Introduction

Background

Specialist Disability Accommodation (SDA) is for people who need specialist housing solutions. This includes housing that caters for residents’ extreme functional impairment or very high support needs. Under the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), the ‘bricks and mortar’ of SDA and the supports offered in homes (Supported Independent Living or ‘SIL’) are separated. SDA includes 4 building design categories:

1. improved liveability
2. robust
3. fully accessible
4. high physical support.

Robust SDA is ‘housing that has been designed to incorporate a reasonable level of physical access provision and be very resilient, reducing the likelihood of reactive maintenance and reducing the risk’ to the resident, service providers and the community¹. The National Disability Insurance Agency (NDIA) has published general design standards for robust SDA. But guiding principles that focus on leading-edge and person-centred good-practice design in the robust category are not available. Residents’ preferences for robust SDA have not been well explored.

The Department of Families, Fairness and Housing is Victoria’s primary supplier of robust SDA. The department commissioned ORIMA Research to develop principles to guide future robust SDA design and construction.

Project aims

The primary aim of the research was to develop guiding good-practice principles. These principles would inform construction of leading-edge, robust SDA. The research also aimed to:

• understand the design features, preferences and experiences of people who need robust SDA
• pinpoint design trends, both here and overseas, that relate to robust SDA
• develop design principles for robust SDA informed by a range of experts with knowledge on the topic
• find experts in robust SDA
• document tested or trial design, environmental and construction features that build on the NDIS SDA Design Standard guidance.

Research method

The research project involved three stages:

• literature scan – a scan and cataloguing of the available literature on the topic and a ‘deep dive’ review of 8 key academic articles, organisational reports and policy papers
• initial interviews – one-on-one interviews and a group in-depth interview with 4 experts
• core qualitative research – one-on-one in-depth interviews, group in-depth interviews and mini focus groups with 29 people. This included 23 stakeholders, two people with a disability and four family/carers of people entitled to robust SDA.

Literature scan

A literature scan catalogued trends, approaches, guiding principles and good practice in robust SDA. The purpose of the scan was twofold:

• produce a list of resources to use when developing guidelines for good-practice robust SDA design
• decide the relevance and value of conducting a full literature review.

The scan looked to find:

• trends in disability housing design, universal design and accessibility
• guidelines, principles and factors in building robust housing for people with complex needs
• subject matter experts
• examples of good-practice disability housing design and construction.

The literature scan found 44 local and overseas research papers and journals. The researchers decided that a full literature review was not necessary. Still, they chose 8 studies for a ‘deep dive’ literature review. This deep dive:

• helped develop guiding design principles and features
• gave background to the qualitative research findings.

We have included relevant findings from the deep dive in this report. Refer to Appendix 1 for the reference list.

Initial interviews

Initial stakeholder² interviews:

• gave first insights into the key issues and considerations about robust SDA
• helped refine research instruments
• found key stakeholder participants for the rest of the qualitative research.

Four research participants took part in this stage of the research through two one-on-one in-depth interviews and one group in-depth interview.

Core qualitative research

The core qualitative research included 23 people via:

• three online mini focus groups
• 11 one-on-one in-depth interviews
• two group in-depth interviews.

Fieldwork took place between 22 October 2020 and 26 January 2021. Researchers conducted almost all interviews online to protect health and safety during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

The target audiences for this research included the following:

• Stakeholders. This included SDA providers, SIL providers and other disability experts (academics, advocacy organisations, peak bodies). There were also staff from the then Victorian Department of Health and Human Services and the NDIA. This audience included 10 SDA providers, nine SIL providers and eight other experts.
• Residents entitled to robust SDA. This included people whose current robust SDA was not meeting their housing needs.
• Family members and carers of people entitled to robust SDA. This included people living in robust SDA and those fit for robust SDA looking for this type of housing.

Most participants were from Victoria given the department’s scope. We also spoke with experts from other states and territories.

