Younger People with Disability in Residential Aged Care Program
Final report on the 2007–08 Minimum Data Set
February 2009

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare is Australia’s national
health and welfare statistics and information agency. The Institute’s mission is
 better information and statistics for better health and wellbeing.

© Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2009

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced without prior written permission from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be directed to the Head, Media and Communications Unit, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, GPO Box 570, Canberra ACT 2601.

This publication is part of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s Disability series. A complete list of the Institute’s publications is available from the Institute’s website <www.aihw.gov.au>. 

ISSN 1444-3589	
ISBN 978 1 74024 890 7

Suggested citation 
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2009. Younger People with Disability in Residential Aged Care program: Final report on the 2007–08 Minimum Data Set. Disability series. Cat. no. DIS 53. Canberra: AIHW.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 
Board Chair
Hon. Peter Collins, AM, QC

Director 
Penny Allbon

Any enquiries about or comments on this publication should be directed to:
Cathy Hales, Head, Functioning and Disability Unit
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
GPO Box 570
Canberra ACT 2601
Phone: (02) 6244 1135
Email: cathy.hales@aihw.gov.au

Published by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
Please note that there is the potential for minor revisions of data in this report.
Please check the online version at <www.aihw.gov.au> for any amendments.

Contents
Acknowledgments
Abbreviations and symbols
Summary
1	Introduction
1.1	Outline of the report
1.2	The YPIRAC program
1.3	Scope and definitions
2	YPIRAC service users
2.1	Characteristics and YPIRAC target groups
2.2	Residential setting
2.3	Disability groups
3	Service use
3.1	YPIRAC-specific services
3.2	Support services
4	New and continuing service users
4.1	Characteristics and YPIRAC target groups
4.2	Service use
5	Target population
5.1	Contact with potential service users
5.2	Younger people in residential aged care
6	Data processing and quality
6.1	Development and collection of the YPIRAC MDS
6.2	Data quality
Appendixes
Appendix 1: Additional tables
Appendix 2: YPIRAC MDS collection forms
Appendix 3: Service type classification
Appendix 4: English proficiency groupings
Appendix 5: Residential setting definitions
Appendix 6: The statistical linkage key
Appendix 7: YPIRAC MDS 2006–07 data development and collection
References
Acknowledgments
The AIHW project team would like to thank all state and territory YPIRAC program managers for their assistance in developing, collecting and reporting data for the 2007–08 YPIRAC minimum data set:
Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care (NSW)	Elena Manning	
Department of Human Services (Victoria)	Francene McCartin	
Disability Services Queensland	Lesley Moss	
Disability Services Commission (WA)	Russell Brown	
Department for Families and Communities (SA)	Sharon Evans	
Department of Health and Human Services (Tasmania)	Andrew Stanton	
Department of Disability, Housing and Community Services (ACT)	Cathryne Sciberras	
Department of Health and Families (NT)	Lynda Jarvis	

Thanks also to Jolanta Willington, Cheryl Johnson and Ester Kyaw at FaHCSIA. 
Special thanks go to Alison Watters, Heather Thompson, Angela Robinson, Martin Higgins, Kylie West, Wing Sun Foong, Luke Drady and Noel Hanssens, who made significant contributions to the data collection and cleaning process in their jurisdictions.
Abbreviations and symbols
Abbreviations
ABI	acquired brain injury	
ABS	Australian Bureau of Statistics	
ACAP	Aged Care Assessment Program	
AIHW	Australian Institute of Health and Welfare	
CSTDA	Commonwealth State/Territory Disability Agreement 	
DoHA	Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing	
FaHCSIA	Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs	
HACC	Home and Community Care Program	
MDS	Minimum Data Set	
NMDS	National Minimum Data Set	
SLK	statistical linkage key	
YPIRAC	Younger People with Disability in Residential Aged Care 	
Symbols used in tables
<	less than	
—	zero, or null cells	
n.a.	not available	
Summary
This report includes information from the 2007–08 Younger People with Disability in Residential Aged Care Minimum Data Set (YPIRAC MDS). It summarises the characteristics of people who were ‘on the books’ during 2007–08 and the YPIRAC services they received. People included in ‘on the books’ are those who accepted YPIRAC services in 2006–07 and continued to receive services (including monitoring only) in 2007–08, along with new starters in 2007–08. 
•	The 2007–08 financial year saw the addition of 376 new service users. As at 30 June 2008, a total of 580 people were accessing YPIRAC-funded services.
•	2007–08 saw a shift in focus from relocating people living in residential aged care accommodation (target group 1) to diverting people living in the community who were at risk of admission to residential aged care (target group 2) (Table 3.1 and Figure 4.1).
•	As at 30 June 2008, 398 YPIRAC service users were living in residential aged care; 162 were living in other settings, including private residences and domestic scale disability accommodation; 20 people were in hospital.
•	The program continued to focus on the initial priority age group, under 50 years, which accounted for 83% of service users in 2007–08. 
•	Acquired brain injury (ABI) was the predominant primary disability group—46% of service users—and more than half of service users with ABI recorded as a primary disability were in residential aged care awaiting alternative accommodation. Neurological disability was the second most common primary disability, though these users were more evenly spread across the four target groups than service users with ABI (see Chapter 2).
•	Around 46% of service users (265 people) received a support services package, while 14% (79 people) received an alternative accommodation placement (Table 3.1). 
•	Service users in the ‘at risk’ group (target group 2) were more likely than those who chose to remain in residential aged care (target group 3) to receive a support package (72% compared with 38%; Table 3.1). 
•	Service users in target group 1 tended to receive YPIRAC assessment followed by monitoring, while they waited for alternative accommodation to become available. Only 42% of target group 1 received a support package. It is reasonable to assume that support packages will be arranged or continued when a person moves from residential aged care to new accommodation. A period of service support from YPIRAC before moving out of residential aged care may help to establish services and rapport between support workers and their client, and provide service continuity.
•	Service users in target group 2 tended to receive a YPIRAC assessment followed by a support package (Table 3.6). 
•	Support packages varied in composition—common service types were attendant care/personal care (accessed by 20% of users), community access (other than day programs) (18%), assistive products and technology (17%) and individual therapy support (16%). 
•	Only 3 continuing service users (from 2006–07) received YPIRAC-funded respite care, compared with 13 new users of respite care in 2007–08. This at least partly reflects the shift towards in-home support packages for people at risk of entering residential aged care.
•	
1	Introduction
This report is based on data collected for the Younger People with Disability in Residential Aged Care (YPIRAC) program for the 2007–08 financial year. It presents information on the people who were provided with support under the YPIRAC program (YPIRAC service users) and the services they accessed during the 2007–08 reporting period (1 July 2007—
30 June 2008).
1.1	Outline of the report
This chapter provides an introduction to the YPIRAC program and a summary of the development, collection and scope of the YPIRAC MDS.
Chapter 2 describes YPIRAC service users, including age and sex distribution, YPIRAC target groups, residential settings and disability profiles. Chapter 3 relates to service use during the reporting period, including the use of YPIRAC-specific services and the types of services received. Chapter 4 compares the characteristics of new and continuing YPIRAC service users, and the support provided to them during 2007–08. Chapter 5 presents data on the contact made with potential YPIRAC service users. Chapter 6 summarises quality issues relating to the 2007–08 data.
Background information, including technical matters such as classification definitions and collection materials, is provided in the Appendixes. 
1.2	The YPIRAC program
The YPIRAC program was agreed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) on 10 February 2006 with the aim of delivering sustained reductions in the number of younger people with disability in residential aged care (FaHCSIA 2008). The YPIRAC program operates under a 5-year agreement between the Australian Government and state and territory governments, with funding of up to $122 million from the Australian Government to be matched by the states and territories. The program is funded through the states and territories and administered by the Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA).
The program has three main objectives:
•	to move younger people with disability currently accommodated in residential aged care into appropriate disability supported accommodation, where it can be made available and if that is the client’s choice
•	to divert younger people with disability who are at risk of admission to residential aged care into more appropriate forms of accommodation
•	to enhance the delivery of specialist disability services to those younger people with disability who choose to remain in residential aged care or for whom residential aged care remains the only available suitable supported accommodation option.
The YPIRAC target group is people with disability aged under 65 years who live in, or are at risk of, entering residential aged care. Initial priority was to be given to those under 50 years of age who reside in an aged care facility. 
1.3	Scope and definitions
The YPIRAC MDS contains information about people who received funding under the YPIRAC program, and the services they used during 2007–08. These people are known as ‘YPIRAC service users’. The YPIRAC MDS also collects information about program activity relating to contact with potential service users in each state/territory jurisdiction. 
To be considered a YPIRAC service user in 2007–08, a person must have applied for, and been found eligible for, the YPIRAC program, and have received one or more YPIRAC-specific services during the 2007–08 financial year period. YPIRAC-specific services include YPIRAC assessment and individual care planning, monitoring, alternative accommodation and support service packages. Box 1.1 provides more detail on these key definitions.

Box 1.1: YPIRAC service user and YPIRAC services definitions 2007–08

A YPIRAC service user is a person who has:
–applied to the YPIRAC program AND
–been found eligible for the program AND
–received one or more YPIRAC services during the reporting period (1 July 2007—30 June 2008).

YPIRAC services consist of the following:
—YPIRAC assessment/individual care planning 
YPIRAC assessment includes all assessments where the aim is to determine the service user’s care needs and/or service needs for the purposes of administering the YPIRAC program, or for the purpose of designing and implementing an individual support plan. YPIRAC assessment includes the determination of the service user’s accommodation options and preferences. Individual care planning includes planning for the individual’s care and/or service needs under the YPIRAC program.
—YPIRAC client monitoring
This refers to contact between the YPIRAC program and service users, which occurs after an initial YPIRAC assessment. It includes both regular and one-off contact, and may be in person, by telephone or email. Purposes of this contact may include reviewing or reassessing the service user’s situation, care needs or service needs, or providing updates to service users regarding their involvement in the program. The contact should be on an individual basis. That is, activities such as letters and emails that are provided to more than one service user do not count as client monitoring.
—Alternative accommodation
This refers to a change of residential setting that is supported and funded by the YPIRAC program. An offer of alternative accommodation refers to a concrete offer to move to a specific new residential setting.
—Support services packages
Support services packages refer to disability and other support services that are funded by the YPIRAC program. This includes disability support packages and service enhancements.

YPIRAC target groups:
Group 1 Agreed to, or has moved from, residential aged care to alternative YPIRAC-funded accommodation and support
Group 2 Deemed ‘at risk’ of entry into residential aged care
Group 3 Remain in or enter residential aged care with additional disability support services
Group 4 Remain in or enter residential aged care without additional disability support services

Information collected about YPIRAC service users includes age and sex, country of birth, Indigenous status, residential setting and the reasons for being in their current accommodation, geographical location, and primary and other significant disability groups. A statistical linkage key (SLK) is also collected. While the data are not identifiable (that is, personal identifying information is not collected), the SLK enables individual service users to be tracked across reporting periods and would facilitate potential linkage with other relevant data collections such as the Commonwealth State Territory Disability Agreement National Minimum Data Set (CSTDA NMDS). See Appendix 6 for more information about the SLK.
Data are also collected on the range of services received by YPIRAC service users. Box 1.2 provides definitions of each of the service groups (categories of service type) in the YPIRAC MDS, and Appendix 3 provides definitions of each service type.

Box 1.2: Definitions of service groups in the YPIRAC MDS 2007–08 	
Accommodation support	Services that provide accommodation to people with disability and services that provide the support needed to enable a person to remain in his or her existing accommodation or move to a more suitable or appropriate accommodation.	
Community support	Services that provide the support needed for a person with disability to live in a non-institutional setting (not including support with the basic needs of living, such as meal preparation and dressing, which are included under accommodation support).	
Community access	Services designed to provide opportunities for people with disability to gain and use their abilities to enjoy their full potential for social independence. People who do not attend school or who are not employed full time mainly use these services.	
Respite	Respite services provide a short-term and time-limited break for families and other voluntary caregivers of people with disability, to assist in supporting and maintaining the primary caregiving relationship while providing a positive experience for the person with disability. 	
Other services
	This group covers a wide range of services including: advocacy, information, referral, mutual support/self-help groups, alternative communication formats; research and evaluation, training and development, peak bodies; assistive products and technology; modification to the design or construction of buildings; transportation services; services provided by nurses; YPIRAC assessment and individual care planning; YPIRAC client monitoring; and any other support services outside the above defined service types.	
2	YPIRAC service users
A total of 580 people received services funded by the YPIRAC program during the 2007–08 collection period (Table 2.1). The number of YPIRAC service users in each state/territory jurisdiction ranged from 11 in the Northern Territory (1.9% of the total) to 174 in Victoria (30%). More than one-quarter of service users (27%) lived in New South Wales, with a further 18% in Queensland. This chapter summarises the target group status and demographic profile of the service users.
2.1	Characteristics and YPIRAC target groups
Of the 580 service users:
•	around half (51%) had agreed to move from a residential aged care setting to alternative accommodation (YPIRAC target group 1) 
•	22% were considered ‘at risk’ of entry to residential aged care (group 2)
•	23% of service users were to remain in or enter residential aged care, while accessing additional support services (group 3) 
•	2.2% were to remain in residential aged care facility without additional services 
(group 4)
•	2.1% of YPIRAC users had a target group that was not stated/unknown.
More than four in five YPIRAC service users (83%) in 2007–08 were aged under 50 years (Figure 2.1). This is in line with the initial priority of the program, which was to focus first on the under 50 age group. Those aged 45–49 years comprised more than one-third (35%) of the total number of service users; altogether the 40–49 years age bracket accounted for more than half of all service users (54%). 
Overall, there were more male service users than females in 2007–08 (55% males and 45% females) (Figure 2.1). The age distributions of male and female service users followed a similar pattern, although there were proportionally more males than females in the younger age groups. Around 14% of all male service users were aged under 30 years, compared with just 5.8% of females.

