Tensions between institutional closure and deinstitutionalisation: what can be learned from Victoria’s institutional redevelopment?

Abstract

Deinstitutionalisation must extend beyond the closure of institutions to individualised support to people with intellectual disabilities and societal change. Castellani suggests that closure processes may be incompatible with effective deinstitutionalisation. This article draws on findings from two Australian studies of institutional closures to explore tensions in the closure process that occur in the policy context of applying managerialist principles to the delivery of services, and examines how these processes hindered or furthered the aims of deinstitutionalisation. It suggests closure can divert attention from planning for individualised support, the needs of staff may conflict with those of residents, transition plans may be disrupted by organisational imperatives and that little attention may be paid to broader community development strategies or micro‐level planning of the nature of staff support. The article reiterates the danger of equating institutional closure with deinstitutionalisation and the need to focus beyond the imperatives of closure.

Notes

1. The relocation involved the transfer of residents from a government‐run institution to community houses managed by non‐government organisations. The concept of transmission of business requires the government to demonstrate that the same business is not simply being transferred to the non‐government sector, where pay and conditions are poorer than in the government sector. If ‘transmission of business’ is demonstrated, then industrial agreements require that pay and conditions from the government sector be transferred to the non‐government sector.