Docstoc

A Review of Demand for Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) in the East

Document Sample
A Review of Demand for Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) in the East Powered By Docstoc
					A Review of Demand for Disabled
Facilities Grant (DFG) in the East
             Midlands
          Malcolm Ramsay
               Overview
Background to research
Spending patterns across the region
Activity patterns across the region
Main conclusions
Mapping of DFGs
The best performing authorities and latent
demand
Recommendations
Background to Regional Research
Earlier research conducted for GONW
Only two regions to commission a review
Both pieces of work have contributed to local
knowledge – and their conclusions are reflected
in the recent national strategy
The brief asked researchers to focus upon
identifying ‘latent demand’ for DFGs
The primary research tool was a series of inter-
locking questionnaires across all tenures
               Results
Strong return rate from Local Authorities
(82.5%) but less than hoped for
The lowest overall rate of return was
from PCTs – but this may reflect a lack of
understanding of DFGs
There was also a low return rate from
RSLs
          Spending Pattern
A steady regional growth in both amounts of
SCG bid for and allocated over last four years
(39% and 37% respectively)
However, at authority level there is
considerable variation over the period
  1 authority increasing by 127%, another reducing by
  0.02%
Similarly, grant allocated per head of adult
population varies between authorities
  Ranging from £0.44 to £3.39 (Average is £1.94)
     Top-up Contributions
27 authorities reported providing
additional contributions to DFG pot
These ‘top-ups’ contributed a further
£5.9m (approx. 30%) in 2006/7
One authority consistently contributes at
least £1m each year – others much less so
Again there is considerable variation
across authorities
       LA Spend by Tenure
All sectors showed substantial increases across
the region between 2004/5 and 2006/7:
  Private sector increase = 24.5% (£13.2m)
  Spend in own stock = 25.8% (£11.5m)
  LA spend in RSL sector = 53.4% (£0.8m)
  LA spend in outsourced stock = 74.6% (£1.3m)
Again, considerable variation between
authorities
Spend by Type of Adaptation
Authorities were asked to identify spending in 4
bands
Most common adaptations in all sectors were
stair lifts and level access showers
Typical Private Sector costs for both types were
between £1k and £10k
   but a few were below £1k and over £10k
Average cost of all adaptations = £6,213
  but this a very crude measurement
Children's adaptations increasing in numbers
Latent Demand: Waiting Times
Many authorities accept they use the complex
process to ration resources
Waiting times vary between authorities:
  Longest = 116 weeks, shortest = 10 weeks
Many authorities carry over commitments to
following year
  Average = 43%
OT assessments are blamed for long delays, but
refuted by Adult Social Care
Latent Demand: Demographic changes in
          the East Midlands

Retirement age population to rise by
30.7% by 2021
Total DFG budget currently £19.69
million, spend of £59 per disabled
claimant
Needs to rise annually by inflation plus
2%
Latent Demand: Demographic changes in
          the East Midlands

Tenure changes also a factor
Stock transfer
Spend per local authority household
three times as high as private sector
households
Ethnic grouping
Attitudes and expectations
Latent Demand: Comparison with Access &
         Systems Capacity Grant
 Research used ASCG model as guide to latent
 demand:
   Model based upon a more objective formula
 Comparison suggests some winners and losers
 Three cities and Lincolnshire would receive
 reduced resources
 Whilst attractive, support needed to introduce
 this model
Latent Demand: Comparison with Access &
         Systems Capacity Grant
                    Allocation of DFG using % of ASCG     Winners (+) and losers (-)
                    received                              using the ASCG formula

 Northamptonshire                            £1,135,254                        +£161,254

 Derbyshire                                  £1,724,287                        +£124,287

 Leicestershire                              £1,063,112                          +£40,112

 Rutland                                        £57,674                          +£10,674

 Nottinghamshire                             £1,545,912                           +£8,912

 Leicester City                                £627,284                          -£26,716

 Derby City                                    £502,025                          -£90,975

 Lincolnshire                                £1,373,483                          -£91,517

 Nottingham City                               £617,968                         -£136,032
              Conclusions
There is considerable variation across the
region in spend and performance
The 2 unifying issues are the lack of resources
and the discomfort of people waiting for an
adaptation
A key future issue will be the ability for all the
stakeholders to work in partnership and to
strategically plan local activity
     The mapping of DFGs
Provided overview of regional activity
Details of hot spots and cold spots in DFG
spend to influence local targeting of
funding
Link to other data sources on Hi4em
website to build up complete local
picture
  The best performing areas
Different kinds of authorities all performed well
The Benefits:
  Waiting times average 27 weeks compared to 56.5
  weeks for whole sample
  Spend more per head of disabled population (£51
  compared with £43 average)
  Good match between spend on DFG and locations of
  disabled population
  Evidence of good partnership working
  Keeping latent demand at bay
  The best performing areas
The Costs:
  They top up allocations by average of 125%
  £4.37 million extra needed to raise other authority spending to
  same level
  £5 million required to cover existing waiting list for level
  access showers
  Increased funding may not result in improved performance
  elsewhere within region
Extra money needed – alternative sources of funding
Performance criteria measured outputs not outcomes
               Looking ahead
Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods
  Funding increases over next three years
  Maximum grant raised to £30k
  Discretion to impose charge (£5-£10k) to be repaid if property
  sold within 10 years
  Removal of 60:40 match funding rule
  DFG ring-fence to remain, but scope to be widened
  SHG funding transferred to DFG pot, with local authority
  adaptations funding to follow
  Funding for rapid repair and minor adaptation services from
  2009
  New national housing advice and information service
           Recommendations
Prioritise adaptations through LAAs –how?
  NI 139 People over 65 who say that they receive the information,
  assistance and support needed to exercise choice and control to live
  independently
  NI 142 Percentage of vulnerable people who are supported to maintain
  independent living
Requires partnership, planning and cross-tenure
approach – funding for sub-regional approach?
Better information and advice a crucial element
Investigate alternative forms of finance, e.g. equity
release
Personalisation agenda – DFGs as a part of a toolkit of
options to maintain independent living

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:42
posted:3/9/2010
language:English
pages:23
Description: A Review of Demand for Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG) in the East