Deinstitutionalization – quo vadis Austria?
p. 663-683
Résumé
While some countries are already in the phase of post-deinstitutionalization, Austria is still on its way out of traditional institutional forms of housing.
In the conservative-corporatist and federal character of the Austrian welfare state, the nine subnational units (Bundesländer) are responsible for legislation and funding of social services in this field.
The applied subnational comparison is based on nine case study analysis. The analysis shows that different strategies towards deinstitutionalization and its opposite are active.
The variety of service types differs within Austria, but strategies favoring institutionalization can be found in all subnational units, as the option for residential care is provided in all subnational disability laws. The comparative analysis shows that financial limitations and a maximum of service hours for assistive and mobile services - which inhibit the process of deinstitutionalization - can be found in the normative guidelines.
Services are provided almost exclusively by private providers and the structure of the providers is heterogenous from subnational unit to subnational unit and alternates between church and charitable providers as well as civil society providers. Some service providers tend to enable approximate deinstitutionalization, as they try to offer smaller supported shared flats and thus enable more independent living.
Entrées d’index
Keywords : deinstitutionalization, institutionalization, Austria, subnational, comparison, independent living, residential care
Texte intégral
1. Introduction
1According to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) and the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, independent living and participation in society can be fulfilled only outside of institutions (United Nations, 2022). Thereby, the definition of an institution active in the disability sector can be quite open. Lewis and Richardson (2020, p. 6) consider it as “any place in which people who have been labeled as having a disability are isolated, segregated and/or compelled to live together”. This definition results in a classification of institutions not depending on the size, but rather on institutional characteristics such as heteronomy, alienation, isolation, segregation and restrictions on choice and decision making (Lewis & Richardson, 2020; World Health Organization, 2011). Complex residential institutions are places where there is hardly any separation of work, residence, day activities, care, or leisure. Goffman argues total institutions are recognizable by factors like work and residence of a number of similarly situated persons under one roof, separated from the community for a considerable time or, together lead an enclosed, formally administered daily life (Goffman, 1961). Deinstitutionalization (DI) refers to a change in the housing system for persons with disabilities away from large and complex residential care institutions to community-based, individualized services, thereby realizing full, effective and equal social participation, independent living as well as participation in everyday life (Fleischer et al., 2021; Franz, 2018; Pattyn et al., 2021; Seifert, 2016; Wong et al., 2018). Moreover, DI leads to an increased presence of persons with disabilities in the public sphere, as they live in the community like everyone else, go shopping, receive visits, go to social events or to work (Fleischer et al., 2021).
2Even in times of so-called post-deinstitutionalization, large and complex residential institutions still exist (Crowther, 2019; Falk, 2016; Heusner et al., 2019; Schaur & Wegscheider, 2020). Crowther (2019) criticizes the high numbers of institutionalized persons and Austria’s ongoing misuses of the structural funds as well as the European Social Fund for building new residential homes instead of investing in structures that support independent living in the community: “There is evidence that in Austria, where 13, 000 persons with disabilities live in institutions (including residential and care facilities, ranging from shared group homes for three persons to large residential homes for more than 100 persons) European funding has been used to build and to refurbish institutions for disabled adults” (Crowther, 2019, p 31). Flieger and Naue (2021) state that the tendency of institutionalization is still strong in Austria and results in living arrangements reproducing segregation. Pressure from persons with disabilities and allies has increased in recent years and in addition, the problems and side effects of institutionalization have also been heavily and controversially discussed in the newspapers (see e.g. Arora, 2019; Flieger, 2017; Ichner, 2017; kobinet-nachrichten, 2023; Müllebner, 2022; Neuhold, 2018; VertretungsNetz, 2019; Wahl, 2020).
3Although Austria has only 9 million inhabitants, the constitution makes it a republic with nine subnational units (Bundesländer). The subnational governments are responsible for disability assistance, social assistance, care assistance, or building law – all these areas that can be relevant for housing of persons with disabilities. The federal government can mainly enact basic laws; the subnational units have their own implementing laws and take charge of enforcement independently. Flieger and Naue (2013a) stated that compared to other countries the phase of DI began late in Austria, is still ongoing and comes with regional differences in implementation. One of the main challenges is that “disability politics and policies are still perceived and implemented as an add-on and not as a cross-cutting policy issue” (Naue & Flieger, 2021). The subnational governments seemed to react differently after the ratification of the UN CRPD in 2008, and regarding demands of the disability rights movement, national or local activities of disabled people associations, and disability service provider organizations.
2. Purpose and methodology
4The purpose of this article is to identify factors of influence at national and subnational levels in the process of DI and the heterogenous reactions to the demands for providing community-based living services. Disability politics and policies at the subnational level are examined in order to find explanations for diverging developments in the subnational units. We want to explain why some subnational units can be described as pioneers for the goal of DI, which subnational governments are already making efforts towards this goal and how some subnational units are undermining the goal, blocking it or even moving in the opposite direction. By providing findings on the factors of influence in the Austrian process of DI, we think that a research gap will be filled, as no study already examined influencing factors on subnational level.
