A/HRC/37/56 available.21 In that regard, legislation should be flexible enough to respond to this diversity and should not prescribe one form of support over others. 58. While the majority of supported decision-making mechanisms outlined in legislation include some kind of formality (such as a signed agreement or a court order), there is no clear consensus among pilot projects and programmes on the benefits of operating under a formal arrangement. Some projects have identified many positive outcomes from the inclusion of a written agreement between individuals and their supporters, such as recognizing the autonomy and self-determination of the individual, tailoring and clarifying the scope of the support, making the supporter accountable and challenging community attitudes towards supported decision-making. Procedural safeguards can also be included into formalized support arrangements. However, some programmes intentionally exclude signed agreements, due to concerns about undermining the relationship of trust, as well as the informal nature of support.22 Legal frameworks should therefore be flexible enough to recognize both informal and formal support arrangements and avoid overregulation. 59. The majority of supported decision-making practices include a component for training supporters to ensure respect for the will and preferences of individuals and avoid paternalistic attitudes, low expectations and substitute decision-making. Programmes with good practices on training typically involve supporters receiving initial comprehensive training and continuous training, including one-on-one coaching and problem-solving sessions. 23 Topics vary, including basic training on supported decision-making, personcentred approaches, strategies for supported decision-making and human rights. For example, peer support groups in Kenya receive training on human rights, including the rights-based approach to disability. It is important to ensure that clear and effective resources and training on supported decision-making are available and easily accessible for anyone providing or receiving support. 60. Community involvement has been demonstrated to contribute significantly to the success of supported decision-making. Providing support to make decisions is only helpful as long as others recognize those decisions. Community involvement is necessary to address structural factors that can hinder or violate the exercise of legal capacity of persons with disabilities, such as stigma, discrimination and institutionalization. In that regard, many supported decision-making initiatives have considered training for the authorities and for service providers, including judges, notaries and medical personnel, among others. 61. Communities also play a role in developing support alternatives, such as support networks or peer and self-support groups, as well as helping people to access existing support networks, particularly persons with a high level of support needs and older persons with disabilities, who may lack other sources of support. Indeed, community-based approaches for the provision of support constitute an effective strategy to ensure that responses consider geographical, social, economic and cultural issues (see A/HRC/34/58, para. 53). According to article 19 of the Convention, legislation must ensure a communitybased approach in the provision of supported decision-making and facilitate the flourishing of social networks that ensure the individual autonomy and self-determination of persons with disabilities. 62. Supported decision-making initiatives use a broad range of safeguards, including adherence to the will and preferences of the individual concerned, express recognition of his or her right to withdraw from any arrangement, the establishment of time limits and periodic reviews of arrangements, coaching sessions and dispute-solving and monitoring mechanisms. In many projects, having multiple supporters was identified as a safeguard, 21 22 23 14 See Brenda Burgen, “Reflections on the Victorian Office of the Public Advocate supported decisionmaking pilot project”, Research and Practice in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, vol. 3, No. 2 (2016). See WestWood Spice, “My life, my decision: an independent evaluation of the supported decision making pilot”, New South Wales Government Department of Community and Family Services (2015). See Bizchut, “Supported decision-making service for persons with disabilities. Service model”, schedule C (2017).