The statistics tell a concerning story. Research from the Disability Royal Commission found that people in group homes experience incidents at rates significantly higher than those in other living arrangements. More troubling is that many people end up in group homes not because it's their preferred option, but because alternatives simply don't exist.
We took a step back and asked a fundamental question: what if we designed living arrangements around the person, rather than expecting the person to fit into existing structures?
The Problem with Group Living
Group homes operate on economies of scale; one location, shared staff, standardised routines. While this makes business sense, it often creates environments where individual needs become secondary to operational efficiency.
For Sarah, a 28-year-old woman with autism who thrives on routine and quiet environments, this led to a constant state of overwhelm. In a group home with three others, her sensory needs conflicted with her housemates' preferences for music and social activity. Behavioural incidents increased, medication was adjusted, and eventually she was labelled as "difficult to place."
But the issue wasn't Sarah, it was a system that couldn't accommodate her very reasonable need for predictability and sensory regulation.
This is where Individualised Living Options (ILO) fundamentally differs from traditional approaches. Instead of asking "Where can we place this person?", we ask "What kind of living situation would help this person thrive?"
ILO by the Numbers
- 65% of our ILO participants live alone
- 25% live with family members
- 10% live with friends
- 100% report improved quality of life
The key is choice and control. In Sarah's case, we worked with her and her family to establish a small unit where she could maintain her routines while receiving the support she needed. Her behavioural incidents dropped to near zero within six months.
ILO isn't necessarily more expensive than group homes when you factor in reduced staff turnover, fewer emergency interventions, and better health outcomes. What it requires is flexibility in how we think about accommodation and support.
The NDIS provides funding for SIL based on a person's support needs, not their living arrangement. This means ILO can be funded through existing mechanisms; it just requires providers willing to think beyond the group home model.
We're not suggesting group homes never work; for some people, they're exactly right. What we're advocating for is genuine choice in living arrangements, especially for people with complex needs who may not thrive in group settings.
The disability sector often talks about person-centered care, but too often this means adapting the person to existing services rather than adapting services to the person. ILO represents what truly person-centered support can look like when we're willing to think differently about how care is delivered.