Circles of Support in Learning Disability Services: From Concept to Operational Reality
Circles of support extend beyond immediate family to include friends, advocates, professionals and community connections. In learning disability services, effective circles reduce isolation, strengthen resilience and provide additional safeguards. Within family, carer and circle of support involvement, these networks must be intentionally designed alongside wider learning disability service models and pathways to be sustainable and effective.
This article explores how providers move circles of support from theory into consistent operational practice.
What a circle of support looks like in practice
A functional circle of support is not a static list of names. It is a living network with defined roles, communication routes and review points.
Effective circles typically include:
• Family members or carers (where appropriate)
• Paid supporters and keyworkers
• Advocates or peer supporters
• Health and social care professionals
• Community connections meaningful to the person
Operationalising circles through planning and review
Circles of support should be embedded within:
• Person-centred plans
• Reviews and transition planning
• Risk management and safeguarding processes
• Crisis prevention and escalation planning
Without this integration, circles risk becoming symbolic rather than protective.
Operational example 1: strengthening resilience through wider support
Context: A woman living alone experienced anxiety and isolation, leading to repeated service dependency and crisis calls.
Support approach: The provider mapped her existing informal connections and worked with her to rebuild a broader circle of support.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Staff supported reconnection with a former college peer, introduced a community volunteer and involved an advocate in reviews. Roles were clarified and communication routes agreed.
How effectiveness was evidenced: Crisis calls reduced and the individual reported increased confidence. Governance reports showed improved wellbeing indicators and reduced service dependency.
Maintaining boundaries and consent
Circles of support must respect consent, capacity and privacy. Providers should ensure:
• Clear consent and information-sharing agreements
• Proportionate involvement aligned with the person’s wishes
• Regular review of who is involved and why
Operational example 2: managing safeguarding within a circle
Context: A safeguarding concern arose involving a member of a person’s informal network.
Support approach: The provider reviewed the circle of support, restricted involvement where necessary and engaged safeguarding partners.
Day-to-day delivery detail: The individual was supported to understand changes, advocacy input was provided and boundaries were clearly communicated.
How effectiveness was evidenced: Risk reduced, safeguarding actions were completed and the individual retained a sense of control and understanding.
Governance and assurance of circles of support
Providers should be able to evidence:
• How circles are reviewed and updated
• How risks within networks are identified and managed
• How learning is captured when networks fail or succeed
Operational example 3: provider-level learning
Context: A provider identified inconsistent practice in how circles of support were used.
Support approach: A standard framework was introduced across services.
Day-to-day delivery detail: Managers audited plans and provided coaching. Circle effectiveness became a review agenda item.
How effectiveness was evidenced: Improved consistency, stronger reviews and positive inspection feedback.
Commissioner expectation
Commissioners expect circles of support to reduce isolation, improve resilience and contribute to safer, more sustainable care.
Regulator expectation (CQC)
CQC expects people to be supported to maintain relationships and community connections that promote wellbeing and safety.
Conclusion
When operationalised properly, circles of support are powerful protective factors. Providers who embed them into planning, governance and review create more resilient, person-centred services.