5The article is based on case studies for each Austrian subnational unit (Yin, 2009) and a subnational comparison (Clasen, 2011; Snyder, 2001). The case studies are based on qualitative content and data analysis (Krell & Lamnek, 2016). The data base consists of existing literature, legal and policy documents and reports issued by public services, service providers and Disabled People Organizations (DPOs). The nine cases were then compared with each other along the disability policy context (derived from history), actors (service providers and DPOs) and regulatory context (disability assistance acts at subnational level). Content and data from subnational analyses supported identifying and better understanding relationships at the national level. Additional data was collected to identify existing service providers in the subnational units and revealed information on the housing provider structure. Afterwards, characteristics of pioneers, in-betweens and late-comers in the process of DI were identified to classify the subnational units. Thereby, pioneers provide good practices that are conform to the requirements of DI. The focus of pioneers lies on independent living, freedom of choice and a wide range of community-based services and alternatives to residential care institutions. This focus is reflected in the disability assistance acts and services and in the political understanding of DI. Late-comers are delayed in the process of DI. The process is still in a planning phase and good practices are rare. Late-comers’ disability assistance acts and services are mainly based on a medical view on disability, disability policy is dragging in setting innovations and changes. In-betweens provide innovation, but with slow progress. A mix of good and bad practices can be found. Disability policy focuses on an incoherent strategy and implements rather decentralization instead of DI.
6This article is divided into three sections: The theoretical background (section 3) identifies influences provided by existing literature and specifies the role of federalism as major influence in the development of disability policies and politics. Section 4 presents the descriptive account of the general disability contexts in the different subnational units and the final section (5) presents the conclusion.
3. Theoretical background
7In Austria, diverging strategies towards DI and the variation in phases of the process are the result of federalism on the one hand and influencing context factors at subnational level on the other. Thereby, context factors can facilitate or hinder DI.
3.1. Federalism and disability policy and politics
8A factor that has major influence on disability policy and politics is federalism. As Greer et al. (2023, p. 4) point out, a “political system is federal if there are multiple units of general-purpose government that have constitutionally defined powers and cannot unilaterally abolish each other”. The nine subnational governments should have rather limited influence on nationwide social policy developments and limited “legislative powers over social policy, but on subjects where they have such powers, they need to operate within framework legislation formulated by the federal government” (Greer et al., 2023, p. 61). Beyond the formal institutional structure of the state, the distribution of political rule varies widely among policy fields due to distribution of competences by the constitution. According to the Austrian Federal Constitution, there are policy fields that are clearly under central government control, in other policy fields legislation is centralized, but implementation and administration are decentralized, and finally there are still others in which there is a kind of central framework legislation, but the implementing regulations are enacted relatively independently at the state level and the enforcement is regulated there as well (Mätzke & Stöger, 2014). The disability assistance and service sector are in the last category.
9The Austrian Federal Constitutional Law does not contain any specific, technical and regional competence provisions on disability. For this reason, the central government left disability to be co-administered in different policy areas on an ad hoc basis and mostly open to create regulations for persons with disabilities where they seem to be appropriate or necessary (e.g. in social law, in family law, in labor law, in building law). Everything concerning paid employment and social security is regulated according to Article 10 of the Austrian Federal Constitution at the central level. Article 12 determines that for “poor relief” and nursing and care homes, the central government provides the legal frame guidelines. For the shaping implementing laws and the execution the subnational governments are responsible. In the 1960s, social assistance and assistance for persons with disabilities developed from poor relief with their own legal basis. This means for housing services, social assistance, the care or disability service sector, the subnational governments have a legal leeway and responsibility in how to make use of financial funds. Subnational units are relatively autonomous – besides some central framework rules - in the drafting of implementing legislation and in its enforcement.
3.2. Disabling barriers and facilitators
10Successful DI depends on various factors: The prevalent medical focus in disability policy hinders deinstitutionalized living arrangements and freedom of choice (Rohrmann, 2012; Schaur & Wegscheider, 2020) and the structure dominance of the conservative welfare state prevents full DI (Rohrmann, 2012). Especially this mural dominance has an inhibiting and ambivalent effect on transformation processes in disability assistance. According to the UN CRPD, service providers are supposed to establish community-based and person-centred services, while they still have to face challenges of institutionalized services (Aselmeier, 2016). As a result, the disability assistance policy often adopts a dual strategy: Introduction of deinstitutionalized services while institutionalized living arrangements remain unchanged (Flieger et al., 2013a; Schädler & Rohrmann, 2016; Schaur & Wegscheider, 2020; Windisch, 2017). In this context, the legal right to freedom of choice and independent living supported by sufficient and accessible person-centred assistance services were identified as crucial to foster DI (Falk, 2016; Groß, 2019; Wong et al., 2018). Besides that, it was observed that a disabling physical and information environment, the role of negative attitudes and cuts in social benefits push persons with disabilities to live in residential care facilities or to be unable to give up the institutional life (Flieger et al., 2013a; Plangger & Schönwiese, 2010; Rohrmann, 2012).
11Where institutionalized living arrangements have become rare or the exception, the “provision of acceptable living conditions for all” is one of the major aspects in the process of DI (Tøssebro, 2016, p. 113). Interestingly, the process of full DI meaning a complete shutdown of all residential care institutions while providing accessible and sufficient individualized community-based services starts with improving and downsizing institutions and a general agreement that children should grow up outside of residential care facilities (Tøssebro, 2016).
