Measuring Ethical and Empirical Consequences of De-Institutionalisation

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to examine the consequences of closing institutions for people with disabilities and accommodating them in Supported Residential Services. Issues that had been raised by an advocacy movement included shortcomings in privacy, dignity, control and meaningful activity in institutions, which led to their closure. The study applied a quality of life measurement which was commensurate with the ethical paradigms of welfare, autonomy and communitarianism to investigate whether community living in supported residences produced fulfilling lives and better outcomes than the institutions they replaced. Twenty-seven people with a disability and/or mental health issue in Supported Residential Services in Victoria, Australia were interviewed using the ‘Lehman Quality of Life Questionnaire’. An investigation into the Quality of Life of one group of de-institutionalised residents revealed that issues remain. People in the Supported Residences appear to be no better off than when they were in institutions. The study identified that it was common for a resident to have no phone, no friends outside the residence, little or no family contact, no disposable money and no job. However, since there was no research conducted before de-institutionalisation, the impact of the policy change is difficult to determine. Applying ethical measures, such as the Capabilities approach, reveals that issues remain. Practical implications from this study are first, that positive measures need to be added to de-institutionalisation to achieve satisfactory outcomes and second, that policy makers would be better informed and likely more effective if data were collected before and after significant changes.

Citation

Jewell, P., Dent, M. and Crocker, R. (2016), "Measuring Ethical and Empirical Consequences of De-Institutionalisation", Contemporary Issues in Applied and Professional Ethics (Research in Ethical Issues in Organizations, Vol. 15), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 149-167. https://doi.org/10.1108/S1529-209620160000015009