Table 2.1: YPIRAC service users, age group and target group by state/territory, 2007–08
	State/territory	Total	
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	No.	Per cent	
<50 years											
Group 1	83	82	34	20	18	3	2	3	245	42.2	
Group 2	2	20	38	13	20	3	5	4	105	18.1	
Group 3	46	36	9	—	7	8	—	3	109	18.8	
Group 4	4	—	2	1	5	—	—	—	12	2.1	
Not stated	—	12	—	—	—	—	—	—	12	2.1	
Total <50 years	135	150	83	34	50	14	7	10	483	83.3	
											
50–64 years											
Group 1	11	17	6	6	6	3	2	—	51	8.8	
Group 2	—	4	11	2	1	—	2	—	20	3.4	
Group 3	10	3	6	2	1	—	2	1	25	4.3	
Group 4	1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	1	0.2	
Not stated	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	
Total 50–64 years	22	24	23	10	8	3	6	1	97	16.7	
											
All service users											
Group 1	94	99	40	26	24	6	4	3	296	51.0	
Group 2	2	24	49	15	21	3	7	4	125	21.6	
Group 3	56	39	15	2	8	8	2	4	134	23.1	
Group 4	5	—	2	1	5	—	—	—	13	2.2	
Not stated	—	12	—	—	—	—	—	—	12	2.1	
Total	157	174	106	44	58	17	13	11	580	100.0	
Note: YPIRAC target groups: 
Group 1 Agreed to or has moved from residential aged care to alternative YPIRAC-funded accommodation and support
Group 2 Deemed ‘at risk’ of entry into residential aged care
Group 3 Remain in or enter residential aged care with additional disability support services
Group 4 Remain in or enter residential aged care without additional disability support services.

Figure 2.1: YPIRAC service users by age group and sex, 2007–08
Source: Table A1.1.

Of the 580 YPIRAC service users, 42 (7.2%) were of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander origin (Table 2.2). This proportion of Indigenous YPIRAC service users was higher than the proportion of Indigenous people in the general Australian population aged under 65 years—2.8% in the 2006 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Census of Population and Housing (ABS 2007). It was also higher than the proportion of Indigenous users of CSTDA-funded disability services in Australia—3.8% in 2006–07 (AIHW 2008).
The proportion of Indigenous service users varied across state/territory jurisdictions, from 73% of all YPIRAC service users in the Northern Territory, to zero in Tasmania (Table 2.3). Around 16% of YPIRAC service users in Western Australia and 15% of those in the Australian Capital Territory were Indigenous, along with 14% of those in South Australia.
Table 2.2: YPIRAC service users by age group and Indigenous status, 2007–08
	Indigenous	Non-Indigenous	Not stated	Total	
Age group (years)	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	
<50	35	7.2	446	92.3	2	0.4	483	100.0	
50–64	7	7.2	89	91.8	1	1.0	97	100.0	
Total	42	7.2	535	92.2	3	0.5	580	100.0	

Table 2.3: YPIRAC service users, Indigenous status by state/territory, 2007–08
	State/territory		Total	
	NSW	Vic		Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	No.	Per cent	
Indigenous	5	2		10	7	8	—	2	8	42	7.2	
Non-Indigenous	151	170		96	37	50	17	11	3	535	92.2	
Not stated	1	2		—	—	—	—	—	—	3	0.5	
Total	157	174		106	44	58	17	13	11	580	100.0	

The location of YPIRAC service users can be examined using remoteness areas (RAs). The RAs are based on the Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) developed by the ABS. Remoteness areas include Major cities, Inner regional, Outer regional, Remote and Very remote areas. This classification provides an indication of the degree of remoteness (or distance) from major cities (ABS 2006).
The majority of YPIRAC services users lived in Major cities (62%) and Inner regional areas (25%) in 2007–08 (Figure 2.2). Only 2.1% of service users lived in Remote and Very remote areas. The proportions of service users in each remoteness area were similar in the under 50 and 50–64 year age groups. In the under 50 year age group, there was a slightly smaller proportion of service users in Major cities (62% compared with 65% in the 50–64 year age group), and a larger proportion in Inner regional areas (26% compared with 22%).

Figure 2.2: YPIRAC service users by remoteness area and age group, 2007–08
Source: Table A1.2.

Note: Excludes one service user with unknown residential postcode.

Information on service user country of birth can be summarised using English proficiency groupings (DIMA 2003). This classification contains five categories—one for people born in Australia, and four for those born overseas. Categories are based on the typical ability of migrants from each country to speak English. The most proficient English speakers are classified in English Proficiency Group 1 (EP1) and the least proficient in EP4. For more details on each proficiency group, including a list of countries in each group, see Appendix 4.
Around four in five YPIRAC service users (82%, or 476 people) were born in Australia 
(Table 2.4). The proportion of service users born in Australia was slightly higher for those aged under 50 years than for those aged 50–64 years (83% compared with 77%). The proportion of Australian-born YPIRAC service users was similar to the proportion of Australian-born users of CSTDA-funded disability services in 2006–07 (83%) (AIHW 2008). Both were higher than the proportion of Australian-born people in the total population aged under 65 years according to the 2006 Census (73%) (ABS 2007).
People born overseas made up around 12% of all YPIRAC service users (72 of 580 people). Of those born overseas, a higher proportion belonged to EP1 (4.7%) or EP3 (4.8%) countries. 
Table 2.4: YPIRAC service users by age group and English Proficiency Group, 2007–08
Age group (years)			Overseas born—English Proficiency Group			Total	
	Born in Australia		Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4		Not stated		
Number										
<50	401		21	10	23	4		24	483	
50–64	75		6	3	5	—		8	97	
Total	476		27	13	28	4		32	580	
Per cent										
<50	83.0		4.3	2.1	4.8	0.8		5.0	100.0	
50–64	77.3		6.2	3.1	5.2	—		8.2	100.0	
Total	82.1		4.7	2.2	4.8	0.7		5.5	100.0	
Note: For information about the English Proficiency Group classification, see AIHW: Benham et al. 2000 
2.2	Residential setting
The YPIRAC MDS contains information about service user usual residential setting at the end of the reporting period. ‘Usual residential setting’ refers to the type of accommodation in which the service user was living for 4 or more days per week on average, reported as at 30 June 2008. For definitions of the residential setting classifications used in the YPIRAC MDS, see Appendix 5.
More than two-thirds of the 580 service users in 2007–08 (69% or 398) lived in residential aged care at the end of the reporting period (Table 2.5). Another 20% lived in private residences or domestic-scale disability accommodation.
The proportions of service users living in residential aged care were similar for the under 50 and 50–64 years age groups (Table 2.5). However, service users aged 50–64 years were more likely than those under 50 years to live in supported accommodation.
Table 2.5: YPIRAC service users by usual residential setting and age group, 2007–08
Usual residential setting	<50 years	50–64 years	Total	
	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	
Private residence	68	14.1	13	13.4	81	14.0	
Domestic-scale supported living	30	6.2	5	5.2	35	6.0	
Supported accommodation	23	4.8	9	9.3	32	5.5	
Residential aged care	329	68.1	69	71.1	398	68.6	
Hospital	19	3.9	 1	1.0	20	3.4	
Other	14	2.9	—	—	14	2.4	
Total	483	100.0	97	100.0	580	100.0	
Notes: 
1.	Usual residential setting refers to the type of accommodation in which the person was living for 4 or more days per week on average, as at 30 June 2008.
2.	‘Other’ residential setting includes residence within an Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander community, independent living within a retirement village, short term crisis, emergency or transitional accommodation, and other settings.

Service users in YPIRAC target groups 1, 3 and 4 were most likely to live in a residential aged care facility (Figure 2.3). The goal for people in target group 3 was to receive additional support services in residential aged care. Three people in target group 3, who were yet to enter a residential aged care facility, were living in domestic-scale supported accommodation or other accommodation at the end of the reporting period (Table A1.3).
Service users in YPIRAC target group 1 had agreed to move from residential aged care to alternative accommodation and support. Of the 296 service users in target group 1, 240 (81%) were living in residential aged care at the end of the reporting period (Table A1.3). The remainder (19%, or 56 people) were in alternative accommodation. Of these, 22 (39%) were living in a domestic-scale supported living facility; 13 (23%) each in supported accommodation and private residences; 6 (11%) in other accommodation settings and two (3.5%) in hospital.
Service users in YPIRAC target group 2 were considered ‘at risk’ of entry to residential aged care. These service users lived in a diverse range of accommodation settings (Figure 2.3). Of the 125 service users in target group 2, more than half (54%) lived in private residences at the end of the reporting period. Similar proportions lived in supported accommodation facilities (15%) and hospital (14%). Approximately one in ten (9.6%) lived in a domestic-scale supported living facility.

Figure 2.3: YPIRAC service users by usual residential setting and YPIRAC target group, 2007–08
Source: Table A1.3.

Note: Excludes 12 service users whose YPIRAC target group was ‘not stated’.

The YPIRAC MDS 2007–08 contains information on reasons for each service user’s current residential setting as at 30 June 2008. The main reason for residential setting is defined as ‘the reason that is of most significance to the service user’ and in some cases reflects the reason that a person has not moved residence under the YPIRAC program. The high rate of ‘not stated’ responses for this data item (163 of 580 service users, or 28%) means that the following information should be interpreted with caution.
One-third (33%) of the 398 service users in residential aged care reported that the main reason for their accommodation setting was that appropriate alternative accommodation was not available (Table 2.6). Approximately 18% of service users in residential aged care (71 people) were satisfied with their current accommodation; of these, more than half (42 people or 60%) required additional support services. The most common ‘other reasons’ for being in residential aged care were the cost of appropriate accommodation and support services (5.3% of service users) and that appropriate disability support services were not available (3.8%).
Of the 182 people who did not live in residential aged care, more than seven in ten (131 people or 72%) were satisfied with their current accommodation. Around 20% of those who were satisfied with their accommodation setting required additional services (26 people). The main reason given by another 22 people (12%) was that appropriate alternative accommodation was not available.

Table 2.6: YPIRAC service users, reasons for current accommodation, as at 30 June 2008
	Main reason	Additional reason	
	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	
Service users in residential aged care					
Appropriate alternative accommodation unavailable	133	33.4	2	0.5	
Satisfied with current accommodation but needs additional services	42	10.6	4	1.0	
Satisfied with current accommodation	29	7.3	7	1.8	
Waiting for YPIRAC services	22	5.5	4	1.0	
Appropriate disability support services unavailable	10	2.5	15	3.8	
Declined accommodation offer	6	1.5	—	—	
Assessment not provided	—	—	2	0.5	
Appropriate equipment and environmental modifications unavailable	—	—	7	1.8	
Appropriate non-CSTDA services unavailable	—	—	—	—	
Principal carer unavailable	—	—	3	0.8	
Cost of appropriate accommodation and support services	—	—	21	5.3	
Other reason	8	2.0	4	1.0	
Not stated	148	37.2	n.a.	n.a.	
Total—residential aged care	398	100.0	n.a.	n.a.	
Service users in other types of accommodation 					
Satisfied with current accommodation 	105	57.7	1	0.5	
Satisfied with current accommodation but needs additional services	26	14.3	1	0.5	
Appropriate alternative accommodation unavailable	22	12.1	1	0.5	
Waiting for YPIRAC services	7	3.8	1	0.5	
Appropriate disability support services unavailable	2	1.1	3	1.6	
Declined accommodation offer	1	0.5	—	—	
Assessment not provided	—	0.0	—	—	
Appropriate equipment and environmental modifications unavailable	—	—	1	0.5	
Appropriate non-CSTDA services unavailable	—	—	—	—	
Principal carer unavailable	—	—	1	0.5	
Cost of appropriate accommodation and support services	—	—	2	1.1	
Other reasons	4	2.2	1	0.5	
Not stated	15	8.2	n.a.	n.a.	
Total—all other accommodation types	182	100.0	n.a.	n.a.	
Total	580	100.0	n.a.	n.a.	
Notes: 
1.	Usual residential setting refers to the type of accommodation in which the person lives for 4 or more days per week on average, as at 30 June 2008.
2.	Service users may nominate more than one additional reason for current accommodation.