12Disability is above all a right, social and economic issue and only then a health issue. Since the 1980s the social and rights-based model of disability has been a major inspiration for persons with disabilities and their allies and has an impact on disability policy. A result has been an increase in organizations controlled by persons with disabilities (DPO) demanding for independent living. First there were opposition to the established services controlled by professionals, based on a culture of care as one of the main targets for activism. Another aim is DI through providing personal assistance. Centers of Independent Living were established in many countries, mostly with a dual role as both service providers for personal assistance and political advocates for rights and independent living outside institutions (Barnes & Mercer, 2006; Campbell & Oliver, 1996). At first, it were mainly persons with physical and sensory disabilities who formed independent living groups; in later years, persons with mental health conditions and learning disabilities followed this example and formed self-advocacy groups. For them, the demand for access to specialist provision in services and social benefits is crucial, however persons concerned demand they should always be person-centered, and based on normalization or equality principles (Baar, 2022; Johnson et al., 2010; Tilley et al., 2020). Finally, these advocacy groups merged in national and then supranational umbrella organizations collaborating with other international entities like the EU or the UN.
4. Austrian’s disability assistance policy and politics – a subnational comparison
13The nine case studies and the subnational comparison aims to reveal facilitators and barriers for DI. The first part of this section deals with a historical outline to indicate path dependencies for disability policy. The comparison of disability acts and housing at subnational level identifies similarities and differences among the subnational units. The subnational units are divided into pioneers, late-comers and in-betweens within the framework of the typology developed: Pioneers include those subnational units that offer a wide range of different housing services in the law. There are also innovative cash benefits such as the personal budget. In addition, the subnational disability act defines the principle of “mobile before residential care” and focuses on independent living and community participation. The in-betweens, while defending the principle of “mobile before residential care,” limit their mobile or assistive services with the argument of cost-effectiveness. Late-comers do not define a principle in terms of “mobile before residential care” in their subnational disability act. The focus is clearly on cost efficiency and a medical model of disability is applied.
4.1. The ambivalent policy legacy of institutionalization
14Austria has a long tradition of institutionalization of persons with disabilities. Differentiation and segregation in mostly rural institutions was a common way of accommodation as a result of a strong medical view on disability. No uniform state regulation for persons with disabilities was provided at this time (Wegscheider, 2020a). The Homeland Law Act from 1863 stipulated that the family had to care for relatives with disabilities. If this was not possible, the poor relief of the home municipality was responsible for the care, but the scope and extent of care was left to the municipalities and could be precarious. While persons with disabilities were still somehow integrated into society until the 19th century, they were increasingly withdrawn from the public sphere through organized institutionalization later on (Wegscheider, 2020a).
15In the first half of the 20th century, disability was considered as an unchangeable, individual bio-medical condition and persons with disabilities were socially classified as “invalid”. The common way of dealing with this group of people was the creation of large, segregated special worlds built for the purpose of keeping them in custody (Rohrmann, 2012; Schaur & Wegscheider, 2020; Wegscheider, 2015, 2020b). During the Nazi time, over 18.000 people who lived in institutions were classified as unworthy to live and unable to work. They were murdered in the gas chamber of the killing center Hartheim and in decentralized hospitals with lethal injection or by starvation (Kepplinger, 2008). After World War II, segregating residential care homes for persons with disabilities and their repressive care schemes were continued.
16In Austria, from the 1950s onwards, the disability service sector mainly focused on special care and special education. As a result of this, special educational schools, residential care institutions and sheltered workshops were built or enlarged. At this time, service providers were mainly religious organizations. Accommodation was exclusively same-sex, several areas of life were combined and there was no structural and local separation of special school, housing and work (Flieger et al., 2013a; Plangger & Schönwiese, 2010; Schönwiese, 2020). In the 1960s, most of the subnational units began to separate the matter of the disability service sector from social assistance and created their own disability laws on subnational level (Wegscheider, 2015). In Burgenland and Lower-Austria this has not happened until today.
17In the beginning of the 1970s, self-organized, locally positioned and rather small initiatives of adults with disabilities, who felt connected to the international Independent Living movement, criticized under the slogan “Who wants to live in an institution?” the heteronomy and the poor living conditions in homes for the disabled, which were seen as inhibiting independent living and social participation (Schönwiese, 2020). Already at this time, a reference was made to the Nordic countries and their advanced disability services. In the 1980s, the situation of institutional care was discussed publicly. A first milestone in the process of DI was the “Unterbringungsgesetz” 1991, which forbid the longtime-care of persons with disabilities in psychiatric institutions. In 1993, the long-term care allowance marked the starting point – this allowance should support persons with disabilities in organizing their own life and independent living. However, because of the missing valorization the concept lost value and especially persons with complex and high support needs cannot use this financial instrument for organize their daily life (Schönwiese, 2020). And, nevertheless, large and complex residential care institutions for persons with disabilities still exist today (Crowther, 2019; Flieger & Naue, 2019; Schaur & Wegscheider, 2020). Consequently, DI is still an ongoing process.
4.2. Federalism and disability politics and policies
18In Western welfare states, security systems help to protect persons with disabilities. They consist of economic, legal or even pedagogical support and are granted in the form of transfers, benefits in kind or services, but also rights (Maschke, 2008).
19The Austrian disability policy is influenced by the conservative-corporatist welfare state model (Flieger & Naue, 2019; Maschke, 2008). This includes characteristics such as preservation of status and group differences, as well of traditional family structures or charitable institutions, meaning that this welfare state type is characterized by a medium level of de-commodification and a low level of de-stratification (Esping-Andersen, 1990). Typical for conservative-corporatist welfare state types are income-based transfer payments in case of loss of employment, a low supply of social benefits and the dominant male-breadwinner model (Obinger & Tálos, 2010). These core elements lead to high stratification effects between gender and between employed and unemployed individuals, despite a generally low level of de-stratification. As a result, the state exerts a high influence on status maintenance - it has a strong distributive character (Obinger & Tálos, 2010). Persons with disabilities who are not employed on the primary labor market are often highly dependent on this distributive character of the state and face high stratification effects in comparison to persons without disabilities. Therefore, disability policy vastly influences the life of persons with disabilities.
