Salzburg and the Konradinum scandal – what became of it?
For years, a home run by the province of Salzburg called Konradinum occupied the media (and courts). Now it is being demolished and a new Konradinum has since been built in a different place. BIZEPS interviewed the expert Norbert Krammer from the agency network.
A home for the handicapped operated by the province of Salzburg – that Konradinum in Eugendorf – Make media waves years ago. It became known that there were grievances there, court judgments followed, political discussions about improving the situation, decisions about funds.
Ultimately, it was decided to demolish the completely dilapidated home. But instead of pursuing a modern disability policy, it was decided to build an even bigger home, completely disrupting the obligations of the UN Convention on Persons with Disabilities.
How the scandal developed, what (wrong) conclusions were drawn from it and how the situation for people with disabilities has changed is in the following written interview Norbert KramerExpert at the agency network.
Interview with Norbert Krammer
BIZEPS: Now the Konradinum, which has come under heavy criticism, will finally be demolished? Has it been criticized?
Norbert Kramer: The demolition of the old building is almost complete, the new building is already in operation – the turnaround has also been completed spatially.
But back to the criticism that was voiced again and again – also publicly – and to the decades-long effort to bring about change.
Of the slightly more than twenty residents, three quarters had a guardian, of whom (voluntary) employees of agency network have worked for over twenty people as club guardians and later as adult representatives in recent years.
Therefore, not only our volunteers, but also the full-time team leaders had been pushing for improvements for years and pointed out problem areas in the home. It was always about the poor condition of the building, the lack of offers and, even before the Residence Act began, also about restrictions on residents.
At least the network of representatives was able to organize visiting services and therapies and achieve small changes.
The cooperation with the facility and with the supervisors ensured the implementation and improvement for the residents.
Nevertheless, the concerns about the Konradinum that had been expressed to the country for years went unheeded.
BICEPS: Ultimately things have changed. How did that happen?
Norbert Kramer: The decisive turning point was introduced by the then new Home Residence Act and the resulting resident representation, which reviewed measures restricting freedom in care facilities. They also launched judicial reviews over restraints after extrajudicial interventions were unsuccessful.
In the proceedings, the inadmissibility of the measures taken was confirmed by several experts and finally by the courts. The federal government even had to pay damages to residents who were treated without legal permission or.
In addition, the expert commission of the Ombudsman Board, which is responsible for the protection and promotion of human rights, controlled at that time. The testing bodies publicly named the collected grievances and raised a lot of dust. The suggestions for improvement that were also communicated were almost lost in the very heated discussion.
The commission found numerous shortcomings: structural defects, lack of accessibility, blatant glimpses of intimacy and privacy, beds in the corridor or in common rooms, lack of separation between toilets and nursing bathrooms, cramped sanitary rooms, overcrowding, lack of staff and lack of care and the lack of missing suitable Rooms for educational and therapeutic offers.
In summary, the criticism of the control bodies focused on the completely unsuitable building, which resulted in inhumane living conditions. Among other things, the focus was on the treatment and care concept, i.e. the lack of modern special and curative educational methods and comprehensive offers.
BICEPS: In 2016 a new building was announced. Why didn’t this solve the problems?
Norbert Kramer: The country was aware of the catastrophic condition of the building and, according to its own statements, the go-ahead for internal planning of a new building was given as early as 2014. However, this only became public in the course of the debate about the uncovered grievances.
The government did not even consider UN CRPD-compliant considerations of not building the large facility from scratch, but creating small residential units for self-determined living.
The medium-sized home for the disabled with 35 residential and care places will be continued, the new building even includes 36 places for people with disabilities. The mixed age structure – from small children to residents over 40 – was retained, as was the lack of separation between the residential facility and the external daily structure. The competent all-round institution, which was described in Erving Goffmann’s sociology as a total institution, remains.
Only walks enable external contacts, so the residents remain blocked from the broader community. The question of where and with whom I live or am cared for is therefore not a free decision – this also shows the entirety of a facility. There is still no deviation from this structure.
BIZEPS: Is there anything positive to report about the new building?
Norbert Kramer: Yes – The new building is spacious. There is a lot of light, retreat options, therapy rooms and single rooms are standard. The spatial improvement is viewed very positively by relatives and adult representatives. The structural deficiencies have been eliminated, and offers have been expanded.
Nevertheless, the structure and the concept remain in place: There can therefore be no talk of human rights-compliant implementation.
BIZEPS: The state of Salzburg will continue to be the sponsor of this large home. Why hasn’t this been changed and why is this also a problem?
Norbert Kramer: In May 2016, based on an SPÖ application, the Salzburg state parliament committee unanimously decided that the new building would be handed over to a recognized provider of disability aid.
This means that the previous responsibility from the health department would also have migrated to the social department, which is technically responsible for facilities for the disabled. The omission of the tender and the lack of change remained unfounded.
Organizationally, the Konradinum will therefore continue to be assigned to the health department and here to the area of state homes and state institutions. This special construction includes two other facilities, the State Center for Hearing and Vision Education and the Social-Pedagogical Center. There are historical reasons, grown, old structures that also touch on power distribution issues in the existing coalition of ÖVP/Greens/Neo.
The state of Salzburg still has everything in one hand here: the facility as operator, the staff as employer and supervisor, the granting of assistance for the disabled for the residents, the control as technical supervision. There can be no question of a “separation of powers” here.
Not only the residents are looked after in the Konradinum all-round and without alternative, the facility is also comprehensively integrated into the structure of the state.
BICEPS: What opportunity was missed with the decisions made?
Norbert Kramer: The construction of a new building for the old unsuitable home Konradinum fundamentally contradicts the goals of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and blocks the possibility of getting closer to an inclusive society. When discussing the home, the main focus is on the building and the new construction.
The people cared for became the object and were not the goal of the efforts. The state of Salzburg thus continues to disregard Article 19 of the CRPD, which obliges the contracting states to take appropriate measures so that people with disabilities can live with the same options as all other people in the community.
Even in the planning process, self-advocates, experts and advisory boards of the state were not involved in order to create an inclusive offer.
Despite the attractive new building and the spacious facility, the commitment of the staff cannot make up for the uniform shortcomings, the lack of participation and the lack of implementation of the obligations from the UN Disability Rights Convention.
BICEPS: Thanks for the interview!