2.3	Disability groups
The YPIRAC MDS collected information on each service user’s main disability group, along with any ‘other significant’ disability groups. The primary disability group is the one that most clearly expresses the experience of disability by the person. It can be considered the disability group that causes the person the most difficulty in everyday life. Other significant disability groups are those that also cause difficulty for the person, or express their experience of disability. Although only one primary disability group can be recorded in the MDS, multiple other significant disability groups can be recorded. 
In 2007–08, ABI was the primary disability group of close to half of all YPIRAC service users (46%) (Table 2.7). More than one-quarter had a neurological primary disability (27%), around 17% had a physical primary disability and 8.3% had an intellectual primary disability. Small numbers of service users had primary psychiatric disability (1.7%) or autism (0.2%). These proportions were similar in both the under 50 and 50–64 years age groups. Service users in the 50–64 years age group were less likely to have ABI (40% compared with 48%) and more likely to have an intellectual primary disability (12% compared with 7.5%).
Table 2.7: YPIRAC service users by primary disability group and age group, 2007–08
Primary disability group	Age group (years)	Total	
	<50	50–64		
	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	
Intellectual	36	7.5	12	12.4	48	8.3	
Autism	1	0.2	—	—	1	0.2	
Physical	81	16.8	15	15.5	96	16.6	
Acquired brain injury	230	47.6	39	40.2	269	46.4	
Neurological	127	26.3	28	28.9	155	26.7	
Psychiatric	7	1.4	3	3.1	10	1.7	
Not stated	1	0.2	—	—	1	0.2	
Total service users	483	100.0	97	100.0	580	100.0	

There was some variation in the primary disability group of service users across different YPIRAC target groups (Table 2.8 and Figure 2.4). Similar patterns were reported in target groups 1, 2 and 3. Acquired brain injury was the most common primary disability group for service users in each of these target groups. Service users with a primary disability of acquired brain injury made up more than half of target group 1 and more than a third of target groups 2 and 3. In each of these target groups, the second most common primary disability was neurological disability, followed by physical and intellectual.
In contrast, service users in YPIRAC target group 4 (people who stay in residential aged care without additional disability support services) were most likely to have neurological primary disability (39%), followed by intellectual disability (31%) and physical disability (23%). Only 7.7% of service users in this target group had a primary disability of acquired brain injury. However, the small number of service users in target group 4 means that these data should be interpreted with caution.
Table 2.8: YPIRAC service users by primary disability group and YPIRAC target group, 2007–08
Primary disability group	YPIRAC target group	Total	
	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	Not stated		
	Number	
Intellectual	24	8	11	4	1	48	
Autism	—	—	1	—	—	1	
Physical	40	29	24	3	—	96	
Acquired brain injury	163	46	51	1	8	269	
Neurological	67	41	40	5	2	155	
Psychiatric	2	1	7	—	—	10	
Not stated	—	—	—	—	1	1	
Total service users	296	125	134	13	12	580	
		
	Per cent	
Intellectual	8.1	6.4	8.2	30.8	8.3	8.3	
Autism	—	—	0.7	—	—	0.2	
Physical	13.5	23.2	17.9	23.1	—	16.6	
Acquired brain injury	55.1	36.8	38.1	7.7	66.7	46.4	
Neurological	22.6	32.8	29.9	38.5	16.7	26.7	
Psychiatric	0.7	0.8	5.2	—	—	1.7	
Not stated	—	—	—	—	8.3	0.2	
Total service users	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	
Note: YPIRAC target groups: 
Group 1 Agreed to or has moved from residential aged care to alternative YPIRAC-funded accommodation and support
Group 2 Deemed ‘at risk’ of entry into residential aged care
Group 3 Remain in or enter residential aged care with additional disability support services
Group 4 Remain in or enter residential aged care without additional disability support services.

Figure 2.4: YPIRAC service users by primary disability group and YPIRAC target group, 2007–08
Source: Table 2.8.

Note: Excludes 12 service users whose YPIRAC target group was ‘not stated’.

The proportion of service users in each YPIRAC target group also varied across different primary disability groups (Figure 2.5). Service users with physical or neurological disability were slightly less likely to be in target group 1 than those with an intellectual disability or acquired brain injury. 
Seven out of ten service users with a primary disability of psychiatric were in YPIRAC target group 3 (remain in or enter residential aged care without additional support services). By contrast, the target group 3 proportion for other primary disability groups ranged from 19% for acquired brain injury to 26% for neurological disability. Around 8% of service users with intellectual primary disability were in target group 4. This was the highest proportion of people in target group 4 of any primary disability group.

Figure 2.5: YPIRAC service users by primary disability group and YPIRAC target group, 2007–08

Source: Table 2.8.

Note: Excludes 12 service users whose YPIRAC target group was ‘not stated’.

Counting both primary and other significant disability groups, YPIRAC service users reported close to two (1.97) disability groups on average in 2007–08 (Table 2.9). Almost half of all service users (47%) reported one disability group (that is, they reported a primary disability group only). Around one-quarter reported two disability groups (24%). One in 10 users reported four or more disability groups. Overall, YPIRAC service users had a higher mean number of disability groups (1.97) than other disability service users in Australia; for example, users of CSTDA-funded services had an average of 1.65 disability groups in 2006–07, and 62% of CSTDA service users had only one disability (AIHW 2008). There was little variation in the mean number of disability groups by age group. 

Table 2.9: YPIRAC service users by age group and total number of disability groups, 2007–08
Age group (years)	Total number of disability groups			
	1	2	3	4	5+	Not stated	Total service users	Mean disability groups	
<50 years									
<25	16	8	3	3	—	—	30	1.77	
25–29 	9	7	9	3	2	—	30	2.47	
30–34	16	15	5	6	1	—	43	2.12	
35–39 	32	8	16	6	3	—	65	2.09	
40–44 	44	33	18	12	2	1	110	2.06	
45–49	109	44	34	12	6	—	205	1.85	
Total <50	226	115	85	42	14	1	483	1.99	
Per cent	46.8	23.8	17.6	8.7	2.9	0.2	100.0	n.a.	
50–64 years									
50–54 	39	23	16	4	1	—	83	1.86	
55–64 	7	2	3	2	—	—	14	2.00	
Total 50–64	46	25	19	6	1	—	97	1.88	
Per cent	47.4	25.8	19.6	6.2	1.0	—	100.0	n.a.	
Total	272	140	104	48	15	1	580	1.97	
Per cent	46.9	24.1	17.9	8.3	2.6	0.2	100.0	n.a.	
Notes:
1.	‘Total number of disability groups’ includes primary disability group and other significant disability groups.
2.	‘Mean disability groups’ excludes one service user whose primary disability group was ‘not stated’.

Taking into account both primary and other significant disability groups, just over half of all YPIRAC service users had acquired brain injury (52%) and around half had physical disability (49%) (Figure 2.6). Two in 5 (40%) had neurological disability and just over 1 in 5 (21%) had speech disability. In addition, around 12% had intellectual disability, 9.8% had psychiatric disability and 9.1% had vision disability. Note that percentages add to more than 100 as users can report multiple ‘other significant’ disability groups.
Several disability groups were more likely to be reported as ‘other significant disability’ than as primary disability (Figure 2.6). While only 17% of service users reported a physical primary disability, close to half (49%) stated that physical disability was present, when both primary and other significant disabilities are considered. Similarly, only 1.7% of service users reported a psychiatric primary disability, though around 1 in 10 (9.8%) had psychiatric disability when other significant disabilities are included.
In addition, several disability groups were not reported as primary disability groups for any service users in 2007–08, but were additional disability groups for a number of service users. Most notably, speech disability was a significant other disability for around one in five service users (21%). Close to 1 in 10 reported vision impairment as another disability group (9.1%). 

Figure 2.6: YPIRAC service users, primary and all significant disability groups, 2007–08
Source: Table A1.4.

Note: Excludes one service user whose primary disability group was ‘not stated’.

3	Service use
The YPIRAC MDS contains information relating to three broad categories of services provided under the YPIRAC program during 2007–08: 
•	YPIRAC assessment/individual care planning/client monitoring
•	alternative accommodation
•	support services packages.
For each service user, information was recorded about whether each of these YPIRAC-specific services were offered to the service user, accepted by the service user or received during the collection period. Each service user received one or more of these categories of service during 2007–08. More information about the definitions of these categories is provided in Section 1.3 (see Box 1.1).
3.1	YPIRAC-specific services
In 2007–08, almost all service users received one or more of YPIRAC assessment, individual care planning and/or client monitoring (Table 3.1). Around 46% of service users (265 people) received a support services package, while 14% (79 people) received an alternative accommodation placement. 
Support services packages were delivered across target groups 1, 2 and 3 (Figure 3.1; Table 3.1). Service users in target group 1 in 2007-08 tended to receive YPIRAC assessment followed by monitoring, while they waited for alternative accommodation to become available. Only 42% of this group received a support services package. It is reasonable to assume that a support package will be arranged or continued when a person moves from residential aged care and into new accommodation. A period of service support from YPIRAC before moving out of residential aged care may help to establish services and rapport between support workers and their client, and provide service continuity. Around 72% of service users in target group 2 (90 of 125 people) received a package, along with 38% of target group 3 (51 of 134). 
Service users who received alternative accommodation during the reporting period were in YPIRAC target groups 1 and 2. Of the 125 people in target group 2—who were at risk of entering residential aged care—37% received alternative accommodation. This reflects a tendency to intervene before an ‘at risk’ person is admitted to an aged care facility. Of the 296 people in target group 1, 11% received alternative accommodation. The relatively low proportion of target group 1 who received alternative accommodation may reflect delays in the actual move taking place associated with the time to locate or construct accommodation for people with high and complex support needs.

Table 3.1: YPIRAC service users by target group and YPIRAC-specific services received, 2007–08
YPIRAC target group	YPIRAC-specific services received	All YPIRAC service users	
	Assessment/ individual care planning/client monitoring	Alternative accommodation	Support services package		
	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	
Group 1	295	99.7	33	11.1	123	41.6	296	100.0	
Group 2	124	99.2	46	36.8	90	72.0	125	100.0	
Group 3	134	100.0	—	—	51	38.1	134	100.0	
Group 4	13	100.0	—	—	—	—	13	100.0	
Not stated	11	91.7	—	—	1	8.3	12	100.0	
Total	577	99.5	79	13.6	265	45.7	580	100.0	
— Not applicable
Notes:
1.	Totals may not be the sum of components as service users may have accessed more than one service type during the period. 
2.	YPIRAC target groups: 
Group 1 Agreed to or has moved from residential aged care to alternative YPIRAC-funded accommodation and support
Group 2 Deemed ‘at risk’ of entry into residential aged care
Group 3 Remain in or enter residential aged care with additional disability support services
Group 4 Remain in or enter residential aged care without additional disability support services.

Figure 3.1: YPIRAC service users by target group and YPIRAC–specific services received, 2007–08
Source: Table 3.1.

Note: Excludes 12 service users whose YPIRAC target group was ‘not stated’.

While most service users received one or more of YPIRAC assessment, individual care planning and/or client monitoring regardless of residential setting, there were some differences in the receipt of alternative accommodation and support services across different residential settings (Table 3.2).
Service users in a supported accommodation facility were the most likely to have received alternative accommodation during 2007–08 (27 of 32 people, or 84%). Note that ‘residential setting’ refers to the person’s usual accommodation at the end of the reporting period (30 June 2008). Therefore, it is most likely that these 27 service users were assisted to re-locate into supported accommodation by the YPIRAC program during the reporting period. Over one-third of service users in private residences (31 people or 38%), and almost half in domestic-scale supported living facilities (16 people or 46%), received alternative accommodation from the program during 2007–08. Smaller proportions of those in other accommodation settings (14%), hospital (10%) and residential aged care (0.3%) also received alternative accommodation.
The majority of service users who lived in supported accommodation, domestic-scale supported living and private residences (83%, 81% and 79%, respectively) received support services under the YPIRAC program during 2007–08. Around one-third of those in other residential settings (between 29% and 35%) also received support services.
Table 3.2: YPIRAC service users by residential setting and YPIRAC-specific services received, 
2007–08
Usual residential setting	YPIRAC-specific services received	All YPIRAC service users	
	Assessment/ individual care planning/client monitoring	Alternative accommodation	Support services package		
	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	
Private residence	81	100.0	31	38.3	64	79.0	81	100.0	
Domestic-scale supported living facility	34	97.1	16	45.7	29	82.9	35	100.0	
Supported accommodation facility	32	100.0	27	84.4	26	81.3	32	100.0	
Residential aged care	397	99.7	1	0.3	135	33.9	398	100.0	
Hospital	19	95.0	2	10.0	7	35.0	20	100.0	
Other	14	100.0	2	14.3	4	28.6	14	100.0	
Total	577	99.5	79	13.6	265	45.7	580	100.0	
Notes: 
1.	Usual residential setting refers to the type of accommodation in which the person lives for 4 or more days per week on average, as at 30 June 2008.
2.	‘Other’ residential setting includes residence within an Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander community, independent living within a retirement village, short-term crisis, emergency or transitional accommodation, and other settings.

Most YPIRAC service users received a combination of services during the 2007–08 collection period. Over half of all YPIRAC service users (54%, or 311 people) received YPIRAC assessment, individual care planning and/or client monitoring only (Table 3.3). Of those people who accessed services within this category, over three quarters (235 of 311, or 76%) received both YPIRAC assessment/individual care planning as well as client monitoring from the YPIRAC program. Around 19% (58 of 311) received only client monitoring services, and the remainder (18 people or 5.8%) received only YPIRAC assessment/individual care planning.
Nearly one-third of all service users (31%, or 180 people) received the combination of YPIRAC assessment, individual care planning and/or client monitoring plus a support services package. Around 13% of service users received all three categories of YPIRAC-specific services. 

Table 3.3: YPIRAC service users by combinations of YPIRAC-specific services received, 2007–08
YPIRAC-specific services received	Number	Percentage of all service users	
YPIRAC assessment and/or individual care planning and/or client monitoring only	311	53.6	
	YPIRAC assessment and/or individual care planning only	18	3.1	
	YPIRAC client monitoring only	58	10.0	
	YPIRAC assessment and/or individual care planning + client monitoring	235	40.5	
Alternative accommodation only	1	0.2	
Support services package only	2	0.3	
YPIRAC assessment and/or individual care planning and/or client monitoring
 + alternative accommodation	3	0.5	
YPIRAC assessment and/or individual care planning and/or client monitoring
 + support services package	188	32.4	
YPIRAC assessment and/or individual care planning and/or client monitoring
 + alternative accommodation + support services package	75	12.9	
Total	580	100.0	

Of the 580 service users, 579 were offered one or more of YPIRAC assessment, individual care planning and client monitoring during the reporting period (Table 3.4). There were 578 service users who accepted these offers, and 577 who received a service under the program.
The numbers of service users who were offered, accepted and received each of the three categories of YPIRAC-specific services are shown in Tables 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6.