20Austrian disability policy is a complex task that refers to different political departments and territorial levels depending on the policy field: The central government is responsible for long-term care allowances, while all other matters relating to housing like care, support and assistance are regulated by the subnational governments themselves with responsibilities for legislation and funding. Each subnational unit has its own disability regulations and measures, which can include cash, in-kind-benefits or services. The disability assistance historically derived from poor relief and is means-assessed, case-based and subsidiary, meaning that, the benefits are intended to provide needs-based support when the individual’s own income or benefits from higher-level social protection systems are not sufficient.
21Not every subnational government enacted its own disability law. In Burgenland and Lower-Austria, disability assistance is embedded in the social assistance act. Additionally, those subnational governments that enacted a disability law use different terminologies for their laws. Carinthia, Upper-Austria, Vorarlberg and Vienna name their laws equal opportunity act. Salzburg and Tyrol call it participation act and Styria name its law disability act. Despite the different terms, the regulatory context in all subnational units provide definitions of disability, aims of disability assistance and benefits according to the law. The benefits according to the law vary among the subnational level; differences in the range of housing services and benefits can be found, leading to the result that some subnational governments provide more alternatives to large and complex residential care facilities.
4.3. Policies and laws regulating living arrangements for persons with disabilities: A variety of housing services
22The empirical findings of the document analysis and the subnational comparison show that all subnational governments provide a range of housing services and benefits in their disability acts or social assistance acts.
23The following table presents an overview of existing services and benefits in the subnational units:
Table 1: Living arrangements according to the subnational disability assistance acts and social assistance acts
Federal state | Upper- Austria | Carinthia | Tyrol | Vorarlberg | Styria | Lower- | Vienna | Salzburg | Burgenland |
Residential care | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
Mobile services | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ |
Personal assistance | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ✗ | ||||
Personal Budget | ✗ | ✗ |
24At a first glance, residential care institutions and mobile services can be found in all subnational units, while personal assistance and personal budget are not provided in every subnational unit.
25Lower-Austria and Burgenland did not enact a disability act. In the Lower-Austrian social assistance act, benefits and services for “persons with special needs” are defined, which includes persons with disabilities. This law states that the integration of the person with disabilities in his or her social environment has to be stabilized as far as possible. Mobile services and residential care with partial support have priority over residential care with full support (§2 Lower-Austrian social assistance act). Neither personal assistance nor personal budget are provided by this social assistance act. Additionally, a strong focus on the medical view of disability is apparent. Lower-Austria is one of the late-comers, even because it does not have its own disability act, and there is no legal entitlement to personal assistance or a personal budget. In addition, a medical view of disability is dominant in the regulatory context. Burgenland did not enact a disability act as well; the matters of disability assistance are embedded in the social assistance act. In this, no principle of “mobile before residential care” can be found (§11 para.1 Burgenland social assistance act). Personal assistance is only provided for leisure time, not for daily living (§29a para.1 Burgenland social assistance act). With this regulatory context, Burgenland can be categorized as late-comer too.
26The Vienna disability act aims to support persons with disabilities in equal opportunity, independent living and participation in social, cultural, economic and political life (§1 para.1 Vienna disability act). Residential care is linked to the use of other services like e.g. sheltered workshops (§12 para.2 Vienna disability act). Personal assistance is foreseen for persons in their own living arrangements (§14 Vienna disability act). The aim of the disability act and the housing services targeting independent living point in the direction of pioneers, but the link to the use of another service limit housing services. Therefore, Vienna is an in-between. Likewise Upper Austria, because their disability act says that individual wishes are to be taken into account when providing services, unless they lead to economically unjustifiable additional costs. The services under this act are to be provided primarily through mobile measures or in smaller facilities (§3 para.4 Upper Austrian disability Act). However, personal assistance is limited in terms of hours (§13 para.4 Upper Austrian disability Act). With this regulatory context, Upper Austria is clearly in the middle of the field. In the Carinthian disability act there is no principle in the sense of mobile before residential care. However, the aim of the law is to enable independent living and participation in life in society. Carinthia is therefore to be classified as an intermediate solution. In the Styrian disability act, personal assistance is not defined, it can be claimed with the Personal Budget (§22a Styrian disability act). Although people with disabilities can claim an innovative cash benefit, economic efficiency still plays a major role in housing - therefore Styria can be classified as a better intermediate.
27In Tyrol, the disability act states that mobile services have priority over residential care institutions (§2 para.4 Tyrolean disability act). All services and benefits may also be granted in the form of a personal budget (§5 para.2 Tyrolean disability act). Tyrol is one of the pioneers, because here we find the principle of mobile before residential care and a personal budget. The personal budget is a service that enables self-determination (Schaur & Wegscheider, 2020), which is why it is also in line with the demands for DI. The principles of the Vorarlberg disability act state that disability assistance must be oriented towards individual needs, independent living and participation (§3 Vorarlberg disability act). In our typology, Vorarlberg is one of the pioneers, as various housing options allow for individual and tailor-made residential settings. Furthermore, according to the Vorarlberg disability act, freedom of choice, independence and participation in the community are in the foreground.
