Institutional closure and the resilience of long term staff

Institutional closure and the
resilience of long term staff
Presentation to the 41st Annual Conference of ASSID
4-7 September 2006 Canberra AUSTRALIA.
Sue Gates
Senior Researcher
Donald Beasley Institute
P O Box 6189
Dunedin NEW ZEALAND
 2006
Kimberley Institution Levin
LEVIN
The Kimberley Centre
Large facility ex-air-force base - opened July 1945
Home for backward children
“The patients which the department (of Health)has
at Levin are children who are mentally deficient
but not insane, including some who are adult in
years but have remained childish mentally. They
require protection from the hazards of normal life
but live and work satisfactorily in an institution”.
Dominion newspaper, 29 August 1945
1945 The Levin Farm Mental Deficiency Colony
1957 The Levin Hospital and Training School
1977 The Kimberley Hospital
The Kimberley Centre
• In its heyday residents numbered 1200+
• Residents have been liberated in small
numbers over past 20 years
• Government announcement made May 2002
for complete closure of Kimberley by 2006.
• Minister of Disability Issues asked DBI to
conduct research - research team started
complex consultation & ethics considerations
August 2002.
• Research started proper in December 2002
when residents numbered 349
Demographic detail
349 residents in Kimberley as of December 2002
Male
214 [61.3%]
Female 135 [38.7%]
Total residents by age:
<16
17-27
28-38
39-49
50-60
>60
0
4
90
145
94
16
43 Maori residents
%
1.1
25.8
41.6
26.9
4.6
Purpose of the research
• To compare the lives of residents in Kimberley Centre
and community services;
• To identify and changes in adaptive behaviours &
daily functional skills among residents during the
resettlement phase;
• To describe the experiences of family/whanau of the
resettlement process;
• To identify the outcomes and impact of
resettlement for Kimberley staff & their families;
• To identify any issues of service quality & service
gaps within community services for the residents.
Kimberley Centre Staff
December 2002, Kimberley Centre a major employer
in the Levin area.
 340+ - staff - including management,
registered nursing staff, *psychopaedic nurses,
psychopaedic assistants, administrative and
maintenance staff
 200 approximately Maori staff
 large % of staff untrained and unqualified
 many staff long term employees at Kimberley not uncommon for 3/4 generations of families to
have worked at Kimberley
Kimberley Centre Staff
A pre & post questionnaire, individual interviews
(regarding their resident & personal) & focus
groups were held with staff to,
Build an impression of the culture of support
and how it had changed over time;
Discover how staff saw their role and what
they valued about their work;
Find out the strengths and weaknesses of
institutional care; and
Determine the impact of the closure on their
quality of life and the residents they cared for.
Who are the Kimberley
Centre staff?
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Management and Administration
Clinical Nurses (non-villa)
Registered Nurses (on the villas)
Enrolled nurses
Psychopaedic Nurses
Psychopaedic Assistants
Maintenance staff
Staff Questionnaire
• Pre and post closure questionnaire
designed to determine staffs’
experiences of the closure
• Pre questionnaire sent to all staff with
an invitation to complete
• 30 staff completed and posted
questionnaire back
Staff Questionnaire
30 replies from 340+ staff
9 male staff and 22 female staff replied (7 Maori)
Management
2
Team leaders
2
Registered nurse (general)
1
Enrolled nurse
1
Registered Psychopaedic Nurse
3
Senior Psychopaedic Assistant
3
Psychopaedic Assistant
9
Health Assistant
1
Day Activities staff
5
Staff Questionnaire
Length of service at Kimberley in years
0-4
6 staff
5-9
6
10 - 14
5
15 - 19
4
20 - 24
5
25 - 29
2
30 - 34
1
• One staff didn’t note length of service
• 6 Psychopaedic Assistants had length of service over
7 years - one had 21 years of service.
Initial findings from the
Questionnaires
 A strong emotional attachment to the institution - durable
historical and familial links to Kimberley.
 18/30 respondents had extended family working at
Kimberley at the present time and throughout its existence.
 Pervading cynicism/disbelief that Kimberley would close staff had been told frequently over the last 20 - 25 years
years that Kimberley was closing and it never happened.
 Because of this cynicism many staff felt the management
was handling the proposed closure very poorly and had little
regard for the staff working back in the villas/wards.
Initial findings from the
Questionnaires
 This denial of the pending closure also showed
around seeking future employment - 80% of
respondents were not actively looking for a new job
at the time of completing the questionnaire.
 Just over half of the respondents definitely wanted to
keep working with people with intellectual disabilities.
23% did not want to work in the field and 20% were
wavering.
 Effects of closure on staffs’ families? Most stated
there were good and bad effects. 36% stated there
were some negative/very negative effects on their
families, while 16% said the effect for their families
was probably for the best or much better overall.
Initial findings from the
Questionnaires
Staff worries for the future
Finance
Loss of work
Missing the residents
Loss of work
Lowered standard of living
Moving away
Missing other staff
No skills/experience for another job
Boredom
Loss of work for their children
%
73
46
46
46
43
30
26
13
10
10
Initial findings from the
Questionnaires
One staff person with considerable education in
the field stated that her major worry was,
“…my years working in an institution
may not be viewed favourably. I
believe this should not disadvantage
me…”
Initial findings from the
Questionnaires
How did staff see the future for the residents?
• 43% believed that residents would have an improved
or much improved quality of life in the community.
• 33% believed that residents would have a poor or
much poorer quality of life.
• 16% were unsure
• 1 staff stated they didn’t care!
• 1 staff said there wouldn’t be any difference!
Focus Groups
*3 Focus Groups - total 10 staff
*All participants had worked for 20+ years in
Kimberley;
*In senior nursing or management positions;
*Had started as young people without
experience or qualifications in the field;
Focus Groups’ initial
findings
• A large number of entertaining stories about
working for Kimberley in its halcyon days;
• Kimberley - a “centre of excellence” visited by
many overseas experts;
• Significant changes in philosophy and
practice over 61 years;
• Genuine affection/attachment to residents;
• Concern about loosing contact with residents;
• Not knowing about residents’ lives, eg
“…What if they are ill or die?”…
Focus Groups’ initial
findings
* Disturbing behaviour of some staff and
the code of silence around abuse - the
“Kimberley cringe”
* The loss of competent staff, because of
other abusive staff;
* The less than honest management of
the deinstitutionalisation process.
Informal ‘chats’ with staff
working in the villas
* Not enough information about “what is
happening” for residents and for them;
* Very upset about how residents were leaving
the institution;
* Felt the management did not understand their
relationships with residents or appreciate
their considerable knowledge of a resident
and left them out of the planning.
Informal ‘chats’ with staff
working in the villas
* Felt persecuted by community disability services;
* Did not want to work for community disability
services;
* Felt their skills and knowledge were undervalued by
both management and disability services;
* Commitment to the job waning - “who cares?” - lack
of job satisfaction;
* Significant concerns about how the residents with
particular health and behaviour needs would be
properly attended to in community services.
Resilience!
Many stakeholders have been resilient





long term staff
PA’s
families
residents
researchers!