支持住宿服务作为一种“综合机构”:对国家残疾保险计划(NDIS)的影响

IF 2 2区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL ISSUES Australian Journal of Social Issues Pub Date : 2022-09-11 DOI:10.1002/ajs4.233
Elroy Dearn, Paul Ramcharan, Penelope Weller, Lisa Brophy, Katherine Johnson
{"title":"支持住宿服务作为一种“综合机构”:对国家残疾保险计划(NDIS)的影响","authors":"Elroy Dearn,&nbsp;Paul Ramcharan,&nbsp;Penelope Weller,&nbsp;Lisa Brophy,&nbsp;Katherine Johnson","doi":"10.1002/ajs4.233","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>A policy norm enshrined in the United Nations <i>Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006</i> reflected in Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme is for people with psychosocial and other disabilities to have choice and control over their lives and not to live in institutional settings. In Australia, private congregate care settings remain in most states and territories, yet are not recognised as institutional settings in policy or academic literature. This recognition is long overdue and is the focus of this article. The article reports on findings from an ethnographic study in a type of private congregate care setting in Victoria—supported residential services (SRS). Adopting criteria adopted by Davies (1989) from Goffman's notion of “total institution,” observations and interviews with 12 residents with psychosocial disability are analysed. These settings are found to meet many of the criteria for total institution. This finding has two critical implications for policy and practice. First, the extent to which institutionalisation in SRS impacts on the choices residents are able to make. Second, the extent to which independent support and advocacy are needed to ensure residents can exercise choice and control over their lives to find pathways out of SRS.</p>","PeriodicalId":46787,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Social Issues","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajs4.233","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Supported residential services as a type of “total institution”: Implications for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)\",\"authors\":\"Elroy Dearn,&nbsp;Paul Ramcharan,&nbsp;Penelope Weller,&nbsp;Lisa Brophy,&nbsp;Katherine Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ajs4.233\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>A policy norm enshrined in the United Nations <i>Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006</i> reflected in Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme is for people with psychosocial and other disabilities to have choice and control over their lives and not to live in institutional settings. In Australia, private congregate care settings remain in most states and territories, yet are not recognised as institutional settings in policy or academic literature. This recognition is long overdue and is the focus of this article. The article reports on findings from an ethnographic study in a type of private congregate care setting in Victoria—supported residential services (SRS). Adopting criteria adopted by Davies (1989) from Goffman's notion of “total institution,” observations and interviews with 12 residents with psychosocial disability are analysed. These settings are found to meet many of the criteria for total institution. This finding has two critical implications for policy and practice. First, the extent to which institutionalisation in SRS impacts on the choices residents are able to make. Second, the extent to which independent support and advocacy are needed to ensure residents can exercise choice and control over their lives to find pathways out of SRS.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46787,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Social Issues\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajs4.233\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Social Issues\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajs4.233\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL ISSUES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Social Issues","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajs4.233","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

澳大利亚国家残疾保险计划反映的《2006年联合国残疾人权利公约》所载的一项政策规范是,社会心理残疾者和其他残疾者有权选择和控制自己的生活,而不是生活在机构环境中。在澳大利亚,私人集体护理机构仍然存在于大多数州和地区,但在政策或学术文献中不被认为是机构设置。这一认识是姗姗来迟的,也是本文的重点。本文报告了一项民族志研究的结果,该研究是在维多利亚州支持的住宅服务(SRS)的一种私人聚集护理环境中进行的。采用Davies(1989)从Goffman的“整体机构”概念中采用的标准,对12名心理社会残疾居民的观察和访谈进行了分析。我们发现,这些设置符合总体机构的许多标准。这一发现对政策和实践有两个重要影响。首先,SRS制度对居民选择能力的影响程度。其次,需要多大程度的独立支持和倡导,以确保居民能够选择和控制自己的生活,找到摆脱SRS的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Supported residential services as a type of “total institution”: Implications for the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS)

A policy norm enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006 reflected in Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme is for people with psychosocial and other disabilities to have choice and control over their lives and not to live in institutional settings. In Australia, private congregate care settings remain in most states and territories, yet are not recognised as institutional settings in policy or academic literature. This recognition is long overdue and is the focus of this article. The article reports on findings from an ethnographic study in a type of private congregate care setting in Victoria—supported residential services (SRS). Adopting criteria adopted by Davies (1989) from Goffman's notion of “total institution,” observations and interviews with 12 residents with psychosocial disability are analysed. These settings are found to meet many of the criteria for total institution. This finding has two critical implications for policy and practice. First, the extent to which institutionalisation in SRS impacts on the choices residents are able to make. Second, the extent to which independent support and advocacy are needed to ensure residents can exercise choice and control over their lives to find pathways out of SRS.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
4.00%
发文量
45
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Implementing the HEALing Matters program in residential out-of-home care: Evaluation of carers' commitment to promoting healthy lifestyle behaviours Work incentives in Australia: The distribution of effective marginal tax rates for working‐age Australians in 2023 Cryptocurrencies: Who is vulnerable and what are the vulnerabilities? Issue Information
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1