4.4. Strong voice of service providers
28The data on service provider showed that the Austrian service provider structure is highly heterogeneous at the subnational level. In total, more than 1,100 housing services and residential care institutions for persons with disabilities were found. Thereby, in every subnational unit at least 13 different service providers were found. The following table summarizes the results of the data collection:
Table 2: Number of service providers for housing services and residential care at subnational level
Subnational unit (Bundesland) | Number of service providers for housing services & residential care |
Burgenland | 21 |
Carinthia | 18 |
Lower-Austria | 33 |
Upper-Austria | 24 |
Salzburg | 13 |
Styria | 16 |
Tyrol | 17 |
Vorarlberg | 16 |
Vienna | 17 |
29Interestingly, in all subnational units, religious organizations offer living arrangements. The historical outline revealed, that religious institutions were the first who provided social services and residential care facilities (Wegscheider, 2020b). It is not surprising that those providers still run some of the largest residential care institutions. For example, in Carinthia the Diakonie run a residential care institution with 46 residents, fully supported, in Salzburg, Caritas run a so-called village with 60 residents, also fully supported. In Upper-Austria, also a so-called village exists, which was originally built by a pater in 1972 and has been highly criticized by disability movements in the past.
30Today, still over 121 residents live there. Also, another residential care institution in Upper-Austria is run by Caritas with 128 residents. On the other hand, associations without religious affiliation run more often smaller living arrangements and also develop innovative practices. One example can be found in Upper-Austria, where Lebenshilfe developed an ambient assisted living solution for persons with intellectual disabilities. Another example in Vienna provided by Jugend am Werk offers an inclusive shared apartment in which persons with and without disabilities live together.
4.5. A smaller voice of Disabled People Organizations
31The participation of self-advocates in Disabled People Organizations (DPOs) and people with disabilities in the monitoring committees at subnational level (enacted through the UN CRPD) has been implemented by almost all subnational governments in the policy making processes. Based on the empirical findings, it became clear that in the subnational units - with the exception of Carinthia - the DPOs participate in the development of housing services. This participation takes place through recommendations, statements or discussions with the responsible authorities.
32The subnational comparison especially shows that the DPOs and monitoring committees are calling for a uniform approach in disability assistance and policy towards DI. In particular, they ask for solutions to reduce the waiting lists for housing services, accessibility and no limitation of hours for assistive services as key feature for independent living, cooperation of service providers in evaluation and planning of housing services, consideration of specific needs of persons with disabilities. Furthermore, the DPOs demand that the legal entitlements in Tyrol to funding of smaller residential units as well as the quality standards should be standardized and made explicit Austrian-wide. They are also demanding for local awareness raising processes and the possibility for regional participation in planning phases. Moreover, local disability action plans should ensure the inclusion of persons with disabilities.
5. Conclusion
33The process of DI is uneven across the subnational level of Austria. It is influenced by a strong history of institutionalization with the church as first provider of residential care institutions and still having a strong influence within the service provision of living arrangements. Austria as a whole is a latecomer in implementing DI and an “effective programme for deinstitutionalisation of persons with disabilities needs to be developed in Austria” (Naue & Flieger, 2021, p. 5).
34Although national DPOs demand for independent living, participation and inclusion, Austria does not offer a uniform strategy for DI. Federalism led to different living arrangements ranging from services that are converge with the demands of the UN CRPD to highly institutionalized residential care facilities.
35A strong standing and influence of service providers was identified. Living arrangements provided by the church were found in all subnational units, while other non-profit organizations vary across the subnational level. Aselmeier (2016) identifies such given structures in the disability service sector as drivers or anchors, meaning that service providers shall react to the demands for inclusion-orientated services, while still facing challenges that institutionalized offers entail. When historically grown institutionalized structures influence a specific service provider, these must first be overcome. Whereas “younger” providers do not find these old, often rigid structures, which is probably why more innovative projects can arise here. The involvement of DPOs in DI indicates that they participate in the development of housing services through recommendations, statements or discussions with the responsible authorities. DPOs especially demand for a uniform approach and a nationwide strategy towards DI. Empirical findings indicate that the voice of DPOs is rather small at the subnational level.
36For Austria, the monitoring committee at subnational level states that the separation of competences between the central government and the subnational government is a major hurdle for DI. The monitoring committee argues that DI is slowed down by a high diversity of rules and their consequences, above all different responsibilities, separate financing as well as divergent state-specific regulations (Monitoring Committee, 2016). The monitoring committee believes that in order to reduce the number of persons with disabilities living in institutionalized living arrangements, the central government must promote DI in the frame guidelines. It also states that the DI process must be accompanied at several levels by person-centered support services and the support of municipalities and service providers. A key point in this context is also consistent awareness work in different areas and levels for the public society. It calls for effective measures and campaigns in the area of awareness raising so that a positive and prejudice-free image of persons with disabilities can be created (Monitoring Committee, 2016).
Bibliographie
Des DOI sont automatiquement ajoutés aux références bibliographiques par Bilbo, l’outil d’annotation bibliographique d’OpenEdition. Ces références bibliographiques peuvent être téléchargées dans les formats APA, Chicago et MLA.
Format
- APA
- Chicago
- MLA
Arora, S. (2019, February 16). Ein Heim ohne Barmherzigkeit. DER STANDARD. › https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000098081440/ein-heim-ohne-barmherzigkeit
Aselmeier, L. (2016). Transformationsprozesse in wohnbezogenen Unterstützungsangeboten. Ideale—Hemmnisse—Realitäten—Perspektiven. In G. Theunissen & W. Kulig (Edt.), Inklusives Wohnen. Bestandsaufnahme, Best Practice von Wohnprojekten für Erwachsene mit Behinderung in Deutschland (p. 45–64). Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.
