The changes that are emerging in systems of support for people with developmental disabilities are part of a trajectory of reform that began decades ago. These reforms have encompassed the exposure of the inhumane conditions associated with institutions, the creation of alternative residential and day supports in the community, the passage of significant federal and state legislation supporting legal and civil rights of people with disabilities, and the provision of supports to families to maintain children with disabilities in their communities. As each component of reform has taken root, the power of ideas like normalization, and participation to criticize practice and to inform further change has increased. It is as if the closer we think we are to the realization of these ideals, the more they demand of our skills and creativity. The purpose of this column is to explore the implications of these ideals, the ways in which they are fueling initiatives around the country, the challenges that constrain their full realization, and the steps that must be taken to keep the developmental disabilities system moving in a progressive direction. INCLUSION AS A TRANSFORMING GOAL The notion of inclusion, in one form or another, has been a motivating force for reform in the field of developmental disabilities through the past 25 years. Conceptually, inclusion has evolved from an aspiration linked to place to one tied to participation, choice, and relationships. Probably the earliest expression of the idea, at as a concept with specific entailments, was in Normalization (1972) by Wolfensberger. As Wolfensberger's compelling yet deceptively simple notion began to invade public developmental disabilities service systems, it was used to criticize a variety of practices and settings including institutional surroundings, infantacizing decorations and language, and inadequate day activities. As the concept was refined and honed, it spawned more encompassing aspirations, such as community integration and community membership (Bradley, cited in Bradley, Ashbaugh, & Blaney, 1994). The notion of community integration was related directly to the movement of people out of institutions and i mplied a re-entry by those who had been forced out. Likewise, community membership implied joining a fellowship that and individual had been alienated from. Concepts that stressed integration and community-based services also influenced public policy, which in turn influenced practice. Phrases such as least restrictive environment and mainstreaming emerged as part of the landmark right to education legislation. Class action lawsuits brought during the 1970s also echoed these notions including the Halderman v. Pennhurst (1977) litigation, which found a right to habilitation in the community. These powerful legal ideals had a transforming effect on the delivery of educational as well as residential and day services for people with developmental disabilities. As fewer and fewer children and adults left their communities to receive services and as institutional populations began a precipitous decline, the ideals that emerged to drive the system had less to do with opposition to a dominant norm (for example, exclusion, extrusion, institutionalization, alienation) and more to do with affirmative notions of equality and accommodation of differences. No longer was the system exhorted to provide better surroundings and opportunities than those available in the institution but to facilitate supports that would allow people with developmental disabilities to lead lives available to all citizens. The basis for judgment now is whether people with developmental disabilities are able to enjoy such shared goods as relationships, friendships, home ownership, real jobs, spiritual fulfillment, and exercise of personal choice. These assumptions about what constitutes satisfying life have come to be known as inclusion. …