Reasons for Institutionalization and Admittance Procedures

Physical disabilities were the most prominent disability type in this institution, followed by hearing impairments. The least prevalent type of disability was visual impairment. Though not considered persons with disabilities, the centre also had residents with learning difficulties coming from distant villages where specialized education was not available. Residents were welcome as long as they were receiving some form of education; individuals were not permitted to stay if they were not enrolled in an educational programme. 

The majority of the interviewed persons with disabilities reported their disabilities as the main reason for their institutionalization, stating that they were at the institution for education and treatment. According to one resident, his parents preferred that he stays at the institution because it was more convenient for them since they did not have to worry about transportation. Another resident reported that her school referred her because of her hearing impairment. Parents reported that their children’s disabilities, the long distance to and from the institution, and its good reputation encouraged them to admit their family members. 

Some residents had lived in other residential institutions prior to their time at the centre. A number were previously day students at the same or different institutions. Interviewed residents who had been enrolled in public, vocational or specialized schools reported having faced difficulties prior to dropping out. One parent reported that he used to send his child to a public school, but that his child struggled because the school lacked specialized services. Some parents reported removing their children from both public and private schools due to grade retention and bullying. 

Prior to institutionalization, the type of disability each person had was determined by the Ministry of Social Affairs. Staff members stated that the Ministry of Social Affairs frequently made incorrect determinations.  The institution was required to abide by the Ministry’s decision, but when it was time for health card renewals, if necessary, the institution would send a report with a request for a new determination attached to it. Usually, the institution reassessed each case every six months unless there was an urgent case that required immediate intervention. 

Residents as young as two and a half years were admitted by members of their families or the Government. Those who were admitted could spend anywhere between nine months (the time needed to finish vocational training) and 20 years (university degree level) at the institution. According to the director of the institution, if the resident does not adapt to his/her new environment, the institution calls the parent or guardian and asks them to take him/her home. 

Caregivers reported that residents never came in voluntarily but learned to accept their situation. When asked, “Are you staying in this institution out of your free will?” all of the interviewed residents said “yes”. What was notable, however, were their elabourations on how they perceive their freedom of mobility. One resident said, “Yes, the situation is good here, but I do not know who can decide whether I should stay or not.” Another resident noted that their stay is of their free will because they have no other place to go. A third resident answered, “Yes, [it is my free will] somehow, […] I sleep here now, for example, but I [would] like to live on my own. I would like to leave, I do not like staying here but it is fine.” Another preferred to leave because she wanted to work to provide for her family, but had her family had money, she would rather remain in the institution. Other residents made it clear that they cared for their friends at the institution and wished to stay with them. Only one resident reported that she would like to leave the institution so that she could “live outside and breathe”.

One out of the five interviewed residents reported having been admitted to the institution against her will. She was convinced by the institution’s “integration officer” to move in, although the officer is reportedly employed to facilitate the integration of residents into society. Another caregiver shared that a resident asked her to lie to her parents and tell them that the institution did not want her to stay anymore so that she could be sent back home.

The head of the institution stated that residents ideally stayed until they completed their education. In reality, some remained in the institution because their parents or guardians did not approve of them leaving, or because they had nowhere else to go. One caregiver commented that some residents “do not know what they like to study or to do in life, so the institution helps them figure that out by meeting up with them and their families.” Such meetings were particularly important when children have “unrealistic life expectations,” one caregiver said.

The interviewed parents of residents had clear expectations regarding the duration of their children’s stay at the centre. One parent expected his child to remain at the institution for approximately seven years for educational purposes. Another expected their child to stay at the institution until he finished university, and a third expected his child to stay until he was employed.