Is institutional care necessarily bad?
May. 22nd, 2014 07:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
blogcutterIn these parts, we don't really have orphanages any more. Unwed mothers don't get sent away to be overworked and underfed in cloistered Catholic laundries in exchange for room and board while the nuns sell their eventual babies to the highest bidder. Institutions for the intellectually challenged, like the Rideau Regional Centre in Smiths Falls, have closed their doors and dispersed the former residents into scarce group homes in widely scattered communities. Indian residential schools? Well, praise those at your own risk - everyone knows they were run by a bunch of malicious religious fanatical perverts!
In short, it seems to be politically incorrect in the extreme to say anything remotely positive about institutional settings. But do they have a legitimate role to play in today's world? Personally, I think they do.
The most obvious advantage I see is that larger institutions typically have greater resources: bigger budgets and the ability to hire those highly skilled, well-trained professionals who are equipped and temperamentally suited to meet the special needs of the residents. In remote areas or those with difficult climates - up north, say, or in little rural out-of-the-way areas, even high schools, and other institutions that urban and suburban folk take for granted, may need to be residential in nature in order to best serve their purpose. Large institutions need not be impersonal if they are properly designed: they really become a cluster of much smaller communities and houses and - dare I say it - families - with continuity of caregivers and coresidents. But they still have the medical and recreational and educational and cultural life and facilities of the larger whole to draw upon.
There was a made-for-TV movie in which a resident of an institution similar to Rideau Regional was transitioned into the community. The part was ably played by Meredith Baxter of Family Ties fame. Anyway, the transition ultimately proved a failure. Far from feeling more "normal", she missed the people she had been with all her life and soon wanted to go back. Interestingly enough, the degree of disability she had was mild enough that in my opinion, she probably could have adapted quite readily to a group home situation. But in situations where a person has multiple or severe physical, intellectual or psychological challenges and disabilities, I think that a homey institutional placement is more humane as well as more logical.
Of course, the openly admitted purpose of the aboriginal residential schools was to "take the Indian out of the Indian" in order to eventually integrate them into "white" society. The reason I am advocating institutional settings under certain circumstances, on the other hand, is to BETTER meet the unique requirements of the residents. And while it would be naive and insensitive to gloss over the horrendous physical and sexual abuse that did take place, I'm sure there were plenty of very CARING (if by modern sensibilities a bit misguided) teachers and other personnel too. Moreover, abuse has always occurred to some extent in individual families and small communities too - and that will likely never come to light or be suitably compensated.
So let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Integration into the community is often the best way to go. But not always.
In short, it seems to be politically incorrect in the extreme to say anything remotely positive about institutional settings. But do they have a legitimate role to play in today's world? Personally, I think they do.
The most obvious advantage I see is that larger institutions typically have greater resources: bigger budgets and the ability to hire those highly skilled, well-trained professionals who are equipped and temperamentally suited to meet the special needs of the residents. In remote areas or those with difficult climates - up north, say, or in little rural out-of-the-way areas, even high schools, and other institutions that urban and suburban folk take for granted, may need to be residential in nature in order to best serve their purpose. Large institutions need not be impersonal if they are properly designed: they really become a cluster of much smaller communities and houses and - dare I say it - families - with continuity of caregivers and coresidents. But they still have the medical and recreational and educational and cultural life and facilities of the larger whole to draw upon.
There was a made-for-TV movie in which a resident of an institution similar to Rideau Regional was transitioned into the community. The part was ably played by Meredith Baxter of Family Ties fame. Anyway, the transition ultimately proved a failure. Far from feeling more "normal", she missed the people she had been with all her life and soon wanted to go back. Interestingly enough, the degree of disability she had was mild enough that in my opinion, she probably could have adapted quite readily to a group home situation. But in situations where a person has multiple or severe physical, intellectual or psychological challenges and disabilities, I think that a homey institutional placement is more humane as well as more logical.
Of course, the openly admitted purpose of the aboriginal residential schools was to "take the Indian out of the Indian" in order to eventually integrate them into "white" society. The reason I am advocating institutional settings under certain circumstances, on the other hand, is to BETTER meet the unique requirements of the residents. And while it would be naive and insensitive to gloss over the horrendous physical and sexual abuse that did take place, I'm sure there were plenty of very CARING (if by modern sensibilities a bit misguided) teachers and other personnel too. Moreover, abuse has always occurred to some extent in individual families and small communities too - and that will likely never come to light or be suitably compensated.
So let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Integration into the community is often the best way to go. But not always.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-05-23 12:28 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-05-24 12:24 am (UTC)