Table 3.4: YPIRAC service users by target group and offered/accepted/received status, 2007–08
	Assessment and/or individual care planning 
and/or client monitoring	All YPIRAC 
service users	
YPIRAC target group	Offered	Accepted	Received 		
Group 1	295	295	295	296	
Group 2	125	125	124	125	
Group 3	134	134	134	134	
Group 4	13	13	13	13	
Not stated	12	11	11	12	
Total	579	578	577	580	
Notes:
1.	‘Offered’ includes service users who were offered, accepted and/or received services. ‘Accepted’ includes service users who accepted and/or received services.
2.	YPIRAC target groups: 
Group 1 Agreed to or has moved from residential aged care to alternative YPIRAC-funded accommodation and support
Group 2 Deemed ‘at risk’ of entry into residential aged care
Group 3 Remain in or enter residential aged care with additional disability support services
Group 4 Remain in or enter residential aged care without additional disability support services.
3.	One service user in target group 1 is recorded as not being offered and not having accepted or received assessment, care planning or monitoring. 

Almost one-quarter of the 296 service users who agreed to move from residential aged care (target group 1) were offered alternative accommodation (68 people or 23%) (Table 3.5). Of those who were offered a placement, most accepted the offer (57 people or 84%) and around half moved into new accommodation (33 people or 49%). 
Of the 125 service users considered ‘at risk’ of entry to residential aged care (YPIRAC target group 2), half (63 people) were offered alternative accommodation during 2007–08 
(Table 3.5). Most people in this group accepted the offer (56 people or 89%) and almost three-quarters of these service users received alternative accommodation during the reporting period (46 people or 73%).
Nine service users in target group 3 were offered alternative accommodation; however, none accepted the offer.
There were also differences in the proportion of service users who were offered a support service package across YPIRAC target groups (Table 3.6). Around 81% of service users in target group 2 were offered support services (101 people), compared with 49% of service users in target group 1 (144 people) and 42% of target group 3 (56 people). In each group, most people who were offered support services accepted this offer (between 93% and 95%) and most (85% to 91%) received the service.

Table 3.5: YPIRAC service users by target group, alternative accommodation offered,
accepted or received, 2007–08
	Alternative accommodation	All YPIRAC 
service users	
YPIRAC target group	Offered	Accepted	Received 		
Group 1	68	57	33	296	
Group 2	63	56	46	125	
Group 3	9	—	—	134	
Group 4	—	—	—	13	
Not stated	—	—	—	12	
Total	140	113	79	580	
Notes:
1.	‘Offered’ includes service users who were offered, accepted and/or received services. ‘Accepted’ includes service users
who accepted and/or received services.
2.	YPIRAC target groups are listed in Table 3.4.

Table 3.6: YPIRAC service users by target group, support services package offered, 
accepted or received, 2007–08
	Support services package	All YPIRAC 
service users	
YPIRAC target group	Offered	Accepted	Received 		
Group 1	144	134	123	296	
Group 2	101	94	90	125	
Group 3	56	53	51	134	
Group 4	—	—	—	13	
Not stated	1	1	1	12	
Total	302	282	265	580	
Notes:
1.	‘Offered’ includes service users who were offered, accepted and/or received services. ‘Accepted’ includes service users
 who accepted and/or received services.
2.	YPIRAC target groups are listed in Table 3.4.

3.2	Support services
The three broad categories of services provided under the YPIRAC program, described in Section 3.1, can be further broken down into five service groups—accommodation support, community support, community access, respite and other services. Each of these service groups consists of between three and nine different service types. For more information and definitions of the service group and service type classification, see Section 1.4 (Box 1.2) and Appendix 3.
In 2007–08, almost all YPIRAC service users received one or more services from the ‘other’ services group (578 of 580 service users) (Table 3.7). Most of these people accessed client monitoring and YPIRAC assessment/individual care planning. Close to 1 in 4 service users received one or more YPIRAC service types (24%). These included assistive products and technology, modifications to buildings, transport and nursing services.
Around 30% of YPIRAC service users received accommodation support; 26% community access; and 23% community support services under the YPIRAC program. Only a small proportion of service users (2.8%) accessed respite services with YPIRAC funding.
Table 3.7: YPIRAC service users by service groups received, 2007–08
Service group	Number	Percentage of all service users	
Accommodation support	171	29.5	
Community support	131	22.6	
Community access	151	26.0	
Respite	16	2.8	
Other services	578	99.7	
	YPIRAC client monitoring	533	91.9	
	YPIRAC assessment and/or individual care planning	498	85.9	
	YPIRAC-specific service types	137	23.6	
	Advocacy and information	28	4.8	
	Research and evaluation	14	2.4	
	Other support services	16	2.8	
Total	580	100.0	
Notes:
1.	Totals may not be the sum of components as service users may have accessed more than one service type during the period. 
2.	‘YPIRAC-specific service types’ includes 8.01 Assistive products and technology, 8.02 Modification to design or construction of buildings, 8.03 Transportation services and 8.04 Services provided by nurses. ‘Advocacy and information’ refers to 6 Advocacy, information, referral, mutual support/self help groups, alternative communication formats; ‘Research and evaluation’ refers to 7 Research, evaluation, training and development, peak bodies.

The number and proportion of service users who received each service type during 2007–08 with YPIRAC funding is shown in Table 3.8. Apart from YPIRAC assessment/individual care planning and YPIRAC client monitoring, the most commonly accessed service types were attendant care/personal care (20% of service users), other community access services (18%) and assistive products and technology (17%).
Within the accommodation support services group, the most commonly accessed service types were attendant care/personal care (20%) and in-home accommodation support (9.1%). Smaller proportions of service users received YPIRAC funding for additional support in group homes and small residentials/institutions.
The most commonly accessed community support services were therapy support (16%) and case management, local coordination and development (12%). Within the community access group, the service type most commonly received was other community access (18%), followed by learning and life skills development (7.8%). The majority of service users who received respite services accessed own home respite (12 of 16 people).
Of the other specified services category, most commonly accessed were YPIRAC client monitoring (92% of all service users) and YPIRAC assessment/individual care planning (86%). 

Table 3.8: YPIRAC service users by service types received, 2007–08
Service type	Number	Per cent of all service users	
Accommodation support			
Large residentials/institutions	2	0.3	
Small residentials/institutions	20	3.4	
Hostels	—	—	
Group homes	33	5.7	
Attendant care/personal care	113	19.5	
In-home accommodation support	53	9.1	
Alternative family placement	1	0.2	
Other accommodation support	1	0.2	
Total accommodation support	171	29.5	
Community support			
Therapy support for individuals	93	16.0	
Behaviour/specialist intervention	21	3.6	
Counselling 	14	2.4	
Regional resource and support teams	—	—	
Case management, local coordination and development	71	12.2	
Other community support	11	1.9	
Total community support 	131	22.6	
Community access			
Learning and life skills development	45	7.8	
Recreation/holiday programs	30	5.2	
Other community access	104	17.9	
Total community access 	151	26.0	
Respite			
Own home respite	12	2.1	
Centre-based respite/respite homes	2	0.3	
Host family respite/peer support respite	1	0.2	
Flexible respite	1	0.2	
Other respite	2	0.3	
Total respite services 	16	2.8	
Other specified services			
Advocacy, information, referral, mutual support/self help groups, alternative communication formats	28	4.8	
Research, evaluation, training and development, peak bodies	14	2.4	
Assistive products and technology	100	17.2	
Modification to design or construction of buildings	17	2.9	
Transportation services	84	14.5	
Services provided by nurses	33	5.7	
		cont.	
YPIRAC assessment and/or individual care planning	498	85.9	
YPIRAC client monitoring	533	91.9	
Other support services	16	2.8	
Total other services	578	99.7	
Total	580	100.0	
Note: Totals may not be the sum of components as service users may have accessed more than one service type during 
the period.

4	New and continuing service users
The 2007–08 financial year was the second year of YPIRAC operations. As such, it is useful to examine the characteristics of new and continuing service users, and the types of services provided to these groups during the reporting period. 
For the analyses in this chapter, the SLK was used to identify people who used YPIRAC-funded services during both 2006–07 and 2007–08. More information about the SLK is provided in Appendix 6.
4.1	Characteristics and YPIRAC target groups
Of the 580 YPIRAC service users in 2007–08, around two thirds (376 service users, or 65%) accessed the YPIRAC program for the first time (Table 4.1). New service users were those who first received services from the program in 2007–08, although they may have agreed to participate in the program during either 2006–07 or 2007–08. The remaining third (204 people) were continuing service users, that is, they received services funded by the YPIRAC program in both 2006–07 and 2007–08. 
Of the state and territory jurisdictions, Western Australia had the largest proportion of continuing service users (80%), followed by Victoria (64%). New South Wales and Queensland had the largest proportions of new service users in 2007–08 (94% and 90% respectively).
Table 4.1: New and continuing YPIRAC service users, by state/territory, 2007–08
	State/territory	Total	
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT		
	Number		
Continuing	9	111	11	35	26	6	3	3	204	
New 	148	63	95	9	32	11	10	8	376	
Total	157	174	106	44	58	17	13	11	580	
	Per cent		
Continuing	5.7	63.8	10.4	79.5	44.8	35.3	23.1	27.3	35.2	
New 	94.3	36.2	89.6	20.5	55.2	64.7	76.9	72.7	64.8	
Total	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	

The 2007–08 financial year saw a shift in enrolment in the YPIRAC program from mainly target group 1—64% of continuing service users—to a higher intake of people in target group 2 (Table 4.2). 
The proportion of service users who were aged under 50 years was slightly higher for new service users (324 of 376 or 86%) than for service users who joined the program during 2006–07 (159 of 204 or 78%). 
Table 4.2: New and continuing YPIRAC service users, age group and target group, 2007–08
	YPIRAC target group		
	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	Not stated	Total	
Continuing service users							
<50 years	100	23	32	1	3	159	
50–64 years	31	5	9	--	--	45	
Total continuing service users	131	28	41	1	3	204	
Total continuing service users (%)	64.2	13.7	20.1	0.5	1.5	100.0	
New service users							
<50 years	145	82	77	11	9	324	
50–64 years	20	15	16	1	--	52	
Total new service users	165	97	93	12	9	376	
Total new service users (%)	43.9	25.8	24.7	3.2	2.4	100.0	
All service users	296	125	134	13	12	580	
All service users (%)	51.0	21.6	23.1	2.2	2.1	100.0	
Note: YPIRAC target groups: 
Group 1 Agreed to or has moved from residential aged care to alternative YPIRAC-funded accommodation and support
Group 2 Deemed ‘at risk’ of entry into residential aged care
Group 3 Remain in or enter residential aged care with additional disability support services
Group 4 Remain in or enter residential aged care without additional disability support services.

Overall, continuing service users were more likely to be Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples (9.3%) than new service users (6.1%) (Table 4.3). There were also some differences in the proportions of new and continuing service users who were Indigenous Australians across state and territory jurisdictions. Both Western Australia and South Australia had relatively high proportions of continuing service users who were Indigenous Australians (25% and 37%); however, there were no new Indigenous Australian service users in Western Australia in 2007–08, and only one in South Australia. By contrast, there were no continuing Indigenous Australian service users in Queensland, but a high proportion of new Indigenous Australian service users (12%). The Northern Territory had more Indigenous than non-Indigenous service users in both the new and continuing categories. Note that these figures are based on small numbers and should be interpreted cautiously. 

