(Un)accommodating disabilities: housing, marginalization and dependency in Australia

Saugères, Lise

doi:10.1007/s10901-010-9201-x

Cited by 27 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whether the person's neurological disability is acquired or developmental in nature, individuals are usually faced with two scenarios relating to their long-term housing situation: (1) stay at home with family indefinitely, though this often increases pressure on families and may not be the person's preferred option (Beer and Faulkner 2009;Buhse 2008;Carnes and Quinn 2005;Harrell, Kassner, and Figueiredo 2011); or (2) move out of the family home into physically accessible social housing that is typically managed by government housing departments and housing services (Beer and Faulkner 2009;Saugeres 2011 Robst, Deitz, and McGoldrick 1999;Saugeres 2011). For younger adults aged under 65 years (i.e., pre-retirement age and therefore considered 'too young' to occupy residential aged care), a prolonged stay or relocation back to the family home, or placement in a group home or care facility -where these settings are not their preferred living environment -is a depressing, and isolated experience that represents a loss of independence, autonomy, control and choice (Bostock and Gleeson 2004;Cameron, Pirozzo, and Tooth 2001).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The choice agenda in the Australian supported housing context: a timely reflection

Wright

Muenchberger

Whitty

2015

Disability & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last thirty years has seen significant developments in the Australian housing sector for people with disabilities. Despite much change in the sector, and advancements in disability services, the range of current supported housing options for younger Australian adults with a neurological disability remains vastly under-developed. This is despite a widely accepted and endorsed recognition that, as is the general population, people with all forms of disability have a right to housing of their choice. This paper presents a timely critique of the key actions made by the Australian disability and housing sectors and subsequently proposes a more informed approach to supported housing design and development: one that is based on a comprehensive understanding of consumer housing priorities and preferences, and is conducive to a person's biopsychosocial health.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The choice agenda in the Australian supported housing context: a timely reflection

Wright

Muenchberger

Whitty

2015

Disability & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Housing design features conducive to accessibility needs can include a clear, well-defined level path from the road to a ground floor level entry; a spacious toilet suitable for people with limited mobility on the ground floor; wider hallways and doorways; sufficient circulation space throughout the dwelling to accommodate a manual or powered wheelchair; drawers installed in lieu of cupboards; and reinforced bathroom walls so that grab rails can be fitted easily and economically if or when they are needed (Livable Housing Australia, 2012;Saugeres, 2011;Ward and Franz, 2015). Likewise, occupants' access to privacy within the dwelling must be considered for improved wellness outcomes (Clark and Kearns, 2012;Heywood, 2005).…”

Section: Physical Environmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, these specialised housing features are not habitually incorporated into mainstream housing, and this context applies internationally (Ahmed, 2013;Bostock and Gleeson, 2004;Saugeres, 2011;Wiesel and Fincher, 2009). The result of this, in combination with several personal and systemic contributing factors (see Table 1), means that many Australians with profound physical and cognitive disability are forced to either:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Design principles in housing for people with complex physical and cognitive disability: towards an integrated framework for practice

Wright

Zeeman

Whitty

2016

J Hous and the Built Environ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: To develop a research-based environmental framework to guide the design and construction of suitable residential dwellings for individuals with complex disability. An environmental approach to housing design and development recognises that there are physical, psychological and social components relating to housing design, dwelling location and the neighbourhood context, and that these elements interact to affect the physical, psychological, and social wellness of individuals.Principle results: Following theoretical review and synthesis, a comprehensive set of design features that are conducive to residents' wellness and quality of life are described. It is clear that housing design and development for people with complex disability ought to consider the physical, social, natural, symbolic, and care environment in relation to housing design, dwelling location, and the neighbourhood context for improved housing outcomes.Major conclusions: An integrated housing design and development framework is presented.It is hoped this practical matrix/evaluative tool will inform future inclusive housing design and development decisions in Australia and internationally. The application of this framework is especially relevant to political climates striving to achieve design innovation to increase housing choice for people with complex disability.

show abstract

“…Further, by not requiring visitability at the time of construction, the housing industry shifts the costs of retrofitting to future residents and the secondary costs of exclusion to the health, disability and aged-care budgets (Saugeres, 2010). The recent major reforms for aged-care (Productivity Commission, 2011a) and disability (Productivity Commission, 2011b) in Australia are designed to support people in their homes and connected to their informal networks for as long as possible before they resort to costly specialised residential facilities.…”

Section: Assumption 3: the Housing Industry Will "Do Their Bit" For Smentioning

confidence: 99%

The Provision of Visitable Housing in Australia: Down to the Detail

Ward

Franz

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In response to the ratification of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD), Australian housing industry leaders, supported by the Australian Government, committed to transform their practices voluntarily through the adoption of a national guideline, called Livable Housing Design. They set a target in 2010 that all new housing would be visitable by 2020. Research in this area suggests that the anticipated voluntary transformation is unrealistic and that mandatory regulation will be necessary for any lasting transformation to occur. It also suggests that the assumptions underpinning the Livable Housing Design agreement are unfounded. This paper reports on a study that problematised these assumptions. The study used eleven newly-constructed dwellings in three housing contexts in Brisbane, Australia. It sought to understand the logics-of-practice in providing, and not providing, visitable housing. By examining the specific details that make a dwelling visitable, and interpreting the accounts of builders, designers and developers, the study identified three logics-of-practice which challenged the assumptions underpinning the Livable Housing Design agreement: focus on the point of sale; an aversion to change and deference to external regulators on matters of social inclusion. These were evident in all housing contexts indicating a dominant industry culture regardless of housing context or policy intention. The paper suggests that financial incentives for both the builder and the buyer, demonstration by industry leaders and, ultimately, national regulation is a possible pathway for the Livable Housing Design agreement to reach the 2020 goal. The paper concludes that the Australian Government has three options: to ignore its obligations under the CRPD; to revisit the Livable Housing Design agreement in the hope that it works; or to regulate the housing industry through the National Construction Code to ensure the 2020 target is reached.

show abstract

(Un)accommodating disabilities: housing, marginalization and dependency in Australia

Cited by 27 publications

References 12 publications

The choice agenda in the Australian supported housing context: a timely reflection

The choice agenda in the Australian supported housing context: a timely reflection

Design principles in housing for people with complex physical and cognitive disability: towards an integrated framework for practice

The Provision of Visitable Housing in Australia: Down to the Detail

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About