Community and family contact: an evaluation of small community homes for adults with severe and profound mental handicaps

Abstract

Two studies examined the frequency of community and family contacts of 10 adults with severe and profound mental handicaps living in small, community-based homes, first with their previous institutional experience and second in comparison with adults with similar handicaps living in larger community units.Adults in the small homes used community amenities significantly more than they did when in institutions and also significantly more than residents of larger community units. They experienced greater family contact than when they lived in more distant institutions, but not significantly more than residents of larger community units which also served local areas. Within the small homes, people newly admitted from their family homes had significantly greater family involvement than those transferred from institutions. The results are related to the characteristics of the residential settings, such as location, staff factors, operational policy, and autonomy of management.

Outcomes of Ordinary Housing Services in Wales: Objective Indicators

“…There was a slightly lower frequency of social and community activities found in the Welsh houses (34 social events and 94 community activities per person per six months in Houses 1 -8 compared to 37 and 115 in a similar period found by de Kock et al 1988). There was a slightly lower frequency of social and community activities found in the Welsh houses (34 social events and 94 community activities per person per six months in Houses 1 -8 compared to 37 and 115 in a similar period found by de Kock et al 1988).…”

“…This was less than the 115 found by de Kock et al (1988) for two houses in Andover over a similar period and the 144 per person per six months found in the NIMROD research (Lowe & de Paiva, 1991). A weighted average of 16 community-based events occurred per person per month which converts to a frequency of 96 over six months.…”

“…In similar vein, Felce et al (1986a), Felce el af. (1986b), and de Kock et al (1988) showed that groups of adults with severe or profound learning disabilities living in two staffed houses in Andover received higher levels of interaction and assistance from staff, spent more time in purposeful activity, experienced greater developmental progress and enjoyed greater community and social contact than when in hospital or when compared to matched groups in large community units. Felce & Repp (1992) concluded that the project established that local community living was preferable to large hospital care on a number of indices of quality, given that housing services were set up with a certain ethos and attention to working methods and staff training.…”

Assistive technology, telecare and people with intellectual disabilities: ethical considerations

“…It is well documented that people with learning disabilities have very restricted social networks outside of family members and care staff (eg,34 35). For many people, contact with staff is the main type of social interaction they have, and staff are often categorised by people with learning disabilities as friends.…”

Outcomes and Costs of Residential Services for Adults with Intellectual Disabilities in Taiwan: A Comparative Evaluation

“…Available research that has compared the outcomes between individuals living in small‐scale community‐based units and in institutions suggests better outcomes for small‐scale alternatives. This is shown by a number of indicators such as QOL, choice making, community inclusion, activity engagement, family contact, staff assistance, interaction between staff and residents (Kock et al. 1988;Hatton et al.…”