Table 4.3: New and continuing YPIRAC service users, Indigenous status by state/territory, 2007–08
	State/territory	Total	
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	No.	Per cent	
Continuing service users										
Indigenous	1	1	—	7	7	—	1	2	19	9.3	
Non-Indigenous	8	110	11	28	19	6	2	1	185	90.7	
Not stated	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—		
Total continuing	9	111	11	35	26	6	3	3	204	100.0	
New service users										
Indigenous	4	1	10	—	1	—	1	6	23	6.1	
Non-Indigenous	143	60	85	9	31	11	9	2	350	93.1	
Not stated	1	2	—	—	—	—	—	—	3	0.8	
Total new	148	63	95	9	32	11	10	8	376	100.0	
All service users											
Indigenous	5	2	10	7	8	—	2	8	42	7.2	
Non-Indigenous	151	170	96	37	50	17	11	3	535	92.2	
Not stated	1	2	—	—	—	—	—	—	3	0.5	
Total	157	174	106	44	58	17	13	11	580	100.0	

New service users in 2007–08 were less likely to have a primary disability of acquired brain injury (42% of new service users, compared with 55% of continuing service users) (Table 4.4). New users were more likely to have a physical primary disability (19% compared with 13%) or intellectual disability (10% compared with 5%). Similar proportions had neurological primary disabilities in both groups. 
Table 4.4: New and continuing YPIRAC service users by primary disability group, 2007–08
	Continuing service users	New service users	All service users	
	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	
Intellectual	10	4.9	38	10.1	48	8.3	
Autism	—	—	1	0.3	1	0.2	
Physical	26	12.7	70	18.6	96	16.6	
Acquired brain injury	112	54.9	157	41.8	269	46.4	
Neurological	56	27.5	99	26.3	155	26.7	
Psychiatric	—	—	10	2.7	10	1.7	
Not stated	—	—	1	0.3	1	0.2	
Total service users	204	100.0	376	100.0	580	100.0	

New service users were less likely to live in residential aged care facilities (66%) than continuing service users (73%) (Table 4.5). They were also less likely to live in domestic-scale supported living (2.9%, compared with 11.8% of continuing service users). New service users were more likely to live in other types of accommodation, including private residences (16% compared with 10%), supported accommodation (6.9% compared with 2.9%), hospital (4.8% compared with 1.0%) and other settings (3.2% compared with 1.0%). 
Table 4.5: YPIRAC service users by usual residential setting and age group, 2007–08
Usual residential setting	Continuing service users	New service users	All service users	
	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	
Residential aged care	149	73.0	249	66.2	398	68.6	
Domestic-scale supported living	24	11.8	11	2.9	35	6.0	
Private residence	21	10.3	60	16.0	81	14.0	
Supported accommodation	6	2.9	26	6.9	32	5.5	
Hospital	2	1.0	18	4.8	20	3.4	
Other	2	1.0	12	3.2	14	2.4	
Total	204	100.0	376	100.0	580	100.0	
Notes: 
1.	Usual residential setting refers to the type of accommodation in which the person lives for 4 or more days per week on average, as at 30 June 2008.
2.	‘Other’ residential setting includes residence within an Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander community, independent living within a retirement village, short-term crisis, emergency or transitional accommodation, and other settings.
4.2	Service use
Continuing service users were twice as likely as new service users to receive support services during the 2007–08 collection period (Table 4.6)—more than two-thirds of continuing service users (68%) received a support service package, compared with around one-third of service users who entered the program during 2007–08 (34%). This may reflect the time required to complete YPIRAC assessment and planning processes and organise service delivery for new starters. Service users in YPIRAC target group 2 were the most likely to receive support services, for both new (67%) and continuing service users (89%).
There was little difference in the proportions of new and continuing service users who received YPIRAC assessment/individual care planning/client monitoring and alternative accommodation. Almost all service users in both the continuing and new groups (100% and 99%) received YPIRAC assessment/individual care planning/client monitoring, while close to 15% in both groups received alternative accommodation. Service users who were to be diverted from residential aged care (target group 2) were more likely to receive alternative accommodation (36–37%) than those who had agreed to move out of residential aged care (target group 1; 12% of continuing and 10% of new service users).

Table 4.6: New and continuing YPIRAC service users by target group and YPIRAC–specific services received, 2007–08
YPIRAC target group	YPIRAC-specific services received	Total YPIRAC service users	
	Assessment/ individual care planning/client monitoring	Alternative accommodation	Support service package		
	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	No.	Per cent	
Continuing service users								
Group 1	131	100.0	16	12.2	84	64.1	131	100.0	
Group 2	28	100.0	10	35.7	25	89.3	28	100.0	
Group 3	41	100.0	n.a.	n.a.	30	73.2	41	100.0	
Group 4	1	100.0	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	1	100.0	
Not stated	3	100.0	—	—	—	—	3	100.0	
Total	204	100.0	26	12.7	139	68.1	204	100.0	
New service users 								
Group 1	164	99.4	17	10.3	65	39.4	165	100.0	
Group 2	96	99.0	36	37.1	65	67.0	97	100.0	
Group 3	93	100.0	n.a.	n.a.	21	22.6	93	100.0	
Group 4	12	100.0	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	12	100.0	
Not stated	8	88.9	—	—	1	11.1	9	100.0	
Total	373	99.2	53	14.1	126	33.5	376	100.0	
Notes:
1.	Totals may not be the sum of components as service users may have accessed more than one service type during the period. 
2.	YPIRAC target groups are listed in Table 3.4.
Support services
Continuing service users were more likely to receive services with YPIRAC funding in several service group categories—accommodation support (40% compared with 24%), community support (31% compared with 18%) and community access services (38% compared with 20%) (Table 4.7). The use of respite services was much more prominent among new service users (3.5%) compared with continuing users (1.5%), which is consistent with the focus on the ‘at risk’ group. 

Table 4.7: YPIRAC service users by service groups received, 2007–08
	Continuing service users	New service users	
Service group	Number	Per cent 	Number	Per cent 	
Accommodation support	81	39.7	90	23.9	
Community support	63	30.9	68	18.1	
Community access	77	37.7	74	19.7	
Respite	3	1.5	13	3.5	
Other services	204	100.0	374	99.5	
	Advocacy and information	6	2.9	22	5.9	
	Research and evaluation	1	0.5	13	3.5	
	YPIRAC service types	64	31.4	73	19.4	
	YPIRAC assessment and/or individual care planning	171	83.8	327	87.0	
	YPIRAC client monitoring	195	95.6	338	89.9	
	Other support services	8	3.9	8	2.1	
Total	204	100.0	376	100.0	
Notes:
1.	Totals may not be the sum of components as service users may have accessed more than one service type during the period. 
2.	‘YPIRAC service types’ includes 8.01 Assistive products and technology, 8.02 Modification to design or construction of buildings, 8.03 Transportation services and 8.04 Services provided by nurses. ‘Advocacy and information’ refers to 6 Advocacy, information, referral, mutual support/self help groups, alternative communication formats; ‘Research and evaluation’ refers to 7 Research, evaluation, training and development, peak bodies.

Residential setting and provision of alternative accommodation
Changes in the residential setting of YPIRAC service users between 30 June 2007 and 30 June 2008 are summarised in Figure 4.1. In 2006–07, there were a total of 260 YPIRAC service users. Around 78% lived in residential aged care. Of this total, more than three quarters (204 people or 78%) continued in the program in 2007–08 (42 people in residential aged care and 14 in other settings were not included in the 2007–08 MDS as YPIRAC service users).
Of the 162 service users in residential aged care in 2006–07 who continued in 2007–08, 147 (91%) lived in residential aged care settings and 15 (9%) in other settings at the end of 2007–08. Almost all continuing service users who lived in other residential settings in 2006–07 remained in other settings at the end of 2007–08 (all but two service users who had moved to residential aged care). 
A total of 26 continuing service users (13%) were recorded as having received alternative accommodation during 2007–08 with the support of the YPIRAC program (Table 4.8). Of these, 10 people (38%) were identified as being ‘at risk’ of entry to residential aged care (target group 2), and were diverted from entry to residential aged care (i.e. remained in ‘other’ residential settings). At the end of the 2007–08 reporting period, four of these 10 lived in private residences, three in domestic-scale supported living facilities, two in supported accommodation and one in an ‘other setting’.
The remaining 16 continuing service users (62%) from YPIRAC target group 1 who received support from the YPIRAC program moved from residential aged care to alternative accommodation during 2007–08: eight to domestic-scale supported living settings, five to private residences and two to supported accommodation. One person was in residential aged care as at 30 June 2008, possibly as a result of returning to this setting.

Figure 4.1: YPIRAC service users, by residential setting, 2006–07 and 2007–08

Two-thirds of all new service users in 2007–08 lived in residential aged care at the end of the reporting period (249 of 376; Figure 4.1). 
Of the 376 new service users, 53 (14%) were recorded as having received alternative accommodation through YPIRAC during 2007–08 (Table 4.8). This is similar to the proportion of continuing service users who received alternative accommodation. However, continuing service users were more likely to have moved from residential aged care to some other form of accommodation, whereas new services users were more likely to receive an alternative form of community-based accommodation: 
•	The majority of continuing service users who received alternative accommodation in 2007–08 moved out of residential aged care (16 out of 26).
•	The majority of new service users who received alternative accommodation were in the ‘at risk’ group (36 out of 53); that is, they were not living in residential aged care when contacted by YPIRAC but received some form of alternative accommodation.
There were also differences in the types of accommodation provided to those who moved out of residential aged care (target group 1) and those ‘at risk’ (target group 2):
•	Roughly equal numbers of service users who moved out of residential aged care (target group 1) were living in private residences (10), domestic-scale supported accommodation (11), or larger supported accommodation (11) at the end of the period.
•	Of the 46 ‘at risk’ service users who received alternative accommodation (target group 2), almost half were living in private residences at the end of the reporting period (17 out of 36).
A move to alternative accommodation can involve a YPIRAC-facilitated move to accommodation that is funded by another program; for example, a CSTDA-funded group home, or it can be a move to alternative accommodation that is funded by YPIRAC on an ongoing basis. Thus, the provision of alternative accommodation to YPIRAC service users can involve linkages with other programs. The inclusion of a SLK in the YPIRAC MDS was intended to avoid the need to collect information on YPIRAC service user activity that is already collected in other programs. With appropriate permissions, statistical data linkage could be used to examine the interactions between YPIRAC, CSTDA and possibly other programs in providing support to younger people living in or at risk of entering residential aged care. 

Table 4.8: New and continuing YPIRAC service users who received alternative accommodation, by usual residential setting and target group, 2007–08
Usual residential setting	Target group 1
Target group 2	Target group 2	All	
	Continuing	New	Total		Continuing	New	Total		
Private residence	5	5	10		4	17	21	31	
Domestic-scale supported	8	3	11		3	2	5	16	
Supported accommodation	2	9	11		2	14	16	27	
Residential aged care	1	—	1		—	—	—	1	
Hospital	—	—	—		—	2	2	2	
Other	—	—	—		1	1	2	2	
Total	16	17	33		10	36	46	79	
Notes: 
1.	Usual residential setting refers to the type of accommodation in which the person lives for 4 or more days per week on average, as at 30 June 2008.
2.	‘Other’ residential setting includes residence within an Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander community, independent living within a retirement village, short term crisis, emergency or transitional accommodation, and other settings.
3.	YPIRAC target groups: 
Group 1 Agreed to or has moved from residential aged care to alternative YPIRAC-funded accommodation and support
Group 2 Deemed ‘at risk’ of entry into residential aged care.
5	Target population
This chapter provides information about the contact made between the YPIRAC program and potential YPIRAC service users during 2007–08.
5.1	Contact with potential service users
During 2007–08, the YPIRAC program made first contact with 314 potential service users to provide information about the program (Table 5.1). Of the people contacted, 266 (85%) were aged under 50 years. The largest numbers of initial contacts were made in Queensland (93 people), Victoria (65) and New South Wales (63). 
A total of 494 people accepted an initial contact from the YPIRAC program: the vast majority (88%) aged under 50 years. In several jurisdictions, the number of people who accepted contact was higher than the number of people contacted; this reflects people who were first contacted during 2006–07 but who responded during 2007–08. People who accepted contact from the program may have then accessed services under the YPIRAC program during 2007–08. These people would be included in the YPIRAC MDS as YPIRAC service users. Those who did not go on to receive YPIRAC services in 2007–08 may do so in subsequent years.
A total of 48 people declined to be involved in the YPIRAC program, 34 of whom lived in Victoria. State/territory program managers identified an additional 45 potential service users who, as at 30 June 2008, were yet to be contacted. Most of these people lived in South Australia.
Table 5.1: Number of contacts, acceptances and refusals, by age group and state/territory, 2007–08
	Contacts made	Acceptances	Refusals	Yet to be contacted	
Jurisdiction	<50	50–64	Total	<50	50–64	Total	<50	50–64	Total	<50	50–64	Total	
NSW (a)	63	—	63	152	—	152	—	—	—	—	—	—	
Vic	65	—	65	161	25	186	34	—	34	—	—	—	
Qld	63	30	93	57	23	80	1	1	2	—	—	—	
WA	9	—	9	9	—	9	—	—	—	—	—	—	
SA	26	5	31	21	5	26	5	—	5	35	5	40	
Tas	11	—	11	6	—	6	5	—	5	4	—	4	
ACT	11	12	23	10	7	17	—	1	1	1	—	1	
NT	18	1	19	17	1	18	1	—	1	—	—	—	
Total	266	48	314	433	61	494	46	2	48	40	5	45	
(a)	In NSW, the program was not open to people in the 50–64 years age group. There were no people ‘yet to be contacted’ in NSW because all those in the YPIRAC target group who enter residential aged care were contacted by the program as soon as this information became available.
Notes:
1.	‘Contacts made’ refers to the number of people who were contacted by the YPIRAC program regarding possible participation in the Program. 
2.	‘Acceptances’ refers to the number of people who accepted an initial contact from the YPIRAC program. 
5.2	Younger people in residential aged care 
YPIRAC activity during 2006–07 and 2007–08 reflects the initial priority given to people aged under 50 years who were living in residential aged care when the program commenced. It is therefore useful to enumerate this segment of the YPIRAC target population. 
Table 5.2 shows age group breakdowns by state and territory from 2003–2006. As at 30 June 2008, there were 6,606 permanent residents (excludes respite residents) aged under 65 years in residential aged care. While the number of people aged less than 65 years who are living in residential aged care has increased, the number of permanent residents aged under 50 years (the initial priority age group for the YPIRAC initiative) has decreased by 15% since YPIRAC commenced, from 1,007 in 2006 to 858 in 2008. Prior to 2006, the number of permanent residents aged less than 50 years had been fairly stable from year to year (for example, 1,009 on 30 June 2003 and 1,007 on 30 June 2006). By contrast, the number of people aged 50–64 years increased in most jurisdictions, illustrating the effect of new admissions in this age group as well as the ageing of existing residents into the 50–64 years bracket. 
Residential aged care admission data provide additional context to the YPIRAC MDS (Table 5.3). Admissions to permanent residential aged care for people aged under 65 years peaked in 2004–05 (2,252 people) and since then have steadily declined. This suggests that strategies to avoid entry into residential aged care for younger people may have been in place before the YPIRAC initiative.

