The functional view and the rights-based view

The functional view asks what a person can do in a particular setting with particular supports. It is the working language of assessment in disability services: an assessor does not record a diagnosis and stop, they describe how a person manages meals, transfers, medication, communication and decisions, and what changes when a support is added. That information is valuable precisely because it is situational. Change the kitchen layout, add a reminder system or a support worker, and the functional picture changes.

The risk is that a functional description hardens into a fixed judgment. “Needs assistance with communication” becomes “cannot participate in meetings.” A snapshot taken in a stressful interview becomes a permanent label. When you hear a sentence about what a disabled person cannot do, the functional view asks three follow-up questions: in what setting, with what supports, and who said so?

The rights-based view asks a different question: what duties of equal access and nondiscrimination apply here? For a public agency in Minnesota, those duties come from the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the Minnesota Human Rights Act and the state’s Olmstead commitments. In plain terms, they cover employment, programs and services, effective communication, physical access and the right to receive services in the most integrated setting appropriate. This view gives the social view teeth. Its risk is that it becomes compliance-only: the minimum is met, a box is checked, and nobody asks whether the person could actually take part.