Outcomes of Ordinary Housing Services in Wales: Objective Indicators

Abstract

Outcome data were collected on fourteen, recently provided staffed houses for people with mild, moderate, severe or profound learning disabilities in order to assess the quality of service provided. Quality indicators reflected the quality of the housing provision, social and community integration, social relationships within the houses, resident engagement in activity, developmental progress over time and opportunities for autonomy and choice. The data show that the quality of the houses investigated was broadly similar to that reported for other housing services in British research which has accompanied deinstitutionalisation. Quality levels on many indicators were related to the ability of residents and the data illustrate the difficulty in providing services for people with more severe or profound learning disabilities, which are capable of achieving outcomes comparable with those attained in services for more able residents. This research provides further evidence that the extent of staff support for resident activity is critical to how much residents are able to participate fully in the everyday activities which arise in the conduct of their lives.

Predictors of Job Satisfaction among Staff in Residential Settings for Persons with Intellectual Disabilities: A Comparison between Three Residential Models

“…Perry & Felce (1994), Felce (1998) and Felce & Emerson (2001) have pointed out several important factors that influence outcomes in terms of residents’ quality of life (QoL). One of the indicators that can not be ignored is the performance of the residential services, which includes the involvement of the staff working in the settings (Thomas et al.…”

“…1987; Saxby et al. 1988; Coelho 1990; Felce & Repp 1992; Perry & Felce 1994; Hatton et al. 1996, 1999; Felce et al.…”

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

“…It is generally assumed that smaller sized residential facilities have more positive outcomes as depersonalizing practices are more frequently found in larger facilities (Landesman‐Dwyer 1981; Molony & Taplin 1988). Perry & Felce (1994), Felce (1998) and Felce & Emerson (2001) have pointed out several important factors that influence the outcomes of residents’ quality of life (QOL). These indicators include size, architectural design, location, furnishing, staff ratio and performance of the residential services.…”

Outcomes of a new residential scheme for adults with intellectual disabilities in Taiwan: a 2‐year follow‐up

“…2005; Lakin & Stancliffe 2007). To date, studies related to this movement have focused primarily on the participants' lifestyles and functional skills improvement such as adaptive behaviour, community participation, family contact and the exercise of control over their own lives (Larson & Lakin 1989; Emerson & Hatton 1994; Perry & Felce 1994; Felce et al . 1998; Young 2003).…”

“…2, Peitou, Taipei 112, Taiwan (e-mail: choucyc@ ym.edu.tw). Lakin 1989;Emerson & Hatton 1994;Perry & Felce 1994;Felce et al 1998;Young 2003). However, there has been limited evaluation comparing individuals with IDs moving from their own families to live in community residences with residents who have been institutionalised making the same move.…”