and diagnoses. Figure 7 is an example of linking Charlotte’s PDP goals to her “I” documents.
James
Based on traditional assessments, a path toward employment would not typically be considered for James due to his limited communication, attention, and endurance skills. Based on the information in his PDP, his team was able to evaluate his strengths and find job opportunities connected to those skills (Figure 8). James needed something repetitive with a lot of movement. He liked being outside and socializing with others. He is now in a paid internship at an event hall and loves it. There was a short period of time he was not able to attend due to family emergencies, but he regularly asked when he would go back to work. It is clear that he values working and continues to increase his skills as he interacts regularly with others.
Luke
Luke faced many challenges with academics, social skills, and communication skills while he was in school. Traditional assessments seemed to be deficit-based and were not contextualized in terms of strengths, being student-centered, or being a pathway for goals and skill development. Traditional individualized plans (e.g., IEPs, IPPs) seemed to “feel meaningless and form-fitting with checkboxes” for Luke and his family. They did not look forward to these meetings since Luke did not have much say or input. There was not much support for having Luke take the lead or including him in a meaningful and respectful way where he could contribute information. Luke first had a PDP meeting when he was in middle school, which gave him the opportunity to be involved in his life and advocate for his goals. According to his mom, this process “opened eyes and gave people an opportunity to see him as a human and see his needs in a meaningful way.” Luke is now 35 years old and has had at least four PDPs over the years. These meetings involved people in his life such as friends, neighbors, family members, paraprofessionals, and professionals. The PDPs have been used to guide Luke’s goals through school and post-school (Figure 9). He set the life goals he wanted, such as working at a stadium (in addition to the grocery store), building his technology skills, taking photography classes, acting, going to social events, becoming a black belt in karate, and managing his dog. Luke says it best by telling others, “My plan gives me power. I can make my own choices. I am excited about my future.”
DISCUSSION
The legal and ethical precedents have reinforced the human and civil rights of people with disabilities as the evolution of individualized planning has amplified the support of their determination and advocacy. As expressed by the authors who are TIEE consumers and the professionals that serve them, in using person-driven planning, they have reached their goals and are employed in areas in which they want to work. They have developed new goals and continue to apply and connect person-driven planning to IPPs and other planning for alignment and to make meaningful collaboration possible.
The attention to and applications of person-driven planning are growing. For instance, integration of person-driven planning is theorized as essential for effectiveness in transition outcomes as one of the underpinnings in Collaborate for Change (C2), a model and competencies from a NIDILRR-funded field-initiated development project on transition-specific collaboration (Oertle et al., 2023). Used with people of all types including people with and without disabilities, person-driven planning is being used for expanding conceptions for interdisciplinary access and support. Recently, person-driven planning has been applied in STEM contexts through the Transition Engineered Collaborative, which is a conceptualization of STEM educators, secondary special educators, and rehabilitation counselors working together in collaboration for opportunities to make connections, address cultural assumptions, and maximize their intersecting ethical codes for person-driven planning (McCall & Oertle, 2023). Another example, McCall (2024) proposed, “Innovation for Inclusion” (I2), an ecosystem with personalization to promote the success of students with disabilities in STEM. In I2, people with disabilities have pathways to STEM employment and accessible careers using person-driven planning as its core tenet.
Person-driven planning can be used to individualize and/or personalize tools and processes for strengths-based continuous improvement planning such as in strategic planning, professional development, life plans (e.g., MAP; PATH), and logic modeling with inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and impacts (i.e., When, Then; W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004). Since most professionals have continuing education requirements, by practicing person-driven planning, professionals could drive their professional development. For example, over 5-year intervals, rehabilitation counselors need to have completed 100 clock hours of approved continuing education, of which 10 must be in ethics or take the examination to maintain the credential of Certified Rehabilitation Counselor (Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification, 2014, 2023).
Dispelling myths through the use and evidence of successes and learning from failures—dignity of risk and humanness—human rights and civil rights, the American Psychological Association (APA) released revised guidelines for assessment and interventions in 2023, acknowledging the need for changing professional practices to advocate for and eliminate/reduce continued marginalization of people with disabilities (Hanson et al., 2023). The APA further emphasized that professionals need to “strengthen their knowledge and skills to more effectively serve….to be advocates for change that removes individual and systemic barriers to a more inclusive society” (p. 995). To help readers contribute to broader efforts to address the needs identified by the APA, several recommendations and strategies for implementation are provided in Table 2.
Person-Driven Planning Recommendations and Strategies
| Recommendation | Strategies for implementation |
|---|---|
| Practice person-driven planning |
|
| Start early and have high expectations |
|
| Learn from success and failures for growth with dignity of risk |
|
| Contextualize collaboration in education and services |
|
| Teach the person to drive their preparation and planning, getting to know themselves to learn with and from each other |
|
| Use the person-driven plan as an ongoing tool to drive services |
|
ICPs = Individual Career Plans; IEPs = Individualized Education Programs; IPEs = Individualized Plans for Employment; ILPs = Individual Learning Plan; IPPs = Individualized Program Plans; ISPs = Individualized Support Plans; ITPs = Individualized Transition Planning.
Sources for More Information to Use as Resources to Implement Person-Driven Planning
Take Charge
https://interwork.sdsu.edu/training/take-charge National Center on Advancing Person-Centered Practices & Systems (NCAPPS)
https://ncapps.acl.gov/home.html Fostering Self-Determination
https://ucedd.waisman.wisc.edu/community-inclusion/#our-product Template for a 1-Page Profile (from a parent of a child with a disability)
http://our3lilbirds.blogspot.com/2017/05/how-to-make-one-page-profile-ellie-style.html Template for the Prep-Person Driven Plans
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1SIojZYkqROTk0n8i9Fg_YwZSyJ0yXcVhpP3SKaUQT8Y/copy#slide=id.g8383fd7790_0_32
CONCLUSIONS
“That is, in our quest to serve the individual, we must avoid those previous pitfalls that led us to believe that ‘we’ always know what’s best for the client” (Taylor & Taylor, 2013, p. 229). Active person-driven planning can be used for people at all ability levels and allows opportunities for individuals to build self-advocacy and self-determination skills. It is not only a collaborative process with the person and their support teams; the person is the one driving the process, seeking support and information from others as they participate. Teaching and practicing these skills take time, especially if one is inexperienced in being involved in leading meetings. Therefore, using individualized strategies such as starting with small choices, simple wording, and/or visuals allows individuals to start their involvement in the process in a way that makes sense to them. These modifications and support with communication ensure that all voices are heard. Person-driven planning is used to bring the focus of the individual’s support team together based on their choices and strengths to create a PDP that is a visual, working document that leads to goal development (e.g., “I-Forms”).
Person-driven planning is for people of all ages and ability levels. The authors’ stories highlighted in this article represent many people with successful outcomes, including employment, due to person-driven planning. These plans were working documents that were reviewed and updated on a regular basis. The information from the PDPs led to goal development and supported competitive integrated employment. As skills are built and comfort in sharing information from the PDPs grows, including strengths and support needs, individuals gain confidence with skills necessary for employment, such as interviewing and advocating for accommodations. Furthermore, the professionals providing the services become more confident in their abilities. Challenging resistance and myths will continue to move person-driven planning forward, as it is the best way to assess, gather information, and develop goals in order to provide a high level of quality support that leads to employment and meaningful life goals.
© 2025 National Rehabilitation Counseling Association