10.51202/9783816795650 :Baar, M. (2022). Seeking inclusion through redefining expertise: The changing spatial contours of disability activism in the long 1970s. European Review of History: Revue européenne d’histoire, 29(3), p. 452–468. › https://doi.org/10.1080/13507486.2021.2019685
10.1080/13507486.2021.2019685 :Bacher, J., Pfaffenberger, M., & Pöschko, H. (2008). Persönliche Assistenz in Oberösterreich. Endbericht. Studie im Auftrag von Persönliche Assistenz GmbH, Selbstbestimmt-Leben-Initiative Linz. Institut für Soziologie und Sozialforschung, Abteilung für Empirische Sozialforschung. › http://bidok.uibk.ac.at/library/bacher-assistenz.html
Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2006). Independent Futures. Creating User-led Disability Services in a Disabling Society. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 8(4), Art. 4. › https://doi.org/10.1080/15017410600973523
10.1080/15017410600973523 :BMASK. (2013). Ausschuss der Vereinten Nationen über die Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderungen. Bundesministerium für Arbeit, Soziales und Konsumentenschutz. › https://broschuerenservice.sozialministerium.at/Home/Download?publicationId=391
Campbell, J., & Oliver, M. (1996). Disability Politics: Understanding Our Past, Changing Our Future. Routledge.
10.4324/9780203410639 :Clasen, J. (2011). Comparative Social Policy and the European Union. In J. Baldock, N. Manning, L. Mitton, & S. Vickerstaff (Edt.), Social Policy (p. 599–624). Oxford University Press.
Crowther, N. (2019). The right to live independently and to be included in the community in European States ANED synthesis report. › https://www.disability-europe.net/theme/independent-living
ENIL. (2020, July 8). Press Release: EU Structural Funds Used to Segregate Disabled People in Austria. European Network on Independent Living. › https://enil.eu/press-release-eu-structural-funds-used-to-segregate-disabled-people-in-austria/
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Princeton University Press.
Falk, W. (2016). Deinstitutionalisieren durch organisationalen Wandel: Selbstbestimmung und Teilhabe behinderter Menschen als Herausforderung für Veränderungsprozesse in Organisationen. Verlag Julius Klinkhardt.
Fleischer, E., Kröll, S. (2021). Caring Communities für Menschen mit Unterstützungsbedarf: Evaluation des Wohnverbundes Hall der Lebenshilfe Tirol. soziales_kapital - Wissenschaftliches Journal österreichischer Fachhochschul-studiengänge soziale Arbeit, 25, p. 286-302.
Flieger, P. (2017, July 24). Das Erbe des Nationalsozialismus spürt man in der Behindertenhilfe noch immer. DER STANDARD. › https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000061481891/das-erbe-des-nationalsozialismus-spuert-man-in-der-behindertenhilfe-noch
Flieger, P., & Naue, U. (2019). Country report on Living independently and being included in the community—Austria. Austria - The Academic Network of European Disability experts (ANED). › https://www.disability-europe.net/country/austria
Flieger, P., Schönwiese, V., & Wegscheider, A. (2013a). Behindertenpädagogik und Behindertenhilfe im Spannungsfeld zwischen alten Mustern und neuen Wegen. In H. Halbrainer & U. Vennemann (Edt.), Es war nicht immer so.: Leben mit Behinderung in der Steiermark zwischen Vernichtung und Selbstbestimmung 1938 bis heute. (p. 189–211). CLIO Verein f. Geschichts- & Bildungsarbeit.
Flieger, P., Schönwiese, V., & Wegscheider, A. (2013b). Behindertenpädagogik und Behindertenhilfe im Spannungsfeld zwischen alten Mustern und neuen Wegen. In H. Halbrainer & U. Vennemann (Edt.), Es war nicht immer so.: Leben mit Behinderung in der Steiermark zwischen Vernichtung und Selbstbestimmung 1938 bis heute (p. 189–211). CLIO - Verein für Geschichts- und Bildungsarbeit.
Franz, D. (2018). De-Institutionalisierung und Personenzentrierung. In K. Grunwald & A. Langer (Edt.), Sozialwirtschaft: Handbuch für Wissenschaft und Praxis (p. 828–840). Nomos.
Goffman, E. (1961). Asylums. Essays on the Social Situation of Mental Patients and Other Inmates. Anchor Books.
10.4324/9781351327763 :Greer, S., Béland, D., Lecours, A., & Dubin, K. (2023). Putting Federalism in Its Place: The Territorial Politics of Social Policy Revisited. University of Michigan Press. › https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.12237580
10.3998/mpub.12237580 :Groß, P. (2019). Bürgerliches Modell von Behinderung: (De-)Institutionalisierungsimpulse durch das moderne Teilhaberecht. In S. C. Holtmann, P. Hascher, & R. Stein (Edt.), Inklusion und Exklusion des Humanen (p. 61–84). Verlag Julius Klinkhardt.
Heusner, J., Bretschneider, R., & Schuppener, S. (2019). „Es passiert viel und niemand bekommt es mit...“ – Zur Exklusion in Institutionen der sogenannten Behindertenhilfe: Autonomieverlust und Freiheitsentzug. In E. von Stechow, P. Hackstein, K. Müller, M. Esefeld, & B. Klocke (Edt.), Inklusion im Spannungsfeld von Normalität und Diversität. Band I (p. 175–183). Verlag Julius Klinkhardt.