Table 1 shows the qualitative research design.

Table 1: Qualitative research design

Online mini focus group (OMFG); group in-depth interview (GIDI); online in-depth interview (OIDI); face-to-face in-depth interview (FIDI)

The following methods helped find participants for the research:

• Homes Victoria, the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing and ORIMA Research’s Disability Research Services Division used their industry experience and desk research to find initial interview participants.
• ORIMA used snowball sampling in the first interviews. Participants recommended SIL providers, SDA providers and developers and other experts in the field. The department sent these participants a primary approach letter to invite them to take part in the research. ORIMA then contacted them to schedule an interview or to include them in a mini focus group.
• We found a disability design academic during the literature scan. ORIMA invited the academic to take part in the research.
• ORIMA asked VALID, a disability advocacy body, to recruit resident and family/carer participants.

Resident and family/carer participants received an $80 payment (or gift voucher). This was to recognise their contribution and cover the costs of taking part.

Appendix 2 lists the people and organisations that took part in the stakeholder part of the research. ORIMA and Homes Victoria thanks all participants for their time and valuable contribution.

Research challenges and limitations

At the start, we planned to include more people with robust housing needs in the research. Yet, the timing of the research (during a COVID-19 lockdown period) and the communication preferences of people with robust housing needs made recruitment hard. We took a flexible approach (offering face-to-face talks after lockdown) and extended the fieldwork period. Still, fewer residents took part in the research than would have been ideal. We acknowledge the importance of giving people with lived experience direct input into the research.

Findings from people with lived experience of robust housing (residents and family members/non-paid carers of residents) were consistent with other stakeholders. This confirmed the research findings. But take caution when generalising the research findings to the broader population of people entitled to robust SDA. This is due to the small sample size of lived experience participants and the diverse range of needs among this group.

Presentation of findings

The research was qualitative and so we have presented the results and findings in a qualitative way.

The following terms used in the report estimate the size of the target audience who held certain views:

• Most refers to findings that relate to more than three-quarters of the research participants.
• many refers to findings that relate to more than half of the research participants.
• Some refers to findings that relate to around a third of the research participants.
• A few refers to findings that relate to less than a quarter of research participants.

The most common findings are reported except in certain situations where only a minority has raised certain issues. Still, these are important and may have wide-ranging effects or uses.

How to read this report

This report is divided into three sections:

• Part A: Background details research findings to give a snapshot of robust SDA and how to consider the design principles and elements.
• Part B: Good-practice design principles explains the good-practice design principles developed through the research.
• Part C: Design elements and features to support good-practice design details specific design elements and features to support good-practice design and resident outcomes. It includes case studies of good practice.

Quotes from research participants feature throughout the report. These support the main results or findings discussed.

The following terms appear throughout this report:

• Stakeholders refers to people involved in the research – (SIL) providers, SDA providers, government representatives and other industry experts. Industry experts include peak bodies, advocacy bodies and academics.
• Residents refers to people with disability who need robust SDA. They may or may not live in SDA.
• Family members refers to family members and carers of people with disability who need robust SDA.
• Participant refers to research participants (the above three groups).
• Behaviours of concern refers to behaviours that place the person or others at risk of harm⁴.

Quality assurance

Researchers carried out the project in line with the international quality standard ISO 20252 and the Australian Privacy Principles contained in the Privacy Act 1988. ORIMA Research also adheres to the Privacy (Market and Social Research) Code 2014.

1. National Disability Insurance Agency 2019, NDIS Specialist Disability Accommodation: Design Standard, Edition 1.1, National Disability Insurance Agency, Canberra.
2. Stakeholders in this phase of the research included peak bodies, advocacy organisations and representatives from the former Victorian Department of Health and Human Services.
3. One resident preferred a face-to-face interview. This took place outside the Victorian COVID-19 lockdown period and followed government health and safety guidelines.
4. NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission 2019, Positive behaviour support capability framework, Canberra.