This checklist is drawn from a much longer list prepared by one of the Institute's correspondents, who has asked, for professional reasons, to remain anonymous. It is designed primarily for use by official visitors to residential homes run by local authorities and statutory agencies.
(1) What activities are residents engaged in at the time of your visit?
(2) How do residents seem to respond to your visit? Interested? Pleased? Apathetic? Resentful? Resigned?
(3) How many residents have significant contact with family, friends or former neighbours?
(4) How many go away at least some weekends?
(5) Do residents hold their own room and front door keys? If not, how are nights out managed?
(6) Do residents have their own coffee mugs?
(7) Do residents have any say in choice of decor?
(8) How many residents have single rooms? Can they bring their own belongings? How much storage space does each resident have?
(9) Are menus clearly posted? What allowances are made for special diets? Are residents allowed in the kitchen?
(10) What facilities exist for residents to make snacks or drinks out of hours?
(11) Is there a payphone? If not, can residents receive calls?
(12) Are there quiet areas where residents can read, study, meet visitors, etc?
(13) Does each resident have a drawer that will lock?
(14) Does the home smell of urine, disinfectant and polish, or like an ordinary home?
(15) What is the staff-resident ratio?
(16) Do the care staff wear overalls or 'civvies'?
(17) Is there 'parity' in the way staff address residents and vice versa: ie if staff use residents' christian names, do residents use staff christian names also?
(19) Is there a 'Friends' support group?
(20) Do reports of the home's social activities appear in the local press?
(21) Is there provision for residents' friends and relatives to meet with the resident privately? Is there, at low cost, a guest room for overnight or weekend visits?
(22) Are prospective residents encouraged to make an overnight or weekend stay before deciding to come into residence?
(23) Are the expressions 'good boy!' or 'good girl!' used in connection with adult residents?
(24) Do residents have a grievance procedure and is it made clear to them what it is?
(25) Is there a suggestions box?
(26) What contacts exist with the local neighbours, shopkeepers, churches, pubs, etc?
(27) What links exist with, for example, the local further education college, practising artists, schools, local radio, community service volunteers?
(28) Are questionnaires ever issued to residents for their evaluation of the service they receive?
A cardinal feature of all institutions is their tendency to take on a life of their own. Thus each establishment has, in addition to its overt task, a hidden agenda: the securing of its own survival and the perpetuation of its own ethos and norms. Residents who subscribe or at least conform to these are considered 'good'. Those who do not, are seen as 'having problems'.
Any residential worker knows the extent of the power of the principal officer, officer-in-charge or matron of the establishment. Even progressive local authorities whose professional managers have clearly defined the tasks of each establishment and who monitor closely their performance, often find it difficult to ascertain exactly what is going on in their minds at any particular time. The power of the people in charge is not absolute, but in relation to their residents it is enormous.
It is difficult to over-estimate the defensiveness of both the staffs and the senior and middle managements of council-provided homes. Perhaps admitting to shortcomings, failures and mistakes in the provision and running of a home carries emotive connotations of being a bad parent and this makes objective assessment difficult.
The checklist could in time form the basis of a data-collecting exercise and could prove to be an effective 'change agent' within individual homes.
The suggestion at present, however, is to read through the checklist before a visit, and then discard it. A little gentle probing, in residential life, goes a long way. Abrasive and over-detailed interrogations could be counter-productive.