Table 5.2: Permanent Aged Care residents under 65 years, by age group, as at 30 June, 2003–2008
	NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT	Australia
	
Year	<50 years	
2003	392	218	220	76	66	21	3	13	1,009	
2004	380	219	229	64	67	22	3	13	997	
2005	397	218	236	66	67	20	1	14	1,019	
2006	391	221	244	65	60	15	4	7	1,007	
2007	374	210	226	47	53	9	2	5	926	
2008	336	209	179	58	55	11	4	6	858	
	50–64 years	
2003	1,818	1,231	1,052	402	322	133	50	60	5,068	
2004	1,832	1,309	1,080	419	370	134	44	60	5,248	
2005	1,913	1,334	1,135	425	413	138	45	54	5,457	
2006	1,954	1,364	1,157	430	423	130	43	51	5,552	
2007	1,996	1,365	1,165	389	402	122	56	45	5,540	
2008	2,033	1,407	1,180	456	435	141	63	33	5,748	
	Total <65 years	
2003	2,210	1,449	1,272	478	388	154	53	73	6,077	
2004	2,212	1,528	1,309	483	437	156	47	73	6,245	
2005	2,310	1,552	1,371	491	480	158	46	68	6,476	
2006	2,345	1,585	1,401	495	483	145	47	58	6,559	
2007	2,370	1,575	1,391	436	455	131	58	50	6,466	
2008	2,369	1,616	1,359	514	490	152	67	39	6,606	
Source: AIHW analysis of the Aged and Community Care Management Information System (ACCMIS) as at October 2008.
Table 5.3: Admissions to permanent residential aged care for people aged under 
65 years, by age group, 2002–03 to 2007–08 
Year	<50 years	50–64 years	Total under 65 years	
2002–03	314	1,719	2,033	
2003–04	331	1,768	2,099	
2004–05	362	1,890	2,252	
2005–06	301	1,864	2,165	
2006–07	269	1,743	2,012	
2007–08	219	1,771	1,990	
Notes:
1.	Transfers are excluded.
2.	Age reported is at admission.
Source: AIHW analysis of the Aged and Community Care Management Information System as at October 2008.

6	Data processing and quality
6.1	Development and collection of the YPIRAC MDS
Data were first collected for the YPIRAC MDS for the 2006–07 reporting period. For information on the 2006–07 development and collection process, see Appendix 7.
In August 2008, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) was contracted by FaHCSIA to complete the YPIRAC MDS collection for the 2007–08 financial year. The collection and reporting process was to be completed between September and December 2008.
Data development
Issues arising from the 2006–07 data collection informed the 2007–08 collection. At the end of the 2006–07 collection process, several important definitional issues in the YPIRAC MDS were still to be resolved. These were discussed at a face-to-face workshop between the AIHW, FaHCSIA and state/territory jurisdiction program managers on 15 September 2008. Agreement on these issues and the timelines and processes for the 2007–08 collection was reached before commencing the 2007–08 collection. 
Changes to the YPIRAC MDS data specifications for 2007–08 included refining the definitions of ‘YPIRAC service user’ and ‘YPIRAC assessment’. The data items relating to service use were also refined and restructured. ‘YPIRAC client monitoring’ was added as a service type. Data items on the reasons that alternative accommodation was not offered and service users’ support needs were removed from the service user file. Several redundant items relating to service use were also removed from the jurisdiction file. 
For more detail on the data items included in the 2007–08 collection, see Section 1.3 (Scope and definitions) and Appendix 2 (YPIRAC MDS 2007–08 collection forms).
2007–08 collection process
Draft collection materials for the 2007–08 YPIRAC MDS were circulated for comment on 22 September, and a final version was issued on 29 September. 
Six out of eight jurisdictions submitted data on or before the agreed deadline of 15 October 2008. Logic checks were performed by the AIHW and jurisdictions were advised of the outcomes and recommended edits to the data sets. Jurisdictions made between one and three re-submissions to achieve a final clean data set. The experience of the 2006–07 collection and the changes to the MDS specifications for 2007–08 facilitated a faster submission and verification process for 2007–08. In most cases, the required changes to data submissions were relatively minor, and seven of the eight jurisdictions submitted final clean files by the 31 October deadline.
Draft tables from the final YPIRAC MDS data set were circulated to jurisdiction program managers and FaHCSIA on 24 November 2008, for final data sign-off and comment. One jurisdiction requested a minor revision to data for the final report. 
2008–09 YPIRAC MDS
At the September 2008 workshop, two additions to the MDS data set specifications were agreed for 2008–09. ‘Program exit date’ and ‘main reason for cessation of services’ would enable analyses of when and why service users leave the program. These items will improve the completeness and utility of the data.
There is currently no contract for the collection and reporting of YPIRAC 2008–09 data. There is a possibility that the program and associated data collection may be rolled into the CSTDA. The AIHW recommends that the reporting processes and data set specifications for 2008–09 be finalised as early as possible, to allow jurisdictions to prepare and collect data.
6.2	Data quality 
The 2007–08 data submissions from all state and territory jurisdictions were run through AIHW data-checking procedures, as previously agreed between AIHW and jurisdiction program managers. These included loading checks, range, linkage key and logic checks. The results of all checks were communicated to jurisdictions and corrections made. All jurisdictions were required to re-submit data at least once to achieve a clean data set. Submissions received a preliminary sign-off when all validation issues were resolved; draft tables were also circulated to jurisdictions for final data sign-off before the compilation of this report. 
There were significant improvements in the quality and timeliness of the data in the 2007–08 MDS collection compared with 2006–07. Most issues identified by the AIHW through the data cleaning procedures were relatively minor and easily corrected. Although final data specifications were not provided until 29 September 2008, provisional sign-off of the data set was given by 6 November. Factors that contributed to the improvement included the developmental work undertaken for the 2007–08 MDS, the experience of the 2006–07 collection and changes to the data specifications for 2007–08. 
Program managers were asked to provide data for all YPIRAC service users within their jurisdiction and the AIHW was not advised of any service users who did not consent to their data being included in the collection. Therefore it is expected that all people who received YPIRAC services during the collection period are included in the YPIRAC MDS. 
All jurisdictions provided complete data in the jurisdiction file in 2007–08. However, there were some variations in the ‘not stated’ rates of service user data items (Table 6.1). Most data items were very well reported. Data were provided for all service users for the linkage key items (letters of name, date of birth and sex) and residential setting. Less than 1% of service users had ‘not stated’ responses for Indigenous status, primary disability group and postcode. Country of birth information was not provided for 32 service users (5.5%). 
The largest proportion of ‘not stated’ responses was for the principal reason for the service users’ current accommodation setting—163 service users, or 28%. This was the result of one jurisdiction being unable to collect this item retrospectively. However, this jurisdiction advised that it would be able to provide information on reasons for accommodation in future collections. 

Table 6.1: ‘Not stated’ responses for service user file data items, 2007–08
	‘Not stated’ responses	
Data item	Number	Per cent	
Letters of surname	—	—	
Letters of given name	—	—	
Date of birth	—	—	
Sex	—	—	
Indigenous status	3	0.5	
Country of birth	32	5.5	
Residential setting	—	—	
Postcode	1	0.2	
Primary disability group	1	0.2	
YPIRAC target group	12	2.1	
Principal reason for accommodation setting	163	28.1	
Total service users	580	100.0	

Appendixes
Appendix 1: Additional tables
Table A1.1: YPIRAC service users by age group and sex, 2007–08
Age group (years)	Male		Female	Total	
	No.	Per cent		No.	Per cent		No.	Per cent	
<50 years									
<25	20	6.3		10	3.8		30	5.2	
25–29 	25	7.8		5	1.9		30	5.2	
30–34	23	7.2		20	7.7		43	7.4	
35–39 	37	11.6		28	10.7		65	11.2	
40–44 	53	16.6		57	21.8		110	19.0	
45–49	114	35.7		91	34.9		205	35.3	
Total <50	272	85.3		211	80.8		483	83.3	
									
50–64 years									
50–54 	39	12.2		44	16.9		83	14.3	
55–64 	8	2.5		6	2.3		14	2.4	
Total 50–64	47	14.7		50	19.2		97	16.7	
Total	319	100.0		261	100.0		580	100.0	

Table A1.2: YPIRAC service users by remoteness and age group, 2007–08
Age group (years)	Remoteness area	Total	
	Major cities	Inner regional	Outer regional	Remote/Very remote	Not stated		
	Number		
<50	298	124	49	11	1	483	
50–64	63	21	11	1	—	97	
Total	361	145	60	12	1	580	
	Per cent		
<50	61.7	25.7	10.1	2.3	0.2	100.0	
50–64	64.9	21.6	11.3	1.0	—	100.0	
Total	62.2	25.0	10.3	2.1	0.2	100.0	
Note: The number of service users in each remoteness area (RA) was estimated based on residential postcodes. Some postcode areas were split between two or more RAs. Where this was the case, the data were weighted according to the proportion of the population of the postcode area in each RA. Totals may not be the sum of the components due to rounding.

Table A1.3: YPIRAC service users by usual residential setting and YPIRAC target group, 2007–08
Usual residential setting	YPIRAC target group
50–64 years	Total	
	Group 1	Group 2	Group 3	Group 4	Not stated		
	Number		
Private residence	13	68	—	—	—	81	
Domestic-scale supported living facility	22	12	1	—	—	35	
Supported accommodation facility	13	19	—	—	—	32	
Residential aged care facility	240	2	131	13	12	398	
Hospital	2	18	—	—	—	20	
Other	6	6	2	—	—	14	
Total	296	125	134	13	12	580	
	Per cent		
Private residence	16.0	84.0	—	—	—	100.0	
Domestic-scale supported living facility	62.9	34.3	2.9	—	—	100.0	
Supported accommodation facility	40.6	59.4	—	—	—	100.0	
Residential aged care facility	60.3	0.5	32.9	3.3	3.0	100.0	
Hospital	10.0	90.0	—	—	—	100.0	
Other	42.9	42.9	14.3	—	—	100.0	
Total	51.0	21.6	23.1	2.2	2.1	100.0	
Notes: 
1.	Usual residential setting refers to the type of accommodation in which the person lives for 4 or more days per week on average, as at 30 June 2008.
2.	‘Other’ residential setting includes residence within an Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander community, independent living within a retirement village, short term crisis, emergency or transitional accommodation, and other settings.
3.	YPIRAC target groups: 
Group 1 Agreed to or has moved from residential aged care to alternative YPIRAC-funded accommodation and support
Group 2 Deemed ‘at risk’ of entry into residential aged care
Group 3 Remain in or enter residential aged care with additional disability support services
Group 4 Remain in or enter residential aged care without additional disability support services.

Table A1.4: YPIRAC service users by primary disability group and all significant disability groups, 2007–08
Disability group	Number reporting as a primary disability	Percentage of all service users	Number reporting as significant other disability	Percentage of all service users	Total number reporting disability group	Percentage of all service users	
Intellectual	48	8.3	24	4.1	72	12.4	
Autism	1	0.2	3	0.5	4	0.7	
Physical	96	16.6	190	32.8	286	49.3	
Acquired brain injury	269	46.4	31	5.3	300	51.7	
Neurological	155	26.7	79	13.6	234	40.3	
Deafblind	—	—	2	0.3	2	0.3	
Vision	—	—	53	9.1	53	9.1	
Hearing	—	—	12	2.1	12	2.1	
Speech	—	—	121	20.9	121	20.9	
Psychiatric	10	1.7	47	8.1	57	9.8	
Not stated	1	0.2	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	
Total	580	100.0	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	n.a.	

Appendix 2: YPIRAC MDS collection forms
Each jurisdiction submitted two data files for the YPIRAC MDS 2007–08 collection—the service user file and the jurisdiction file. Blank templates for completion were provided by the AIHW. In addition, data forms were provided as a visual aid to assist in completing the spreadsheets. For example, when completing items with a number of code choices such as question 5 (residential setting), the forms allow the data entry operator to see the different code options at a glance.
These forms are suitable for printing and using in a hard copy format. Hard copies may be used by some jurisdictions to collect data in the first instance. However, data were submitted to the AIHW in standard spreadsheet format. 