Ichner, B. (2017, March 2). Viele Behinderte wollen selbstbestimmt leben. › https://kurier.at/chronik/wien/viele-behinderte-wollen-selbstbestimmt-leben/249.483.865
Johnson, K., Walmsley, J., & Wolfe, M. (2010). People with intellectual disabilities: Towards a good life? Policy Press.
10.51952/9781847428974 :Kepplinger, B. (2008). NS-Euthanasie in Österreich: Die „Aktion T4“. In B. Kepplinger, G. Marckkhgott, & H. Reese (Edt.), Tötungsanstalt Hartheim (p. 35–62). OÖLA. kobinet-nachrichten. (2023, January 12).Leitlinien der Vereinten Nationen zur Deinstitutionalisierung erfordern Veränderungen. BIZEPS. › https://www.bizeps.or.at/leitlinien-der-vereinten-nationen-zur-deinstitutionalisierung-erfordern-veraenderungen/
Krell, C., & Lamnek, S. (2016). Qualitative Sozialforschung (6. aktualisierte Auflage). Beltz Verlag.
Lewis, O., & Richardson, G. (2020). The right to live independently and be included in the community. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 69(2). › https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.101499
10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.101499 :Maschke, M. (2008). Behindertenpolitik in der Europäischen Union. Lebenssituation behinderter Menschen und nationale Behindertenpolitik in 15 Mitgliedsstaaten. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Mätzke, M., & Stöger, H. (2014). Föderalismus und Gesundheitspolitik: Österreich in vergleichender Perspektive. kontraste - Presse- und Informationsdienst für Sozialpolitik, 8, p. 33–42.
Müllebner, K. (2022, December 14). Österreich geht, was die Deinstitutionalisierung von Kindern mit Behinderungen betrifft, in die falsche Richtung. BIZEPS. › https://www.bizeps.or.at/oesterreich-geht-was-die-deinstitutionalisierung-von-kindern-mit-behinderungen-betrifft-in-die-falsche-richtung/
Naue, U., & Flieger, P. (2021). European Semester 2020-2021 country fiche on disability equality: Austria. Publications Office of the European Union. › https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2767/987232
10.2767/987232 :Neuhold, T. (2018, February 3). Ghettoisierung in Salzburger Behindertenheim. DER STANDARD. › https://www.derstandard.at/story/2000073529896/ghettoisierung-in-salzburger-behindertenheim
Obinger, H., & Tálos, E. (2010). Janus-faced developments in a prototypical Bismarckian welfare state. Welfare reform in Austria since the 1970s. In B. Palier (Edt.), A long goodbye to Bismarck? The Politics of Welfare Reform in Continental Europe (p. 101–128). Amsterdam University Press.
Offe, C. (1990). Akzeptanz und Legitimität strategischer Optionen in der Sozialpolitik. In C. Sachße & T. H. Engelhardt (Edt.), Sicherheit und Freiheit. Zur Ethik des Wohlfahrtsstaates (p. 179–202). Suhrkamp.
Pattyn, E., Werbrouck, A., Gemmel, P., & Trybou, J. (2021). The impact of cash-for-care schemes on the uptake of community-based and residential care: A systematic review. Health Policy, 125(3), 363–374. › https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.11.002
10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.11.002 :Pehr, A. (2022, December 13). Does Federalism Foster Happiness? Reviewing Political Decentralization and Citizens’ Happiness. 50 Shades of Federalism. › https://50shadesoffederalism.com/theory/does-federalism-foster-happiness-reviewing-political-decentralization-and-citizens-happiness/
Plangger, S., & Schönwiese, V. (2010). Behindertenhilfe—Hilfe für behinderte Menschen? In H. Schreiber (Edt.), Im Namen der Ordnung. Heimerziehung in Tirol (p. 317–346). Studienverlag.
Riedmann, A. (2003). „Menschsein ... Heisst wohnen.“ Ambulant Begleitetes Wohnen als Wohnform, die Menschsein ermöglicht [Diplomarbeit, Leopold- Franzens-Universität Innsbruck]. › http://bidok.uibk.ac.at/library/riedmann-wohnen-dipl.html
Rohrmann, E. (2012). Zwischen selbstbestimmter sozialer Teilhabe und fürsorglicher Ausgrenzung—Lebenslagen und Lebensbedingungen von Menschen, die wir behindert nennen. In E.-U. Huster, J. Boeckh, & H. Mogge-Grotjahn (Edt.), Handbuch Armut und soziale Ausgrenzung (p. 469–487). Springer VS.
10.1007/978-3-658-19077-4 :Schädler, J., & Rohrmann, A. (2016). Die Wohnsituation von Menschen mit Behinderung im Überblick: Theorien, Konzepte und rechtliche Bestimmungen. Unentschieden—Wie das Recht auf ein leben in einer eigenen Wohnung Glückssache wird. In G. Theunissen & W. Kulig (Edt.), Inklusives Wohnen. Bestandsaufnahme, Best Practice von Wohnprojekten für Erwachsene mit Behinderung in Deutschland (p. 21–44). Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.
Schaur, M., & Wegscheider, A. (2020). Daheim oder Heim? Wohnen und Selbstbestimmt Leben für Menschen mit Behinderungen in Österreich. SWS Sozialwissenschaftliche Rundschau, 60, 1/2020, p. 90–108.
Schönwiese, V. (2020). Geschichte und Strategie der Selbstbestimmt Leben Bewegung. Stimme. Zeitschrift der Initiative Minderheiten, 30 (115), p. 23–27.
