Institutions for persons with disabilities Deinstitutionalisation facilitates individual ways of liv Customised ways of living are facilitated by inclusive types of housing close to the local community. Commission 1 reported of examples of good practice. The operator of a residential home moved the residents to a block of apartments close to the local community. In this building, the clients now live right beside other tenants. Customised support is provided and those being cared for can decide on their daily routine themselves. There is also sufficient assistant staff at the weekend. It is thus possible to go to festivals, discotheques or other events. The residents drafted their own house rules. In spite of some positive incidences, however, there is a lack of comprehensive concepts for deinstitutionalisation in Austria. On the contrary, in some cases institutions and facilities are extended and deinstitutionalisation is considered to be difficult to implement. Sometimes the authorities also argue that persons in care prefer existing institutions and facilities to types of housing close to the local community. In this context, it is often overlooked that changing the habits and socialisation that have been taught over years is combined with fear. Deinstitutionalisation therefore requires cautious preparation and extensive information on processes and opportunities. 86 There is no change without resistance Just how difficult it is to bring about change in institutions and facilities is illustrated by the case of a residential and day-care centre for persons with disabilities in Salzburg, which is operated by the Land. The NPM criticised many cases of maladministration in 2016 (completely inadequate buildings, no barrier-free accessible places to be alone, missing therapy and rehabilitation opportunities), which were vehemently refuted. A plot of land has since been purchased on which a turnkey residential facility with therapy places will be built in 2019. At the beginning of 2017, the documents presenting the rationale and financing for the new building were submitted to the Diet by the Land Government. In these documents the Land Government conceded that the existing confined conditions made it impossible to provide contemporary care for persons with disabilities. However, according to the lawyer of the facility, the deterioration of development opportunities caused by this is attributed to the peculiarities of the disabilities of persons living there, and not to insufficient structures. In a debate in the Diet in January 2018, the NPM insisted that it is necessary that the Land Government sits down with experts (e.g. selfadvocacies, monitoring committee) and defines an inclusive concept in order to be able to provide persons with considerable support needs appropriate living conditions as well as the necessary therapy, support and care services. The opposite of inclusion is isolation Self-determination is also the condition for inclusion, in other words integration in society. It does not exist when persons with disabilities live and work isolated from the rest of society. This, for example, is the case when the only available sheltered workshops and houses of the same operator organisation are run in close proximity to each other. There are still regions in Austria where persons with disabilities are dependent on one employer and have to act in closed systems due to a lack of alternatives. One facility visited by Commission 3 in