YPIRAC service user form 2007–08

YPIRAC jurisdiction form 2007–08

Appendix 3: Service type classification
The following definitions are taken from the YPIRAC MDS Data guide 2007–08.
Accommodation support
Services that provide accommodation to people with a disability and services that provide support needed to enable a person with a disability to remain in their existing accommodation or to move to more suitable or appropriate accommodation.
1.01 Large residentials/institutions (>20 places)
Large residentials/institutions are usually located on large parcels of land and provide 24 hour residential support in a congregate setting of more than 20 beds. In some cases a range of residential and vocational/day services, and/or respite services are provided in the one site. 
1.02 Small residentials/institutions (7–20 places)
Small residentials/institutions are usually located on large parcels of land and provide 24 hour residential support in a congregate or cluster setting of 7 to 20 beds. In some cases a range of residential and vocational/day services, and/or respite services are provided on the one site.
1.03 Hostels
Hostels provide residential support in a congregate setting of usually less than 20 beds, and may or may not provide 24 hour residential support. Many are situated in an institutional setting and also have respite beds included on the premises. In contrast to residentials/institutions (1.01 and 1.02), hostels usually do not provide segregated specialist services. 
1.04 Group homes (<7 places)
Group homes provide combined accommodation and community based residential support to people in a residential setting. Usually no more than 6 service users are located in any one house, although this can vary. Group homes may or may not be staffed 24 hours a day. The agency being funded to provide the service must have control of the residence, i.e. own, lease, hold in trust, or in other ways be responsible for the residence, not just the support to enable the residents to remain in the residence. If the only service being provided is support to enable residents to remain in their existing accommodation, then see category 1.05 ‘attendant care/personal care’ or 1.06 ‘in-home accommodation support’.
1.05 Attendant care/personal care
An attendant care program provides for an attendant(s) to assist people with daily activities that they are unable to complete for themselves because of physical, intellectual or any other disability. The service is provided to people to assist them to live in the community, and to live on their own.
1.06 In-home accommodation support
Support involves individual in-home living support and/or developmental programming services for people with a disability, supplied independently of accommodation. The accommodation may be owned, rented, or otherwise provided, but should be independent of the agency providing the in-home support service, otherwise see code 1.04 ‘group homes’. Where an in-home accommodation support services also provides some other limited assistance, for example help with banking once a week, then in-home accommodation should be recorded, as it is the primary focus of the support provided.
1.07 Alternative family placement
Placements of a person with disability with an alternative family who will provide care and support. Includes shared-care arrangements and host family placements.
1.08 Other accommodation support
Accommodation support services that provide short-term, one-off instances of accommodation such as:
•	accommodation provided so that individuals or families can access specialist services, or further education 
•	emergency or crisis accommodation support (e.g. following the death of a parent or carer) 
•	houses or flats for holiday accommodation.
If the accommodation support is primarily for respite (i.e. involves the separation of the service user from their usual support arrangements or the addition of extra support in their current environment) please refer to the relevant service type 4.01–4.05.
Community support
Services that provide the support needed for a person with disability to live in a non-institutional setting. Support with the basic needs of living such as meal preparation, dressing, transferring etc. are included under accommodation support.
2.01 Therapy support for individuals
Specialised, therapeutic care services including occupational therapy, physiotherapy, speech pathology. These services are intended to improve, maintain or slow deterioration of a person’s functional performance, and/or assist in the assessment and recommendation of equipment to enable people to perform as independently as possible in their environment.
2.03 Behaviour/specialist intervention
These include the range of services relating to the management of challenging behaviours, including dangerous antisocial behaviour. Services include intensive intervention support, training and education in behaviour management, and consultancy services for other professionals. Behaviour/specialist intervention is often provided as a by-product of other services.
2.04 Counselling (individual/family/group)
Services that provide counselling to individuals, families or groups.
2.05 Regional resource and support teams
Regional resource and support teams are generally inter-disciplinary teams that provide a combination of services in the categories 2.01, 2.02 and 2.03 that cannot be broken down into the component parts. Regional resource and support teams may also assist service users to access mainstream services and/or support mainstream funded agencies. Except for early childhood intervention teams, these teams usually have an individual, rather than a family, focus.
2.06 Case management, local coordination and development
This is a broad service type category, including elements of individual or family focused case management and brokerage as well as coordination and development activity within a specified geographical area. Services assist people with disability to maximise their independence and participation in the community through working with the individual, family and/or carers in care planning and/or facilitating access to appropriate services. 
Case management services are targeted to individuals who require assistance, for a period of time, to access necessary supports, including help with service coordination and with assisting services to respond to their service needs. Brokerage is one method of purchasing appropriate supports for an individual and should be included in this category.
Other forms of local coordination and development generally involve working with the individual, family and/or carers and at the community level to facilitate positive changes that assist people with disability to live and participate in the community and assist families in their continued provision of care. Local coordination does not generally involve management of individuals’ funds and does not generally involve ongoing case management. However, discretionary funds are sometimes available for one-off purchases (e.g. respite, therapy) to enable a quick response until longer term supports can be put in place.
2.07 Other community support
Community support services other than those outlined above (i.e. other than 2.01–2.06).
Community access
Services designed to provide opportunities for people with disability to gain and use their abilities to enjoy their full potential for social independence. People who do not attend school, or who are not employed full-time mainly use these services.
The key features are that the services:
•	are flexible and responsive to personal needs and interests 
•	range from educational to leisure and recreational pursuits 
•	range from facility to home based activities
•	include supervision and physical care, and models which link people into activities which are offered to the whole community 
•	range from long term day support to time-limited and goal oriented education that maximises personal independent functioning and may complement other community services.
3.01 Learning and life skills development
These programs provide ongoing day-to-day support for service users to gain greater access and participate in community-based activities. Programs may focus on continuing education to develop skills and independence in a variety of life areas (e.g. self-help, social skills and literacy and numeracy) or enjoyment, leisure and social interaction. They are often called Day Programs. 
Activities under service type 3.01 may include:
•	attending courses to develop literacy and numeracy, financial and household management skills or classes such as cooking, arts and crafts, water aerobics and fitness 
•	undertaking trips to art galleries, libraries, movies, zoos, parks and nature reserves or outings that involve fishing or other recreational activities
•	undertaking tours to familiarise individuals with their local area and develop confidence in using public transport or visits to facilities such as hospitals, designed to alleviate the stress of future visits 
•	participating in volunteer programs such as helping at the RSPCA or landscaping and gardening programs 
•	attending social clubs, e.g. book, music or sporting clubs
•	going on shopping trips or eating out in various venues from food halls to restaurants.
3.02 Recreation/holiday programs
Recreation services and holiday programs aim to facilitate the integration and participation of people with disability in recreation and leisure activities available in the general community. These services may also enhance the capacity and responsiveness of mainstream sport and recreation agencies and community organisations to provide for people with disability.
3.03 Other community access
Community access services other than those outlined above (i.e. other than 3.01–3.02)
Respite
Respite services provide a short term and time limited break for families and other voluntary care givers of people with disability, to assist in supporting and maintaining the primary care giving relationship, while providing a positive experience for the person with disability.
4.01 Own home respite
Respite care provided in the individual’s own home location.
4.02 Centre-based respite/respite homes
Respite care provided in community setting similar to a ‘group home’ structure and respite care provided in other centre-based settings. This service type includes respite care provided in any of the accommodation settings 1.01–1.04.
4.03 Host family respite/peer support respite
Host family respite provides a network of ‘host families’ matched to the age, interests and background of the individual and their carer. Peer support is generally targeted at children or young adults up to 25 years of age, and matches the individual with a peer of similar age and interests, usually for group activities. Usually provided on a voluntary basis.
4.04 Flexible respite
Respite services that offer any combination of own home, host family/peer support respite. Includes respite where day outings and camping trips are taken (this service type is distinguished from service type 3.02 ‘Recreation/holiday programs’ because the primary purpose is respite). Flexible respite to meet an individual’s needs may include brokerage for respite, only when the funding dollars come from respite resources.
4.05 Other respite
Respite services other than those outlined above (i.e. other than 4.01–4.04), including:
•	crisis respite
•	holidays for the person with the disability where the primary intention of the service is to provide respite support (rather than primarily a holiday experience) and the service user is generally separated from their usual support arrangements, e.g. family.
Other specified services
6 Advocacy, information and alternative forms of communication
Advocacy. Services designed to enable people with disability to increase the control they have over their lives through the representation of their interests and views in the community. Examples include:
•	self advocacy/individual advocacy 
•	citizen advocacy 
•	group advocacy 
•	system/systematic advocacy.
Information/referral. Information services provide accessible information to people with disabilities, their carers, families and related professionals. This service type provides specific information about disability specific and generic services, equipment, and promotes the development of community awareness. Information includes contact by phone, print or e-mail that recommends a person to another service.
Combined information/advocacy. Services that offer both information and advocacy services to individuals where these two components cannot reasonably be separated.
Mutual support/self help groups. Focus, or special interest, groups to provide support and assistance for people with disabilities, their families and carers. These groups promote self advocacy through the provision of information, support and assistance.
Alternative formats of communication. Includes alternative formats of communication for people who by reason of their disability are unable to access information provided in the standard format. May include interpreter services, radio and alternative formats of print medium, e.g. TTY, braille etc.
7 Research, evaluation, training and development, peak bodies.
Research and evaluation. Research and evaluation with respect to the provision of services for people with disability. This includes the investigation of the need for new services or enhancement of existing services and the measurement of outcomes for people with disability using these services. 
Training and development. Training and development services may be funded; for example, to train disability funded agencies to deliver higher quality or more appropriate services to people with disabilities or develop materials or methods that promote service system improvements.
Peak bodies. Peak bodies are generally funded to support non-government disability funded agencies in achieving positive outcomes for people with disability.
8.01 Assistive products and technology
Includes products, equipment and technologies, adapted, specially designed or generally available that assist people to fulfil their daily lives according to their life goals. Included may be items for personal use in daily living, for mobility, education, employment or leisure. For example, continence products, prosthetic and orthotic devices, wheelchairs and vehicle adaptations, environment control mechanisms, communication assistive devices.
8.02 Modification to design or construction of buildings
Includes adaptations and modifications that enable entry and exit, routing through and around public or private buildings. For example, ramps, bathroom facilities, electronic controls for entrances and exits, hand rails and lighting, textured surfaces and level door thresholds.
8.03 Transportation services
Includes services and programs aimed at moving people from one location to another, by road, path, air, rail or water by public or private transport. For example volunteer drivers, assisted taxi services, supporting companions on flights. 
8.04 Services provided by nurses
Includes all services performed by qualified nurses. The term ‘nurse’ includes all persons who were either registered or enrolled with a state/territory nursing and midwifery registration board. ‘Registered nurses’ include registered midwifes, direct entry midwives, nurse practitioners, midwife practitioners, and Division 1, 3, 4 and 5 nurses in Victoria. ‘Enrolled nurses’ include enrolled nurses (mothercraft), and Division 2 nurses in Victoria.
9.01 YPIRAC assessment
YPIRAC assessment includes all assessments where the aim is to determine the service user’s care needs and/or service needs for the purposes of administering the YPIRAC program. YPIRAC assessment includes the determination of the service user’s accommodation options and preferences. The scope and type of YPIRAC assessments conducted vary across jurisdictions. Different timeframes for assessment are available in different jurisdictions. For more details, refer to question 9a in this Data Guide.
Individual care planning includes planning for the individual’s care and service needs under the YPIRAC program. For more details, refer to question 9a in this Data Guide.
9.02 YPIRAC client monitoring
This refers to contact between the YPIRAC program and service users, which occurs after an initial YPIRAC assessment. It includes both regular and one-off contact, and may be in person, by telephone or by email. Purposes of this contact may include reviewing or reassessing the service user’s situation, care needs or service needs, or providing updates to service users regarding their involvement in the program. The contact should be on an individual basis. That is, activity such as letters and emails which are provided to more than one service user should not be included.
10 Other support services
Services that are completely outside any of the defined service types above (that is, outside service types, 1.01–1.08, 2.01–2.07, 3.01–3.03, 4.01–4.05, 6, 7, 8.01-8.04 and 9.01–9.02). This service type also includes the provision of one-off funding for a defined event (e.g. for promotional activities) or for the purchase of aids and equipment for a community facility (not for an individual). Any support services that fall into this category should be specified. 

Appendix 4: English proficiency groupings
An ‘English proficiency index’—a standard tool developed by the Bureau of Immigration, Multicultural and Population Research—was used to construct each of the English Proficiency (EP) Groups (see AIHW: Benham et al. 2000). Those countries consisting of immigrants who scored 98.5% or higher on this index and had an immigrant population of 10,000 or more were rated as EP Group 1. Because the number of usual immigrant residents has reached more than 10,000, Zimbabwe is also in EP Group 1. 
The remaining EP Groups were determined by their EP index score as follows:
•	countries with a ‘high’ level of English proficiency (84.5–98.5%, or above 98.5% but with an immigrant population of fewer than 10,000) were placed in EP Group 2
•	countries with a ‘moderate’ level of English proficiency (a rating of more than 57.5% but less than 84.5%) fell into EP Group 3
•	the remaining countries (that is, those with a rating on the EP index of less than 57.5%) were considered to have a ‘low’ level of English proficiency and placed in EP Group 4.
Table A4.1: English proficiency group classification
English 
Proficiency Group	Countries	
Group 1	Canada	South Africa	United States of America	
	Ireland 	United Kingdom	Zimbabwe	
	New Zealand			
		
Group 2	Americas nfd	Brunei Darussalam	Dominica	
	Andorra	Bulgaria	Dominican Republic	
	Angola	Burkina Faso	Eastern Europe nfd	
	Antigua and Barbuda	Burundi	Equatorial Guinea	
	Aruba	Cameroon	Faeroe Islands	
	At Sea	Cape Verde	Falkland Islands	
	Australian ext. territories nec	Caribbean nfd	Fiji	
	Austria	Cayman Islands	Finland	
	Bahamas	Central African Republic	France	
	Bahrain	Central America nfd	French Guiana	
	Bangladesh	Chad 	French Polynesia	
	Barbados	Chilean Antarctic Territory	Gabon	
	Belgium	Comoros	Gambia	
	Belize	Congo, Democratic Republic of	Germany	
	Benin	Cook Islands	Ghana	
	Bermuda	Costa Rica	Gibraltar	
	Bhutan	Cote D’Ivoire	Greenland	
	Botswana	Czech Republic	Grenada	
	Brazil	Denmark	Guadeloupe	
	Guam	Nauru	Slovakia	
	Guatemala	Nepal 	Slovenia 
	
	Guinea-Bissau 	Netherlands 	Solomon Islands 	
	(continued)

