ere put into three categories: (a) intended to increase participation; (b) to reduce or challenge behavior; (c) related to physical or sensory special needs. Next, they were scored, to determine the quality and effectiveness of the objectives or goals. Results indicated that there is no significant difference in using an Individual Habilitation program. I feel that this study could have been conducted in clearer way. For one, the participants were all selected from one particular state and longitudinal study, which may have something to do with the outcome. They should have been randomly selected to get a clear and accurate sample. Another problem is the way the IHP objectives were assessed. Someone may look at a particular goal and say there was no real change, when in regards to the participant it may have a big step. Therefore, in my opinion if the participant shows any sign of improvement in that area, the IHP can be deemed effective.The last study was conducted to see how staff presence and unit- size could influence choice- making. Stancliffe (1995) asked staff members to nominate residents that will be able to discuss choice- making. There were 74 residents that were chosen to participate in this study. They were then given a choice- questionnaire to fill out, to determine their level of choice making. Results, suggests that a high staff presence and a large unit- size, decreases their choice- making. I feel that the study was conducted very well. However, when looking at the results one must realize that there are differences in residential services. It should also be taken into consideration that some people might require more staff presence in certain areas, than others might. Through my own experience, I can tell what programs are effective and which ones are not. First, lets examine the supportive setting versus the traditional setting. I can tell you working in a traditional setting (group home) does not benefit the individ...