Seifert, M. (2016). Wohnen von Menschen mit komplexen Unterstützungsbedarf. Aktueller Stand und Perspektiven. In G. Theunissen & W. Kulig (Edt.), Inklusives Wohnen. Bestandsaufnahme, Best Practice von Wohnprojekten für Erwachsene mit Behinderung in Deutschland (p. 65–82). Fraunhofer IRB Verlag.
Snyder, R. (2001). Scaling Down: The Subnational Comparative Method. Studies in Comparative International Development, 36(1), p. 93–110. › https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02687586
10.1007/BF02687586 :Tilley, E., Strnadová, I., Danker, J., Walmsley, J., & Loblinzk, J. (2020). The impact of self-advocacy organizations on the subjective well-being of people with intellectual disabilities: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 33(6), 1151–1165. › https://doi.org/10.1111/jar.12752
10.1111/jar.12752 :Tøssebro, J. (2016). Scandinavian disability policy: From deinstitutionalisation to non-discrimination and beyond. Alter, 10(2), p. 111–123. › https://doi.org/10.1016/j.alter.2016.03.003
10.1016/j.alter.2016.03.003 :Unabhängiger Monitoringausschuss zur Umsetzung der UN-Konvention über die Rechte von Menschen mit Behinderungen. (2016). Stellungnahme De-Institutionalisierung. › https://www.monitoringausschuss.at/stellungnahme/de-institutionalisierung-28-11-2016/
United Nations. (2022). Guidelines on deinstitutionalization, including in emergencies. United Nations Human Rights. › https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/legal-standards-and-guidelines/crpdc5-guidelines-deinstitutionalization-including
VertretungsNetz. (2019, March 3). Der alltägliche kleine Heimskandal: Wenn Struktur das Leben bestimmt. BIZEPS. › https://www.bizeps.or.at/der-alltaegliche-kleine-heimskandal-wenn-struktur-das-leben-bestimmt/
Wahl, E. (2020, February 23). Negativbeispiel Konradinum—Tagung zur Umsetzung der UN-Behindertenrechtskonvention in Österreich und Deutschland. BIZEPS. › https://www.bizeps.or.at/negativbeispiel-konradinum-tagung-zur-umsetzung-der-un-behindertenrechtskonvention-in-oesterreich-und-deutschland/
Waldschmidt, A. (2005). Disability Studies: Individuelles, soziales und/oder kulturelles Modell von Behinderung? Psychologie und Gesellschaftskritik, 01(2006), p. 9–31.
10.1007/978-3-476-05717-4 :Wegscheider, A. (2015). Neue Sichtweisen auf Menschen mit Behinderung. Sozialpolitik zwischen alten Mustern und neuen Wegen. In H. Seckauer, C. Stelzer-Orthofer, & B. Kepplinger (Edt.), Das Vorgefundene und das Mögliche. Beiträge zur Gesellschafts- und Sozialpolitik zwischen Ökonomie und Moral (p. 328–339). Mandelbaum.
Wegscheider, A. (2020a). Die Geschichte der institutionellen Versorgung in Oberösterreich. Stimme. Zeitschrift der Initiative Minderheiten, 30 (115), p. 15–17.
Wegscheider, A. (2020b). „Dienst an den Ärmsten der Armen“ Geschichte und Gegenwart institutioneller Versorgung in Oberösterreich. In D. Brehme, P. Fuchs, S. Köbsell, & C. Wesselmann (Edt.), Disabiltiy Studies im deutschsprachigen Raum (p. 174–181). Beltz Juventa.
Windisch, M. (2017). Leitorientierung und Grenzprobleme der Selbstbestimmung in der ambulanten Unterstützung von Menschen mit Behinderungen und Pflegebedarf. In G. Wansing & M. Windisch (Edt.), Selbstbestimmte Lebensführung und Teilhabe. Behinderung und Unterstützung im Gemeinwesen (p. 61–79). Kohlhammer.
Wong, Y.-L. I., Huangfu, Y., & Hadley, T. (2018). Place and community: Locational patterns of supportive housing for people with intellectual disability and people with psychiatric disorders. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 83, p. 108–119. › https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.08.009
10.1016/j.ridd.2018.08.009 :World Health Organization. (2011). World Report on Disability. › https://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case Study Research: Design and Methods. SAGE.
Auteurs
-
Melanie Schaur
Junior Researcher, Institute Integriert Studieren/Johannes Kepler University Linz (Austria)
-
Angela Wegscheider
Senior Researcher, institute of Politics and Social Policy/Johannes Kepler University Linz (Austria)
Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence Licence OpenEdition Books. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.
Imaginaire et création historique
Philippe Caumières, Sophie Klimis et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)
2006
Socialisme ou Barbarie aujourd’hui
Analyses et témoignages
Philippe Caumières, Sophie Klimis et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)
2012
Le droit romain d’hier à aujourd’hui. Collationes et oblationes
Liber amicorum en l’honneur du professeur Gilbert Hanard
Annette Ruelle et Maxime Berlingin (dir.)
2009
Représenter à l’époque contemporaine
Pratiques littéraires, artistiques et philosophiques
Isabelle Ost, Pierre Piret et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)
2010
Translatio in fabula
Enjeux d'une rencontre entre fictions et traductions
Sophie Klimis, Laurent Van Eynde et Isabelle Ost (dir.)
2010
Castoriadis et la question de la vérité
Philippe Caumières, Sophie Klimis et Laurent Van Eynde (dir.)
2010