Table A4.1 (continued): English proficiency group classification
English 
Proficiency Group	Countries	
Group 2 (cont)	Guyana 	Netherlands Antilles 	South America nec	
	Haiti 	New Caledonia 	Southern and East Africa nec	
	Holy See 	Niger 	Southern and East Africa nfd 	
	Iceland 	Nigeria 	Southern and Eastern Europe nfd	
	India 	Niue 	Southern Asia nfd	
	Indonesia	Norfolk Island 	Spain 	
	Israel 	North Africa nec	Sri Lanka 	
	Jamaica 	North Africa nfd 	St Helena 	
	Kenya 	Northern America nfd 	St Kitts and Nevis 	
	Kiribati 	Northern Europe nfd 	St Lucia 	
	Latvia	Northern Mariana Islands 	St Pierre and Miquelon	
	Lesotho 	Norway 	St Vincent and the Grenadines 	
	Liberia 	Oceania and Antarctica nfd	Suriname 	
	Liechtenstein 	Oman 	Swaziland 	
	Luxembourg 	Pakistan 	Sweden 	
	Madagascar 	Palau 	Switzerland 	
	Malawi	Panama	Tajikistan 	
	Malaysia	Papua New Guinea 	Tanzania 	
	Maldives 	Philippines	Tokelau	
	Mali 	Polynesia (excludes Hawaii) nec	Tonga 	
	Malta 	Polynesia (excludes Hawaii) nfd	Trinidad and Tobago 	
	Maritime South-East Asia nfd	Puerto Rico	Tunisia	
	Marshall Islands 	Qatar 	Turks and Caicos Islands 	
	Martinique 	Reunion 	Tuvalu 	
	Mauritania 	Rwanda 	Uganda 	
	Mauritius 	Samoa	United Arab Emirates 	
	Melanesia nfd	Samoa, American	Vanuatu 	
	Mexico 	San Marino 	Venezuela 	
	Micronesia, Federated States of	Sao Tome and Principe 	Virgin Islands, British 	
	Monaco 	Saudi Arabia	Virgin Islands, United States 	
	Montserrat 	Senegal	Wallis and Futuna 	
	Morocco 	Seychelles 	Western Sahara	
	Mozambique 	Sierra Leone 	Zambia	
	Namibia 	Singapore 		
		
Group 3	Afghanistan 	Belarus	Chile	
	Albania 	Bolivia	China (excl. SARs and Taiwan province)	
	Algeria	Bosnia and Herzegovina	Colombia	
	Argentina 	Burma (Myanmar) 	Croatia	
	Armenia 	Central and West Africa nfd	Cuba 	
	Cyprus	Jordan	Portugal	
(continued)	

Table A4.1 (continued): English proficiency group classification
English 
Proficiency Group	Countries	
Group 3 (cont)	Djibouti	Kazakhstan	Romania 	
	Ecuador	Korea, Democratic People’s Rep of (North)	Russian Federation 	
	Egypt	Korea, Republic of (South)	Somalia	
	El Salvador 	Kuwait	South Eastern Europe nfd	
	Eritrea 	Kyrgyz Republic	South-East Asia nfd	
	Estonia	Lebanon	Sudan 	
	Ethiopia 	Libya 	Syria 	
	Fmr Yslav Rep Macedonia (FYROM)	Lithuania 	Taiwan 	
	Gaza Strip and West Bank	Macau (SAR of China)	Thailand 	
	Georgia 	Micronesia nfd	Togo	
	Greece 	Middle East nfd	Turkmenistan	
	Honduras	Moldova 	Ukraine 	
	Hong Kong (SAR of China)	Mongolia 	Uruguay 	
	Hungary 	Nicaragua 	Uzbekistan 	
	Iran	North Africa and the Middle East nfd	Yemen 	
	Iraq	Paraguay 	Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of	
	Italy 	Peru 		
	Japan	Poland		
		
Group 4	Antarctica nfd	East Timor	Southern Europe nfd	
	Azerbaijan	Guinea	Turkey	
	Cambodia	Japan and the Koreas nfd	Viet Nam	
	Central Asia nfd	Laos		
	Chinese Asia (includes Mongolia) nfd	Mainland South-East Asia nfd		
Notes
1.	nfd—not further defined.
2.	nec—not elsewhere classified.
3.	SAR—special administrative region.
Source: DIMA 2003.

Appendix 5: Residential setting definitions
YPIRAC service users may have changed their residential setting during the reporting period. For the 2007–08 YPIRAC MDS collection, data on ‘usual residential setting’ relates to the type of accommodation in which the person lives for 4 or more days per week on average, as at 30 June 2008. Service users who exited the program during the reporting period should have recorded their usual residential setting on the date they exited the program.
The following definitions are taken from the YPIRAC MDS Data guide 2007–08.
1 Private residence
This refers to private residences, which include a wide range of dwelling types, such as houses, flats, units, caravans, mobile homes, boats etc. It includes public or private rental properties and those which are owned or being purchased.
2 Residence within an Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander community
This code should be used for service users that live in this type of setting, regardless of whether the residence is a private residence or a public place/temporary shelter (codes 1 and 11).
3 Domestic-scale supported living facility
This refers to community living settings in which service users reside in a facility that provides support in some way by staff or volunteers. This category includes group homes, cluster apartments where a support worker lives on site, community residential apartments, congregate care arrangements, etc. Domestic-scale supported living settings may or may not have 24 hour supervision and care. Independent living units in retirement villages should be coded 6 and community psychiatric facilities should be coded to 8. (Service users receiving service type 1.04 ‘Group homes’ should be coded 3).
4 Supported accommodation facility
This refers to settings in which service users reside in an accommodation facility which provides board or lodging for a number of people and which has support services provided on what is usually a 24 hour basis by rostered care workers. (Service users receiving service types 1.01, 1.02 or 1.03 should be coded to 4). Supported accommodation facilities include hostels for people with disability. This code should be used for larger supported accommodation facilities (usually 7 or more people) that provide 24 hour supervision or care. Smaller supported accommodation facilities (i.e. fewer than 7 people) which may or may not have 24 hour supervision or care should be coded to 3 ‘Domestic-scale supported living facility’. Aged care hostels should be coded to 7 ‘Residential aged care facility’. 
5 Boarding house/private hotel
6 Independent living within a retirement village
7 Residential aged care facility
This includes permanent residents of residential aged care services (formerly nursing homes and aged care hostels) and multi-purpose services or multi-purpose centres, who are receiving low level or high level care.
8 Psychiatric/mental health community care facility
This refers to community care units which provide accommodation and non-acute care and support on a temporary basis to people with mental illness or psychological disabilities.
9 Hospital
10 Short term crisis, emergency or transitional accommodation
This may include night shelters, refuges, hostels for the homeless and halfway houses.
11 Public place/temporary shelter
This includes public places such as streets and parks, as well as temporary shelters such as bus shelters or camps and accommodation outside legal tenure arrangements, such as squats.
12 Other
This includes situations such as a child under a court/guardianship order with no usual address.

Appendix 6: The statistical linkage key
The YPIRAC MDS collection includes the SLK. The SLK enables individual service users to be tracked over time.
The SLK is created from the SLK components of each service user record (questions 2a–2e and 2c of the service user file—see Appendix 1). To link service user records in different data sets, records are matched by SLK. That is, records that have matching SLKs are assumed to belong to the same service user and are linked. 
Some degree of false linking is expected. Because the SLK is not a unique identifier, there is a small probability that some of the linked records do not actually belong to the same individual and, conversely, that some records that did not link do belong to the same individual. For privacy reasons, the SLK is not personally identifiable information. The extent to which records from the same service user can be correctly matched also depends on the accuracy of the component data items. In both the 2006–07 and 2007–08 YPIRAC MDS data collections, data were provided for all SLK components, for all service users.
The inclusion of the SLK also means that data from the YPIRAC MDS could potentially be linked with other data collections which collect the SLK, such as the CSTDA NMDS, in the future.

Appendix 7: YPIRAC MDS 2006–07 data development and collection
In June 2007, FaHCSIA engaged the AIHW to establish a data set and collection process to support YPIRAC performance reporting and evaluation requirements. The ‘YPIRAC minimum data set’ (MDS) was to comprise a set of nationally significant data items, consistent with other major data sets, to be collected in all Australian jurisdictions. It would facilitate national program evaluation and monitoring of achievement of YPIRAC objectives and agreed priorities.
Data development
FaHCSIA, in consultation with state and territory jurisdictions, developed the YPIRAC National Performance Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Matrix, which is essentially an indicator framework. For each agreed indicator of program effectiveness, efficiency and appropriateness, the Matrix provides indicative data sources, methods and intended use, whether for performance monitoring and review, progress reporting (the YPIRAC Implementation Plan Progress Report), and/or program evaluation. 
The National Performance Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Matrix heavily influenced the design of the YPIRAC minimum data set. Specifically, the minimum data set needed to fulfil part of the ‘Service data’ requirement for indicators of program effectiveness. 
The additional requirement of comparability with existing major data sets extended the YPIRAC MDS specification to include a small number of standard national data items for 2006–07; for example, Indigenous status, country of birth, disability support needs and a SLK. These items facilitate comparisons of some key characteristics of people who receive YPIRAC services with, for example, the wider population of people with disability and other service user populations. 
A person accepted into the YPIRAC program may have received, or be receiving, assistance from one or more other government programs, such as the CSTDA, the Home and Community Care Program (HACC) and the Aged Care Assessment Program (ACAP). In developing the YPIRAC minimum data set, it was considered necessary to achieve comparability with other relevant data collections, as far as possible. Significantly, the SLK would enable future analyses of linked data sets to establish patterns of service use across programs.
These other data sets are also relevant because the related programs are a source of referrals to YPIRAC. For example, the Aged and Community Care Management Information System managed by the DoHA contains the residential aged care database that records information about all people in permanent or respite residential aged care, including younger people with disability in residential aged care. The CSTDA NMDS and the ACAP MDS contain information about people who receive/need specialist disability services who are living in the community but who are at risk of entering residential aged care. 
In developing the YPIRAC MDS, attention was paid to existing national and international data standards. Considerable effort was taken to maintain, wherever possible, comparability between the data elements for the MDS and data elements included in the National Community Services Data Dictionary version 4 (National Community Services Data Committee 2006), the National Health Data Dictionary version 13 (Health Standards Data Committee 2006) and ABS standards. The Community Care Review (DoHA 2004a; 2004b) highlighted the need for increased comparability and consistency across community care data collections. With this in mind, data elements in existing collections including the HACC MDS, ACAP MDS, and CSTDA NMDS were considered. 
2006–07 collection process
Data on YPIRAC service users for the 2006–07 financial year using a trial or pilot data set was requested in October 2007, with a due date for receipt at the AIHW by the beginning of December. Comments on the data set and collection materials were requested at the same time. Five data sets were provided. These data sets and comments informed the project team about items that were unclear and those where the data quality was poor—thus leading to improved data element specifications. Further consultation with FaHCSIA, and with state and territory YPIRAC managers, led to changes to the data set and related materials and the collection processes. 
Consultation took place via a face-to-face meeting in February 2008 and teleconference meetings with a working group representing New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, Northern Territory and FaHCSIA. The YPIRAC program managers held a forum every 2 months; however, the February meeting was the only one to which the AIHW was invited and able to attend. In the main, information concerning data was relayed through a FaHCSIA representative.
The AIHW reviewed the data and definitions and established items that were collected consistently across the jurisdictions. Gaps and inconsistencies were identified. The results of this work were presented to program managers in February 2008. Following the face-to-face discussions with YPIRAC program managers, the data items were reviewed. Recommended changes to improve the consistency of data items were circulated for final comment. The data set was agreed at a teleconference on 28 April 2008. 
The final data specifications for 2006–07 included a service user file, in which unit record level data were reported for all YPIRAC service users, and a jurisdiction file, which reported aggregate data for each state/territory jurisdiction. The finalised data set and collection materials were circulated at the beginning of May 2008. Data were received from five jurisdictions by the due date of 30 May. Data were checked and returned to jurisdictions for verification. 
All jurisdictions made multiple data submissions. Confusion over the definition of a YPIRAC service user was one, but not the only, reason for a lengthy data validation phase. The AIHW received the first submissions on 29 May 2008. The last jurisdiction to submit final data did so on 22 August 2008.
The AIHW final report Younger people with disability in residential aged care: Report on the 2006–07 minimum data set was circulated on 7 October 2008. This report summarised YPIRAC activity in 2006–07 as represented by the YPIRAC minimum data set (a set of summary tables) and documented the main issues that arose in the development and collation of the 2006–07 data set. 

References
ABS (Australian Bureau of Statistics) 2006. Statistical geography volume 1, Australian standard geographical classification (ASGC). ABS cat. no. 3238.0. Canberra: AGPS.
ABS 2007. 2006 Census tables. ABS cat. no. 2068.0. Viewed 26 November 2008, <http://abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/Census+data>.
AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) 2008. Disability support services 2006–07: national data on services provided under the Commonwealth State/Territory Disability Agreement. Cat. no. DIS 52. Canberra: AIHW.
AIHW: Benham C, Gibson D, Holmes B & Rowland D 2000. Independence in ageing: the social and financial circumstances of older overseas-born Australians. Cat. no. AGE 15. Canberra: Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs & AIHW. 
DIMA (Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) 2003. 2001 classification of countries into English Proficiency Groups. Statistical focus C01.2.0. Canberra: DIMA.
DoHA (Department of Health and Ageing) 2004a. A new strategy for community care—the way forward. Canberra: DoHA.
DoHA 2004b. Community care review. Canberra: DoHA.
FaHCSIA (Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs) 2008. Bilateral agreement in relation to helping younger people with disability in residential aged care. Canberra: FaHCSIA. Viewed November 2008, <http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/vIA/disabhome/$file/CombinedBilat.pdf>.
Health Data Standards Committee 2006. National health data dictionary. Version 13. Canberra: AIHW.
National Community Services Data Committee 2006. National community services data dictionary. Cat. no. HWI 91. Version 4. Viewed November 2008, <http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/Committee/clac_ctte/completed_inquiries/2004-07/aged_care04/report/index.htm>.