1 / 10

Impact of Icelandic Social Disability Policy on Young Disabled Adults' Quality of Life

Explore the impact of Icelandic social disability policy on the quality of life opportunities for young disabled adults with significant needs. Analyze legislation, living conditions, and support services to determine the material and existential aspects. Assess the fit between policy goals and implementation, and propose changes for a more inclusive and empowering approach.

chiquita-valdez
Download Presentation

Impact of Icelandic Social Disability Policy on Young Disabled Adults' Quality of Life

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Social disabilitypolicy in Iceland and its impact on the quality of life opportunities for young disabled adults with significant needs 17.June 2003, Dóra S. Bjarnason

  2. Introduction How does Icelandic social disability policy impact the material and existential quality of life, available to young disabled people? • Social disability policy • The disability legislation • Us and Them • The fit between the legual • ends and the means • A room of your own • Three lives- three models • Conclusion 17.June 2003, Dóra S. Bjarnason

  3. Social disability policy in Iceland • -Quality of life options • Social policy(Titmuss 1974, Ólafsson 1999) • Welfare expenditure in 2000 • The total expenditure to welfare as a percentage of • GDP ranged from approx. 25 – 29% in Denmark, Finland • and Norway, in Sweden it was over 32%, but barely 20 % • in Iceland • and • The total expenditure for disability pensions and services as • a percentage of GDP was around 4% in Finland, Norway • and Sweden, 3,3% in Denmark, and 2% in Iceland. • (National Statistics Bureau Home page 2003) 17.June 2003, Dóra S. Bjarnason

  4. The Disability Legislation 1979 Law on Support for the Mentally Retarded 1992 Law on the Affairs of the Disabled • The aim of this law is to secure disabled people equal • rights and a comparable quality of life to that of other citizens, • and to create for them opportunities to lead a normal life... • (paragraph 1) • The person has the right to services under this law who is • disabled physically or mentally, and needs special services • and supports for that reason. This includes people with • intellectual disability, mental illness, mobility disability, • visual- and hearing disability. Further, disability can also • be the result of chronic illness or accidents. (paragraph 2 ) 17.June 2003, Dóra S. Bjarnason

  5. Us and Them:Who are the ”other citizens” ? • Other citizens • Typical citizens • Disabled citizens • adulthood • young adulthood • lifestyle and life choces 17.June 2003, Dóra S. Bjarnason

  6. The fit between the end and the means Disabled people shall be provided with opportunities tolive in homes in accordance to their needs and wishes as far as possible…” (paragraph 19, law 59/1992) Table 1.Existential and material criteria for opportunities to lead a life comparable to other citizens Material Existential BOpportunity for being with others, autonomy, choices A Economic resources C Personal space / private life 17.June 2003, Dóra S. Bjarnason

  7. A room of your own Maximum of 6 people can live in a group home, personal space Should not be less than 10 square meters for each inhabitant, and in new group homes bathrooms should as “far as possible” be part of an individuals’ personal space. (Statutary regulations no. 296 2002) An informal survey In 2003, there were 82 group homes in Iceland with 426 inhabitants. Of those 12,4% had private space (their bedrooms) that was less than 10 m2. 16% had a private bathroom. 12,6% had a small flat (Bjarnason and Sigurðsson 2003) On the waitinglist were 170 addults 18-60 years old. 17.June 2003, Dóra S. Bjarnason

  8. Two stories – two lives Thor Björg 17.June 2003, Dóra S. Bjarnason

  9. A Home of my own – Benedikt • Structure: • The Board • The Personal Agent • The Daily Helpers • Accountabillity 17.June 2003, Dóra S. Bjarnason

  10. Conclusion • Little has changed in Icelandic disability social policy since the first • legislation 1979. • Bureaucratic structures, serve to secure disabled peoples’ livesas • dependents. For many, to be labeled disabled involvesliving in poverty, • and sometimes in a segregated “world”. • Creative approaches to choice lifestyles and quality life options, are • possible. Their very existence in the service flora brings certain optimism. • What needs to change in Icelandic social disability policy? • The policy ends are clear and rellevant, but the means to those ends • are unclear, undersupplied and over bureaucratized. • Individually tailored and flexible supports are of utmost importance if the • policy ends are to be taken seriously. 17.June 2003, Dóra S. Bjarnason

More Related